Search Results

Search found 2093 results on 84 pages for 'logical'.

Page 24/84 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

• Fixing ?The Repair Level On The DBCC Statement...? Error

  DBCC CHECKDB is a command that is mainly used to check the logical and physical integrity of MS SQL database. The command can be executed with three different parameters repair_allow_data loss, repai... [Author: Mark Willium - Computers and Internet - April 10, 2010]

  Read the article

• Connect to SQL Express database (5 replies)

  I have just joined the &quot;I'm sure I've missed something obvious club&quot; I have VBExpress 2008 installed with SQL Express 2008 with the SQL Express management studio. I started building a prototype database in Management Studio: nothing complex, just a cascade of administratve tables to create a logical context for the real data. Next I created a project which would provide simple linked controls to p...

  Read the article

• Conditional checks against a list

  - by AnnaSexyChick

  I was wondering how computers do this. The most logical way I can think is that they are iterating trough all elements of the list until they find one that matches the condition :) For example if you call function_exists(), PHP should iterate trough all defined functions until it meets the one that matches the name you're looking for. Is this true that this is the only way? If it is, it sounds like it's not very efficient :s

  Read the article

• Connect to SQL Express database (5 replies)

  I have just joined the &quot;I'm sure I've missed something obvious club&quot; I have VBExpress 2008 installed with SQL Express 2008 with the SQL Express management studio. I started building a prototype database in Management Studio: nothing complex, just a cascade of administratve tables to create a logical context for the real data. Next I created a project which would provide simple linked controls to p...

  Read the article

• Recovering a VHD after resizing it using VBoxManage

  - by tjrobinson

  I am using VirtualBox 4.1.18 and had a virtual machine running Windows 8 RC with a single VHD, which was initially sized at 25GB (too small!). After installing the OS and some applications I ran out of disk space so shut down the guest and then used this command to resize the VHD to 80GB: C:\Program Files\Oracle\VirtualBox> .\VBoxManage.exe modifyhd "D:\VirtualBox VMs\Windows 8 RC\Windows 8 RC.vhd" --resize 81920 0%...10%...20%...30%...40%...50%...60%...70%...80%...90%...100% C:\Program Files\Oracle\VirtualBox> .\VBoxManage.exe showhdinfo "D:\VirtualBox VMs\Windows 8 RC\Windows 8 RC.vhd" UUID: 03fb26e7-d8bb-49b5-8cc2-1dc350750e64 Accessible: yes Logical size: 81920 MBytes Current size on disk: 24954 MBytes Type: normal (base) Storage format: VHD Format variant: dynamic default In use by VMs: Windows 8 RC (UUID: a6e6aa57-2d3a-421b-8042-7aae566e3e0b) Location: D:\VirtualBox VMs\Windows 8 RC\Windows 8 RC.vhd So far so good. However, when I started the guest up again I got the dreaded: Fatal: No bootable medium found! system halted If I boot into GParted it shows a single 80GB drive as "unallocated". The option to scan for and attempt to repair a filesystem doesn't find anything. I also tried cloning the VHD into a VDI file, just in case that magically fixed it: C:\Program Files\Oracle\VirtualBox> .\VBoxManage.exe clonehd "D:\VirtualBox VMs\Windows 8 RC\Windows 8 RC.vhd" "D:\VirtualBox VMs\Windows 8 RC\Windows 8 RC.vdi" --format VDI 0%...10%...20%...30%...40%...50%...60%...70%...80%...90%...100% Clone hard disk created in format 'VDI'. UUID: baf0c2c4-362f-4f6c-846a-37bb1ffc027b C:\Program Files\Oracle\VirtualBox> .\VBoxManage.exe showhdinfo "D:\VirtualBox VMs\Windows 8 RC\Windows 8 RC.vdi" UUID: baf0c2c4-362f-4f6c-846a-37bb1ffc027b Accessible: yes Logical size: 81920 MBytes Current size on disk: 24798 MBytes Type: normal (base) Storage format: VDI Format variant: dynamic default In use by VMs: Windows 8 RC (UUID: a6e6aa57-2d3a-421b-8042-7aae566e3e0b) Location: D:\VirtualBox VMs\Windows 8 RC\Windows 8 RC.vdi Is there anything else I could try to recover the drive? No, I don't have a backup :( My host OS is Windows 7 64-bit.

  Read the article

• Why does my dd backup of MacBook OS X fail to boot upon restore?

  - by James

  I created a backup of a MacBook hard drive (WD2500BEVS-88US) by hooking it up as a secondary drive on my linux system (Ubuntu 10.10). I used the following command: sudo dd if=/dev/sdc of=/home/backup.img bs=2M This appears to have completed with no errors. I noticed that the file is only 68 GB in size even though the drive is 250 GB in capacity. I restored the image to a spare drive (WD2500BEVS) with the following command: sudo dd if=/home/backup.img of=/dev/sdb bs=2M When I boot the spare drive in the Mac, it appears to start up for a few seconds and then shuts down. (It does not appear to load into the OS at all). When I open up the drive that won't boot in GParted, it looks like this: When looking at the information for the middle partition with the little red exclamation mark, it shows this: The original hard drive that boots ok shows up like this: Further info on both drives: sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sdb: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 30402 244198580 ee GPT WARNING: GPT (GUID Partition Table) detected on '/dev/sdc'! The util fdisk doesn't support GPT. Use GNU Parted. Disk /dev/sdc: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 1 30402 244198580 ee GPT So why is my backup or restore failing? Why is dd not creating a byte for byte duplicate?

  Read the article

• Resize Debian in VirtualBox

  - by Poni

  I have a VM with one HD of size 3GB and I'd like to enlarge its HD to 7GB. So I execute this command on the host (while guest is shutdown): VBoxManage modifyhd debian.vdi --resize 7168 Then I run the guest, Debian 6, and then: smith@debian6:~$ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 2.8G 2.6G 60M 98% / tmpfs 61M 0 61M 0% /lib/init/rw udev 57M 160K 57M 1% /dev tmpfs 61M 0 61M 0% /dev/shm smith@debian6:~$ sudo parted /dev/sda print Model: ATA VBOX HARDDISK (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 3221MB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 1049kB 3035MB 3034MB primary ext3 boot 2 3036MB 3220MB 185MB extended 5 3036MB 3220MB 185MB logical linux-swap(v1) smith@debian6:~$ cat /proc/partitions major minor #blocks name 8 0 3145728 sda 8 1 2962432 sda1 8 2 1 sda2 8 5 180224 sda5 So, no automatic resizing (detection) of the HD/partition (while VirtualBox, in the host, shows it's 7GB now). Ok... Then I do: smith@debian6:~$ sudo resize2fs /dev/sda1 resize2fs 1.41.12 (17-May-2010) The filesystem is already 740608 blocks long. Nothing to do! smith@debian6:~$ sudo parted GNU Parted 2.3 Using /dev/sda Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands. (parted) select /dev/sda1 Using /dev/sda1 (parted) resize WARNING: you are attempting to use parted to operate on (resize) a file system. parted's file system manipulation code is not as robust as what you'll find in dedicated, file-system-specific packages like e2fsprogs. We recommend you use parted only to manipulate partition tables, whenever possible. Support for performing most operations on most types of file systems will be removed in an upcoming release. Partition number? 1 Start? 0 End? [3034MB]? Here I'm stuck. At the above parted it asks me to resize to 3GB. No point in that, right.. What should I do in order to enlarge this partition?

  Read the article

• Fetch videos from sony handycam to linux

  - by bstpierre

  I've got a Sony Handycam DCR-DVD101. When I plug connect the USB cable to my laptop (Ubuntu 10) it doesn't mount any storage device. If I run usb-devices, I see: T: Bus=02 Lev=02 Prnt=02 Port=00 Cnt=01 Dev#= 6 Spd=480 MxCh= 0 D: Ver= 2.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS=64 #Cfgs= 1 P: Vendor=054c ProdID=00c1 Rev=01.00 S: Manufacturer=SONY S: Product=Storage Device C: #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr=2mA I: If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 2 Cls=08(stor.) Sub=05 Prot=50 Driver=usb-storage The driver says usb-storage, but I'm not sure how to get the device mounted. Is there a way to make this work? Update: checking dmesg, I see: [259072.576559] usb 2-1.1: new high speed USB device using ehci_hcd and address 6 [259072.687200] usb 2-1.1: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice [259072.836188] Initializing USB Mass Storage driver... [259072.836476] scsi5 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage devices [259072.836632] usb-storage: device found at 6 [259072.836636] usb-storage: waiting for device to settle before scanning [259072.836660] usbcore: registered new interface driver usb-storage [259072.836666] USB Mass Storage support registered. [259077.830410] usb-storage: device scan complete [259077.832343] scsi 5:0:0:0: CD-ROM SONY DDX-A1010 R1.0 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0 [259077.888167] sr1: scsi3-mmc drive: 0x/0x pop-up [259077.888446] sr 5:0:0:0: Attached scsi CD-ROM sr1 [259077.888593] sr 5:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg2 type 5 [259080.002079] sr 5:0:0:0: [sr1] Unhandled sense code [259080.002085] sr 5:0:0:0: [sr1] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE [259080.002091] sr 5:0:0:0: [sr1] Sense Key : Blank Check [current] [259080.002097] sr 5:0:0:0: [sr1] Add. Sense: No additional sense information [259080.002104] sr 5:0:0:0: [sr1] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 [259080.002117] end_request: I/O error, dev sr1, sector 0 [259080.002123] Buffer I/O error on device sr1, logical block 0 [259080.002128] Buffer I/O error on device sr1, logical block 1 Those I/O errors don't look good, is there any hope?

  Read the article

• W2K INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE, with System Commander

  - by Gary Kephart

  I have a system that was originally had Win NT. I added System Commander (SC7) and then added W2K. The relevant partitions are: 0 - Primary - MultiFAT (Has Win NT, mapped to C:) 1 - Extended - with many logical partitions: 1.1 NTFS which has W2K and is mapped to D: 1.2 other logical partitions which are irrelevant to this D: was getting full. It needed room for virus definitions and Windows upgrades. In the past, I had simple used SC7 to resize D: without problems. So I did it again this time. However, upon finishing, I got the message "Unable to create partition". It also marked the partition as unformatted. I checked that the files on the disk were still there using SC7's Partition Explorer, and they were there. I continued and the system managed to boot up fine anyways. Then I rebooted the system again. This time, I got a message saying "INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE". I went back in to SC7 and to Partition Commander, and it was still saying that the partition was unformatted but the Partition Explorer still showed the files on the system. I finally decided to resize the partition again, figuring that this would force a rewrite of the partition information. That seemed to work, until I had to reboot again. Now I can't see the files using Partition Explorer, and the Resize button is now disabled. What now?

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 13.04 to 13.10: Filesystem check or mount failed [migrated]

  - by SamHuckaby

  I attempted to upgrade from Ubuntu 13.04 to 13.10 today, and mid upgrade the system started flaking out, and eventually locked up entirely. I was forced to restart the computer, and am now unable to get the computer to boot up at all. When I boot currently, it takes me to the GRUB menu, and I can choose to boot normally, or boot in an older version. I have tried several things, which I list below, but no matter what, when I try to finish booting into Ubuntu, I receive the following error: Filesystem check or mount failed. A maintenance shell will now be started. CONTROL-D will terminate this shell and continue booting after re-trying filesystems. Any further errors will be ignored root@ubuntu-computername:~# I have fun fsck -f and everything appears correct, no errors are reported. and it passes all 5 checks. If I run fdisk -l then I get the following information: Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00010824 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 608456703 304227328 83 Linux /dev/sda2 608458750 625141759 8341505 5 Extended Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary. /dev/sda5 608458752 625141759 8341504 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdb: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0fb4b7e8 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 8192 625139711 312565760 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT I am considering just installing a new OS on the other disk, that currently has nothing on it, and then just attempting to scrape my data off the old disk (thankfully I didn't encrypt the files). Really my question is this: Can I salvage this Ubuntu install, or should I give up and just reinstall?

  Read the article

• Extend RAID 1 (HP SmartArray P410i) running Linux

  - by Oliver

  I took over a fairly simple server setup with the following RAID 1 config running Ubuntu 11.10 (Kernel 3.0.0-12-server x86_64): => ctrl all show config Smart Array P410i in Slot 0 (Embedded) (sn: removed) array A (SAS, Unused Space: 1335535 MB) logicaldrive 1 (279.4 GB, RAID 1, OK) physicaldrive 1I:1:1 (port 1I:box 1:bay 1, SAS, 1 TB, OK) physicaldrive 1I:1:2 (port 1I:box 1:bay 2, SAS, 1 TB, OK) Initially there were two 300GB disks that got replaced by 1TB disks and I now have to extend the logical volume to use that extra space. However, when trying to do so I get the following warning: => ctrl slot=0 ld 1 modify size=max Warning: Extension may not be supported on certain operating systems. Performing extension on these operating systems can cause data to become inaccessible. See ACU documentation for details. Continue? (y/n) Is it safe to say yes or am I at risk of corrupting the file system / loosing data? Rearranging and extending the file system afterwards shouldn't be an issue as I can take the server offline and boot from a gparted live disk. Here's the config of the RAID controller in use: => ctrl all show detail Smart Array P410i in Slot 0 (Embedded) Bus Interface: PCI Slot: 0 Serial Number: removed RAID 6 (ADG) Status: Disabled Controller Status: OK Hardware Revision: Rev C Firmware Version: 5.12 Rebuild Priority: Medium Expand Priority: Medium Surface Scan Delay: 15 secs Surface Scan Mode: Idle Wait for Cache Room: Disabled Surface Analysis Inconsistency Notification: Disabled Post Prompt Timeout: 0 secs Cache Board Present: False Drive Write Cache: Disabled SATA NCQ Supported: True And the partition table: Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 1049kB 274GB 274GB primary ext4 boot 2 274GB 300GB 25.8GB extended 5 274GB 300GB 25.8GB logical linux-swap(v1)

  Read the article

• Cannot load from raid with grub

  - by Andrew Answer

  I have a RAID1 array on my Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and my /sda HDD has been replaced several days ago. I use this commands to replace: # go to superuser sudo bash # see RAID state mdadm -Q -D /dev/md0 # State should be "clean, degraded" # remove broken disk from RAID mdadm /dev/md0 --fail /dev/sda1 mdadm /dev/md0 --remove /dev/sda1 # see partitions fdisk -l # shutdown computer shutdown now # physically replace old disk by new # start system again # see partitions fdisk -l # copy partitions from sdb to sda sfdisk -d /dev/sdb | sfdisk /dev/sda # recreate id for sda sfdisk --change-id /dev/sda 1 fd # add sda1 to RAID mdadm /dev/md0 --add /dev/sda1 # see RAID state mdadm -Q -D /dev/md0 # State should be "clean, degraded, recovering" # to see status you can use cat /proc/mdstat After bebuilding completion "fdisk -l" says what I have not valid partition table /dev/md0. So 1) "update-grub" find only /sda and /sdb Linux, not /md0 2) "dpkg-reconfigure grub-pc" says "GRUB failed to install the following devices /dev/md0" I cannot load my system except from /sdb1 and /sda1, but in DEGRADED mode... This is my partial fdisk -l output: Disk /dev/sdb: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x000667ca Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 63 940910984 470455461 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb2 940910985 976768064 17928540 5 Extended /dev/sdb5 940911048 976768064 17928508+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/md0: 481.7 GB, 481746288640 bytes 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 117613840 cylinders, total 940910720 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Disk /dev/md0 doesn't contain a valid partition table Anybody can resolve this issue? I have big headache with this.

  Read the article

• Allignment of ext3 partition on LVM RAID volume group

  - by John P

  I'm trying to add a partition on a LVM that resides on a RAID6 volume group and fdisk is complaining about the partition not residing on a physical sector boundry. My question is, how do you calculate the correct starting sector for a partition on a LVM? This partition will be formated ext3. Would it be better to just format the LVM directly instead of creating a new partition? Disk /dev/dedvol/backup: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255552 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 1048576 bytes / 8388608 bytes Disk identifier: 0x4e428f49 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/dedvol/backup1 63 267349 2146982827+ 83 Linux Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary. lvdisplay /dev/dedvol/backup --- Logical volume --- LV Name /dev/dedvol/backup VG Name dedvol LV UUID OV2n5j-7LHb-exJL-t8dI-dU8A-2vxf-uIicCt LV Write Access read/write LV Status available # open 0 LV Size 2.00 TiB Current LE 524288 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 32768 Block device 253:1 vgdisplay dedvol --- Volume group --- VG Name dedvol System ID Format lvm2 Metadata Areas 1 Metadata Sequence No 3 VG Access read/write VG Status resizable MAX LV 0 Cur LV 2 Open LV 1 Max PV 0 Cur PV 1 Act PV 1 VG Size 14.55 TiB PE Size 4.00 MiB Total PE 3815448 Alloc PE / Size 3670016 / 14.00 TiB Free PE / Size 145432 / 568.09 GiB VG UUID 8fBcOk-aXGx-P3Qy-VVpJ-0zK1-fQgy-Cb691J

  Read the article

• EMC VNX iSCSI setup - unsure about SP/port assignment

  - by pauska

  We have a new VNX5300 waiting to get configured, and I need to plan out the network infrastructure before the EMC tech arrives. It has 4x1gbit iSCSI per SP (8 ports in total), and I'd like to get the most out of the performance until we jump over to 10gig iSCSI. From what I can read from the docs - the recommendation is to use only two ports per SP, with 1 active and 1 passive. Why is this? It seems kind of pointless to have quad-port i/o-modules and then recommend to not use more than two of them? Also - I'm a bit unsure about the zoning. The best practices guide state that you should separate each port on each SP from each other on different logical networks. Does this mean that I have to create 4 logical networks to be able to use all 8 ports? It also gives the following example: Does this mean that A0 and B0 should sit on the same physical switch aswell? Won't this make all traffic go on one switch (if both A1 and B1 are passive)? Edit: Another brainpuzzle I don't get it - each host (as in server) should not have more iSCSI bandwidth available than the storage processor. What on earth does this matter? If serverA have 1gbit and serverB have 100mbit, then the resulting bandwith between them is 100mbit. How can this result in some kind of oversubscription? Edit4: Wait, what. Active and passive ports? The VNX runs in a ALUA configuration with asymmetrical active/active.. there shouldn't be any passive ports, only preferred ones..

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 12.04/12.10 can't detect windows or any other partitions(Asus z77 UEFI BIOS)

  - by user971155

  I've recently completed tinkering my new pc(motherboard ASUS z77 with UEFI BIOS) and unfortunately not everything works quite well. After installing windows 7 ultimate on a single primary partition(SATA drive) I decided to allocate one more logical partition for additional needs. When I tried doing it with the manager - it said that it couldn't allocate requested size even though I certainly asked for much less than it was available. I thought that it might have been a windows issue and proceded to installing Ubuntu 12.10 x64. When the graphical interface loaded it showed me a message stating that it can't find any other operating system on the drive. When I used custom partioning option it showed me none of my current partions(including that with windows). However, when I boot with "Try Ubuntu" feature it does find them ! I find it weird though. Here's what the console present me with: ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo os-prober /dev/sda1:Windows 7 (loader):Windows:chain ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 640.1 GB, 640135028736 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 77825 cylinders, total 1250263728 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00072b98 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 206847 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 206848 100020223 49906688 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 100022270 1250263039 575120385 5 Extended /dev/sda4 566669312 1250263039 341796864 83 Linux I also tried creating partitions from disk utility which results in error: , Error creating partition: helper exited with exit code 1: In part_add_partition: device_file=/dev/sda, start=51211402240, size=1923000000, type=0x83 Entering MS-DOS parser (offset=0, size=640135028736) MSDOS_MAGIC found looking at part 0 (offset 1048576, size 104857600, type 0x07) new part entry looking at part 1 (offset 105906176, size 51104448512, type 0x07) new part entry looking at part 2 (offset 51211402240, size 588923274240, type 0x05) Entering MS-DOS extended parser (offset=51211402240, size=588923274240) readfrom = 51211402240 MSDOS_MAGIC found Exiting MS-DOS extended parser looking at part 3 (offset 290134687744, size 349999988736, type 0x83) new part entry Exiting MS-DOS parser MSDOS partition table detected containing partition table scheme = 1 got it Error: Can't have overlapping partitions. ped_disk_new() failed Here's what I get when I try to install the system i.stack.imgur.com/pjlb9.png, i.stack.imgur.com/g1lXN.png P.S. It's strange that I even can't create any more partitions neither with disk-utility nor with windows 7 native tools

  Read the article

• Recover data from Dynamic Disk (MBR) bigger than 2TB

  - by Helder

  Here is the situation: Promise Array FastTrak TX4310 with 3 disks (750 GB each) in RAID5. This comes to around 1500 GB of data. Last week I had the idea of expanding the RAID with an additional 750 GB disk. This would bring the volume to around 2250 GB. I plugged the disk and used the Webpam software to do the RAID expansion. However, I didn't count with the MBR 2TB limit, as I didn't remembered that the disk was using MBR instead of GPT and I didn't check it prior to the expansion. After a couple of days of expansion, today when I got home, the disk in Windows disk manager showed the message "Invalid disk" and when I try to activate it, it says "The operation is not allowed on the Invalid pack". From what I figured, the logical volume on the RAID expanded, and passed that info to the Windows layer and I ended up with an "larger than 2TB" MBR disk. I'm hopping that somehow I can still recover some data from this, and I was wondering if I can "rewrite" the MBR structure back to the 1500 GB partition size, so I can access the partition in Windows. Right now I'm doing an "Analyse" with TestDisk, as I hope the program will pickup the old 1500 structure and allow me to somehow revert back to it. I think that even though the Logical Drive in the RAID is bigger than the 2TB, I can somehow correct the MBR to show the 1500 GB partition again. I had a similar problem once, and I was able to recover the data using a similar method. What do you guys think? Is it a dead end? Am I totally screwed because there is the extra RAID layer that I'm not counting? Or is there other way to move with this? Thanks all!

  Read the article

• VMWare ESXi 5 - Expanded RAID 5 array - cannot access datastore

  - by Dayton Brown

  I'm using VMWare ESXi 5 and had a 2 TB RAID 5 setup on an HP DL360 with a P400i RAID card. I added two more 1 TB drives and using the SmartStart ACU, added the drives and expanded the logical disk. Now after booting back to ESXi, the server boots, but lists no available persistent storage. I've rescanned multiple times to no avail: the Datastore doesn't show up. I booted to GParted and the 1.8TB partition shows up, but it shows as unknown. Anyone have any good ideas? EDIT: Final Solution So after much gnashing of teeth, it was fairly simple to solve. I purchased an eSata 2 TB external drive and a PCI eSata card for my server. I then used Clonezilla to image the current partitions to my new external drive. You have to check "don't check drive sizes" in advanced mode, otherwise it will yell at you for have a smaller drive. For some reason my PCI card wouldn't boot on my HP server, so I hooked the drive up to another desktop I had, booted to VMWare, and copied the vmdk's to another drive. I'm going to blow out the RAID config and then create 1.5TB logical drives.

  Read the article

• why does the partition start on sector 2048 instead of 63

  - by gcb

  I had two drives partitioned the same and running 2 raid partitions on each. One died and I replaced it under warranty for the same model. While trying to partition it, the first partition can only start on sector 2048, instead of 63 that was before. Driver have different geometry as previous and remaining ones. (Fewer heads/more cylinders) old drive: $ sudo fdisk -c -u -l /dev/sdb Disk /dev/sdb: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders, total 3907029168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x000aa189 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 63 174080339 87040138+ 83 Linux /dev/sdb2 174080340 182482334 4200997+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sdb3 182482335 3907024064 1862270865 fd Linux raid autodetect remanufactured drive received from warranty: $ sudo fdisk -c -u -l /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 81 heads, 63 sectors/track, 765633 cylinders, total 3907029168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x000d0b5d Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 2048 ... why is that?

  Read the article

• Multiple servers vs 1 big server performace

  - by pistacchio

  Hi to all! My team of developers has suggested a server structure for an upcoming project we are developing. Our structure is "logical", meaning that the various logical components of the application (it is a distributed one) relies on different servers. Some components are more critical than others and will be subjected to more load. Our proposal was to have 1 server per component but the hardware guys suggested to replace the various machines with a single, bigger one with virtual servers. They're gonna use Blade Servers. Now, I'm not an expert at all, but my question to the guys was: so if we need, for example, 3 2GHz CPU / 2GB RAM machines and you give me 1 machine with 3 2GHz CPUs and 6 GB of RAM it is the same? They told me it is. Is this accurate? What are the advantages or disadvantages of both the solutions? What are the generally accepted best practices? Could you point out some URL reference dealing with the problem? Thank you in advance! EDIT: Some more info. The (internet / intranet) application is already layered. We have some servers on the DMZ that will expose pages to the internet and the databases are on their own machines. What we want to split (and they want to join) are some webservers that mainly expose webservices. One is a DAL that communicates with the database layer, one is our Single Sign On / User Profile application that gets called once per page and one is a clone of what seen on the Internet to be used on our lan.

  Read the article

• IBM BladeCenter S: Disk Configuration

  - by gravyface

  Have just the one storage bay right now (SAS 15K 600GB x 6) and have configured one storage pool in RAID 10 with 4 disks (and two global spares). For each blade, I've created a volume and mapped accordingly: Blade #1 400 GB Blade #2 200 GB Blade #3 100 GB Blade #4 100 GB When I boot up Blade 1 and enter into the UEFI Setup (F1) followed by the Adapters and UEFI Drivers LSI Logic Fusion MPT SAS Driver Utility, I see 4 disks: two are the on-board 73GB drives, the other two are 200GB each and assume I'm being presented with two logical disks from the volume I created and mapped to this blade. I was a bit surprised by this: I figured I would've been presented with one logical drive per volume, not two. I'm assuming I can just configure whatever RAID level I wish that supports two disks, but not really sure what the benefits/trade-offs here. Should I go with RAID 10 on top of RAID 10? RAID 0? Software RAID 0/1/10? Does it even matter? If this is "normal" to see two disks, then I'm going to likely just do some benchmarking and see if it makes a difference changing the RAID levels (my guess is no); if this is not normal, well, please let me know. :)

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 10.04 network manager issues

  - by Shark

  I was using the default network manager to connect to my wi-fi network, but if the connection is dropped or router restarted the network manager wont reconnect automatically after i guess a couple of tries and just gives a pop-up to connect manually . To avoid this annoyance I installed WICD but though it does try to reconnect to the network after a drop in connection it is unable to resolve the ip address and i am left with an even bigger annoyance . 1. Is there a way to counter either of these issues ? 2. Something like a background process that will check network status periodically and then try to connect to a favored network ? Edit- out put of lshw -C network *-network description: Wireless interface product: Broadcom Corporation vendor: Broadcom Corporation physical id: 0 bus info: pci@0000:12:00.0 logical name: eth1 version: 01 serial: c0:cb:38:18:9b:7f width: 64 bits clock: 33MHz capabilities: pm msi pciexpress bus_master cap_list ethernet physical wireless configuration: broadcast=yes driver=wl0 driverversion=5.60.48.36 ip=192.168.11.2 latency=0 multicast=yes wireless=IEEE 802.11 resources: irq:17 memory:fbc00000-fbc03fff *-network description: Ethernet interface product: RTL8101E/RTL8102E PCI Express Fast Ethernet controller vendor: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. physical id: 0 bus info: pci@0000:13:00.0 logical name: eth0 version: 02 serial: f0:4d:a2:94:2d:74 size: 10MB/s capacity: 100MB/s width: 64 bits clock: 33MHz capabilities: pm msi pciexpress msix vpd bus_master cap_list rom ethernet physical tp mii 10bt 10bt-fd 100bt 100bt-fd autonegotiation configuration: autonegotiation=on broadcast=yes driver=r8169 driverversion=2.3LK-NAPI duplex=half latency=0 link=no multicast=yes port=MII speed=10MB/s resources: irq:29 ioport:e000(size=256) memory:d0b10000-d0b10fff(prefetchable) memory:d0b00000-d0b0ffff(prefetchable) memory:fb200000-fb21ffff(prefetchable)

  Read the article

• Extending ext4 partition on debian7.0 on vsphere

  - by VoidPointer

  I have allocated thin provisioning of 15GB when i found 8GB as insufficient. Now debian guest is not able to recognize the change of size. root@debian7-x64:~# lvdisplay --- Logical volume --- LV Path /dev/debian7-x64/root LV Name root VG Name debian7-x64 LV UUID EU6mg0-XTXC-ci3D-bQJi-7XN6-r8Hp-SYxcj0 LV Write Access read/write LV Creation host, time debian7-x64, 2013-06-25 12:02:49 +0530 LV Status available # open 1 LV Size 7.39 GiB Current LE 1892 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 254:0 --- Logical volume --- LV Path /dev/debian7-x64/swap_1 LV Name swap_1 VG Name debian7-x64 LV UUID xDNtoz-tJUq-M5D6-GGCN-gzcD-fwUv-fYYDR1 LV Write Access read/write LV Creation host, time debian7-x64, 2013-06-25 12:02:49 +0530 LV Status available # open 2 LV Size 376.00 MiB Current LE 94 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 254:1 root@debian7-x64:~# pvdisplay --- Physical volume --- PV Name /dev/sda5 VG Name debian7-x64 PV Size 7.76 GiB / not usable 2.00 MiB Allocatable yes (but full) PE Size 4.00 MiB Total PE 1986 Free PE 0 Allocated PE 1986 PV UUID SehkzH-Gq8Y-jI2f-27Tb-uv1Z-tR1R-5OnTxR root@debian7-x64:~# sfdisk -s /dev/sda: 15728640 /dev/mapper/debian7--x64-root: 7749632 /dev/mapper/debian7--x64-swap_1: 385024 total: 23863296 blocks Help me to extend this partition. No problem in rebooting. I dont have any live CD. Environment : debian 7, with lvm, on vsphere, ext4 partition. Can provide more details when needed.

  Read the article

• P2V Wouldn't Boot, Rebuilt initrd, Need to Clean Up

  - by Mike Soule

  We have a CentOS 5.4 server (build 2.6.18-164.el5xen). We went to P2V this server so we can have redundancy, the physical only has one PSU. The P2V only completed 99% of the way, we have a VMWare ticket opened, but they marked the ticket as low priority. I was able to boot into a rescue disc of Red Hat 5.4 and rebuild the initrd with the help of this blog post. Now the only issue is the original server had a modified initrd, which was also from a different OS build and made by an outside provider. We do not have a document outlining modifications. My question is, is it at all possible to copy the initrd off of the physical server and replace it on the virtual and some how have the virtual machine boot? Thanks for any input. Edit: I copied the initrd img from the physical and it recreated the original issue. Here is a screen capture of the error. http://i.imgur.com/MqC73.jpg Edit2: echo Scanning logical volumes lvm vgscan --ignorelockingfailure echo Activating logical volumes lvm vgchange -ay --ignorelockingfailure VolGroup00 resume /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 echo Creating root device. mkrootdev -t ext3 -o defaults,ro /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 echo Mounting root filesystem. mount /sysroot

  Read the article

• Boot records messed on dual boot (win7 and ubuntu) machine with SSD and HDD

  - by Michael

  i have a lenovo ideapad y570 with two hard drives: SSD and normal HDD both managed by RapidDrive and windows 7 pre-installed. First, i have shrunk my 500 GB HDD a little bit to make some place for a linux installation. Then i installed linux mint 12 to it, also installed grub onto the drive (dev/sdb). Installation programm has not allowed me to install grub on sda. Then i replaced linux mint with ubuntu 12.04 but installed grub onto the SSD (which is dev/sda and was the default-option). After that i could boot into my windows, only ubuntu worked. So i did a research, and tried: rewriting mbr of windows into sda1, reinstalling grub, replacing grub2 with grub-legacy, and now i think my partitions table are totally messed. Here is fdisk -l output: ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 64.0 GB, 64023257088 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 7783 cylinders, total 125045424 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 411647 204800 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 411648 1009430959 504509656 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT Disk /dev/sdb: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x5e5d1cc8 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 1979 884389887 442193954+ 12 Compaq diagnostics /dev/sdb2 884391934 976771071 46189569 5 Extended /dev/sdb5 884391936 937705471 26656768 83 Linux /dev/sdb6 937707520 967006207 14649344 83 Linux /dev/sdb7 967008256 976771071 4881408 82 Linux swap / Solaris I also cant mount any windows partitions to recover data. And when i open gparted, the whole sda-disk appears unallocated and it states "can not have a partition outside the disk!", also the end-sector address of /dev/sda2 confuses me. If i boot from the SSD, it throws some mbr error and wont boot, if i boot from the HDD, i only get the grub bash. How do i restore the partition tables? I can boot only from a live-cd at the machine. Thanks for any help.

  Read the article

• Triple-Boot + 4 partition Limit

  - by dsimcha

  I just bought a new hard drive so that I could convert my XP-only machine into an XP-Ubuntu-Windows 7 triple boot machine. Since the drive is absurdly huge (1 TB) I wouldn't mind throwing ReactOS into the mix, too. I just found out that master boot records are limited to 4 entries, meaning 4 primary partitions. I had Windows XP set up on my old drive as a boot partition, a program files partition and a media partition. Since I really didn't want to install XP from scratch, I cloned this setup on my new drive. This leaves me one MBR partition entry for installing Windows 7, Ubuntu and ReactOS. I'd like to avoid having to install XP from scratch like the plague, partly because it's supposed to be a safety net in case things go wrong with my other OS's and because I've invested a lot of time getting it set up exactly the way I like it. Here are the options I've considered and why I don't like them: Install Windows 7 on my media partition. This would work, but I prefer to keep my media partition completely separate from any OS, so that I can reformat an OS partition without affecting my media partition at all. Use wubi or something to install Ubuntu in the same partition as something else. Again, this is brittle. Move all my media to a logical drive on an extended partition. Create another logical drive on this extended partition for Ubuntu. The problem here is that extended partitions are rather brittle--if you nuke one, it renders the rest useless. Just put the old drive back in my computer and run XP off it. Use the new one for the other OS's. The problem here is that the old drive is slower and uses extra power, generates extra heat, etc. Can anyone suggest any other possibilities that I may have overlooked?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >