Search Results

Search found 10693 results on 428 pages for 'raw disk'.

Page 25/428 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

• Sporadic disk clicking sound

  - by Abdó

  Hi, I'm having some unusual and sporadic hard disk clicking issues. Here is a cronological description of the facts. I'm using an ASUS P6T-SE with Intel Core i7, 6Gb RAM 600W Power supply and ATI4670 graphics, running Ubuntu 10.10. About one month ago my hard disk (SATA II Seagate Barracuda 1Tb 7200 rpm) started making a clicking sound: a sort of loud tic-tac, every second or so, when involved in disk activity. The system was clearly slower than before at disk access, but it was functional and I could not find any signal of trouble on the linux logs. I disconnected the disk and tried an older SATA drive I had around: no problem with it. Then I reconnected the Seagate disk, and the problem was mysteriously gone. Ubuntu booted normally, usual speed, no clicking. A couple of weeks later, the problem reappeared. I tried disconnecting reconnecting (as it somehow solved the problem before) without luck. So, despite it was a rather new drive, I assumed it was a hardware issue, made backups and bought a new drive. The new drive is a SATA II Seagate Barracuda 1.5 Tb 7200 rpm. I installed both drives at the same time, with the intention of transferring my files from on to the other. To my surprise, when I booted the computer with both drives, both started making the clicking sound !! Even worse, I removed the old drive, leaving the unformated new drive connected, and booted from a LiveCD. It kept clicking ! Puzzled by this, I tried both drives on my laptop with a SATA to USB cable. At the moment I connected any of them, they made one or two unusual clicks and immediately stopped doing that and worked normally. The old drive I thought almost dead, was working like a charm as if nothing happened. Then I thought: "ok, it must be the motherboard. Let's try again". So, I reconnected the old drive to the ASUS P6T motherboard (the same cables and SATA port as before), and it worked as if nothing happened ! The problem was gone again. The new 1.5 Tb drive was also working ok: No clicking nor slowdown. So I left the old 1Tb disk connected and kept using the computer daily during 3 weeks, until today it happened again. Now I don't really know what to do or check. I'm not even sure if it is a hardware issue any more ! This is rather annoying as it seems it happens with a period of 2 or 3 weeks and I have no means of forcing it to happen. Does anyone have a clue of what can causes this behaviour or have any suggestions of things I should check when it happens again ? What I did today is checking some SMART parameters Error log: smartctl -l error /dev/sda. No errors Short selftest: smartctl -t short /dev/sda. No errors Disk Health check: smartctl -H /dev/sda. passed And here are the vendor specific parameters (smartctl -A /dev/sda) Which I'm not quite sure how to interpret. === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 120 099 006 Pre-fail Always - 235962588 3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0003 095 095 000 Pre-fail Always - 0 4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always - 187 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 036 Pre-fail Always - 0 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 072 060 030 Pre-fail Always - 16348045 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 096 096 000 Old_age Always - 3590 10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail Always - 0 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always - 94 183 Runtime_Bad_Block 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 184 End-to-End_Error 0x0032 100 100 099 Old_age Always - 0 187 Reported_Uncorrect 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 188 Command_Timeout 0x0032 100 097 000 Old_age Always - 4295164029 189 High_Fly_Writes 0x003a 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022 070 057 045 Old_age Always - 30 (Lifetime Min/Max 19/31) 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 030 043 000 Old_age Always - 30 (0 18 0 0) 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 037 026 000 Old_age Always - 235962588 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 100 100 000 Old_age Offline - 0 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x003e 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0 240 Head_Flying_Hours 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 73950746906346 241 Total_LBAs_Written 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 1832967731 242 Total_LBAs_Read 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 3294986902 Any clue to this mystery will be really welcome. Thank you very much !!

  Read the article

• "A disk read error occurred" after choosing to boot into Windows XP from GRUB

  - by kellogs

  "A disk read error occurred" appears on screen after choosing to boot into Windows XP from GRUB. [root@localhost linux]# fdisk -lu Disk /dev/sda: 160.0 GB, 160041885696 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19457 cylinders, total 312581808 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: 0x48424841 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 63 204214271 102107104+ 7 HPFS/NTFS Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda2 204214272 255606783 25696256 af HFS / HFS+ Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda3 255606784 276488191 10440704 c W95 FAT32 (LBA) Partition 3 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda4 276490179 312576704 18043263 5 Extended /dev/sda5 * 276490240 286709759 5109760 83 Linux /dev/sda6 286712118 310488254 11888068+ b W95 FAT32 /dev/sda7 310488318 312576704 1044193+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris Here, sda is a 160GB hard disk with quite a few partitions and 3 OSes installed. I am able to boot into Linux and Mac OS fine, but not into Windows anymore. The Windows system is located on /dev/sda1. I cannot recall how exactly have I used testdisk but it once said: Disk /dev/sda - 160 GB / 149 GiB - CHS 19458 255 63 The harddisk (160 GB / 149 GiB) seems too small! (< 169 GB / 157 GiB) Check the harddisk size: HD jumper settings, BIOS detection... So far I have tried to "fixboot" and "chkdsk" from a recovery console on the affected windows partition (/dev/sda1), the plug off power cord for 15 seconds trick, reinstalling GRUB, repairing the MFT and boot sector of the affected partition via testdisk, what next please? Thank you!

  Read the article

• Reconstructing the disk order in RAID 6 with 7 disks

  - by rkotulla

  a little background to this question first: I am running a RAID-6 within a QNAP TS869L external RAID/NAS system. I started with 5 disks of 3 TB each back in the day, and later added another 2 disks of 3TB to the RAID. The QNAP internals handled the growing and re-syncing etc, and everything seemd to be perfectly fine. About 2 weeks ago, I had one of the disks (disk #5, disk #2 has gone bad in the mean time) fail, and somehow (I have no idea why), also disks 1 and 2 got kicked out of the array. I replaced disk #5, but the RAID didn't start working again. After some calls to QNAP technical support, they re-created the array (using mdadm --create --force --assume-clean ...), but the resulting array couldn't find a filesystem, and I was kindly referred to contact a data recovery company that I can't afford. After some digging through old log files, resetting the disk to factory default, etc, I found a few errors that were made during this re-create - I wish I still had some of the original metadata, but unfortunately i don't (I definitely learned that lesson). I'm currently at the point where I know the correct chunk-size (64K), metadata-version (1.0; factory default was 0.9, but from what I read 0.9 doesn't handle disks over 2 TB, mine are 3 TB), and I now find the ext4 filesystem that should be on the disks. Only variable left to determine is the right disk order! I started using the description found in answer #4 of "Recover RAID 5 data after created new array instead of re-using" but am a little confused on what the order should be for a proper RAID-6. RAID-5 is pretty well documented in a number of places, but RAID-6 much less so. Also, does the layout, i.e. distribution of parity and data chunks across the disks, change after the growing of the array from 5 to 7 disks, or does the re-sync re-organize them in such a way a native 7-disk RAID-6 would have been? Thanks some more mdadm output that might be helpful: mdadm version: [~] # mdadm --version mdadm - v2.6.3 - 20th August 2007 mdadm details from one of the disks in the array: [~] # mdadm --examine /dev/sda3 /dev/sda3: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 1.0 Feature Map : 0x0 Array UUID : 1c1614a5:e3be2fbb:4af01271:947fe3aa Name : 0 Creation Time : Tue Jun 10 10:27:58 2014 Raid Level : raid6 Raid Devices : 7 Used Dev Size : 5857395112 (2793.02 GiB 2998.99 GB) Array Size : 29286975360 (13965.12 GiB 14994.93 GB) Used Size : 5857395072 (2793.02 GiB 2998.99 GB) Super Offset : 5857395368 sectors State : clean Device UUID : 7c572d8f:20c12727:7e88c888:c2c357af Update Time : Tue Jun 10 13:01:06 2014 Checksum : d275c82d - correct Events : 7036 Chunk Size : 64K Array Slot : 0 (0, 1, failed, 3, failed, 5, 6) Array State : Uu_u_uu 2 failed mdadm details for the array in the current disk-order (based on my best guess reconstructed from old log-files) [~] # mdadm --detail /dev/md0 /dev/md0: Version : 01.00.03 Creation Time : Tue Jun 10 10:27:58 2014 Raid Level : raid6 Array Size : 14643487680 (13965.12 GiB 14994.93 GB) Used Dev Size : 2928697536 (2793.02 GiB 2998.99 GB) Raid Devices : 7 Total Devices : 5 Preferred Minor : 0 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Tue Jun 10 13:01:06 2014 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 5 Working Devices : 5 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Chunk Size : 64K Name : 0 UUID : 1c1614a5:e3be2fbb:4af01271:947fe3aa Events : 7036 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 3 0 active sync /dev/sda3 1 8 19 1 active sync /dev/sdb3 2 0 0 2 removed 3 8 51 3 active sync /dev/sdd3 4 0 0 4 removed 5 8 99 5 active sync /dev/sdg3 6 8 83 6 active sync /dev/sdf3 output from /proc/mdstat (md8, md9, and md13 are internally used RAIDs holding swap, etc; the one I'm after is md0) [~] # more /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [multipath] md0 : active raid6 sdf3[6] sdg3[5] sdd3[3] sdb3[1] sda3[0] 14643487680 blocks super 1.0 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [7/5] [UU_U_UU] md8 : active raid1 sdg2[2](S) sdf2[3](S) sdd2[4](S) sdc2[5](S) sdb2[6](S) sda2[1] sde2[0] 530048 blocks [2/2] [UU] md13 : active raid1 sdg4[3] sdf4[4] sde4[5] sdd4[6] sdc4[2] sdb4[1] sda4[0] 458880 blocks [8/7] [UUUUUUU_] bitmap: 21/57 pages [84KB], 4KB chunk md9 : active raid1 sdg1[6] sdf1[5] sde1[4] sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sda1[0] sdb1[1] 530048 blocks [8/7] [UUUUUUU_] bitmap: 37/65 pages [148KB], 4KB chunk unused devices: <none>

  Read the article

• Windows 7 sata disk not recognized after wake up from sleep state [closed]

  - by Gabber

  My windows 7 x64 PC/server worked fine until I installed a brand new seagate SATA hard disk (2 TB). My first disk was a IDE Maxtor (250 GB). I tried to use it as a secondary drive leaving the maxtor as primary and, when I put the computer in sleep state, on wake-up the SATA disk is not recognized anymore until next reboot. Now I'm trying to set it as primary disk (I copied the old HD contents with HD clone), when the computer goes in sleep state, on wake up it doesn't see the disc thus causing my system to crash. I tried the following: BIOS update (Asus M2V motherboard) but the situation worsened as the system didn't wake up from the sleep (with both my HD's) Reinstalling the drivers Bios changes Microsoft Hotfix KB977178 that seemed to address exactly my problem but gave me "The update is not applicable to your computer" message. Disabling hybrid sleep but no results.

  Read the article

• Windows 7 sata disk not recognized after wake up from sleep state

  - by Gabber

  My windows 7 x64 PC/server worked fine until I installed a brand new seagate SATA hard disk (2 TB). My first disk was a IDE Maxtor (250 GB). I tried to use it as a secondary drive leaving the maxtor as primary and, when I put the computer in sleep state, on wake-up the SATA disk is not recognized anymore until next reboot. Now I'm trying to set it as primary disk (I copied the old HD contents with HD clone), when the computer goes in sleep state, on wake up it doesn't see the disc thus causing my system to crash. I tried the following: BIOS update (Asus M2V motherboard) but the situation worsened as the system didn't wake up from the sleep (with both my HD's) Reinstalling the drivers Bios changes Microsoft Hotfix KB977178 that seemed to address exactly my problem but gave me "The update is not applicable to your computer" message. Disabling hybrid sleep but no results. I also tried all the suggestions from this question Why doesn't Windows 7 wake up from sleep?. Still no results.

  Read the article

• SAS disk performance drops a while after reboot.

  - by Flamewires

  So we have some workstations with identical hardware. The Fedora14 box has a couple weeks uptime and still get good performance. hdparm -tT /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 21766 MB in 2.00 seconds = 10902.12 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 586 MB in 3.00 seconds = 195.20 MB/sec The Cent 5.5 boxes however seem to be okay after a reboot, /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 34636 MB in 2.00 seconds = 17354.64 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 498 MB in 3.01 seconds = 165.62 MB/sec but some time later( unsure exactly, tested at approx 1 day uptime) /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 2132 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1064.96 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 160 MB in 3.01 seconds = 53.16 MB/sec drop to this. This is with very low load. I believe they all have the same bios settings. Any ideas what could cause this on Cent? Ask for more info. It might also be worth noting, that passing the --direct flag causes the slow boxes to perform similarly to the non-slow ones for buffered disk reads.

  Read the article

• How do I recover drivers from other hard disk

  - by Carl

  The drivers for a Cardbus (PCMCIA) card that gives me 2 USB 2.0 ports are on the hard disk from my old laptop. I have lost the driver CD. I have a way to get files from that other hard disk. Which files do I need? The drivers for the card used to be on the following website - the information is still there, except the download links don't work: http://www.ht-link.com/en/DownView.asp?ID=10 - The drivers I need are the first listing - The Win XP drivers for the HT-112NEC. My e-mails to them have not been answered. The information on this card is here http://www.ht-link.com/en/ProductView.asp?ID=106 I already tried connecting that other drive to my new laptop (via USB) and adding the drive to the search criteria when selecting update driver in the Device Manager. It says there isn't a better match, and if I select manual the matching device is not listed. (I don't think "manual" sees drivers on the external hard disk - but only ones on the main drive and/or found listed in the registry.) I would try 'have disk' if I knew exactly what file to point to on the external drive. The drivers are on that hard disk - I installed them there, and used that card on that computer. The new laptop has Windows XP Pro SP3, the old one had Pro SP2 Thanks for any help.

  Read the article

• Windows 8.1 Update 1 Disk Usage 100%

  - by Gookjin Jeong

  Background Information / Computer Specs I have a 14-inch Samsung Series 5 Ultra. Core i5 CPU, 750GB HDD, 8GB RAM, Intel HD Graphics 4000. I've had the computer for about 1.5 years with no major problems. Problem The issue appeared at the beginning of April this year, when I updated the OS to Windows 8.1 Update 1 (not from 8 to 8.1). After being on continually (except for at night, when I put it on sleep mode) for about 48 hours, the disk usage as seen by Task Manager hits 100%. When this happens, everything from opening/closing applications to typing and even bringing up the start screen by pressing the Windows key becomes extremely slow. The only way to make the disk usage decrease is to restart the computer. Then the problem repeats. I've used my current laptop (as well as my previous laptops) this way -- putting it on sleep mode at night and restarting it only when Windows needs to install updates -- for a long time. So I know the 100% disk usage is not due to the way I use the computer. The thing that causes the spike varies. Sometimes it's System, sometimes it's one of the various applications I installed (e.g. Chrome, Evernote, Spotify, Wunderlist, iTunes, etc.), and sometimes it's Antimalware Service Executable, etc. Tried Solutions I think I tried almost every solution out there for this problem: Running the check disk command (chkdsk /b /f /v /scan c:) from Admin Command Prompt Running Windows Memory Diagnostic Disabling Superfetch and Windows Search from services.msc Running "Fix problems with Windows Update" from Control Panel -- Troubleshooting Updating and rolling back the graphics driver (Intel HD 4000) Disabling "Use hardware acceleration when available" from Chrome settings Disabling Intel Rapid Storage Technology Running the SFC /SCANNOW command as recommended here Running a quick scan & a full scan from Windows Defender (no threats found) Taking the hard drive out and putting it back Refreshing the computer, from the Update and recovery -- Recovery option in Windows settings NONE of the above worked for me. I was about to give up but then noticed that one of the main culprits of the disk usage spike, as shown in the "Disk Activity" section of the Resource Monitor, was C:\System (pagefile.sys). I googled around and found that one of the recommended solutions was to disable pagefile. I then went to **Control Panel -- System and Security -- System -- Advanced system settings -- Advanced tab -- Performance settings -- Advanced tab -- "Change" under Virtual memory and discovered that the number for "Currently allocated" at the bottom was 1280MB, although the number for "Recommended" was 4533MB. I immediately changed it to 4533MB and checked my family members' computers to see what the numbers were like. All of theirs had a currently allocated space that was only slightly smaller than the recommended space. See screenshot below: This might fix the problem. I'll have to wait a couple more days.But if it doesn't, what in the world should I do next? I'm guessing the hard drive isn't failing because This computer is less than 2 years old; and Speccy says that the status of the HDD is good. Update 5/27/2014 The "4533MB" solution did not work. I had to reboot the computer about 30 minutes ago because the disk usage again hit 100%. When I opened Resource Monitor the C:\System (pagefile.sys) again was shown to be the culprit. I have now disabled pagefile entirely via the same window shown above in the screenshot. The number for "currently allocated" is now 0MB. Will update again in a couple days, or if the problem occurs again, whichever comes sooner.

  Read the article

• Infected Win XP disk not openable on a Vista computer

  - by Retired57

  How can I read a WinXP partioned disk that is infected and shows up on a USB connection to Win Vista computer as a single partition that Vista cannot see the contents? The XP computer HDD is partioned into 4 partitions. It became infected, and all attempts to clean it have failed. Applications begin to launch, but are then shut down by the infecting agent. Using a major Anti-virus Co. boot disk (which was unable to connect to the Web, probably because the infecting agent stopped it) with virus definitions dated after the disk became infected, the resultant scan showed no infection. I bought a USB cable to connect the IDE drive to my Vista computer, but when I open Win Explorer, it sees the disk, but does not show any contents. It indicates it is a single partition that is valid. However in all the ways I have tried it does not show drive contents. Any suggestions on what to do next?

  Read the article

• Certain selected files are not deleting when I use Disk Cleanup

  - by Stephanie Malouff

  I am using Windows 7 and have been trying to retrieve disk space, but when I run Disk Cleanup the Temporary Internet files (18.1KB) and System archived Windows Error Report (267KB) will not delete. It goes through the process as if they are being deleted, but my disk space remains the same; I then go back to Disk Cleanup to see if they have been removed and they are still there. I have tried removing them individually as well, but the outcome is still the same. Can someone please tell me why this is happening and what I can do to get them to delete properly?

  Read the article

• How do I free some disk space so Ubuntu will boot again?

  - by Omkant

  I have installed Windows and Ubuntu side by side. I created a 10GB partition for the Ubuntu installation. During the two months I've been using Ubuntu I have installed some software. Now it's not starting. When I boot up it says that there is no diskspace so it could not be started . What can i do now? When I boot up all I get is a black screen terminal with a $. Please help me with a command to uninstall some programs and start using Ubuntu or any other way to get rid of this message.

  Read the article

• using one disk as cache for others

  - by HugoRune

  Hi Given a PC with several hard drives: Is it possible to use one fast disk as a giant file cache? I.e. automatically copying frequently accessed data to that one disk, and transparently redirecting reads and writes to that disk, so that other drives would only have be accessed occassionally. (writes would have to be forwarded to the other disks after a while of course) Advantages: the other drives could be powered down most of the time; reducing power, heat, noise speed of the other drives would not matter much. cache disk could be solid state. How can I set such a system up? What OS supports these options? Is this possible at all using Windows or Linux?

  Read the article

• Virtualbox, merging snapshots and base disk

  - by Henrik

  Hi, I have a virtual machine with about 30 snapshots in branches. The current development path is 22 snapshots plus the base disk. The amount of files is seemingly having an impact now on IO and the dev laptop I'm using (don't know if it is host disk performance issues with the 140GB total size over a lot of fragments, or just the fact that it is hitting sectors distributed across a lot of files). I would like to merge the current development branch of snapshots together with the base disk, but I am unsure if the following command would produce the correct outcome. I am not able to boot this disk after the procedure completes (5-6 hours). vboxmanage clonehd "C:\VPC-Storage\.VirtualBox\Machines\CRM\Snapshots\{245b27ac-e658-470a-b978-8e62137c33b1}.vhd" "E:\crm-20100624.vhd" --format VHD --type normal Could anyone confirm if this is the correct approach or not?

  Read the article

• How do I set up disk quotas over LDAP on CentOs?

  - by Noxshun

  I've been google-ing for some time and I haven't been able to find any resources or hints on the subject. I am wondering if it is possible to do so, if so how? Any nudge in right direction will be appricated. I do know that if you download and install "Linux Quota" from source, you'll get some perl scripts which are supposed to aid with the matter. But there is as far as I know absolutely no good documentation to help you along the way. I am also running a NFS server from the same machine. Note: This is for a university assignment, so I might be totally stupid for asking this question. I am trying to explore the options. If there is a better way of solving this, please do tell. Edit: Here is a link to the site of Linux Quota. They do include a LDAP schema, so it should be possible.

  Read the article

• How do I make an encrypted disk image on Debian?

  - by Blacklight Shining

  I'm basically looking for an equivalent to OS X's encrypted sparsebundles. The solution should have support for file ACLs and should not force me to specify a size in the beginning (the image should only take up as much space as it needs) or require root access to mount and unmount. Ideally, I should be able to set two different passwords (both for the same data), but that's not too important. (I do have root access to the machine and so can install packages and such, but I would rather not have to sudo just to mount an image.)

  Read the article

• Partition falsly recognized as RAW

  - by Paul Hiemstra

  On my 2 TB data disk I have two primary partitions, one of 1.6 TB for data storage in Linux (ext3) and one of 300 GB for some additional data storage for Windows. I run a dual-boot Windows 7/Ubuntu 12.04 install. The issue I have that if I start my computer into Windows 7, bot the partitions on my 2TB data drive are not recognized. In stead, Windows 7 sees one 1TB partition with type RAW. However, if I reboot to Linux, and then back to Windows 7, the partitions are correctly recognized. The following two screenshots illustrate my situation. Before I reboot to linux: and after the reboot: I have two questions: What could cause this behavior? How can I solve this issue.

  Read the article

• A failed disk (Pay for professional service or SpinRite?)(new edit)

  - by huggie

  EDIT: After much negotiating and begging and seeing through promotion smoke screen, thanks to the nice representative who took my case, I now know that the engineer has already fixed my NTFS partition (I guess it might be a bad block in the partition table?). She told me that the problem was considered minor, and I should be able to boot normally and just copy stuff out. Whew..I'm glad I didn't agree to the NTD $16,000 deal. New question (should this be in a new thread?): is it safer to use the linux "dd" command or is it better to boot normally into Windows XP and just copy stuff out? EDIT2: Thanks to all the help. I give the best answer to Console as it's most directed related to my question. But many suggestion are helpful and informational. ---- ORIGINAL POST BELOW --- Hi, in my previous post (You don't need to read but it's at http://superuser.com/questions/48838/windows-xp-a-disk-read-error-occurred), I said that my hard disk was not booting and is showing "a disk read error occurred". I took it to a recovery professional. A representative responded today told me that the NTFS partitions have a "NTFS partition system crash". I have no idea what that means. The engineer handling my drive will not be available for contact till tomorrow. Now the company charges me NTD (New Taiwan Dollar) $16,000 to recover lost data, that's kind of a lot considering that my graduate student monthly stipend is currently NTD $32,000 (max. allowed by regulation, may be lower, may change depend on funding). Now I'm weighting in between the options. Option A: let the professional recovers it with the half of my monthly stipend. If file/directories I designated are not recovered I don't pay a penny. (other than the initial examination fee of NTD $1000 which I've already paid.) Option B: let me try SpinRite, if failed, back to Option A. I spoke to the representative at the company they recommended me not to handle it on my own (yeah of course that's what they all want to say, right?), and at the price tag the disk error is probably relatively minor and data recoverable. But the representative really did not have detailed information of the disk failure so I didn't take her recommendation readily. Though one thing I heed was that she said that what they would do is to duplicate the disk before attempting discovery, so there would be no data loss (Is this true? can't duplicating invoke further data loss?). That sounds very good to me. Or maybe a third option: Option C: Negotiate with them to pay them to duplicate the disk hopefully for a much smaller price tag. Let me try SpinRite, if failed, back to Option A. This is a difficult decision. Ultimately I want my data back, but if a cheaper way is available to achieve the same thing... Can operating with SpinRite also corrupt data in someway? I've no idea what happened to my drive. I'll attempt to contact the engineer and hope to get it clarified and make an edit here.

  Read the article

• Which way is the fastest to `dd` to the last 512 kilobytes of disk

  - by teerapap

  I have a 512G disk and I want to clear the last 512k bytes at the end of the disk. I usually clear it by dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da0 the whole disk. Which way is the fastest to do this operation?

  Read the article

• How to see disk usage with less overhead in bash?

  - by apache

  du -csh / The above will take huge amount of time to calculate,is there a way to see the less accurate result with less overhead?

  Read the article

• Force RAID to read exiled disk?

  - by user198847

  user user197015 asked on 1th of November the following question: "We have a RAID 6 array (Infortrend EonStor DS S16F) that recently had two disks fail. Immediately prior to replacing these two disks, a third, good, disk was accidentally ejected from the array. After reinserting this disk it is marked as "exiled" by the array's firmware, and so even after replacing the two failed disks with new ones the array refuses to rebuild the logical volume and remains inaccessible. Since the temporarily-ejected disk is still functional and nothing has been written to the array since it was ejected, it seems that it should theoretically be possible to recover all the data on the array, but how can we convince the array to use the data from the "exiled" disk? Thanks for any help or advice you can offer." Now I've got quite the same problem. The post has been deleted by the user, so I don#t know if he was successful. Is there anybody who can help me? Thank you!

  Read the article

• In Linux, is it possible to get a listing of drives' disk space usage that also shows volume labels?

  - by DavidH

  I know about df, of course, but df does not output volume labels. I have 5 USB hard drives plugged into my NAS box, and would love to know which is which. Current df output: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 27G 2.2G 24G 9% / none 56M 476K 55M 1% /dev none 60M 0 60M 0% /dev/shm none 60M 332K 59M 1% /var/run none 60M 0 60M 0% /var/lock none 60M 0 60M 0% /lib/init/rw /dev/sde1 150G 102G 48G 68% /media/usb0 /dev/sdb1 299G 196G 103G 66% /media/usb1 /dev/sdc1 233G 183G 51G 79% /media/usb2 /dev/sdd1 233G 209G 25G 90% /media/usb3 /dev/sdf1 150G 101G 49G 68% /media/usb4

  Read the article

• Running Windows 7 physical disk virtualized under Linux

  - by CajunLuke

  I have an existing Windows 7 installation that I'd like to virtualize under Linux. Windows boots fine on Disk A, Linux boots fine on Disk B. (Both disks are SATA.) I can mount the Windows disk when in Linux. I've tried VirtualBox and VMWare Player and neither will allow me to boot from the other disk. VirtualBox doesn't seem to have the option to do so. VMWare Player has the option to have an IDE drive exposed to the virtual environment as a SCSI disk. I've tried that, but it throws the error "Cannot connect virtual device ide1:0 because no corresponding device is available on the host." I've verified that it's pointing to the correct hard drive. I'm willing to try other virtualization products, and I'm not averse to spending a little money to get this to work. I've seen this other question, and it's not a duplicate, as I haven't gotten that far yet. I'm also interested in solutions going the other way (Linux on Windows), but that'd be lagniappe. Gory Hardware Details: Lenovo T410, 2.4 GHz Core i5 (has virtualization extensions), 4GiB RAM, 2x 320 GiB SATA HDD, one in optical bay. Fedora 14 2.6.35.10-74.fc14.x86_64, Windows 7 32-bit.

  Read the article

• RAID1: Which disk will be mirrored?

  - by tmelen

  How does a RAID1 system determine which disk to use as the source and which disk to use as the destination when mirroring? Assume for instance the following scenario: A RAID1 array is created with two disks A and B. A is replaced by disk C, which is added to the array. Files are beeing modified as time goes by. Now B is removed and A is reinserted. Will the RAID1 system realize that A and C are out of sync? And that C is more up-to-date than A? And if not, is there a safe way to avoid the mirroring process to start immediately when disk A is inserted?

  Read the article

• what's wrong to my extra hard disk?

  - by Paul

  i'm adding some hard disk on my computer.when i on my computer the extra hard disk was detected by my computer but when i open My Computer the extra hard disk was not on there. What happen?

  Read the article

• Windows 8: 100% disk active time, no actual data transferred

  - by fingerbangpalateclick

  Occasionally, like several times an hour, my hard drive will appear to lock up: Task Manager will show 100% active time with read and write speeds of 0. I can still switch between open windows, but anything that requires a disk access will stall for around a minute until the hard disk starts working properly again. It happens at apparently random intervals, and only happens in Windows 8. Not 7, nor Linux. It is probably not a problem with the disk itself: This is a relatively new hard drive, and S.M.A.R.T. is showing no errors. Only happens in Windows 8: not any other OS that has used the same partition, or different partitions. So, what is going on? How can I fix this? Note: this is a different problem then this one: Extremely high disk activity without any real usage My task manager would look similar, but Average Response Time, Read Speed, and Write Speed would all be 0.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >