Search Results

Search found 3461 results on 139 pages for 'drives'.

Page 27/139 | < Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >

• Why doesn't Ubuntu detect my second hard drive?

  - by user93179

  I am new to Linux and to Ubuntu, I was wondering, I have two hard drives setup in SATA ports (non-raid, at least I don't think they are). I installed ubuntu unto the drives fresh without any previous versions or windows at all. However when I got the Ubuntu 12.04 LTS working, all I see is 1 x 120 gigabyte harddrive. Also, not sure if this is important or not, my hard drives are SSD. My computer specs are Asus P9Z77-V-LK Nvidia Geforce GTX 660 TI Intel i5 3570k 3.4 /proc/partitions shows: major minor #blocks name 8 0 117220824 sda 8 1 117219328 sda1 8 16 117220824 sdb 8 17 96256 sdb1 8 18 108780544 sdb2 8 19 8342528 sdb3 11 0 1048575 sr0 and ls -l /sys/block/ | grep -v /virtual/: lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Sep 27 17:26 sda - ../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/host0/target0:0:0/0:0:0:0/block/sda lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Sep 27 17:26 sdb - ../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/host1/target1:0:0/1:0:0:0/block/sdb lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Sep 27 22:26 sdc - ../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1a.0/usb1/1-1/1-1.1/1-1.1:1.0/host6/target6:0:0/6:0:0:0/block/sdc lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Sep 27 22:04 sr0 - ../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/host3/target3:0:0/3:0:0:0/block/sr0 sudo file -s /dev/sd*: /dev/sda: x86 boot sector; partition 1: ID=0x7, starthead 32, startsector 2048, 234438656 sectors, code offset 0xc0, OEM-ID " ?", Bytes/sector 190, sectors/cluster 124, reserved sectors 191, FATs 6, root entries 185, sectors 64514 (volumes 32 MB) , physical drive 0x7e, dos 32 MB) , FAT (32 bit), sectors/FAT 749, reserved3 0x800000, serial number 0x35361a2b, unlabeled /dev/sdb2: Linux rev 1.0 ext4 filesystem data, UUID=387761ac-5eba-4d0f-93ba-746a82fb541d (needs journal recovery) (extents) (large files) (huge files) /dev/sdb3: data /dev/sdc: x86 boot sector; partition 1: ID=0xc, active, starthead 0, startsector 8064, 30473088 sectors, code offset 0xc0 /dev/sdc1: x86 boot sector, code offset 0x58, OEM-ID "SYSLINUX", sectors/cluster 64, reserved sectors 944, Media descriptor 0xf8, heads 128, hidden sectors 8064, sectors 30473088 (volumes 32 MB) , FAT (32 bit), sectors/FAT 3720, Backup boot sector 8, serial number 0xf90c12e9, label: "KINGSTON " /dev/sda1: x86 boot sector, code offset 0x52, OEM-ID "NTFS ", sectors/cluster 8, reserved sectors 0, Media descriptor 0xf8, heads 255, hidden sectors 2048, dos 32 MB) , FAT (32 bit), sectors/FAT 749, reserved3 0x800000, serial number 0x35361a2b, unlabeled Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks Another thing I noticed is, when i use gparted to locate my drives, it seems that sda1 is my second drive that I am not detecting when I boot up and my ubuntu + FAT Boot files are installed in sdb1

  Read the article

• Window's Files not appearing in Ubuntu.

  - by oneremainsclear

  I'm trying to delete old system files in Windows 7, I switched into Ubuntu to delete the files there but now I can't see the files. They are on my D: drive and I can see all of the files on my C: drive, but not the D. I know that ubuntu doesn't enumerate the drives but I have located the drives in Ubuntu and am still having trouble accessing the files. I have tried using ctrl + H but the files still do not show up.

  Read the article

• Accessing Network Drive in C#

  Network Drives are those locations that are mapped to a drive or folder in another system which can be accessed over network. I will show how to access the network drives.

  Read the article

• Dell Perc 6i with FreeBSD 8.1 errors with mfi0: COMMAND xxxxxxxx TIMEOUT AFTER xxx SECONDS

  - by jDempster

  We've recently bought two Dell PowerEdge R710 servers with Perc 6i controllers and 6x 135GB SAS Drives. We'd done some pretty extensive testing on a Dell PowerEdge R510 server with a Perc 6i and 4x 135GB SAS Drives running FreeBSD 8.1 for it's wonderful ZFS support and mfiutil. We hadn't had any problems with the R510 and had got to a point where we where happy with the performance of ZFS. Since running FreeBSD 8.1 on the R710 we've been getting errors from the RAID controller. mfi0: COMMAND 0xffffff80005d1770 TIMEOUT AFTER 6178 SECONDS This usually brings the system to a stand still. But it doesn't always happen, and performs very well up until it does happen. We've been running the disk as 3 mirrored drives striped in ZFS. So far we've noticed that running the drives with RAID10 on the RAID seems to work without errors (still testing). At first I thought hardware error as we'd been running FreeBSD on the R510 with the same controller without any issues. But both R710 have the same issue. All controllers are running the same firmware.

  Read the article

• smartctl not actually running self tests?

  - by canzar

  I want to run the smartctl self tests to check the health of the drives in my RAID array (PERC 5/i). The array is on sda and comprises six drives. I can check the status using sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -a And I see that SMART is available and enabled on all the drives. I have tried to run self tests using sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -t short and sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -t long I have also tried it on all of the drives 0-5. No matter what I try, when I run: sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -l selftest I always get the same result, which seems to always report that I have never run a self test. /dev/sda [megaraid_disk_00] [SAT]: Device open changed type from 'megaraid' to 'sat' ===START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 No self-tests have been logged. [To run self-tests, use: smartctl -t] From what I read, I should have no problem running the short and long self tests on the array while it is mounted. Does anyone else have experience running these tests on a PERC 5/i raid array who could lend some insight into what is causing the problem? (smartmontools release 5.40 dated 2009-12-09 at 21:00:32 UTC)

  Read the article

• ZFS: Mirror vs. RAID-Z

  - by John Clayton

  I'm planning on building a file server using OpenSolaris and ZFS that will provide two primary services - be an iSCSI target for XenServer virtual machines & be a general home file server. The hardware I'm looking at includes 2x 4-port SATA controllers, 2x small boot drives (one on each controller), and 4x big drives for storage. This allows one free port per controller for upgrading the array down the road. Where I'm a little confused is how to setup the storage drives. For performance, mirroring appears to be king. I'm having a hard time seeing what the benefit would be of using RAIDZ over mirroring would be. With this setup I can see two options - two mirrored pools in one stripe, or RAIDZ2. Both should protect against 2 drive failures, and/or one controller failure...the only benefit of RAIDZ2 would be that any 2 drives could fail. The storage should be 50% of capacity in both cases, but the first should have much better performance, right? The other thing I'm trying to wrap my mind around is the benefit of mirrored arrays with more than two devices. For data integrity what, if any, would be the benefit of a RAIDZ over a three-way mirror? Since ZFS maintains file integrity what does RAIDZ bring to the table...doesn't ZFS's integrity checks negate the value of RAIDZ's parity?

  Read the article

• Can I have a single solid state drive and a RAID array on the same machine?

  - by jaminto

  Hi- To summarize, i'm looking to use a single solid state drive as my primary drive, and two conventional sata drives in a RAID 1 configuration for data. I am trying to install 64-bit Windows 7 onto this configuration. Is this possible? Here are the details: I built a desktop that has been running 64-bit Vista on two 500Gb in a RAID 1 array for a few years. I just purchased an Intel X25-M 80Gb Sata Solid-State Drive, and was planning on using this a my primary drive, and keeping the RAID 1 array as my data drive. I added the SSD drive and in the RAID setup, configured it as a RAID 0 array of only one disk. Then, I tried to do a clean install of windows 7 64-bit, but got stuck in the "Missing driver for CD/DVD drive" black hole of selecting driver files and Windows telling me that i don't have the appropriate driver for my hardware. The missing hardware is NOT a CD/DVD drive, since i'm installing off of my only CD/DVD drive. Plus at one point i was able to point it at a driver for my raid controller, and then my hard drives magically showed up as browsable sources for finding drivers for some other unnamed device that setup couldn't recognize. After a few hours of trying drivers (this was a very slow process) i decided to reboot and look at the BIOS settings. I'm using an ASUS M2A-VM motherboard which has an ATI SB600 RAID controller on board. I switched the "On board SATA Type" setting from "SATA" to "AHCI" thinking that since AHCI is an Intel thing, this would help. Unfortunately, this abandoned my RAID configuration, and my previously mirrored drives are showing up as separate drives when i boot into my current windows installation. Am i trying to do the impossible here? Should i just buy a separate SATA/RAID PCI card and plug the SSD into that? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• How to recover deleted NTFS partitions?

  - by Frank

  Last night I made a terrible mistake. I was reinstalling Windows and I accidentally deleted all the partitions on all my drives. I realized my mistake before I had created any partitions, so nothing has been written to any of the disks. I'm currently at my wits' end about what I'll do if I don't manage to recover the data. I have two 1TB drives and a 2TB. One of the 1TB was the drive I was supposed to be reformatting so nothing to be recovered there. I am currently in a Linux livecd. In this article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/245725 Microsoft advises to recreate the exact same partition but choose not to format it, and then recover the backup boot sector from the end of the ntfs volume. But none of the drives I want to recover are bootable drives. So does that mean I do not need to rewrite the boot sector? As in if I simply recreate a partition of the same size it will see all my data? Or would I be better off using the TestDisk utility? http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk Please help, I'm desperate!!

  Read the article

• What parts should I get for an ASRock x58 Extreme motherboard

  - by Brad Gilbert

  I just received an ASRock x58 Extreme motherboard, for my post on this question. It was a 2009 Tom's Hardware recommended buy. It is a Core i7 motherboard, with an X58 Express Chipset. It uses DDR3 RAM. What I want to know is, what parts should I get to finish it off. I'm looking for some good bargains, because of a lack of funds. The most taxing game I will probably play on it is OpenTTD. The only parts I currently have that are compatible: A Dynex 400W power supply. It appears to be an ATX 2.1 power supply, with the addition of a -5 rail. Apparently designed to be compatible with most ATX-style motherboards. Several PCI add-in cards. Mostly 10/100 Network cards Some sound cards Some video cards with a VGA connector Plenty of PATA drives. 8 GB - 80 GB Hard-drives A dozen or-so CD-ROM drives, only a handful of them are CD-RW drives. One DVD-ROM drive I have one LCD, with a 15 pin VGA connector, which I salvaged from the dump. The only thing wrong with it was some dead capacitors. It also has a stuck pixel.

  Read the article

• Disaster After Removing Two HDD From LaCie RAID 0 Case

  - by John

  This is the second time this has happened. I own a LaCie IDE RAID 0 Enclosure and the RAID went bad. The system gave me a warning that the data could be read from the RAID but that nothing could be written, and to remove the data ASAP. I did that and erased and reinitialized the RAID. System reported it was fine, no issues. I wrote to the RAID again and the system reported the same issue. So, I removed the drives and tested them individually thinking one must have gone bad. Sure enough, one HDD reported all bad blocks, every single one after the Master Boot Record. I didn't think much about it because of the age of the drives, 5 years old. So, I bought two new drives plugged them in and started up the RAID again. Exactly the same thing happened. All was fine after initializing the RAID and then the next day after powering on the RAID the exact same issue. The HDD sitting in the same position as the first "bad" HDD reported all bad blocks. Obviously, this is an issue with LaCie's bridge board not with the drives. No utility I have used has been able to bring this HDD back to life. I thought I would just copy the MBR from the good drive to the new one using a sector editor but am hesitant. Is it possible the firmware on the HDD has been corrupted by the LaCie bridge board?? What else could be the cause of such an issue? How can I fix this drive?

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 10.04 - Add RAID 1 Array?

  - by N Rahl

  I have an existing Ubuntu 10.04 desktop system setup and running on a hard drive (Drive A). I'd like to add 2 more hard drives (Drives B & C, same size) to the system and mount them as a RAID 1 array. How do I do that? I know how to create RAID arrays during the installation, but I don't want to reinstall my system, and I shouldn't have to since my system files will stay on their own drive separate from the RAID array. I've physically added both drives to the system, and formatted them as EXT3 with gparted. Ubuntu's disk utility has a "create raid" option, but it won't let me select any of my drives (it thinks they're all full). I don't mind using mdadm, but I've found several guides that are old, and give conflicting advice. Some say I have to edit an /etc/raidtab file, some say this is done automatically. So what's the current (Ubuntu 10.04) preferred way of adding a RAID 1 to an existing system? It should turn into a raid at boot, and mount itself in /home/myname/files/. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Windows 7 home backup solution, with offsite provision

  - by Richard E

  I am looking for a home backup solution for my single Windows 7 (Home Premium) PC. I have about 500GB of data to backup. I would like to spend less than GBP 300 on the solution. I don't see the need to backup the whole PC, rather specific folder branches (iTunes, photos, documents, Outlook files, user folders such as desktop, favorites etc). I would like a solution that enables me to maintain backups in two separate physical locations (e.g. home and work). To facilitate this I am imagining a storage unit with slots for two removable drives, along with three separate drives. At any one time two of the drives will be being backed up to in the storage unit. The third will be located at my work. Periodically I will take one of the drives into work and leave it there, then bring the drive that was there back home, and plug it into the storage unit. It will then be backed up along with the other drive that was left in the storage unit. This approach should cover scenarios such as virus attack and fire or theft from one location. Thoughts and comments on the sanity of this approach please...

  Read the article

• Windows 7 home backup solution, with offsite provision

  - by Richard E

  I am looking for a home backup solution for my single Windows 7 (Home Premium) PC. I have about 500GB of data to backup. I would like to spend less than GBP 300 on the solution. I don't see the need to backup the whole PC, rather specific folder branches (iTunes, photos, documents, Outlook files, user folders such as desktop, favorites etc). I would like a solution that enables me to maintain backups in two separate physical locations (e.g. home and work). To facilitate this I am imagining a storage unit with slots for two removable drives, along with three separate drives. At any one time two of the drives will be being backed up to in the storage unit. The third will be located at my work. Periodically I will take one of the drives into work and leave it there, then bring the drive that was there back home, and plug it into the storage unit. It will then be backed up along with the other drive that was left in the storage unit. This approach should cover scenarios such as virus attack and fire or theft from one location. Thoughts and comments on the sanity of this approach please...

  Read the article

• Windows 7 boot failure after update

  - by Jake

  Installed some windows 7 updates today, mostly just optional fixes and it installed an update to my IntelliType or IntelliPoint drivers (Keyboard & Mouse). It asked to reboot, computer gets to the windows load screen and redirects to the repair utility. Repair utility failed, it said if I recently installed a device, unplug it and try to restart. So I unplugged my keyboard and mouse, restarted. Nothing. I noticed that all the errors seemed to be Windows 7 thinking the installation was on another one of my slave drives. For example, my windows installation is on C:, but I have other drives, like G:, X:, etc... So it said "Critical Boot File G:\Windows\system32\drivers\amdxata.sys is corrupt, but why not C:\ ? So I unplugged ALL other hard drives, it still tried loading X:, even though the only one plugged in was C: I have the windows disk, but that didn't seem to help. I was thinking I need to fix my boot.ini or something simple like that was corrupt, the hard drives seem fine. I'm screwed, it's finals week.

  Read the article

• Ubuntu Device-mapper seems to be invincible!

  - by Andrew Bolster

  I'm working on a hopefully unrelated question question and I've got to a strange situation. First: I know very little about the very low level hardware kernal storage driver magix, so I'm hoping a) someone can help and b) someone can explain it to me better. I've been trying a dozen different configurations of my 2x500GB SATA drives over the past few hours involving switching between ACHI/IDE/RAID in my bios; After each attempt I've reset the bios option, booted into a live CD, deleting partitions and rewriting partition tables left on the drives. Now, however, I've been sitting with a /dev/mapper/nvidia_XXXXXXX1 that seems to be impossible to kill! its the only 'partition' that i see in the Ubuntu install (but I can see the others in parted) but it is only the size of one of the drives, and I know I did not set any RAID levels other than RAID0. Anyone have any ideas how I can kill this and get back to just two independent IDE drives? Or can anyone convince me of a reason to go the AHCI route? Many thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• USB External HDD NOT spinning down on Windows Vista / Windows 7

  - by Deepak

  I have 3 external 2.5" USB HDDs - all from different manufacturers and with different capacities. I also have access to multiple Windows Vista / Windows 7 / Windows XP computers. My problem is that with the Windows Vista and Windows 7 computers, the external USB drives DO NOT spin down when I do "Safely remove hardware". Windows will tell me that I can safely remove the device, but I can see (and feel the rotations of the disk when I touch the casing) that the disks are still spinning and NEVER spin down. They also never go into their suspended state (which is generally signaled with a slow flashing of the activity LED). However, with Windows XP, when I do "Safely remove hardware", I can see that the drives do indeed spin down without any issues and go into their respective suspended states. I notice that this behaviour is consistent across all my 3 drives and on different hardware. Has anybody else noticed the same issues? Is there any way we can have the same behaviour as Windows XP on Windows Vista and 7, because I feel on the long run, disconnecting the drives while they are still spinning will have a negative effect on their life span. Thanks, Deepak.

  Read the article

• Formula to calculate probability of unrecoverable read error during RAID rebuild

  - by OlafM

  I need to compare the reliability of different RAID systems with either consumer or enterprise drives. The formula to have the probability of success of a rebuild, ignoring mechanical problems, is simple: error_probability = 1 - (1-per_bit_error_rate)^bit_read and with 3 TB drives I get 38% probability to experience an URE (unrecoverable read error) for a 2+1 disks RAID5 (4.7% for enterprise drives) 21% for a RAID1 (2.4% for enterprise drives) 51% probability of error during recovery for the 3+1 RAID5 often used by users of SOHO products like Synologys. Most people don't know about this. Calculating the error for single disk tolerance is easy, my question concerns systems tolerant to multiple disks failures (RAID6/Z2, RAIDZ3 and RAID1 with multiple disks). If only the first disk is used for rebuild and the second one is read again from the beginning in case or an URE, then the error probability is the one calculated above squared (14.5% for consumer RAID5 2+1, 4.5% for consumer RAID1 1+2). However, I suppose (at least in ZFS that has full checksums!) that the second parity/available disk is read only where needed, meaning that only few sectors are needed: how many UREs can possibly happen in the first disk? not many, otherwise the error probability for single-disk tolerance systems would skyrocket even more than I calculated. If I'm correct, a second parity disk would practically lower the risk to extremely low values. Am I correct?

  Read the article

• SATA Windows 7 Problems

  - by Isaacs

  Scenario: Core 2 Duo processor, Gigabyte MB, 4 SATA Western digital 500 GB hard drives, windows 7 64 bit. Problem: Copying data from USB or among SATA hard drives is faulty. When trying to copy 20GB from one HD to another it starts off with normal ~14-15 MB/s transfer rates and eventually bogs down to < 120KB/s transfer rates. If I leave it alone over night I come back with my computer crashed and setting at BIOS detecting hard drives. Troubleshooting: Removed all but 1 HD with OS on it, everything seems to be happy. I can copy large files from USB HD to main/single HD. Ran SpinRite on all hard drives, no errors found. Tried adding one HD to machine and problem exists, tried switching SATA cables, and SATA ports on MB. Reinstalled windows 7 x2 (from different disks..). Oddly enough if I boot to a ubuntu everything works fine. Getting ready to purchase a new MB, but wanted to see if anyone had suggestions. Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to change my W2k8 System Partition?

  - by Chris May

  On my Windows 2008 server, my C: is 1.5 TB, and the partition is marked as: Healthy (Boot, Page File, Active, Crash Dump, Primary Partition) and somehow I ended up with a 2GB D: that is marked as Healthy (System). On this D: drive are only a few MB worth of files (bootmgr, boot folder, bootsect.bak), but all Windows files are on the c:. I've done everything I can to remove the (System) mark. I tried using bcdedit, I tried marking the C:partition as "Active", I tried using bootsect.exe to assign the C: drive as the boot partition. Maybe I didn't do one of those steps correct, but I've tried everything I can. When I got my new Dell Poweredge T710, I didn't bother removing their 2 small drives before I put in my 2 new large drives. So I think when I installed W2k8 Server, maybe dell left some bootable partition on their drives to help me install the OS, but I never used it and just booted right from the install CD. Can anyone help me remove the (System) mark from the D: so I can remove the D: partition and still boot to the C:? I know I could remove the D: drives and reinstall windows, but I'm trying to avoid a total reinstall.

  Read the article

• How to create partition when growing raid5 with mdadm.

  - by hometoast

  I have 4 drives, 2x640GB, and 2x1TB drives. My array is made up of the four 640GB partitions and the beginning of each drive. I want to replace both 640GB with 1TB drives. I understand I need to 1) fail a disk 2) replace with new 3) partition 4) add disk to array My question is, when I create the new partition on the new 1TB drive, do I create a 1TB "Raid Auto Detect" partition? Or do I create another 640GB partition and grow it later? Or perhaps the same question could be worded: after I replace the drives how to I grow the 640GB raid partitions to fill the rest of the 1TB drive? fdisk info: Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xe3d0900f Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 77825 625129281 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb2 77826 121601 351630720 83 Linux Disk /dev/sdc: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xc0b23adf Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 1 77825 625129281 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc2 77826 121601 351630720 83 Linux Disk /dev/sdd: 640.1 GB, 640135028736 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 77825 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x582c8b94 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdd1 1 77825 625129281 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sde: 640.1 GB, 640135028736 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 77825 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xbc33313a Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sde1 1 77825 625129281 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/md0: 1920.4 GB, 1920396951552 bytes 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 468846912 cylinders Units = cylinders of 8 * 512 = 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000

  Read the article

• Optimizing Disk I/O & RAID on Windows SQL Server 2005

  - by David

  I've been monitoring our SQL server for a while, and have noticed that I/O hits 100% every so often using Task Manager and Perfmon. I have normally been able to correlate this spike with SUSPENDED processes in SQL Server Management when I execute "exec sp_who2". The RAID controller is controlled by LSI MegaRAID Storage Manager. We have the following setup: System Drive (Windows) on RAID 1 with two 280GB drives SQL is on a RAID 10 (2 mirroed drives of 280GB in two different spans) This is a database that is hammered during the day, but is pretty inactive at night. The DB size is currently about 13GB, and is used by approximately 200 (and growing) users a day. I have a couple of ideas I'm toying around with: Checking for Indexes & reindexing some tables Adding an additional RAID 1 (with 2 new, smaller, HDs) and moving the SQL's Log Data File (LDF) onto the new RAID. For #2, my question is this: Would we really be increasing disk performance (IO) by moving data off of the RAID 10 onto a RAID 1? RAID 10 obviously has better performance than RAID 1. Furthermore, SQL must write to the transaction logs before writing to the database. But on the flip side, we'll be reducing both the size of the disks as well as the amount of data written to the RAID 10, which is where all of the "meat" is - thereby increasing that RAID's performance for read requests. Is there any way to find out what our current limiting factor is? (The drives vs. the RAID Controller)? If the limiting factor is the drives, then maybe adding the additional RAID 1 makes sense. But if the limiting factor is the Controller itself, then I think we're approaching this thing wrong. Finally, are we just wasting our time? Should we instead be focusing our efforts towards #1 (reindexing tables, reducing network latency where possible, etc...)?

  Read the article

• Defrag starting when not scheduled. What is triggering the defrag

  - by leroyclark

  I have a fileserver that is starting a defrag around 2:00 PM everyday. This is killing performance as it runs for ours becuase this is a file server and has multiple drives. All scheduled tasks regarding defrag have been disabled. I have verified that it is accessing the data drives(using SysInternals tools). The reason I might have though otherwise was the event log has multiple entries regarding defragging a db file related to shadow copies. Oh yes these drives take shadow copy snapshots multiple times per day but the times of them don't coincide with the defrag task. There is nothing in the event logs regarding defrag except those noted above in relation to shadow copies. I'm out of ideas looking for what is starting these jobs. One possiblility is that the drives are not being defgramented, but being analyized to determine if they need to be defragmented. I manually ran an analysis and the cpu usage(by dfrgntfs.exe) seems to be similar to what I'm seeing everday while the defrag process is running. However I've found no setting that schedules this analysis.

  Read the article

• Dell OpenManage On Ubuntu Server 12.04 Cannot Log In

  - by Austin

  I have a Dell Poweredge 2950 with 2X130GB and 2X2TB drives. I need to set them up in a RAID 1 array so that the 130GB Drives are mirrored and host the OS, while the 2TB drives are mirrored and are the content drives. So I go from 4 disks, down to two, one 130GB and one 2TB. I can do that in the BIOS RAID utility no problem. But I need to be able to manage the RAID arrays and be able to expand them WITHOUT shutting down the server. Now, to my understanding, openmanage will allow me to do that AND it runs on ubuntu. So I go and set it up and try to log into the web interface at and it will not let me log in. I have followed dell's guide to set up openmanage, even added the usernames to the files and permissions and such, however, cannot get it to let me log in or anything. I have reinstalled Openmanage several times, even reinstalled the OS three times, and nothing works. Google does not help either. It simply says login failed after hitting submit. Please Help

  Read the article

• Are there any disadvantages of having a "free fall sensor" on a hard disk drive?

  - by therobyouknow

  This is a general question that came out of a specific comparison between the Western Digital Scorpio WD3200BEKT and Western Digital Scorpio WD3200BJKT (which is the same as the former but with a free fall sensor.) Note: I'm not asking for a review or appraisal of these specific drives, as the general question does apply on other brands as well. Though your input would help my decision. To break down the general question in order to answer it, I would be looking for comments on things like: if it's necessary to have differing physical dimensions between free fall sensor drives and those without, e.g. does it make it any thicker, and therefore reduce the systems where it can be installed - particularly smaller laptops? does it actually make the system less reliable - because of false alarms whereby the drive thought the laptop was falling but it wasn't? I suppose that the fact that a manufacturer produces both drives with and without free fall sensors says something about possible disadvantages. Or it could be standard marketing techniques where by making drives with and without results in larger sales volume than just those with the feature alone.

  Read the article

• External SATA drive does not work without the optional USB cable *also* connected

  - by Software Monkey

  I have Vantec NST-260SU external eSATA/USB drive enclosure (which came with an optional separate power supply) connected to a relatively new Windows 7 computer. The drive should work as a SATA drive with either the separate power supply or using a USB cable solely for power. I would prefer to use the external power supply because I have used all my rear USB ports. Now, if I connect both the eSATA and USB cable, then: The drive shows in the BIOS list of AHCI drives (and not in the list of attached USB devices). Everything I can see about it in Computer Management seems to show it as a SATA driver (for example, it shows as "Location 0 (Channel 5, Target 0, Lun 0)" like my other SATA drives (and not "on USB Mass Storage Device" like my USB flash-drives). It seems very fast, very much faster than my USB flash drives. However, if I disconnect the USB cable and attach the power adapter instead, the drive does not show in the BIOS list and cannot be seen by Windows. The power LED on the enclosure is lit, and the drive enclosure becomes warm after running for a bit, so I am sure it is receiving power. Does anyone know if this device requires both the USB and eSATA cable, and if so, why? Or is there possibly something I need to do to reset the enclosure to not need the USB - the install instructions are pretty clear that you must connect the SATA cable before connecting the USB cable in order for the drive to function as SATA, which I am sure I did. PS: I have reviewed the small manual which came with it, which has not been of help.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >