Search Results

Search found 8876 results on 356 pages for 'hardware raid'.

Page 36/356 | < Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >

• How does one enable --write-mostly with Linux RAID?

  - by user76871

  Unfortunately the mdadm and mdadm.conf man pages are not quite up to par. I would like to enable the --write-mostly flag for my RAID, but neither the man pages nor the internet will tell me how. I am not aware of any place to put default arguments for mdadm, nor aware of when it would be launched and by what. It seems the logical place to add this information is mdadm.conf, but the flag is unmentioned in man mdadm.conf. Where and how can I enable --write-mostly? Thank you.

  Read the article

• mdadm raid1 fails to resync

  - by JuanD

  Hello, I'm trying to solve this problem I'm having with an mdadm raid1. I have an ubuntu 9.04 server running on a software 2-drive raid1 with mdadm. Yesterday, one of the drives failed, and so I replaced it with a brand new drive of the same size. I removed the faulty drive, copied the partition from the remaining good drive to the new drive and then added it to the raid. It re-synced and the system worked fine, until the drive that hadn't failed, was also labeled failed. Now I had the raid running solely on the new drive. So I purchased another drive and repeated the procedure above. So now I had 2 brand new drives and the raid was syncing. However, after a few minutes I checked /proc/mdstat and the raid was no longer syncing. mdadm --detail /dev/md1 shows: (sdb is the first new drive, and sdc is the second new drive) root@dola:/home/jjaramillo# mdadm --detail /dev/md1 /dev/md1: Version : 00.90 Creation Time : Sat Dec 20 00:42:05 2008 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 974711680 (929.56 GiB 998.10 GB) Used Dev Size : 974711680 (929.56 GiB 998.10 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 1 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Wed Jun 2 10:09:35 2010 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 1 UUID : bba497c6:5029ba0b:bfa4f887:c0dc8f3d Events : 0.5395594 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 2 8 35 0 spare rebuilding /dev/sdc3 1 8 19 1 active sync /dev/sdb3 I've tried removing and re-adding the drive a few times, but the same thing happens. The raid fails to resync. I've looked at /var/log/messages, and found the following: Jun 2 07:57:36 dola kernel: [35708.917337] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Unhandled sense code Jun 2 07:57:36 dola kernel: [35708.917339] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE Jun 2 07:57:36 dola kernel: [35708.917342] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Sense Key : Medium Error [current] [descriptor] Jun 2 07:57:36 dola kernel: [35708.917346] Descriptor sense data with sense descriptors (in hex): Jun 2 07:57:36 dola kernel: [35708.917348] 72 03 11 04 00 00 00 0c 00 0a 80 00 00 00 00 00 Jun 2 07:57:36 dola kernel: [35708.917357] 00 43 9e 47 Jun 2 07:57:36 dola kernel: [35708.917360] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Add. Sense: Unrecovered read error - auto reallocate failed So it looks like there's some kind of error on sdb (the first new drive). My question is, what would be the best approach to get the raid up and running again? I've thought about dd'ing the /dev/md1 to a blank hard drive, then re-doing the raid from scratch and loading the data back, but there could be an easier solution.. Any help would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Free eBook: SQL Server Hardware

  SQL Server Hardware will provide the fundamental knowledge and resources you need to make intelligent decisions about choice, and optimal installation and configuration, of SQL Server hardware, operating system and the SQL Server RDBMS. New! SQL Prompt 6 – now with tab historyWriting, exploring, and editing SQL just became even more effortless with SQL Prompt 6. Download a free trial.

  Read the article

• Can a RAID disk setup crash if only 1 hard disk fails?

  - by Steve Rodrigue

  I am a web developer. I have not much experience in hardware. For this reason, I use managed servers. This morning, one of the drives in our setup failed. However, the full site went down. I asked my web host what happened and he replied that the hard disk failed in such a way that the RAID controller couldn't work properly. Do you guys ever seen that before? Is it possible? Thanks for any help on this guys. I need to know if my web host is honest with me. Steve

  Read the article

• What is the procedure to replace a failing hard drive in a RAID array?

  - by slayton

  3 years ago a co-worker setup a software RAID-6 array on Ubuntu 9.04 and I'm getting messages from the OS that the drive has bad sectors and should be replaced. I'd like to remove this drive and replace it with a new drive, however, I have never done this before and I'm terrified that in the process of fixing the array I'm going to end up ruining it. I know the device ID of the array and I know the device IDs of the individual drives in the array. Additionally I physically have the bad drive. What are the steps to replace the bad drive with a new drive and get the array running again?

  Read the article

• Can different drive speeds and sizes be used in a hardware RAID configuration w/o affecting performance?

  - by R. Dill

  Specifically, I have a RAID 1 array configuration with two 500gb 7200rpm SATA drives mirrored as logical drive 1 (a) and two of the same mirrored as logical drive 2 (b). I'd like to add two 1tb 5400rpm drives in the same mirrored fashion as logical drive 3 (c). These drives will only serve as file storage with occasional but necessary access, and therefore, space is more important than speed. In researching whether this configuration is doable, I've been told and have read that the array will only see the smallest drive size and slowest speed. However, my understanding is that as long as the pairs themselves aren't mixed (and in this case, they aren't) that the array should view and use all drives at their actual speed and size. I'd like to be sure before purchasing the additional drives. Insight anyone?

  Read the article

• File Server - Storage configuration: RAID vs LVM vs ZFS something else... ?

  - by privatehuff

  We are a small company that does video editing, among other things, and need a place to keep backup copies of large media files and make it easy to share them. I've got a box set up with Ubuntu Server and 4 x 500 GB drives. They're currently set up with Samba as four shared folders that Mac/Windows workstations can see fine, but I want a better solution. There are two major reasons for this: 500 GB is not really big enough (some projects are larger) It is cumbersome to manage the current setup, because individual hard drives have different amounts of free space and duplicated data (for backup). It is confusing now and that will only get worse once there are multiple servers. ("the project is on sever2 in share4" etc) So, I need a way to combine hard drives in such a way as to avoid complete data loss with the failure of a single drive, and so users see only a single share on each server. I've done linux software RAID5 and had a bad experience with it, but would try it again. LVM looks ok but it seems like no one uses it. ZFS seems interesting but it is relatively "new". What is the most efficient and least risky way to to combine the hdd's that is convenient for my users? Edit: The Goal here is basically to create servers that contain an arbitrary number of hard drives but limit complexity from an end-user perspective. (i.e. they see one "folder" per server) Backing up data is not an issue here, but how each solution responds to hardware failure is a serious concern. That is why I lump RAID, LVM, ZFS, and who-knows-what together. My prior experience with RAID5 was also on an Ubuntu Server box and there was a tricky and unlikely set of circumstances that led to complete data loss. I could avoid that again but was left with a feeling that I was adding an unnecessary additional point of failure to the system. I haven't used RAID10 but we are on commodity hardware and the most data drives per box is pretty much fixed at 6. We've got a lot of 500 GB drives and 1.5 TB is pretty small. (Still an option for at least one server, however) I have no experience with LVM and have read conflicting reports on how it handles drive failure. If a (non-striped) LVM setup could handle a single drive failing and only loose whichever files had a portion stored on that drive (and stored most files on a single drive only) we could even live with that. But as long as I have to learn something totally new, I may as well go all the way to ZFS. Unlike LVM, though, I would also have to change my operating system (?) so that increases the distance between where I am and where I want to be. I used a version of solaris at uni and wouldn't mind it terribly, though. On the other end on the IT spectrum, I think I may also explore FreeNAS and/or Openfiler, but that doesn't really solve the how-to-combine-drives issue.

  Read the article

• What hardware would I need (approx) to run ESXi server?

  - by mr.b

  Hi, I am considering to purchase off-the-shelf commodity hardware in order to build server that will host virtual machines using ESXi server. Intended purpose for this server is NOT mission critical tasks. It will have to run perhaps 20-50 Windows XP/Vista/7 virtual machines (in total, but closer to 20 figure). Each guest would have to have 1-2 GB of ram, and probably two-three times more disk space than guest OS needs with clean install and all updates applied (that would be around 6-8 GB for XP, and i believe closer to 10-15 for win7). Those guests will act as a test ground for a new product that is network management software, thus guests will idle most of their time once initially loaded, but if I give them some task to complete, they should be able to perform reasonably well. Now, from what I have learned... CPU is usually not much of an issue (6 cores would do it), memory should not be lacking, but doesn't have to be sum of all guests, because of overcommitment... That leads me to IO, which is, as it seems, the bottleneck. Since I have very little experience with ESXi (and ESX, too) server, I'd like to ask: How much memory could I save by overcommitment, and how does it affect performance? Is 6-core cpu enough to run above described system? Would it be possible to run entire server off two (or even one) SSD drives (to host system virtual disks, with few additional HDDs (2-3) in RAID 0 to be used as secondary storage? I read somewhere that ESXi allows having something like "master image", essentially virtual machine that is "deployed" many times, so that disk space can be saved by having only differences stored by specific guests, instead of copying around whole virtual disks. Is this true, and how can this help me? Are there any other things I need to take into consideration when building this off-the-shelf solution? I should probably mention here that I'm fully aware of issues like SPOF regarding power supply, raid 0, etc, but since it's only a testing ground and not a production system, it's not so important for me. Thanks, B.

  Read the article

• 24TB RAID 6 configuration

  - by Phil

  I am in charge of a new website in a niche industry that stores lots of data (10+ TB per client, growing to 2 or 3 clients soon). We are considering ordering about $5000 worth of 3TB drives (10 in a RAID 6 configuration and 10 for backup), which will give us approximately 24 TB of production storage. The data will be written once and remain unmodified for the lifetime of the website, so we only need to do a backup one time. I understand basic RAID theory, however I am not experienced with it. My question is, does this sound like a good configuration? What potential problems could this setup cause? Also, what is the best way to do a one-time backup? Have two RAID 6 arrays, one for offsite backup and one for production? Or should I backup the RAID 6 production array to a JBOD? EDIT: The data server is running Windows 2008 Server x64. EDIT 2: To reduce rebuild time, what would you think about using two RAID 5's instead of one RAID 6?

  Read the article

• Can enabling a RAID controller's writeback cache harm overall performance?

  - by Nathan O'Sullivan

  I have an 8 drive RAID 10 setup connected to an Adaptec 5805Z, running Centos 5.5 and deadline scheduler. A basic dd read test shows 400mb/sec, and a basic dd write test shows about the same. When I run the two simultaneously, I see the read speed drop to ~5mb/sec while the write speed stays at more or less the same 400mb/sec. The output of iostat -x as you would expect, shows that very few read transactions are being executed while the disk is bombarded with writes. If i turn the controller's writeback cache off, I dont see a 50:50 split but I do see a marked improvement, somewhere around 100mb/s reads and 300mb/s writes. I've also found if I lower the nr_requests setting on the drive's queue (somewhere around 8 seems optimal) I can end up with 150mb/sec reads and 150mb/sec writes; ie. a reduction in total throughput but certainly more suitable for my workload. Is this a real phenomenon? Or is my synthetic test too simplistic? The reason this could happen seems clear enough, when the scheduler switches from reads to writes, it can run heaps of write requests because they all just land in the controllers cache but must be carried out at some point. I would guess the actual disk writes are occuring when the scheduler starts trying to perform reads again, resulting in very few read requests being executed. This seems a reasonable explanation, but it also seems like a massive drawback to using writeback cache on an system with non-trivial write loads. I've been searching for discussions around this all afternoon and found nothing. What am I missing?

  Read the article

• Why does my simple Raid 1 backup storage perform really slow sometimes?

  - by randomguy

  I bought 2x Samsung F3 EcoGreen 2TB hard disks to make a backup storage. I put them in Raid 1 (mirror) mode. Made a single partition and formatted it to NTFS, running Windows 7. For some reason, accessing the drive's contents (simply by navigating folders) is sometimes really slow. Like opening D:/photos/ can sometimes take several seconds before it starts showing any of the folder's contents. Same applies for other folders. What could be causing this and what could I do to improve the performance? I remember that there was an option somewhere inside Windows to choose fast access but less reliable persistence operations (read/write). It was a tick inside some dialog. At the time, it felt like a good idea to take the tick away from the option and get more reliable persistence but slower access, but now I'm regretting. I'm unable to find this dialog.. I've looked hard. I don't know, if it would make any difference. Oh, and I've ran scan disk and defrag on the drive. No errors and speed isn't improved.

  Read the article

• SQL Server 2005 Disk Configuration: Single RAID 1+0 or multiple RAID 1+0s?

  - by mfredrickson

  Assuming that the workload for the SQL Server is just a normal OLTP database, and that there are a total of 20 disks available, which configuration would make more sense? A single RAID 1+0, containing all 20 disks. This physical volume would contain both the data files and the transaction log files, but two logical drives would be created from this RAID: one for the data files and one for the log files. Or... Two RAID 1+0s, each containing 10 disks. One physical volume would contain the data files, and the other would contain the log files. The reason for this question is due to a disagreement between me (SQL Developer) and a co-worker (DBA). For every configuration that I've done, or seen others do, the data files and transaction log files were separated at the physical level, and were placed on separate RAIDs. However, my co-workers argument is that by placing all the disks into a single RAID 1+0, then any IO that is done by the server is potentially shared between all 20 disks, instead of just 10 disks in my suggested configuration. Conceptually, his argument makes sense to me. Also, I've found some information from Microsoft that seems to supports his position. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc966414.aspx In the section titled "3. RAID10 Configuration", showing a configuration in which all 20 disks are allocated to a single RAID 1+0, it states: In this scenario, the I/O parallelism can be used to its fullest by all partitions. Therefore, distribution of I/O workload is among 20 physical spindles instead of four at the partition level. But... every other configuration I've seen suggests physically separating the data and log files onto separate RAIDs. Everything I've found here on Server Fault suggests the same. I understand that a log files will be write heavy, and that data files will be a combination of reads and writes, but does this require that the files be placed onto separate RAIDs instead of a single RAID?

  Read the article

• Non-volatile cache RAID controllers: what kind of protection is there against NVCACHE failure?

  - by astrostl

  The battery back-up (BBU) model: admin enables write-back cache with BBU writes are cached to the RAID controller's RAM (major performance benefit) the battery saves uncommitted and cached data in the event of a power loss (reliability) If I lose power and come back within a day or so, my data should be both complete and uncorrupted. The downside to this is that, if the battery is dead or low, OR EVEN IF IT IS IN A RELEARN CYCLE (drain/charge loops to ensure the battery's health), the controller reverts to write-through mode and performance will suffer. What's more, the relearn cycles are usually automated on a schedule which may or may not happen in the middle of big traffic. So, that has to be manually disabled and manually scheduled for off-hours if it's a concern. Annoying either way. NV caches have capacitors with a sufficient charge to commit any uncommitted-to-disk data to flash. Not only is that more survivable in longer loss situations, but you don't have to concern yourself with battery death, wear-out, or relearning. All of that sounds great to me. What doesn't sound great to me is the prospect of that flash module having an issue, though. What if it's completely hosed? What if it's only partially hosed? A bit corrupted at the edges? Relearn cycles can tell when something like a simple battery is failing, but is there a similar process to verify that the flash is functional? I'm just far more trusting of a battery, warts and all. I know the card's RAM can fail, the card itself can fail - that's common territory, though. In case you didn't guess, yeah, I've experienced a shocking-to-me amount of flash/SSD/etc. failure :)

  Read the article

• Can a power failure or forceful shutdown damage hardware?

  - by Vilx-

  In an unrelated Internet forum I got into a discussion about hardware damage from forceful shutdowns (holding the power button for 5 seconds) and power failures. I was in the opinion that normal PC hardware does not suffer from this - after all, it's not much different than what they experience under a standard shutdown. But another person thought that it could do physical harm to the hard drive and possibly other components as well. He also said that the journaling features of filesystems are useless in face of power failures and were intended to help mitigate damage from system crashes. Now... I think this is nonsense, but then again I lack the experience and knowledge to say it with certainty. Perhaps someone else is more knowledgeable in this area and can shed light on this burning issue? :)

  Read the article

• How to find out details about hardware on the Linux machine?

  - by Evgeny

  -i.e - how to get a full list of hardware components in command line (on a machine with no window system) Thank you.

  Read the article

• Should I upgrade Exchange 2003 or just upgrade the hardware?

  - by JohnyD

  My organization currently has a 4 y/o Exchange 2003 email server (32-bit, Intel Pentium D @ 3GHz, 3GB RAM). It's run very well over the past 4 years but it is time to upgrade its hardware. This server would handle email for approximately 30 clients, a few OWA users with iPhones. My (somewhat ambiguous) question is, when I receive the new hardware should I build out a new Exchange 2003 deployment or should I look at Exchange 2007 / 2010? I've heard that Exchange 2010 requires Sharepoint 2010 (which I am currently not running). Are there benefits that a small-medium sized business can or can't do without? Am I making a horrible mistake staying with antiquated software? Other details: Exchange 2003 (v6.5 + SP2) single front-end server All opinions and thoughts are very much appreciated.

  Read the article

• Why does Windows 7 need hardware virtualization to run XP mode?

  - by Ken Pespisa

  I have a MacBook Pro and I've run VMware Fusion's unity mode and Parallels' cohesion mode along side the Mac OS X, and both work pretty seamlessly. I figured XP Mode in Windows 7 would be something similar, but I then learned my machine requires hardware virtualization support, which it does not have. My machine is an HP dc7800. That's a dual core 2.2GHz machine with 4GBs of RAM. Certainly it has the horsepower to run a virtual environment alongside the primary OS. I'm wondering: 1) Why Microsoft decided to make hardware virtualization a requirement and 2) What am I missing? Is the experience similar to Parallel's cohesion mode / Fusion's unity mode? Thanks!

  Read the article

• How I disable "Safely remove hardware" in Windows 8?

  - by DarkGhostHunter

  I have a Marvell 91XX and I just updated to Windows 8. The problem I have with the latest drivers 1.0.2.1027 is the absence of "Policies" tab inside the Properties in the Device Manager, where I could disable de "Safely Remove Hardware". It was in Windows 7, but in the new version is not, so the OS shows my two hard disks has removable hardware and I can't do anything about it. Is gone forever? Is in another part? Or is not supported? PD: The best I can come up for a fix is to roll back to Windows 7, see if the option changes some regedit value, export, update to Windows 8 and import.

  Read the article

• Hyper-V and host-installed hardware devices: can guest VMs access?

  - by gravyface

  Have a couple of servers I'd like to setup as Hyper-V Servers, with a couple of Windows 2008 Standard VMs. On the host, we have a few hardware devices we'd like to be accessible to the guest; I'm not sure if these are supported via a raw "pass-thru" on Hyper-V (which I don't have alot of experience with) if the same drivers are installed on the guest. Hardware in question is a Brooktrout fax card, a SCSI adapter for the tape drive, and a 9-pin serial connected to one of the core firewalls for management.

  Read the article

• Hyper-V and host-installed hardware devices: can guest VMs access?

  - by gravyface

  Have a couple of servers I'd like to setup as Hyper-V Servers, with a couple of Windows 2008 Standard VMs. On the host, we have a few hardware devices we'd like to be accessible to the guest; I'm not sure if these are supported via a raw "pass-thru" on Hyper-V (which I don't have a lot of experience with) if the same drivers are installed on the guest. Hardware in question is a Brooktrout fax card, a SCSI adapter for the tape drive, and a 9-pin serial connected to one of the core firewalls for management.

  Read the article

• Direct2d off-screen rendering and hardware acceleration

  - by Goran

  I'm trying to use direct2d to render images off-screen using WindowsAPICodePack. This is easily achieved using WicBitmapRenderTarget but sadly it's not hardware accelerated. So I'm trying this route: Create direct3d device Create texture2d Use texture surface to create render target using CreateDxgiSurfaceRenderTarget Draw some shapes While this renders the image it appears GPU isn't being used at all while CPU is used heavily. Am I doing something wrong? Is there a way to check whether hardware or software rendering is used? Code sample: var device = D3DDevice1.CreateDevice1( null, DriverType.Hardware, null, CreateDeviceOptions.SupportBgra ,FeatureLevel.Ten ); var txd = new Texture2DDescription(); txd.Width = 256; txd.Height = 256; txd.MipLevels = 1; txd.ArraySize = 1; txd.Format = Format.B8G8R8A8UNorm; //DXGI_FORMAT_R32G32B32A32_FLOAT; txd.SampleDescription = new SampleDescription(1,0); txd.Usage = Usage.Default; txd.BindingOptions = BindingOptions.RenderTarget | BindingOptions.ShaderResource; txd.MiscellaneousResourceOptions = MiscellaneousResourceOptions.None; txd.CpuAccessOptions = CpuAccessOptions.None; var tx = device.CreateTexture2D(txd); var srfc = tx.GraphicsSurface; var d2dFactory = D2DFactory.CreateFactory(); var renderTargetProperties = new RenderTargetProperties { PixelFormat = new PixelFormat(Format.Unknown, AlphaMode.Premultiplied), DpiX = 96, DpiY = 96, RenderTargetType = RenderTargetType.Default, }; using(var renderTarget = d2dFactory.CreateGraphicsSurfaceRenderTarget(srfc, renderTargetProperties)) { renderTarget.BeginDraw(); var clearColor = new ColorF(1f,1f,1f,1f); renderTarget.Clear(clearColor); using (var strokeBrush = renderTarget.CreateSolidColorBrush(new ColorF(0.2f,0.2f,0.2f,1f))) { for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { renderTarget.DrawEllipse(new Ellipse(new Point2F(i, i), 10, 10), strokeBrush, 2); } } var hr = renderTarget.EndDraw(); }

  Read the article

• PARTNER WEBCASTS: EMEA ALLIANCES AND CHANNELS HARDWARE WEBINARS, JULY 2012

  - by mseika

  PARTNER WEBCASTS: EMEA ALLIANCES AND CHANNELS HARDWARE WEBINARS, JULY 2012Dear partner Oracle is pleased to invite you to the following webcasts dedicated to our EMEA partner community and designed to provide you with important news on our SPARC and Storage product portfolios. Please ensure you don't miss these unique learning opportunities! 1. How to Make Money Selling SPARC!3PM CET (2pm UKT), Tuesday, July 10, 2012 The webcast will be hosted by - Rob Ludeman, from SPARC Product Management, and Thomas Ressler, WWA&C Alliances Consultant. Agenda: To bring our partners timely, valuable information, focused on increase in their success during selling SPARC systems. The webcast will be focused and targeted on specific topics and will last approximately in 30 minutes.You can submit your questions via WebEx chat and there will be a live Q&A session at the end of the webcast. REGISTER NOW 2. Introduction to Oracle’s New StorageTek SL150 Modular Tape Library3pm CET (2pm UK), Thursday, July 12, 2012 This webcast will help you to understand Oracle's New StorageTek SL150 Modular tape library which is the first scalable tape library designed for small and midsized companies that are experiencing high growth. Built from Oracle software and StorageTek library technology, it delivers a cost-effective combination of ease of use and scalability, resulting in overall TCO savings. During the webcast Cindy McCurley, from Tape Product Management will introduce you to the latest addition to the Oracle Tape Storage product portfolio, theSL150 Modular Tape Library.This 60 minutes webcast will cover the product’s features, positioning, unique selling points and a competitive overview on StorageTek. You can submit your questions via WebEx chat and there will be a live Q&A session at the end of the webcast. REGISTER NOW Delivery FormatThis FREE online LIVE eSeminar will be delivered over the Web and Conference Call. Note: Please join the call 10 minutes before the scheduled start time. We look forward to your participation. Best regards, Giuseppe FacchettiEMEA Partner Business Development Manager, Oracle Hardware Sales Sasan MoaveniEMEA Storage Sales Manager, Oracle Hardware Sales

  Read the article

• PARTNER WEBCASTS: EMEA ALLIANCES AND CHANNELS HARDWARE WEBINARS, JULY 2012

  - by mseika

  PARTNER WEBCASTS: EMEA ALLIANCES AND CHANNELS HARDWARE WEBINARS, JULY 2012Dear partner Oracle is pleased to invite you to the following webcasts dedicated to our EMEA partner community and designed to provide you with important news on our SPARC and Storage product portfolios. Please ensure you don't miss these unique learning opportunities! 1. How to Make Money Selling SPARC!3PM CET (2pm UKT), Tuesday, July 10, 2012 The webcast will be hosted by - Rob Ludeman, from SPARC Product Management, and Thomas Ressler, WWA&C Alliances Consultant. Agenda: To bring our partners timely, valuable information, focused on increase in their success during selling SPARC systems. The webcast will be focused and targeted on specific topics and will last approximately in 30 minutes.You can submit your questions via WebEx chat and there will be a live Q&A session at the end of the webcast. REGISTER NOW 2. Introduction to Oracle’s New StorageTek SL150 Modular Tape Library3pm CET (2pm UK), Thursday, July 12, 2012 This webcast will help you to understand Oracle's New StorageTek SL150 Modular tape library which is the first scalable tape library designed for small and midsized companies that are experiencing high growth. Built from Oracle software and StorageTek library technology, it delivers a cost-effective combination of ease of use and scalability, resulting in overall TCO savings. During the webcast Cindy McCurley, from Tape Product Management will introduce you to the latest addition to the Oracle Tape Storage product portfolio, theSL150 Modular Tape Library.This 60 minutes webcast will cover the product’s features, positioning, unique selling points and a competitive overview on StorageTek. You can submit your questions via WebEx chat and there will be a live Q&A session at the end of the webcast. REGISTER NOW Delivery FormatThis FREE online LIVE eSeminar will be delivered over the Web and Conference Call. Note: Please join the call 10 minutes before the scheduled start time. We look forward to your participation. Best regards, Giuseppe FacchettiEMEA Partner Business Development Manager, Oracle Hardware Sales Sasan MoaveniEMEA Storage Sales Manager, Oracle Hardware Sales

  Read the article

• TXPAUSE : polite waiting for hardware transactional memory

  - by Dave

  Classic locks are an appropriate tool to prevent potentially conflicting operations A and B, invoked by different threads, from running at the same time. In a sense the locks cause either A to run before B or vice-versa. Similarly, we can replace the locks with hardware transactional memory, or use transactional lock elision to leverage potential disjoint access parallelism between A and B. But often we want A to wait until B has run. In a Pthreads environment we'd usually use locks in conjunction with condition variables to implement our "wait until" constraint. MONITOR-MWAIT is another way to wait for a memory location to change, but it only allows us to track one cache line and it's only available on x86. There's no similar "wait until" construct for hardware transactions. At the instruction-set level a simple way to express "wait until" in transactions would be to add a new TXPAUSE instruction that could be used within an active hardware transaction. TXPAUSE would politely stall the invoking thread, possibly surrendering or yielding compute resources, while at the same time continuing to track the transaction's address-set. Once a transaction has executed TXPAUSE it can only abort. Ideally that'd happen when some other thread modifies a variable that's in the transaction's read-set or write-set. And since we're aborting all writes would be discarded. In a sense this gives us multi-location MWAIT but with much more flexibility. We could also augment the TXPAUSE with a cycle-count bound to cap the time spent stalled. I should note that we can already enter a tight spin loop in a transaction to wait for updates to address-set to cause an abort. Assuming that the implementation monitors the address-set via cache-coherence probes, by waiting in this fashion we actually communicate via the probes, and not via memory values. That is the updating thread signals the waiter via probes instead of by traditional memory values. But TXPAUSE gives us a polite way to spin.

  Read the article

• Failed Software RAID0 on Linux - Attempting to recover data

  - by Gizmo_the_Great

  I have a two disk RAID0 software raid (not hardware raid) that is reported to have failed during boot and my OS won't start. Using a Live CD, I get the following output : sudo mdadm -E /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sdc1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 1.2 Feature Map : 0x0 Array UUID : 3710713d:fb301031:84b61247:d1d53e0f Name : HP-xw9300:0 Creation Time : Sun Sep 1 15:22:26 2013 Raid Level : -unknown- Raid Devices : 0 Avail Dev Size : 1465145328 (698.64 GiB 750.15 GB) Data Offset : 16 sectors Super Offset : 8 sectors State : active Device UUID : ad427cd2:9f885f57:7f41015f:90f8f6af Update Time : Sun Jun 8 12:35:11 2014 Checksum : a37407ff - correct Events : 1 Device Role : spare Array State : ('A' == active, '.' == missing) /dev/sdd1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 1.2 Feature Map : 0x0 Array UUID : 3710713d:fb301031:84b61247:d1d53e0f Name : HP-xw9300:0 Creation Time : Sun Sep 1 15:22:26 2013 Raid Level : -unknown- Raid Devices : 0 Avail Dev Size : 976771056 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB) Data Offset : 16 sectors Super Offset : 8 sectors State : active Device UUID : 2ea0199d:cb08d9e7:0830448a:a1e1e348 Update Time : Sun Jun 8 13:06:19 2014 Checksum : 8883c492 - correct Events : 1 Device Role : spare Array State : ('A' == active, '.' == missing) GParted lists both disks, detects the flags as 'Raid' and lists the data usage. Can anyone please help me re-assemble just so that I can copy some of the data off that I have not backed up recently? Thanks

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >