Search Results

Search found 7371 results on 295 pages for 'raid card'.

Page 4/295 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Use a RAID Controller without drivers?

    - by cian1500ww
    Ordered an Adaptec 1420SA RAID card for my Debian Squeeze media server but didn't check to see if it was compatible, turns out it's not because it uses something called hostRAID which requires special drivers that aren't available for Debian. Could I still use the card as an ordinary controller and just use OS software RAID?? I'm not looking for speed, just need to mirror some drives that will be used for storage, the OS will reside on a disk connected to the server's onboard controller so the system won't be booting from any drives on the Adaptec controller.

    Read the article

  • Upon reboot, Linux software raid fails to include one device of a RAID1 array

    - by user1389890
    One of my four Linux software raid arrays drops one of its two devices when I reboot my system. The other three arrays work fine. I am running RAID1 on kernel version 2.6.32-5-amd64 (Debian Squeeze). Every time I reboot, /dev/md2 comes up with only one device. I can manually add the device by saying $ sudo mdadm /dev/md2 --add /dev/sdc1. This works fine, and mdadm confirms that the device has been re-added as follows: mdadm: re-added /dev/sdc1 After adding the device and allowing the array time to resynch, this is what the output of $ cat /proc/mdstat looks like: Personalities : [raid1] md3 : active raid1 sda4[0] sdb4[1] 244186840 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sdc1[0] sdd1[1] 732574464 blocks [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 sda3[0] sdb3[1] 722804416 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] 6835520 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> Then after I reboot, this is what the output of $ cat /proc/mdstat looks like: Personalities : [raid1] md3 : active raid1 sda4[0] sdb4[1] 244186840 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sdd1[1] 732574464 blocks [2/1] [_U] md1 : active raid1 sda3[0] sdb3[1] 722804416 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] 6835520 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> During reboot, here is the output of $ sudo cat /var/log/syslog | grep mdadm : Jun 22 19:00:08 rook mdadm[1709]: RebuildFinished event detected on md device /dev/md2 Jun 22 19:00:08 rook mdadm[1709]: SpareActive event detected on md device /dev/md2, component device /dev/sdc1 Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.446412] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.446415] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.446782] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.446785] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.515844] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.515847] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.606829] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.606832] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:48 rook kernel: [ 8027.855616] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:48 rook kernel: [ 8027.855620] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:48 rook kernel: [ 8027.855950] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:48 rook kernel: [ 8027.855952] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:49 rook kernel: [ 8027.962169] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:49 rook kernel: [ 8027.962171] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:49 rook kernel: [ 8028.054365] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:49 rook kernel: [ 8028.054368] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.588662] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.588664] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.601990] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.601991] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.602693] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.602695] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.605981] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.605983] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.606138] mdadm: sending ioctl 800c0910 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.606139] mdadm: sending ioctl 800c0910 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:48 rook mdadm[1737]: DegradedArray event detected on md device /dev/md2 Here is the result of $ cat /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf: ARRAY /dev/md0 metadata=0.90 UUID=92121d42:37f46b82:926983e9:7d8aad9b ARRAY /dev/md1 metadata=0.90 UUID=9c1bafc3:1762d51d:c1ae3c29:66348110 ARRAY /dev/md2 metadata=0.90 UUID=98cea6ca:25b5f305:49e8ec88:e84bc7f0 ARRAY /dev/md3 metadata=1.2 name=rook:3 UUID=ca3fce37:95d49a09:badd0ddc:b63a4792 Here is the output of $ sudo mdadm -E /dev/sdc1 after re-adding the device and letting it resync: /dev/sdc1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 0.90.00 UUID : 98cea6ca:25b5f305:49e8ec88:e84bc7f0 (local to host rook) Creation Time : Sun Jul 13 08:05:55 2008 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 732574464 (698.64 GiB 750.16 GB) Array Size : 732574464 (698.64 GiB 750.16 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 2 Update Time : Mon Jun 24 07:42:49 2013 State : clean Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 5fd6cc13 - correct Events : 180998 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1 0 0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1 1 1 8 49 1 active sync /dev/sdd1 Here is the output of $ sudo mdadm -D /dev/md2 after re-adding the device and letting it resync: /dev/md2: Version : 0.90 Creation Time : Sun Jul 13 08:05:55 2008 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 732574464 (698.64 GiB 750.16 GB) Used Dev Size : 732574464 (698.64 GiB 750.16 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Mon Jun 24 07:42:49 2013 State : clean Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 UUID : 98cea6ca:25b5f305:49e8ec88:e84bc7f0 (local to host rook) Events : 0.180998 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1 1 8 49 1 active sync /dev/sdd1 I also ran $ sudo smartctl -t long /dev/sdc and no hardware issues were detected. As long as I do not reboot, /dev/md2 seems to work fine. Does anyone have any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • RAID 10 not being found by installer

    - by dko
    I had ubuntu installed with raid 0 enabled. I have added 2 more disks went into the bios deleted and created a new raid setup using raid 10 (total of 4 disks now). However during install of ubuntu server it asks if it should activate the RAID Sata disks, I tell it yes. Next step shows up blank for available disks when determining where to mount the root etc. Anyone have a clue as to why this would be?

    Read the article

  • external drive enclosure -> software RAID 5?

    - by memilanuk
    Hello all, I have two older PCs on my LAN posing as 'servers'... one running FreeNAS off a USB stick using three 500GB hdds in a ZFS RAID-Z pool serving as storage for the LAN and one running Debian Lenny with an 80GB drive used as a general purpose 'tinker' box that I can ssh into, etc. Problem is that the SMART report for one of those 500GB drives in the FreeNAS box is showing some pre-failure attributes, and the whole array is a little small anyways. Rather than simply replace one 500GB drive with another 500GB drive, and have no backup of the file server, I'd like to upgrade all the drives to 2TB ones - but I have no where to store that much data in the mean while. As such, I started looking at getting a 4-bay external drive enclosure with an eSATA card for the Debian box, with the hopes of creating a RAID5 + LVM setup using those drives and backing the data up to that external drive enclosure. After the backup is done, replace the drives in the FreeNAS box and rebuild the array there and mirror the data back. Then, I'd have both the primary storage (on the FreeNAS box) and a backup (which I don't have currently) using the external drive enclosure on the Debian box. My big question is... most of these external drive boxes seem to claim support for JBOD, RAID 0, 1, 10, 5, etc. - should I presume that is simply fake RAID like many commodity mobos have, and not really usable in Linux? In that case, with all the drives hanging off the one eSATA connection, will Linux (specifically Debian Squeeze, as I plan on upgrading that box here shortly) see all four drives, or just the first one? Will I be able to configure them in a RAID5 array as desired? Thanks, Monte

    Read the article

  • Four disks - RAID 10 or two mirrored pairs?

    - by ewwhite
    I have this discussion with developers quite often. The context is an application running in Linux that has a medium amount of disk I/O. The servers are HP ProLiant DL3x0 G6 with four disks of equal size @ 15k rpm, backed with a P410 controller and 512MB of battery or flash-based cache. There are two schools of thought here, and I wanted some feedback... 1). I'm of the mind that it makes sense to create an array containing all four disks set up in a RAID 10 (1+0) and partition as necessary. This gives the greatest headroom for growth, has the benefit of leveraging the higher spindle count and better fault-tolerance without degradation. 2). The developers think that it's better to have multiple RAID 1 pairs. One for the OS and one for the application data, citing that the spindle separation would reduce resource contention. However, this limits throughput by halving the number of drives and in this case, the OS doesn't really do much other than regular system logging. Additionally, the fact that we have the battery RAID cache and substantial RAM seems to negate the impact of disk latency... What are your thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Linux SW Raid: whole disk or per-partition?

    - by Steve Pomeroy
    I have inherited a machine which has 2 physical disks and uses Linux SW RAID(1). Both disks are partitioned and are are all individual arrays (/dev/md0, /dev/md6, etc.). Those arrays are then mounted (/boot, /home, etc. even /tmp). As RAID is designed to mitigate physical failures, is there any reason why one would use this technique over whole-disk arrays that are then partitioned (perhaps using LVM)? This seems prone to more potential issues, but may have some special properties that I haven't been able to glean. I'm planning on moving this setup to: disks?SWRAID(1)?LVM as I'll be making multiple VMs out of the one machine, but wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing when I got rid of the old setup.

    Read the article

  • What will happen with my RAID5 after motherboard change?

    - by abatishchev
    Currently I have ASUS P5Q-EM and 3 HDD in RAID5 using it's on-board RAID controller Intel ICH10R. I want to bye a new motherboard, for example, Gigabyte GA-EQ45M-S2 which also have on-board RAID controller, but Intel ICH10DO. What will happen with my data on RAID5? Will I have to re-create the array from the scratch and lost all my data? Is such array a soft RAID or soft-hard? What if my current motherboard will broken? What will happen with my data?

    Read the article

  • RAID Read/Write Speed Gradually Slows

    - by Nalandial
    This is actually a server at home, but I felt it was sufficiently complicated as to not have it on SuperUser and could easily apply to a professional situation. I have a file server running Debian (Lenny 5.0.4), and it has an XFS LVM on top of a RAID 5 with the OS drive separate from the RAID. It's also running apache, samba, and postgresql. Side note: before anyone asks, I'm using RAID5 because I get more bang for the buck on raw drive space, and still have some fault tolerance. When the box is started (via shutdown or reboot) reading/writing to it's samba share maxes out the gigabit network connection. Over time, this slowly degrades eventually becoming < 10MB/s; however, when rebooted the speed returns to maxing out the connection. Why is this happening, and is there a way to 'clear' out whatever's causing it without taking the server down? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Making GRUB see RAID 0 under Ubuntu 10.10 LiveCD

    - by unknownthreat
    I just installed Windows 7 recently, and I expect that it would alter GRUB and it did. I've been following some guides around and I am always stuck at GRUB not able to detect the usual RAID content. I've tried running: sudo grub > root (hd0,0) GRUB complains it couldn't find my hard disk. So I tried: find (hd0,0) And it complains that it couldn't find anything. So I tried: find /boot/grub/stage1 It said "file not found". So what now? How can we make GRUB see RAID 0 under Ubuntu 10.10 LiveCD?

    Read the article

  • Linux software raid robustness for raid1 vs other raid levels

    - by Waxhead
    I have a raid5 running and now also a raid1 that I set up yesterday. Since raid5 calculates parity it should be able to catch silent data corruption on one disk. However for raid1 the disks are just mirrors. The more I think about it I figure that raid1 is actually quite risky. Sure it will save me from a disk failure but i might not be as good when it comes to protecting the data on disk (who is actually more important for me). How does Linux software raid actually store raid1 type data on disk? How does it know what spindle is giving corrupt data (if the disk(subsystem) is not reporting any errors) If raid1 really is not giving me data protection but rather disk protection is there some tricks I can do with mdadm to create a two disk "raid5 like" setup? e.g. loose capacity but still keep redundancy also for data!?

    Read the article

  • Simple mdadm RAID 1 not activating spare

    - by Nick Liu
    I had created two 2TB HDD partitions (/dev/sdb1 and /dev/sdc1) in a RAID 1 array called /dev/md0 using mdadm on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Precise Pangolin. The command sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0 used to indicate both drives as active sync. Then, for testing, I failed /dev/sdb1, removed it, then added it again with the command sudo mdadm /dev/md0 --add /dev/sdb1 watch cat /proc/mdstat showed a progress bar of the array rebuilding, but I wouldn't spend hours watching it, so I assumed that the software knew what it was doing. After the progress bar was no longer showing, cat /proc/mdstat displays: md0 : active raid1 sdb1[2](S) sdc1[1] 1953511288 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [U_] And sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0 shows: /dev/md0: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Sun May 27 11:26:05 2012 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 1953511288 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB) Used Dev Size : 1953511288 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Mon May 28 11:16:49 2012 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 1 Name : Deltique:0 (local to host Deltique) UUID : 49733c26:dd5f67b5:13741fb7:c568bd04 Events : 32365 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 1 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1 1 0 0 1 removed 2 8 17 - spare /dev/sdb1 I've been told that mdadm automatically replaces removed drives with spares, but /dev/sdb1 isn't being moved into the expected position, RaidDevice 1. UPDATE (30 May 2012): A badblocks destructive read-write test of the entire /dev/sdb yielded no errors as expected; both HDDs are new. As of the latest edit, I assembled the array with this command: sudo mdadm --assemble --force --no-degraded /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 The output was: mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 1 drive (out of 2) and 1 rebuilding. Rebuilding looks like it's progressing normally: md0 : active raid1 sdc1[1] sdb1[2] 1953511288 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [U_] [>....................] recovery = 0.6% (13261504/1953511288) finish=2299.7min speed=14060K/sec unused devices: <none> I'm now waiting on this rebuild, but I'm expecting /dev/sdb1 to become a spare just like the five or six times that I've tried rebuilding before. UPDATE (31 May 2012): Yeah, it's still a spare. Ugh! UPDATE (01 June 2012): I'm trying Adrian Kelly's suggested command: sudo mdadm --assemble --update=resync /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 Waiting on the rebuild now... My questions are: Why isn't the spare drive becoming active sync? How can I make the spare drive become active?

    Read the article

  • Using old RAID configured disk after new disk has been used in the controller

    - by Narendra
    I have Dell Poweredge T100 server with Dell SAS 6 and two hard disk on RAID 1. Last week the server died including one RAID 1 hard disk. We sent the server for repair and the problem with PSU was fixed. But the repair guys also checked the RAID controller by configuring new RAID with their test hard disk. Now if I install one working RAID 1 disk and one new disk, will the RAID controller let me continue my old RAID 1 and resync the new disk and continue? What I fear is the RAID controller will want the test hard from repair guys. Thus I have to re configure RAID 1 forcing me to wipe the working disc. If so, I've to backup the working disc, reconfigure RAID 1 and reinstall? Or is there better way? Note: I'm using DELL SAS confiugratio utility to manage RAID. (Press CTRL+C after BIOS)

    Read the article

  • misaligned raid partition in Ubuntu 10.04

    - by Linux Jedi
    I attached two identical hard drives to my linux machine. Then using gparted I formated the first 1024 mb at the beginning of each drive as linux swap space. Then I went into system-administration-disk utility. In there I went to file-create-RAID array. I selected the remaining space in each of the two identical hard drives and created a striped raid array. After the array was created, a warning message appeared. It said "The partition is misaligned by 522240 bytes. This may result in very poor performance. Repartitioning is suggested." What do I do now? As far as I can tell, the partitions are identical.

    Read the article

  • slow software raid

    - by Jure1873
    I've got software raid 1 for / and /home and it seems I'm not getting the right speed out of it. Reading from md0 I get around 100 MB/sec Reading from sda or sdb I get around 95-105 MB/sec I thought I would get more speed (while reading data) from two drives. I don't know what is the problem. I'm using kernel 2.6.31-18 hdparm -tT /dev/md0 /dev/md0: Timing cached reads: 2078 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1039.72 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 304 MB in 3.01 seconds = 100.96 MB/sec hdparm -tT /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 2084 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1041.93 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 316 MB in 3.02 seconds = 104.77 MB/sec hdparm -tT /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: Timing cached reads: 2150 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1075.94 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 302 MB in 3.01 seconds = 100.47 MB/sec Edit: Raid 1

    Read the article

  • Replacing a non-failing drive in a RAID-0 array

    - by TallFurryMan
    I have a Windows 7 machine booting on a RAID-0 pair of 500GB disks, controlled by an ICH9R. One of those was indicating an end-To-end SMART failure, so I added a spare disk as a temporary workaround, before receiving another to replace the failing one. The RAID-0 rebuilt on the spare and dropped the failing one from the array, as expected. Now that I received the new drive, what are my options to reintegrate it in the array? My first thought was to simply clone the temporary disk to the new one while the array is offline, but shouldn't there be a way to force a second rebuild, just as if the temporary drive had a warning, and drop that temporary from the array?

    Read the article

  • MicroSD card isn't detected by computer, apparently usable only with phone

    - by paulcjoubert
    I have a 4GB MicroSD card that apparently only works (in the sense that the device detects and can read and write from and to the card) with my old Nokia XpressMusic 5800 phone. I have taken pictures and recorded voice notes that were saved on the card. These are accessible after the card has been removed, which tells me that the problem isn't with the card. The card could also not be locked to the phone as it would at least be detected by a computer and it would be able to write raw data to it with dd, such as /dev/zero. Also, the card is not the Nokia card that came with the phone and I have done nothing that would have caused it to be locked. (I could not find anything on Nokia's website that helps, but then again... my search was not THAT thorough.) The card works on no other device that I have tried so far. I have tried it in my Canon camera (through an adapter), but it refuses to even boot with the card inserted. My card reader (via USB cable and hub) is detected as /dev/sdx with or without the card inserted. When trying to access the card I get an "No medium found". dmesg does not report any change at all when inserting and removing the card. I would obviously like to use my card on other devices - the phone is quite old - and even a likely explanation would help. Thankyou in advance! EDIT 1: I can use the card by connecting the phone to my computer, but this is impractical and would not allow me to use the card in any other device. EDIT 2: The data on the card is not important to me at all.

    Read the article

  • Defeating the RAID5 write hole with ZFS (but not RAID-Z) [closed]

    - by Michael Shick
    I'm setting up a long-term storage system for keeping personal backups and archives. I plan to have RAID5 starting with a relatively small array and adding devices over time to expand storage. I may also want to convert to RAID6 down the road when the array gets large. Linux md is a perfect fit for this use case since it allows both of the changes I want on a live array and performance isn't at all important. Low cost is also great. Now, I also want to defend against file corruption, so it looked like a RAID-Z1 would be a good fit, but evidently I would only be able to add additional RAID5 (RAID-Z1) sets at a time rather than individual drives. I want to be able to add drives one at a time, and I don't want to have to give up another device for parity with every expansion. So at this point, it looks like I'll be using a plain ZFS filesystem on top of an md RAID5 array. That brings me to my primary question: Will ZFS be able to correct or at least detect corruption resulting from the RAID5 write hole? Additionally, any other caveats or advice for such a set up is welcome. I'll probably be using Debian, but I'll definitely be using Linux since I'm familiar with it, so that means only as new a version of ZFS as is available for Linux (via ZFS-FUSE or so).

    Read the article

  • Assembling Software RAID in Live CD for data recovery

    - by Maletor
    I need help recovering some data that's on my RAID which is on a LVM on my server running Ubuntu. What happened was I deleted the logical volume that controlled my swap space which was on a partition on drives sda2, sdb2, sdc2, and sdd2 in RAID1. This foobared my whole system for one reason or another. Booting leave me with grub rescue and an error saying that it is an unknown filesystem. When I boot to a live cd I can see my RAID arrays and I can even start them up. However, it doesn't appear to mount them anywhere so I can't see the data. I am in the live cd now and I have done sudo apt-get install mdadm lvm2 so it should be mounting them correctly. I just can't see why it wouldn't. Please any help is appreciated here. Here is some output. By the way, there are 3 RAIDs, 1) /boot 100mb RAID1, 2) swap 10gb RAID1, 3) root 990GB RAID5 ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on aufs 124M 101M 18M 86% / none 2.0G 324K 2.0G 1% /dev /dev/sde1 2.0G 826M 1.2G 42% /cdrom /dev/loop0 667M 667M 0 100% /rofs none 2.0G 164K 2.0G 1% /dev/shm tmpfs 2.0G 28K 2.0G 1% /tmp none 2.0G 92K 2.0G 1% /var/run none 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /var/lock none 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /lib/init/rw /dev/md1 91M 73M 15M 84% /media/5ac3dbf1-a6c5-409c-96ae-edc6e27992c7 ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ cat /etc/fstab aufs / aufs rw 0 0 tmpfs /tmp tmpfs nosuid,nodev 0 0 /dev/sda2 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sdb2 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sdc2 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sdd2 swap swap defaults 0 0

    Read the article

  • How do I EFI boot Zenbook Prime UX31A from built-in card reader?

    - by Richard Ayotte
    How do I EFI boot Zenbook Prime UX31A from built-in card reader? Ubuntu 12.10 64bit has been copied onto an a SD card which I'm trying to boot from. When I power on my Zenbook and press ESC, the SD card isn't an option. There is an "Add boot option" in the BIOS but it requires a few a things that I'm not quite sure of. Add boot option - I guess any identifier works here. I've been entering ubuntu. Select Filesystem - The only option available is PCI(1F|2)\DevicePath(Type 3, SubType 12)HD(Part1,Sig787e6287-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx) Path for boot option - I've been entering ubuntu:\EFI\BOOT\BOOTx64.EFI Then I select Create and the new boot option appears in the boot menu but it doesn't work.

    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

  • Windows Software RAID 5 Drive Failure Notification

    - by Wayne Hartman
    I plan on creating a Windows software RAID 5 array but need to know when a drive goes bum. I don't plan on wanting to check the server every so often, so how can I have an email sent when a drive goes kapüt or otherwise has problems? Keying off the event log would be OK, but how does one set up notifications on it when the exact event ID(s) may not be known?

    Read the article

  • How Can I Improve This Card-Game AI?

    - by James Burgess
    Let me get this out there before anything else: this is a learning exercise for me. I am not a game developer by trade or hobby (at least, not seriously) and am purely delving into some AI- and 3D-related topics to broaden my horizons a bit. As part of the learning experience, I thought I'd have a go at developing a basic card game AI. I selected Pit as the card game I was going to attempt to emulate (specifically, the 'bull and bear' variation of the game as mentioned in the link above). Unfortunately, the rule-set that I'm used to playing with (an older version of the game) isn't described. The basics of it are: The number of commodities played with is equal to the number of players. The bull and bear cards are included. All but two players receive 8 cards, two receive 9 cards. A player can win the round with 7 + bull, 8, or 8 + bull (receiving double points). The bear is a penalty card. You can trade up to a maximum of 4 cards at a time. They must all be of the same type, but can optionally include the bull or bear (so, you could trade A, A, A, Bull - but not A, B, A, Bull). For those who have played the card game, it will probably have been as obvious to you as it was to me that given the nature of the game, gameplay would seem to resemble a greedy algorithm. With this in mind, I thought it might simplify my AI experience somewhat. So, here's what I've come up with for a basic AI player to play Pit... and I'd really just like any form of suggestion (from improvements to reading materials) relating to it. Here it is in something vaguely pseudo-code-ish ;) While AI does not hold 7 similar + bull, 8 similar, or 8 similar + bull, do: 1. Establish 'target' hand, by seeing which card AI holds the most of. 2. Prepare to trade next-most-numerous card type in a trade (max. held, or 4, whichever is fewer) 3. If holding the bear, add to (if trading <=3 cards) or replace in (if trading 4 cards) hand. 4. Offer cards for trade. 5. If cards are accepted for trade within X turns, continue (clearing 'failed card types'). Otherwise: a. If only one card remains in the trade, go to #6. Otherwise: i. Remove one non-penalty card from the trade. ii. Return to #5. 6. Add card type to temporary list of failed card types. 7. Repeat from #2 (excluding 'failed card types'). I'm aware this is likely to be a sub-optimal way of solving the problem, but that's why I'm posting this question. Are there any AI- or algorithm-related concepts that I've missed and should be incorporating to make a better AI? Additionally, what are the flaws with my AI at present (I'm well aware it's probably far from complete)? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Force RAID to read "exiled" disk?

    - by user197015
    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.

    Read the article

  • RAID 0 Volatile Volume Cache Mode configuration

    - by SnippetSpace
    I discovered that in IRST there is an option to set a cache mode for my 3 ssd raid 0 array. I've read the documentation by Intel and have some questions: Are there any overall benefits/risks from enabling cache mode? As I'm on a laptop, would write back be recommended? I read it increases chance of data loss on power interruption. What is the difference between how windows handles data integrity and the intel driver? Read only mode seems to have the benefit of faster reads, does it have any downsides? Thanks for your help guys!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >