Search Results

Search found 19125 results on 765 pages for 'hard disk'.

Page 43/765 | < Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >

• 2 identical PCs - can I swap a single hard drive between and expect Windows 7/XP to work?

  - by rgvcorley

  I currently work in 2 different locations, traveling between the 2 every few weeks or so. I currently have screens, kb, mouse etc... in both locations, so I just pick up my tower case when I want to move to the other location. However to make moving easier I was thinking of buying 2 tower cases with hot swappable drive bays on the front and installing identical hardware in each one. This would allow me to pull the drives out and just take them with me and plug them into the PC at the other location. Would windows 7 complain? I'm not fussed about buying licenses for both PCs, but would I have any problems with drivers due to the different serial numbers of the components?

  Read the article

• 2 identical PCs - can I swap a single hard drive between and expect Windows 7 to work? [closed]

  - by rgvcorley

  I currently work in 2 different locations, traveling between the 2 every few weeks or so. I currently have screens, kb, mouse etc... in both locations, so I just pick up my tower case when I want to move to the other location. However to make moving easier I was thinking of buying 2 tower cases with hot swappable drive bays on the front and installing identical hardware in each one. This would allow me to pull the drives out and just take them with me and plug them into the PC at the other location. Would windows 7 complain? I'm not fussed about buying licenses for both PCs, but would I have any problems with drivers due to the different serial numbers of the components?

  Read the article

• How can I boot a vm on Hyper-V 2012 when it has a virtual hard-drive missing?

  - by Zone12

  We have a Hyper-V 2012 server with 8 VM's on. We have attached extra virtual hard-drives to each of the computers to store backups on. These drives are stored on a NAS. After a power failure, we tried to boot the VM's and found that they couldn't be booted without the attached backup drives. We couldn't boot the NAS at that point and so we had to remove all the extra drives manually, boot the VM's and re-attach the drives at a later date when we got the NAS back up and running. These backup drives are non-essential to the running of the system. I would like to know if there is a way to boot a VM on Hyper-V 2012 with some of the hard-drives (scsi) missing so that we can recover automatically from a power failure.

  Read the article

• Does downloading Torrents cause excessive wear on hard drives?

  - by Hugo

  I suspect that the most stressful to a HDD is being used as a target for downloading torrents. I plan to get a new HDD and use the old one only for storing downloads in progress. Is this true? How much stress is there on an idle HDD?

  Read the article

• Why might one hard disk perform slower than another?

  - by Styne666

  I have just bought two WD 3TB Reds (WD30EFRX) for a FreeNAS box and whilst doing burn-in testing it seems like one is consistently taking about 10% longer than the other. So far I've done: a dd read test of the whole device, a long SMART test and it's currently halfway through a badblocks -wvs. The second device is lagging behind the first on all of them. I'm running these commands on Debian stable in two Konsole tabs. Is there a reason this could be considered normal behaviour or is it worth running the tests independantly? They're both plugged in to the LSI 2308 (IT mode) on a Supermicro X10SL7-F.

  Read the article

• Does a hard drive degrade if we always write to the same directory?

  - by code-gijoe

  I have a very heavy I/O application that is constantly receiving data through the network and writing to a specific directory on the HDD. Then, the application need to load the files from that specific place. One of my clients has been experiencing slowness and when I try to access the directory it takes quite long before I can see the content. My gut feeling is the HDD is degrading due to high I/O for a couple of years and I'm thinking of changing the HDD. Is there a benefit to write to multiple directories instead of using always the same? BTW he is using Windows XP.

  Read the article

• How to Combine Rescue Disks to Create the Ultimate Windows Repair Disk

  - by The Geek

  We’ve covered loads of different anti-virus, Linux, and other boot disks that help you repair or recover your system, but why limit yourself to just one? Here’s how to combine your favorite repair disks together to create the ultimate repair toolkit for broken Windows systems—all on a single flash drive. The ones we’ve covered already? Here’s a quick list of all the ways you can recover your system with a rescue disk: How to Use the Avira Rescue CD to Clean Your Infected PC How to Use the BitDefender Rescue CD to Clean Your Infected PC How to Use the Kaspersky Rescue Disk to Clean Your Infected PC Change or Reset Windows Password from a Ubuntu Live CD The 10 Cleverest Ways to Use Linux to Fix Your Windows PC Change Your Forgotten Windows Password with the Linux System Rescue CD Use Ubuntu Live CD to Backup Files from Your Dead Windows Computer If you need to clean up an infected system, we’d absolutely recommend the BitDefender CD, since it’s auto-updating. Best bet? Create your ultimate boot disk with as many of the different utilities as your flash drive can hold Latest Features How-To Geek ETC How To Boot 10 Different Live CDs From 1 USB Flash Drive The 20 Best How-To Geek Linux Articles of 2010 The 50 Best How-To Geek Windows Articles of 2010 The 20 Best How-To Geek Explainer Topics for 2010 How to Disable Caps Lock Key in Windows 7 or Vista How to Use the Avira Rescue CD to Clean Your Infected PC Luigi Installs Any OS on Google’s Cr-48 Notebook DIY iPad Stylus Offers Pen-Based Interaction on the Cheap Serene Blue Ubuntu Wallpaper for Your Desktop Enjoy Old School Style Video Game Fun with Chicken Invaders Hide the Twitter “Litter” in Twitter’s Sidebar Area (Chrome and Iron) Public Domain Day: Reflections on Copyright and the Importance of Public Domain

  Read the article

• Ubuntu Server 13.10 can't mount hard drive that is on my router

  - by Keytachi626

  So I am working currently with my Ubuntu server which I have it on my laptop at the moment so I can test out how to work with the server OS. I have it up and running with samba, openSSH, webmin, and plexmedia server. My problem is that I can't seem to get the server to get to the router hard drive. I have a TP-link wdr3500. The format of the hard drive is a FAT32. What I've tried: install cifs. sudo vi /etc/fstab Type out \\ \tplinklogin.net\volume1 \mnt\media cifs guest 0 0 I have also tried out \\\192.168.0.1\volume1 \mnt\media cifs guest 0 0 But then when I go to terminal and do sudo mount -a, I usually get a error saying wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on //ipaddress/dns/volume1 , missing codepage or helper program, or other error. But in dmesg it will say unable to determine destination address. So am I doing something wrong here? I can't install the hard drive on to my laptop since my family is constantly using it to transfer data back and forth on it and they get mad at me if I just take it away.

  Read the article

• no disk space, cant use internet

  - by James

  after trying to install drivers using sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade, im faced with a message saying no space left on device, i ran disk usage analyzer as root and there was three folders namely, main volume, home folder, and my 116gb hard drive (which is practically empty) yet both other folders are full, which is stopping me installing drivers because of space, how do i get ubuntu to use this space on my hard drive? its causing problems because i cant gain access to the internet as i cant download drivers when i havnt got enough space, this happens every time i try it sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 120.0GB, 120034123776 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 14593 cylinders, total 234441648 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0003eeed Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 231315455 115656704 83 Linux /dev/sda2 231317502 234440703 1561601 5 Extended /dev/sda5 231317504 234440703 1561600 82 Linux swap / solaris Output of df -h df: '/media/ubuntu/FB18-ED76': No such file or directory Filesysytem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /cow 751M 751M 0 100% / udev 740M 12K 740M 1% /dev tmpfs 151M 792K 150M 1% /run /dev/sr0 794M 794M 0 100% /cdrom /dev/loop0 758M 758M 0 100% /rofs none 4.0K 0 4.0K 0% /sys/fs/cgroup tmpfs 751M 1.4M 749M 1% /tmp none 5.0M 4.0K 5.0M 1% /run/lock none 751M 276K 751M 1% /run/shm none 100M 40K 100M 1% /run/user

  Read the article

• Lost files after installing Ubuntu

  - by Joshua Rosato

  I installed Ubuntu on my laptop over windows, I had 2 partitions on one hard disk. It seems like my second partition is gone with all my files. How can I recover the old files? They weren't on the same partition as Windows. I read that the partition has probably just not been mounted so ran sudo fdisk -l to find all the partitions and then ran sudo mount, however I can't tell from the results of sudo mount what is not mounted and I am also unsure how to mount it once I find the unmounted partition. sudo fdisk -l - Results Disk /dev/sda: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488397168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0002c6dc Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 486322175 243160064 83 Linux /dev/sda2 486324222 488396799 1036289 5 Extended /dev/sda5 486324224 488396799 1036288 82 Linux swap / Solaris sudo mount - Results /dev/sda1 on / type ext4 (rw,errors=remount-ro) proc on /proc type proc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) none on /sys/fs/cgroup type tmpfs (rw) none on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl (rw) none on /sys/kernel/debug type debugfs (rw) none on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs (rw) udev on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,mode=0755) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,noexec,nosuid,gid=5,mode=0620) tmpfs on /run type tmpfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,size=10%,mode=0755) none on /run/lock type tmpfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,size=5242880) none on /run/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev) none on /run/user type tmpfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,size=104857600,mode=0755) none on /sys/fs/pstore type pstore (rw) systemd on /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd type cgroup (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,none,name=systemd) gvfsd-fuse on /run/user/1000/gvfs type fuse.gvfsd-fuse (rw,nosuid,nodev,user=joshy1)

  Read the article

• How to make and restore incremental snapshots of hard disk

  - by brunopereira81

  I use Virtual Box a lot for distro / applications testing purposes. One of the features I simply love about it is virtual machines snapshots, its saves a state of a virtual machine and is able to restore it to its former glory if something you did went wrong without any problems and without consuming your all hard disk space. On my live systems I know how to create a 1:1 image of the file system but all the solutions I'v known will create a new image of the complete file system. Are there any programs / file systems that are capable of taking a snapshot of a current file system, save it on another location but instead of making a complete new image it creates incremental backups? To easy describe what I want, it should be as dd images of a file system, but instead of only a full backup it would also create incremental. I am not looking for clonezilla, etc. It should run within the system itself with no (or almost none) intervention from the user, but contain all the data of the file systems. I am also not looking for a duplicity backup your all system excluding some folders script + dd to save your mbr. I can do that myself, looking for extra finesse. I'm looking for something I can do before doing massive changes to a system and then if something when wrong or I burned my hard disk after spilling coffee on it I can just boot from a liveCD and restore a working snapshot to a hard disk. It does not need to be daily, it doesn't even need a schedule. Just run once in a while and let it its job and preferably RAW based not file copy based.

  Read the article

• Strange resizing of partition after reinstalling Ubuntu 14.04 64bit

  - by Mike

  I started with Windows 7 on 120GB SSD and Ubuntu 14.04 32bit installed on 60GB partition on separate 1TB HDD. I just did a fresh reinstall of 14.04 64bit on the 1TB HDD. In the installation set up process, I selected the second choice of "deleting Ubuntu 14.04 and all it's files,documents, photos etc and reinstalling" to what I figured would reinstall the 64bit OS on the already existing 60GB allocated partition. Instead, it reinstalled Ubuntu as 43.5 GB and created a separate 15.8 partition. So now it reads that my disk space for Ubuntu ( in settingsdetails) is 43.5GB (instead of the previous 60GB that my old 32bit had) The upside is I can now access my 1TB HDD from my toolbar(and all the files located on it) Before, I could only access that through Windows (I can also access the SSD too, but that was always the case) Both drives are mounted now. My initial reaction was to go into Windows 7 disk management delete the strange/new 15gb partitionextend the 43.5 to the unallocated space. But I'm not sure if this is necessary or would even work. My question is why did it create a 15gb partition shrinking my ubuntu disk space, and is it useful? I don't want wasted space, so before I go through all my set up of Ubuntu, should I change this. At this time my HDD reads as 43.5 partiton, 15.8 partition, and 874GB exfat32 (939GB total)

  Read the article

• No space left on disk

  - by Ned

  folks. I'm trying to copy/move files to an external 1 TB hard drive with about 50 GB remaining space. I receive a "no space left on disk" when I try. I've moved files off and retried, but still get the same message. Disk Usage Analyzer, Properties, and freeware Treesize all report available hard drive space of about 50 GB. I've tried df -i (50 GB available) and df -k, with the latter reporting only 1% of inode usage. I've been able to save files from Firefox to the drive also. I can't even rename files without getting the message. Yesterday in the midst of trying to figure this out I tried to move 4 files to the drive and got the message. Today, I found them on the drive. What's up with that? (That's the only time that has happened to my knowledge.) Is this an ubuntu problem? or is my hard drive just about to fail because of something like a controller problem? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• New Write Flash SSDs and more disk trays

  - by Steve Tunstall

  In case you haven't heard, the Write SSDs the ZFSSA have been updated. Much faster now for the same price. Sweet. The new write-flash SSDs have a new part number of 7105026 , so make sure you order the right ones. It's important to note that you MUST be on code level 2011.1.4.0 or higher to use these. They have increased in IOPS from 6,000 to 11,000, and increased throughput from 200MB/s to 350MB/s.    Also, you can now add six SAS HBAs (up from 4) to the 7420, allowing one to have three SAS channels with 12 disk trays each, for a new total of 36 disk trays. With 3TB drives, that's 2.5 Petabytes. Is that enough for you? Make sure you add new cards to the correct slots. I've talked about this before, but here is the handy-dandy matrix again so you don't have to go find it. Remember the rules: You can have 6 of any one kind of card (like six 10GigE cards), but you only really get 8 slots, since you have two SAS cards no matter what. If you want more than 12 disk trays, you need two more SAS cards, so think about expansion later, too. In fact, if you are going to have two different speeds of drives, in other words you want to mix 15K speed and 7,200 speed drives in the same system, I would highly recommend two different SAS channels. So I would want four SAS cards in that system, no matter how many trays you have. 

  Read the article

• Partition does not start on physical sector boundary?

  - by jasmines

  I've one HD on my laptop, with two partitions (one ext3 with Ubuntu 12.04 installed and one swap). fdisk is giving me a Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary warning. What is the cause and do I need to fix it? If so, how? This is sudo fdisk -l: Disk /dev/sda: 750.2 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 testine, 63 settori/tracce, 91201 cilindri, totale 1465149168 settori Unità = settori di 1 * 512 = 512 byte Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Identificativo disco: 0x5a25087f Dispositivo Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 63 1448577023 724288480+ 83 Linux Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary. /dev/sda2 1448577024 1465147391 8285184 82 Linux swap / Solaris This is sudo lshw related result: *-disk description: ATA Disk product: WDC WD7500BPKT-0 vendor: Western Digital physical id: 0 bus info: scsi@0:0.0.0 logical name: /dev/sda version: 01.0 serial: WD-WX21CC1T0847 size: 698GiB (750GB) capabilities: partitioned partitioned:dos configuration: ansiversion=5 signature=5a25087f *-volume:0 description: EXT3 volume vendor: Linux physical id: 1 bus info: scsi@0:0.0.0,1 logical name: /dev/sda1 logical name: / version: 1.0 serial: cc5c562a-bc59-4a37-b589-805b27b2cbd7 size: 690GiB capacity: 690GiB capabilities: primary bootable journaled extended_attributes large_files recover ext3 ext2 initialized configuration: created=2010-02-27 09:18:28 filesystem=ext3 modified=2012-06-23 18:33:59 mount.fstype=ext3 mount.options=rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered mounted=2012-06-28 00:20:47 state=mounted *-volume:1 description: Linux swap volume physical id: 2 bus info: scsi@0:0.0.0,2 logical name: /dev/sda2 version: 1 serial: 16a7fee0-be9e-4e34-9dc3-28f4eeb61bf6 size: 8091MiB capacity: 8091MiB capabilities: primary nofs swap initialized configuration: filesystem=swap pagesize=4096 These are related /etc/fstab lines: UUID=cc5c562a-bc59-4a37-b589-805b27b2cbd7 / ext3 errors=remount-ro,user_xattr 0 1 UUID=16a7fee0-be9e-4e34-9dc3-28f4eeb61bf6 none swap sw 0 0

  Read the article

• external hard drive not detected after ubuntu crash [restarting machine]

  - by Netmoon

  today i tried to watch movie [with vlc media player] from my external hard drive [expansion portable 500 GB], and it's play good, then pause the movie and play it again, and my Ubuntu crashed! [Ubuntu 12.04]i had to restart the machine, so did it, but after that Ubuntu can't recognize this hard drive! i changed USB cable but it was not effective. this is my dmesg command result : [ 191.281630] usb 2-1.3: new full-speed USB device number 9 using ehci_hcd [ 191.353527] usb 2-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -32 [ 191.529115] usb 2-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -32 [ 191.704669] usb 2-1.3: new full-speed USB device number 10 using ehci_hcd [ 191.776524] usb 2-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -32 [ 191.952202] usb 2-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -32 [ 192.127772] usb 2-1.3: new full-speed USB device number 11 using ehci_hcd [ 192.534742] usb 2-1.3: device not accepting address 11, error -32 [ 192.606749] usb 2-1.3: new full-speed USB device number 12 using ehci_hcd [ 193.013696] usb 2-1.3: device not accepting address 12, error -32 [ 193.013906] hub 2-1:1.0: unable to enumerate USB device on port 3 note: I am able to hear the sound of the external drive lens. When attach hard drive to usb port, the status light goes on, but it's low bright and i think its power is low! try to mount in Microsoft Windows 7, but nothing happened.

  Read the article

• Upgrading a hard disk – To repave or to migrate, that is the question

  - by guybarrette

  I recently changed my laptop hard disk from the stock 250GB 5400 drive to a 320GB 7200 drive.  And no, I didn’t bought a SSD drive because the cost is way too much right now.  At $70, my upgrade was a lot cheaper than a SSD drive.  Maybe next year. When changing a system main hard drive, one must ask himself: To repave or to migrate, that is the question.  I choose to migrate so I went to the Acronis Website to take a look at their product line.  They have a few products that could do the job.  One being Acronis Migrate Easy 7.0 and the other being Acronis True Image Home 2010.  Since True Image was just $10 more then Migrate Easy, I bought True Image. I inserted my new hard drive in a 2.5” USB enclosure, and started the migration process.  Once the data copied, I switched the drives.  The process went very smoothly and without hiccups.  Highly recommended. BTW, Acronis offers free trials so I guess that nothing can stop you from “testing” a migration  ;-) var addthis_pub="guybarrette";

  Read the article

• Booting Ubuntu 12.04 from external eSATA disk

  - by Lord of Scripts

  This is my system topology: Disk #1 (SATA Internal) C: D: (Windows 7 Ultimate) Disk #2 (SATA Internal) E: (Windows Backup) Disk #3 (eSATA External) H: I: (Other windows data) /dev/sdc3 Linux Swap /dev/sdc4 Extended partition /dev/sdc5 Linux / So, I originally had there Ubuntu 8.1 from years ago but never got to use it. Now I used the Ubuntu 12.04 Live CD to install on that same location (That live CD takes a century to boot on a 6GB Intel i7 system...). The installation went fine, I selected it to install on /dev/sdc5 but it never asked me for any boot stuff, where I wanted to install Grub or whatever it is that it uses nowaways (I come from the LILO days when it always worked :-) So, yet again I can't access my new Linux installation. I have to wait a century to boot the "Live" CD and it allows me to see my new installation but I can't do anything with it. I tried the approach of this blog post. Copied the linux.bin of /dev/sdc5 into C: and used the BCDEdit steps to declare the new OS. So when I boot I see the Windows Boot menu and select Linux and after than I only get a black screen with a blinking cursor on the upper left. I can boot into Windows though. So, perhaps it didn't install the boot code on /dev/sdc5? I used this setup years ago booting from Windows with a BIN file: dd if=/dev/sdc5 of=/mnt/share/C/linux.bin bs=512 count=1 I am very reluctant to run GRUB because years ago I did and it wiped out my Windows boot sector and took quite some effort to recover it and be able to boot Windows again. I have been trying to install GRUB on a blank USB stick but I can't find anything clear enough. My system does NOT have a floppy. So can someone give me some ideas about how to get control of my Ubuntu 12.04 installation?

  Read the article

• Emacs stops taking input when a file has changed on disk [migrated]

  - by recf

  I'm using Emacs v24.3.1 on Windows 8. I had a file change on disk while I had an Emacs buffer open with that file. As soon as I attempt to make a change to the buffer, a message appears in the minibuffer. Fileblah.txt changed on disk; really edit the buffer? (y, n, r or C-h) I would expect to be able to hit r to have it reload the disk version of the file, but nothing happens. Emacs completely stops responding to input. None of the listed keys work, nor do any other keys as far as I can tell. I can't C-g out of the minibuffer. Alt-F4 doesn't work, not does Close window from the task bar. I have to kill the process from task manager. Anyone have any idea what I'm doing wrong here? In cases it's various modes not playing nice with each other, for reference, my init.el is here. Nothing complex. Here's the breakdown: better-defaults (ido-mode, remove menu-bar, uniquify buffer `forward, saveplace) recentf-mode custom frame title visual-line-mode require final newline and delete trailing whitespace on save Markdown mode with auto-mode-alist Flyspell with Aspell backend Powershell mode with auto-mode-alist Ruby auto-mode-alist Puppet mode with auto-mode-alist Feature (Gherkin) mode with auto-mode-alist The specific file was a markdown file with Github-flavored Markdown mode and Flyspell mode enabled.

  Read the article

• questions about dual-boot install Ubuntu 10.04 and Windows 7 on same hard drive

  - by Tim

  I'd like to dual-boot install Ubuntu 10.04 on the same hard drive as Windows 7 which has already been installed. As to sources on the internet: I found a website iinet about dual-boot installation of Ubuntu 10.10 and Windows 7 on the same hard drive, which I think more specific than the one on Ubuntu Community without specific version of the OSes. Since I am installing Ubuntu 10.04 instead of 10.10, my question is whether their installers are same or almost same and if I can follow iinet for my dual-boot installation? Or are there better websites for information about dual-boot installtion of Ubuntu 10.04 and Windows 7? As to shrinking Windows partitions to make free space for Ubuntu partitions: iinet uses the partition software in Ubuntu's installer to shrink the Windows partition. But I saw in many website that the partition software in Ubuntu's installer cannot guarantee shrinking Windows 7 partitions successfully, so they recommended in general to shrink Windows partitions under Windows itself using its softwares. For example, in Ubuntu Community, it says: Some people think that the Windows partition must be resized only from within Windows Vista and Windows 7 using the shrink/resize option. ... If you use GParted Partition Editor in the Ubuntu Live CD be careful. So I was wondering which way to go in my situation? As to partition for bootloader files: In iinet, I don't see there is a partition created and dedicated to boot files (i.e. Grub files). However, I saw in many websites strongly suggesting using a boot partition for Grub files, especially for the purpose of separation and protection from installed OS files. I was wondering which way I should choose and why? As to installing bootloader Grub, in iinet, I see that to install Grub it only needs to specify the hard drive device for bootloader installation. However, in ubuntuguide(for more than 2 OSes and Ubuntu 9.04), some commands are needed to run in order to put Grub configuration files in MBR, and OS partition, for the chain-load process (where to find the files for the next stage). In Ubuntu Community, there are some related sentences which I don't quite understand how to do in practice: the only thing in your computer outside of Ubuntu that needs to be changed is a small code in the MBR (Master Boot Record) of the first hard disk. The MBR code is changed to point to the boot loader in Ubuntu. If you have a problem with changing the MBR code, you might prefer to just install the code for pointing to GRUB to the first sector of your Ubuntu partition instead. If you do that during the Ubuntu installation process, then Ubuntu won't boot until you configure some other boot manager to point to Ubuntu's boot sector. Windows Vista no longer utilizes boot.ini, ntdetect.com, and ntldr when booting. Instead, Vista stores all data for its new boot manager in a boot folder. Windows Vista ships with an command line utility called bcdedit.exe, which requires administrator credentials to use. You may want to read http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=112156 about it. Using a command line utility always has its learning curve, so a more productive and better job can be done with a free utility called EasyBCD, developed and mastered in during the times of Vista Beta already. EasyBCD is user friendly and many Vista users highly recommend EasyBCD. In what is quoted above, I was wondering how exactly I should change the MBR code to point to the bootloader in Ubuntu? if I fail to change MBR code, are the other suggested boot managers being bcdedit.exe and EasyBCD in Windows? With the three sources above, which one shall I follow? Thanks and regards

  Read the article

• e2fsck extremely slow, although enough memory exists

  - by kaefert

  I've got this external USB-Disk: kaefert@blechmobil:~$ lsusb -s 2:3 Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0bc2:3320 Seagate RSS LLC As can be seen in this dmesg output, there is some problem that prevents that disk from beeing mounted: kaefert@blechmobil:~$ dmesg ... [ 113.084079] usb 2-1: new high-speed USB device number 3 using ehci_hcd [ 113.217783] usb 2-1: New USB device found, idVendor=0bc2, idProduct=3320 [ 113.217787] usb 2-1: New USB device strings: Mfr=2, Product=3, SerialNumber=1 [ 113.217790] usb 2-1: Product: Expansion Desk [ 113.217792] usb 2-1: Manufacturer: Seagate [ 113.217794] usb 2-1: SerialNumber: NA4J4N6K [ 113.435404] usbcore: registered new interface driver uas [ 113.455315] Initializing USB Mass Storage driver... [ 113.468051] scsi5 : usb-storage 2-1:1.0 [ 113.468180] usbcore: registered new interface driver usb-storage [ 113.468182] USB Mass Storage support registered. [ 114.473105] scsi 5:0:0:0: Direct-Access Seagate Expansion Desk 070B PQ: 0 ANSI: 6 [ 114.474342] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB) [ 114.475089] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off [ 114.475092] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: 43 00 00 00 [ 114.475959] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA [ 114.477093] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB) [ 114.501649] sdb: sdb1 [ 114.502717] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB) [ 114.504354] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk [ 116.804408] EXT4-fs (sdb1): ext4_check_descriptors: Checksum for group 3976 failed (47397!=61519) [ 116.804413] EXT4-fs (sdb1): group descriptors corrupted! ... So I went and fired up my favorite partition manager - gparted, and told it to verify and repair the partition sdb1. This made gparted call e2fsck (version 1.42.4 (12-Jun-2012)) e2fsck -f -y -v /dev/sdb1 Although gparted called e2fsck with the "-v" option, sadly it doesn't show me the output of my e2fsck process (bugreport https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=467925 ) I started this whole thing on Sunday (2012-11-04_2200) evening, so about 48 hours ago, this is what htop says about it now (2012-11-06-1900): PID USER PRI NI VIRT RES SHR S CPU% MEM% TIME+ Command 3704 root 39 19 1560M 1166M 768 R 98.0 19.5 42h56:43 e2fsck -f -y -v /dev/sdb1 Now I found a few posts on the internet that discuss e2fsck running slow, for example: http://gparted-forum.surf4.info/viewtopic.php?id=13613 where they write that its a good idea to see if the disk is just that slow because maybe its damaged, and I think these outputs tell me that this is not the case in my case: kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo hdparm -tT /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: Timing cached reads: 3562 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1783.29 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 82 MB in 3.01 seconds = 27.26 MB/sec kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo hdparm /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: multcount = 0 (off) readonly = 0 (off) readahead = 256 (on) geometry = 364801/255/63, sectors = 5860533160, start = 0 However, although I can read quickly from that disk, this disk speed doesn't seem to be used by e2fsck, considering tools like gkrellm or iotop or this: kaefert@blechmobil:~$ iostat -x Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (blechmobil) 2012-11-06 _x86_64_ (2 CPU) avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 14,24 47,81 14,63 0,95 0,00 22,37 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util sda 0,59 8,29 2,42 5,14 43,17 160,17 53,75 0,30 39,80 8,72 54,42 3,95 2,99 sdb 137,54 5,48 9,23 0,20 587,07 22,73 129,35 0,07 7,70 7,51 16,18 2,17 2,04 Now I researched a little bit on how to find out what e2fsck is doing with all that processor time, and I found the tool strace, which gives me this: kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo strace -p3704 lseek(4, 41026998272, SEEK_SET) = 41026998272 write(4, "\212\354K[_\361\3nl\212\245\352\255jR\303\354\312Yv\334p\253r\217\265\3567\325\257\3766"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 48404766720, SEEK_SET) = 48404766720 read(4, "\7t\260\366\346\337\304\210\33\267j\35\377'\31f\372\252\ffU\317.y\211\360\36\240c\30`\34"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 41027002368, SEEK_SET) = 41027002368 write(4, "\232]7Ws\321\352\t\1@[+5\263\334\276{\343zZx\352\21\316`1\271[\202\350R`"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 48404770816, SEEK_SET) = 48404770816 read(4, "\17\362r\230\327\25\346//\210H\v\311\3237\323K\304\306\361a\223\311\324\272?\213\tq \370\24"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 41027006464, SEEK_SET) = 41027006464 write(4, "\367yy>x\216?=\324Z\305\351\376&\25\244\210\271\22\306}\276\237\370(\214\205G\262\360\257#"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 48404774912, SEEK_SET) = 48404774912 read(4, "\365\25\0\21|T\0\21}3t_\272\373\222k\r\177\303\1\201\261\221$\261B\232\3142\21U\316"..., 4096) = 4096 ^CProcess 3704 detached around 16 of these lines every second, so 4 read and 4 write operations every second, which I don't consider to be a lot.. And finally, my question: Will this process ever finish? If those numbers from fseek (48404774912) represent bytes, that would be something like 45 gigabytes, with this beeing a 3 terrabyte disk, which would give me 134 days to go, if the speed stays constant, and e2fsck scans the disk like this completly and only once. Do you have some advice for me? I have most of the data on that disk elsewhere, but I've put a lot of hours into sorting and merging it to this disk, so I would prefer to getting this disk up and running again, without formatting it anew. I don't think that the hardware is damaged since the disk is only a few months and since I can't see any I/O errors in the dmesg output. UPDATE: I just looked at the strace output again (2012-11-06_2300), now it looks like this: lseek(4, 1419860611072, SEEK_SET) = 1419860611072 read(4, "3#\f\2447\335\0\22A\355\374\276j\204'\207|\217V|\23\245[\7VP\251\242\276\207\317:"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 43018145792, SEEK_SET) = 43018145792 write(4, "]\206\231\342Y\204-2I\362\242\344\6R\205\361\324\177\265\317C\334V\324\260\334\275t=\10F."..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 1419860615168, SEEK_SET) = 1419860615168 read(4, "\262\305\314Y\367\37x\326\245\226\226\320N\333$s\34\204\311\222\7\315\236\336\300TK\337\264\236\211n"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 43018149888, SEEK_SET) = 43018149888 write(4, "\271\224m\311\224\25!I\376\16;\377\0\223H\25Yd\201Y\342\r\203\271\24eG<\202{\373V"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 1419860619264, SEEK_SET) = 1419860619264 read(4, ";d\360\177\n\346\253\210\222|\250\352T\335M\33\260\320\261\7g\222P\344H?t\240\20\2548\310"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 43018153984, SEEK_SET) = 43018153984 write(4, "\360\252j\317\310\251G\227\335{\214`\341\267\31Y\202\360\v\374\307oq\3063\217Z\223\313\36D\211"..., 4096) = 4096 So the numbers in the lseek lines before the reads, like 1419860619264 are already a lot bigger, standing for 1.29 terabytes if those numbers are bytes, so it doesn't seem to be a linear progress on a big scale, maybe there are only some areas that need work, that have big gaps in between them. UPDATE2: Okey, big disappointment, the numbers are back to very small again (2012-11-07_0720) lseek(4, 52174548992, SEEK_SET) = 52174548992 read(4, "\374\312\22\\\325\215\213\23\0357U\222\246\370v^f(\312|f\212\362\343\375\373\342\4\204mU6"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 46603526144, SEEK_SET) = 46603526144 write(4, "\370\261\223\227\23?\4\4\217\264\320_Am\246CQ\313^\203U\253\274\204\277\2564n\227\177\267\343"..., 4096) = 4096 so either e2fsck goes over the data multiple times, or it just hops back and forth multiple times. Or my assumption that those numbers are bytes is wrong. UPDATE3: Since it's mentioned here http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=282125&page=2 that you can testisk while e2fsck is running, i tried that, though not with a lot of success. When asking testdisk to display the data of my partition, this is what I get: TestDisk 6.13, Data Recovery Utility, November 2011 Christophe GRENIER <[email protected]> http://www.cgsecurity.org 1 P Linux 0 4 5 45600 40 8 732566272 Can't open filesystem. Filesystem seems damaged. And this is what strace currently gives me (2012-11-07_1030) lseek(4, 212460343296, SEEK_SET) = 212460343296 read(4, "\315Mb\265v\377Gn \24\f\205EHh\2349~\330\273\203\3375\206\10\r3=W\210\372\352"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 47347830784, SEEK_SET) = 47347830784 write(4, "]\204\223\300I\357\4\26\33+\243\312G\230\250\371*m2U\t_\215\265J \252\342Pm\360D"..., 4096) = 4096 (times are in CET)

  Read the article

• unreadable corrupted ntfs partition - lost clusters reported

  - by Eduardo Martinez

  partition magic is reporting multiple 'bad file record signature' and 'lost clusters' errors on my 250GB samsung sata disk (connected via usb on a xp sp3). Unfortunately PM is unable to fix. PM shows the drive as being NTFS, detects used space ok and also drive name. But PM browser (right click on partition, browse...) won't show anything (as if disk was empty) Windows Explorer is not even picking the drive name and reports 'the file or directory is corrupted and unreadable' PTDD partition table doctor demo tells me the boot sector is fine, and I can see all disk content on its browser - but crucially cannot copy that content over to a new disk (PTDD browser is pretty arid to say the least) Also tried - photorec-6.11.3 - it actually started to extract files but wouldn't keep file names or any folder structure (maybe I missed sth on the configuration options) - find and mount - intellectual scan went well, the only partition on the disk was detected, then tried to mount into p: but got this error on windows explorer: 'p:\ is not accesible. The media is write protected'. Find and mount allows you to create an image from partition but I don't have a disk big enough at hand. Does anyone know if this will keep the extracted files/folders structure intact? I'm starting to think the disk is pretty screwed and my chances to recover this data are slim. Please someone enlighten me with that marvellous piece of software I am missing :-) Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• DRBD on a disk with existing file system that takes all the place

  - by Karolis T.

  I'm currently trying to simulate the environment via XEN. I have installed two debian systems with such FS layout: cltest1:/etc# df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/xvda2 6.0G 417M 5.2G 8% / tmpfs 257M 0 257M 0% /lib/init/rw udev 10M 16K 10M 1% /dev tmpfs 257M 4.0K 257M 1% /dev/shm Host cltest2 is identical. Here's my drbd.conf global { minor-count 1; } resource mysql { protocol C; syncer { rate 10M; # 10 Megabytes } on cltest1 { device /dev/drbd0; disk /dev/xvda2; address 192.168.1.186:7789; meta-disk internal; } on cltest2 { device /dev/drbd0; disk /dev/xvda2; address 192.168.1.187:7789; meta-disk internal; } } I have not created filesystem on drbd0 Starting DRBD via init.d script errors out with: Starting DRBD resources: [ d(mysql) /dev/drbd0: Failure: (114) Lower device is already claimed. This usually means it is mounted. [mysql] cmd /sbin/drbdsetup /dev/drbd0 disk /dev/xvda2 /dev/xvda2 internal --set-defaults --create-device failed - continuing! Running: drbdadm create-md mysql gives: cltest1:/etc# drbdadm create-md mysql md_offset 6442446848 al_offset 6442414080 bm_offset 6442217472 Found ext3 filesystem which uses 6291456 kB current configuration leaves usable 6291228 kB Device size would be truncated, which would corrupt data and result in 'access beyond end of device' errors. You need to either * use external meta data (recommended) * shrink that filesystem first * zero out the device (destroy the filesystem) Operation refused. Command 'drbdmeta /dev/drbd0 v08 /dev/xvda2 internal create-md' terminated with exit code 40 drbdadm aborting As I understand, all of my problems are because I don't have unallocated disk space on xvda2. What are my options besides shrinking FS and connecting a separate physical disk? Can't the meta-data be stored on a file in the local filesystem?

  Read the article

• Is my HDD dead forever?

  - by Roberto

  Yesterday I turned on my computer and it couldn't boot. I found out the hd (320GB SATA Seagate Momentus 7200.3 for notebook) was broken and it couldn't be recognized by the BIOS. I have another of the same hard drive, so I exchanged the boards. I found out that there is a problem on its board since my good hard drive didn't work. But the broken hard drive doesn't work with the good board as well: it can be recognized but when I insert a Windows Instalation DVD it says the hard drive is 0GB. I put it in a case and use it in another computer via USB, and but it doesn't show up in the "My Computer". I used a software to recover files called "GetDataBack for NTFS", it recognized the hard drive but with the wrong size (2TB). I try to make it read the hard drive but it got an I/O error reading sector. It tries to read, the hard drive spins up. So, since I'm using a good board on it, the problem seems to be internal. Is there anything someone could do to recover the files from it?

  Read the article

• Data recovery on a corrupted 3TB disk

  - by Mark K Cowan

  Short version I probably need software to run a deep-scan recovery (ideally on Linux) to find files on NTFS filesystem. The file data is intact, but the references are no longer present. Analogous to recovering data from a "quick-formatted" partition. Hopefully there is a smarter way available than deep-scan, one which would recover filenames and possibly paths. Long version I have a 3TB disk containing a load of backups. Windows 7 SP1 refused to detect the disk when plugged in directly via SATA, so I put it on a USB/SATA adaptor which seemed to work at first. The SATA/USB adaptor probably does not support disks over 2.2TB though. Windows first asked me if I wanted to 'format' the disk, then later showed me most of the contents but some folder were inaccessible. I stupidly decided to run a CHKDSK on my backup disk, which made the folders accessible but also left them empty. I connected this disk via SATA to my main PC (Arch Linux). I tried: testdisk ntfsundelete ntfsfix --no-action (to look for diagnostically relevant faults, disk was "OK" though) to no avail as the files references in the tables had presumably been zeroed out by CHKDSK, rather than using a typical journal'd deletion). If it is useful at all, a majority of the files that I want to recover are JPEG, Photoshop PSD, and MPEG-3/MPEG-4/AVI/MKV files. If worst comes to worst, I'll just design my own sector scanner and use some simple heuristic-driven analysis to recover raw binary blocks of data from the disk which appears to match the structures of the above file types. I am unfamiliar with the exact workings of NTFS but used to be proficient at recovering FAT32 systems with just a hex-editor, so I can provide any useful diagnostic information if you let me know how to find it! My priorities in ascending order of importance for choosing the accepted answer: Restores directory structure Recovers many filenames in addition to the file data Is free / very cheap Runs on Linux Recovers a majority of file data The last point is the most important, but the more of the higher points you match the more rep you'll probably get :)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >