Search Results

Search found 4361 results on 175 pages for 'multivariate partition'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 45/175 | < Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >

  • In Linux how do I mount a OS-X partition * by name * that is on the same host?

    - by philcolbourn
    I once used gnome-mount like this gnome-mount -o ro -d /dev/sda2 or gnome-mount -o ro -p "Macintosh HD" But, alas, gnome-mount seems to be no more. RIP. I can do this gvfs-mount -d /dev/sda2 (which generates a whole lot of errors but does mount the partition in the /media directory.) This is a related question: http://superuser.com/questions/131918/gnome-mount-alternative-in-ubuntu-10-04-or-how-to-mount-partition-with-normal-use But how do you do it by name?

    Read the article

  • How do I restore a partition without losing the data?

    - by sama
    I lost the D-partition in My Computer I opened My Computer, but couldn't find it and I don't know where it is or how to return it. I went to Disk Management and found it available as free space. So I tried to make it NTFS, but I had to format the drive and I don't want to, since it will erase my data. Does anyone know how I can restore my partition without losing my data?

    Read the article

  • Can I back-up to partition to restore my computer to factory settings?

    - by leaf68
    I have a VAIO model VPC-F11JFX/B. I want to restore it to factory settings (instead of formatting it so I can keep the programs it comes with like VAIO Care). I have like 20 GB of data so I can't copy it into my flash drive and it would take up like 7 of my CD's so I can't do that either. So can I make a new partition (called D) and move the files to D from C. Because I don't know if restoring to factory settings is going to wipe the entire drive or just the partition.

    Read the article

  • Any dangers of sharing /home partition between two distros?

    - by Linux_iOS.rb.cpp.c.lisp.m.sh
    I have a laptop with a 250GB HDD. I have an existing installation of Kubuntu across three partitions (A 20GB one for /, 2GB for swap, and something like 97GB for /home). If I add another partition, use that as / for a Mint 13 install, and then use the existing /home partition as Linux Mint's home folder (different user names), are there any dangers (besides badly done partitioning, and other dumb things like that)?

    Read the article

  • Why does Ubuntu refuse to execute files from an NTFS partition?

    - by Ivan
    I mount an NTFS partition (where I've got some Linux binaries and scripts alongside with Win32 and data files) with the following fstab line: /dev/sda5 /mnt/dat ntfs-3g rw,dev,exec,auto,async,users,umask=000,uid=1000,gid=1000,locale=en_US.utf8, errors=remount-ro 0 0 All files seem to have executable attribute set then, but if I try to actually execute them, I get "Permission denied" error. Even with sudo. Even while execute (as well as read and write) permissions are granted to everyone and all the files owner is set to the user. So how do I set the system up to be able to run Linux binaries from NTFS?

    Read the article

  • Downgrade to LTS version, preserving /home partition: Should I expect this to work?

    - by Archelon
    Specifically, I'm installing Kubuntu 12.04 over 13.04. And in fact I've already done it, and it seems to have at least mostly worked, but I'm wondering whether this one anomaly is likely to be attributable to the downgrade; to wit: I have no window borders|decorations, but only wide, featureless, white---or sometimes black---margins around all my windows. None of the settings in System Settings (the window border and decorations options are in Workspace Appearance) seem to have any effect. Is this likely to be fixable, or should I cut my losses and reinstall (formatting the /home partition and restoring any data with rsync)?

    Read the article

  • Why is my partition claiming to be out of space?

    - by Dr C
    My file system claims to only have 4.5 GB left. While my OS (a folder with in file system) still has 75.2 GB left. I put something near 130 GB on my Ubuntu partition, it should have enough space. I confirmed that I can put things in OS that exceed the space in available file systems, but that makes no sense, OS is listed as a folder inside of file system, why would it have more space than it's parent folder? What is going on? Here is the output of df: Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda5 113773200 103741440 4252408 97% / udev 2004600 4 2004596 1% /dev tmpfs 804756 848 803908 1% /run none 5120 0 5120 0% /run/lock none 2011884 436 2011448 1% /run/shm /dev/sda2 127526908 54045584 73481324 43% /media/OS /dev/sda3 39144708 89016 39055692 1% /media/DATA`

    Read the article

  • Why do I get "No root file system is defined" when I try install in one partition?

    - by Emilio
    The thing is that I have 3 partitions on my computer. /dev/sda1 Type: ntfs (size 104MB; 35MB in use) [This is Windows Loader] /dev/sda2 Type: ntfs (size 144598MB; 64536MB in use) [Here I want to install UBUNTU] /dev/sda3 Type: ntfs (size 105353MB; 20227MB in use) [This my backup partition I don't wan't to delete anything from here, I have all my necessary information] So the problem is when I select "Device for boot loader installation" "/dev/sda2" Pops out: "No root file system is defined. Please correct this from the partitioning menu." How can I resolve this? :)

    Read the article

  • ubuntu 12.04 can't find root partition (it doesn't look for btrfs partitions) end up with kernel-panic [closed]

    - by zalesz
    Possible Duplicate: There's an issue with an Alpha/Beta Release of Ubuntu, what should I do? I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 from kernel v. 3.2.0-17 with all partitions formatted as BTRFS. It was everything ok till kernel 3.2.0-18/19. Now system don't load, after trying to run it with recovery there is a msg that kernel panic occurred cause there is no partition with ext3/4 and some other partitions but I don't see any btrfs alike type. Any ideas how to fix it? Best

    Read the article

  • How can I handle "NTFS partition is in unsafe state"?

    - by user211040
    Error mounting /dev/sda3 at /media/franklcohen/OS: Command-line `mount -t "ntfs" -o "uhelper=udisks2,nodev,nosuid,uid=1000,gid=1000,dmask=0077,fmask=0177" "/dev/sda3" "/media/franklcohen/OS"' exited with non-zero exit status 14: Windows is hibernated, refused to mount. Failed to mount '/dev/sda3': Operation not permitted The NTFS partition is in an unsafe state. Please resume and shutdown Windows fully (no hibernation or fast restarting), or mount the volume read-only with the 'ro' mount option. i get this error i have disabled fast start up in windows 8. what can i do i shut down my computer 4 times in windows and disabled fast start in windows 8. i'm using Ubuntu 13.10. please help thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to transfer a windows disk, to another partition? (details within)

    - by TardisGuy
    So i have a new SSD... and its like... SOOO fast (but tiny, 128Gig). But it seems to be WAY faster in linux. (bonus: whats the best Filesystem?) Now, am i correct in assuming that if I Gparted copy paste the {Boot MSreserved_][__NTFS___] in to (1st Empty space, same partition) and it will be bootable right? Oh and... how do I disable "Journaling" i read that I should do that. Feel free to link any additional mods/apts/hacks/tweaks

    Read the article

  • Can't boot ubuntu 12.04, stuck in busybox. Can't view files from ubuntu trial disc, or windows partition

    - by Maura
    So, I'm slightly computer literate, and find myself frustrated and overwhelmed. My computer is a acer laptop, extensa 5620-6572. I have a dual boot with windows vista and ubuntu 12.04. The ubuntu 12.04 I got was from an upgrade, not a disc. I tried to load ubuntu 12.04, and it gets stuck in the "busybox", and I don't know how to proceed from there. I went to my windows partition and downloaded Ex2 from http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd/ and thought I'd try access my files and save them to a external HD. Then when I restarted my computer and went to windows, it always freezes after it loads the OS. So then, I downloaded and burned a ubuntu 12.04 boot disk, and the disk works fine. But I still can't figure out how to view files on my harddrive.

    Read the article

  • How does the EFI partition work and can I boot an x86 OS with a bootx64.efi file?

    - by Ian
    I have a Thinkpad X230 laptop and I want to install Linux Mint Debian Edition along side Windows 7 on my GPT formatted SSD with the BIOS in UEFI mode. The problem is that I don't understand how EFI booting works. There seems to be an EFI partition involved with some folders and binary files in it. GRUB 2 seems to be able to make more folders in it (I followed this guide http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/UEFI_Firmware), but it appears that the only file that does anything is the bootx64.efi file in the /efi/boot folder of the EFI partition (I am not sure if this is always the case, but it appears to be the case for my laptop http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:X220). Here is what I have been able to do: I can install Linux Mint Debian Edition x86 with the BIOS in BIOS mode on my SSD. I can then install grub-efi and follow the guide linked above. The problem is that I don't get a GRUB prompt when I switch the BIOS to UEFI mode. It just boots Windows. It appears that I can either boot from the SSD or something called "Windows Boot Manager". If I replace the bootx64.efi with the file created by GRUB, I can no longer boot directly from the SSD. Booting from "Windows Boot Manager" still works fine. I realize that the guide says to use x64 Linux, but Linux Mint Debian Edition x64 hangs during the install process. I am really confused. What should I do? Can anyone explain how the EFI boot partition works? Can a bootx64.efi boot an x86 OS? Should I just give up with using UEFI? I haven't been able to find very much useful information about using Debian based operating systems with UEFI. Thanks, Ian

    Read the article

  • copying an lvm partition to a smaller disk, and renaming volume groups.

    - by dlamblin
    I was trying to shrink a vmdk (VMWare disk image) file to be as small as possible, and found two recommendations. The first is to cat /dev/zero into the fs then delete it, and run VMWare tools' shrink. This works okay. The second is to copy everything into a new vmdk. I went the second route. I did not use dd because I actaully want to use as few blocks as possible, instead of having a block-by-clok copy. Any unlinked files will still have blocks that aren't zeroed out. Secondly the centos image was mostly lvm, except for the boot partition, and my target was going to be 4gb instead of 8gb. I did use dd for the first 40mb to get the boot blocks and partition copied. I then used parted to create an identical primary boot, and smaller primary lvm. Then I used pvcreate on that device sdb2, vgcreate, and lvcreate to create a root and swap. I used mkfs.ext3fs on the root partition and then rsync -av / /2root excluding /proc /sys /2root /dev. So far everything went fine. My problem is that: The result is 2.7 GB while the source was 2.1 GB. This is weird to me. The second vgroup is called VolGroup01, while the original was called VolGroup00. How can I rename the VolGroup01 to VolGroup00 and swap it out after all this?

    Read the article

  • What is the fastest way to resize a large partition?

    - by Jook
    Due to a new HDD-Configuration I am currently handling larger backup/resize tasks with partitions between around 900MB, wich are 70-90% full. some background: First thing I've noticed was, that the Acronis-WesternDigital TrueImage was extremly slow while running it under Windows 7, even though on high priority. To create a normal backup for 650gb of data (900gb partition), it would have taken 3 days! The same task done with the boot-cd version of this acronis version took about 2 hours (SATA3 copy from one disk to another, both around 110MB/s). Now, after I have done all my backups, I've wanted to remove some obsolete partitions and resize the leftovers to full hdd size. Of course, usually this takes quite some time - in this case for this 900gb partition, to extend it to 931 (30gb+ from front, 1gb+ from end), it will take around 6 hours (using gparted)! Had I new that erlier, I would have just restored the image. But no - first it showed a reasonable time of 1:45h and 0 of 1 operations, but after finishing 1:45h it started again, only this time with 4h to go, still 0 of 1 operations, but now it was copying instead of moving. Question: However, why has it to be this slow to resize a partition? I am asking for a good explanaition. This has bugged me, since I started partitioning - why does it require to copy all the data around, can't it just stay in place?!

    Read the article

  • Cannot find FIS partition 'initramfs'......... need help!!!

    - by vikramtheone
    Hi Guys, I have a Ubuntu 9.04 Linux running on Freescale's i.MX515(ARM Cortex based) board with me. There were about 250 updates pending and I did that today, well some of the updates failed because of the infamous errors: E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'sudo dpkg --configure -a' to correct the problem. E: Couldn't rebuild package cache E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'sudo dpkg --configure -a' to correct the problem. So, when I do the 'sudo dpkg --configure -a' I get new errors related to FIS partition: Cannot find FIS partition 'initramfs' User postinst hook script [/usr/sbin/flash-kernel] exited with value 1 dpkg: error processing linux-image-2.6.28-18-imx51 (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-image-imx51: linux-image-imx51 depends on linux-image-2.6.28-18-imx51; however: Package linux-image-2.6.28-18-imx51 is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing linux-image-imx51 (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-imx51: linux-imx51 depends on linux-image-imx51 (= 2.6.28.18.23); however: Package linux-image-imx51 is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing linux-imx51 (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Processing triggers for initramfs-tools ... update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-2.6.28-18-imx51 Cannot find FIS partition 'initramfs' dpkg: subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Whats going wrong here, need help!!! I'm a newbie. Regards Vikram

    Read the article

  • Should I partition my main table with 2 millions rows?

    - by domribaut
    Hi, I am a developer and would need some DBA-advices. We are starting to get performance problem with a MSSQL2005 database. The visible effects of the incidents is mainly CPU-hog on the server but operations reported that it was also draining resources from the SAN (not always). the main source of issues is for sure in some application but I am wondering if we should partition some of the main tables anyway in order to relax the I/O pressure. The base is about 60GB in one file. The main table (order) has 2.1 Million rows with a 215 colones (but none is huge). We have an integer as PK so it should be OK to define a partition function. Will we win something with partitioning? will partition indexes buy us something? Here are some more facts about the DB and the table database_name database_size unallocated space My_base 57173.06 MB 79.74 MB reserved data index_size unused 29 444 808 KB 26 577 320 KB 2 845 232 KB 22 256 KB name rows reserved data index_size unused Order 2 097 626 4 403 832 KB 2 756 064 KB 1 646 080 KB 1688 KB Thanks for any advice Dom

    Read the article

  • Why can't I mount an image hosted on a read-only HFS+ partition via Boot Camp?

    - by deceze
    I have come across the following phenomenon and would like to know how leaky Windows' file system abstraction is or if there's something else involved. I partitioned the hard disk of my MacBook Pro and installed Windows 7 (64 bit). The Boot Camp driver package includes file system drivers that enable Windows to access the Mac OS HFS+ partition. It's read-only access, but it works. Now, I have some disk images of stuff I usually install, so I grabbed a copy of Daemon Tools to mount them. When I mount an image saved on the HFS+ partition, about two out of three installers on these disks (usually InstallShield) crash with all sorts of weird errors. Most are just gibberish that lead to all sorts of non-solutions on Google, one was "This application is not the right type for your computer, check if you need 32 or 64 bit versions." When moving the image files to another Windows 7 computer on the network and mounting them from the network share, they work fine. My question now is, why do applications behave differently depending on whether the read-only image file, which should be abstracted away through the read-only virtual Daemon Tools drive, is located on a read-only HFS+ partition or on a Windows network share? And I'll just roll this into the question as well since I was wondering: Does the file system of a network share matter? Does the client system need to understand the file system of the share host or is that abstracted away in SMB?

    Read the article

  • Why do disk images hosted on a read-only HFS+ partition behave differently?

    - by deceze
    I have come across the following phenomenon and would like to know how leaky Windows' file system abstraction is or if there's something else involved. I partitioned the hard disk of my MacBook Pro and installed Windows 7 (64 bit). The Boot Camp driver package includes file system drivers that enable Windows to access the Mac OS HFS+ partition. It's read-only access, but it works. Now, I have some disk images of stuff I usually install, so I grabbed a copy of Daemon Tools to mount them. When I mount an image saved on the HFS+ partition, about two out of three installers on these disks (usually InstallShield) crash with all sorts of weird errors. Most are just gibberish that lead to all sorts of non-solutions on Google, one was "This application is not the right type for your computer, check if you need 32 or 64 bit versions." When moving the image files to another Windows 7 computer on the network and mounting them from the network share, they work fine. My question now is, why do applications behave differently depending on whether the read-only image file, which should be abstracted away through the read-only virtual Daemon Tools drive, is located on a read-only HFS+ partition or on a Windows network share? And I'll just roll this into the question as well since I was wondering: Does the file system of a network share matter? Does the client system need to understand the file system of the share host or is that abstracted away in SMB?

    Read the article

  • Why is windows not able to create a system partition?

    - by hughes
    I'm reinstalling Windows 7 64 bit, and I encountered an issue I've never seen before. I have a legit copy of Win 64 Professional, and I've installed it probably a half dozen times on this machine in the past without a problem. Googling the error only brings me to issues with people who are upgrading to win7. The drive itself seems to not have a problem. I can mount it on other systems and I can create an NTFS partition on it on other machines. I can install Ubuntu on it without any issues. Additionally, if I try using my alternate backup hard drive, the installer gives the same error. I have run diskpart from the setup page and clean seems to report that all is well. However, I cannot get past the screen below, which says Setup was unable to create a new system partition or locate an existing system partition. This happens regardless of whether or not the disk space is already allocated. What is causing this? How do I solve or get past this?

    Read the article

  • How To Completely Move Users/Program Files/Program Files (x86)/ProgramData (Folders) To Another Partition(s) On Windows 8?

    - by Enigma83
    I am attempting to move folders Users Program Files Program Files (x86), ProgramData (at the root of the C drive) to at least 2 other partitions, preferably on a fresh install. I have read that there are methods for doing this post-install, but it seems like it would be a bit more tedious to do things that way. I want to move the 2 Program Files folders to another partition on the same HDD, and Users/ProgramData will go to yet another partition on same HDD. I have done a bit of research on this, read up on some things that involved booting into Audit Mode, using the RoboCopy command to copy folders via booting into my Windows 8 USB drive, creating NTFS junctions/symbolic links, Registry edits, as well as accomplishing this automatically by creating an auto-attend file which Windows Setup processes automatically before the user is ever booted in for the 1st time. I tried this morning and now have a basic installation in which programs like Internet Explorer fail to open, certain files can't be found/opened (even if I click on them directly), an example is Regedit. Also, I can't run the Command/DOS (CMD) prompt as Administrator (or otherwise, as any other user), can't activate the real Administrator account or open any of the Administrative Tools (despite having added them to my Start Screen). So far I have only tried RoboCopy-ing Program Files and Program Files (x86) so far, creating junction points for them, and editing the Registry in the relevant locations. This is what I'm left with now. I also found the following blog article which describes how to do this for Windows 7 So, where should I go from here and where can I find more information? And how can this be done without disabling the Metro apps, which I've read will stop working if you move ProgramData. Once I have everything moved, where do I install programs to? Do I tell them to install to C:\Program Files\Program Files (x86) or to the junctioned/symbolic-linked partition/drive? I plan to test in VMware virtual machines from here on until things are working correctly, while using a baseline default install for daily tasks.

    Read the article

  • Will Windows repair my multi-boot when I format the 1st physical partition with boot sector?

    - by user2353806
    Due to historical reasons I got a laptop with Vista, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008R2 partitions. (boot from external wasn´t that viable) Nothing (Windows Repair, bootrec /whateveroption) worked when I restored only the Windows 7 and WS2k8 with Acronis TrueImage. Don´t ask me through what idiotic error messages I went during repair tries. (Wrong Windows version,...) So I grudgingly restored all three - with the little additional excursion that I thought changing the active partition to the Windows 7 partition would move the boot sector and let me format the Vista part... Oh no. Seems too logical for MS. (Dunno what I changed, but today it will let me format!) So the real question is: Will formatting the Vista part trash things again beyond comprehension or will Windows Repair bring back the boot rec and remove Vista from the boot options? Or should I just erase all the files to avoid trashing the boot? Where will the boot rec be (after repair) when I format the Vista? On 1st or 2nd partition? And if I get drunk and install Windows 8.1 on the 1st, will anything work? ;-) Thanks

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >