Search Results

Search found 6028 results on 242 pages for 'total commander'.

Page 65/242 | < Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >

• Top cpu% analyis

  - by user111196

  I would like the know in what cpus % can be considered in save range and also load average? Which indication will give signal something is wrong with the server? top - 22:55:51 up 3 days, 6:39, 1 user, load average: 0.53, 0.43, 0.37 Tasks: 229 total, 2 running, 227 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu0 : 16.2%us, 0.7%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.8%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st Cpu1 : 10.5%us, 0.7%sy, 0.0%ni, 88.5%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st Cpu2 : 9.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 91.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu3 : 0.3%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.4%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu4 : 1.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu5 : 44.8%us, 2.6%sy, 0.0%ni, 37.0%id, 0.0%wa, 9.4%hi, 6.2%si, 0.0%st Cpu6 : 3.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 96.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.4%si, 0.0%st Cpu7 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 16468596k total, 2423908k used, 14044688k free, 200172k buffers

  Read the article

• Is 2 GB of RAM better than 2.5 GB?

  - by pibboater

  My laptop has two slots for RAM, and currently has two 512 MB chips, for 1 GB. Windows XP is running terribly slow on it, so I want to upgrade the RAM. I could buy two 1 GB chips to replace both of the current 512 MB chips, to give me 2 GB of RAM. Or, the price is the same to buy one 2 GB chip, to replace just one of the 512 MB chips, and give me 2.5 GB total. The RAM it takes is PC2-4200 533MHz DDR2. What do you think would be better: buying two 1 GB chips so it can take advantage of dual-channel operation, or buying one 2 GB chip to end up with more total RAM but not dual-channel operation? Like I said, price is the same, so performance is the only consideration. I'm not doing anything especially intensive like video or photo editing -- just having multiple Office programs open, playing music, browsers, etc., but currently even opening the first application takes forever. If it matters, the laptop is a Toshiba Qosmio G25-AV513 running Windows XP Media Center SP3. Thanks! Kevin

  Read the article

• 100% CPU load on Ubuntu 10.04.3 LTS 64bit

  - by deadtired

  I have 2 days since I am trying to fix this issue, with no success. The server is a mysql database server. Hardware: DELL Poweredge 1950, 2x Intel Xeon Quad Core E5345 @ 2.33GHz, 16 Gb mem, 2x 146Gb SAS (software RAID1) Software: Ubuntu 10.04.3 LTS, MySQL 5.1.41 Issue: while mysql is not used and runs with no database, everything seems alright. As soon as I install a database, it has the reason to bring all 8 cores in 100% with low memory consumption. So, you can imagine the load average goes high (I saw 212 load average for the first time). The server doesn't become unresponsive, but you can see it's slow while browsing the project installed. Additional info: the database used is not more than 24MB and it was moved from a server with less resources and a lot more larger databases. So it's not the database/project. my.cnf is not a reason also, as I used both default one and the one I use on the same distribution on another server.What is interesting is that mysql doesn't close any process and runs to the limit of the max_connections. Logs are quiet. Nothing there. I switched to this Ubuntu version after I suspected some problems in the newly Ubuntu 11.10 server. This one worked alright for an hour after I made a kernel upgrade to 3.0.1 (it was using the memory also) I tested disk speed and seems alright. Some more output on the running server: dstat -cndymlp -N total -D total 3: htop command: Idea? Did anyone meet the same problem? Any fix you can think of?

  Read the article

• Apache https is slsow

  - by raucous12

  Hey, I've set apache up to use SSL with a self signed certificate. With http (KeepAlive off), I can get over 5000 requests per second. However, with https, I can only get 13 requests per second. I know there is supposed to be a bit of an overhead, but this seems abnormal. Can anyone suggest how I might go about debugging this. Here is the ab log for https: Server Software: Apache/2.2.3 Server Hostname: 127.0.0.1 Server Port: 443 SSL/TLS Protocol: TLSv1/SSLv3,DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA,4096,256 Document Path: /hello.html Document Length: 29 bytes Concurrency Level: 5 Time taken for tests: 30.49425 seconds Complete requests: 411 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 119601 bytes HTML transferred: 11919 bytes Requests per second: 13.68 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 365.565 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 73.113 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 3.86 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 190 347 74.3 333 716 Processing: 0 14 24.0 1 166 Waiting: 0 11 21.6 0 165 Total: 191 361 80.8 345 716 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 345 66% 377 75% 408 80% 421 90% 468 95% 521 98% 578 99% 596 100% 716 (longest request)

  Read the article

• Intermittently uncommunicative subnets

  - by mhd

  Last week proved me a veritable Cassandra: I've always said that it's a bad idea to have only one firewall/router, without a backup or failover. And thus our Cisco PIX went haywire, refusing to route properly. And of course, the only one available here on short notice is me, and while I'm quite grounded in Linux, I'm really a developer not a sysadmin (the fact that this hit me on sysadmin appreciation day is a bit ironic). Anyway, this weekend I tried to hack up a temporary solution: I used an old server with enough NICs (two built-in, four on a card) to serve as a gateway and firewall. Due to some problems with the raid controller, I got only two router distros running, and between Untangle and Ebox I decided for the latter. Now everything is quite okay. I've got all the different subnets we've got here (all with separate switches) talking to each other and even to the internet (Cisco 2800 router, T1 lines). But from time to time (20-60 minute intervals), I get a total routing failure. Our main, office subnet can't talk to our server subnet and can't connect to the internet. This is not the end of a gradual slowdown, either everything's working perfectly or I get a total lack of communication for about two minutes each time. Now I'm a bit at wits end what to check. At least with the default EBox setup, nothing in /var/log shows anything weird and it doesn't exactly have lots of built-in monitoring tools. So I'm hoping someone here could give me some pointers about what to look out for. I did change the ethernet cable from the office switch to the firewall, with no results. I might change switches, although within the switch it seems to work ok enough. Edit: I'm not sure whether this is the sole cause of the problem, but after I noticed a few DHCP entries just before the last drop of connectivity, I tried to reproduce that. And alas, whenever I renew a DHCP connection, I can't access other subnets anymore. Running ISC DHCPD 3.0.6.

  Read the article

• why does the partition start on sector 2048 instead of 63

  - by gcb

  I had two drives partitioned the same and running 2 raid partitions on each. One died and I replaced it under warranty for the same model. While trying to partition it, the first partition can only start on sector 2048, instead of 63 that was before. Driver have different geometry as previous and remaining ones. (Fewer heads/more cylinders) old drive: $ sudo fdisk -c -u -l /dev/sdb Disk /dev/sdb: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders, total 3907029168 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: 0x000aa189 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 63 174080339 87040138+ 83 Linux /dev/sdb2 174080340 182482334 4200997+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sdb3 182482335 3907024064 1862270865 fd Linux raid autodetect remanufactured drive received from warranty: $ sudo fdisk -c -u -l /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 81 heads, 63 sectors/track, 765633 cylinders, total 3907029168 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: 0x000d0b5d Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 2048 ... why is that?

  Read the article

• Can't get DNS Alias work on Ubuntu 10.04 with Apache 2

  - by Johnny

  I want to use the DNS Alias to configure one of my domain pointing to a specific directory on the server. Here is what I've done: Change the IP address in domain setting, and it works $ ping www.example.com PING example.com (124.205.62.xxx): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 124.205.62.xxx: icmp_seq=0 ttl=48 time=53.088 ms 64 bytes from 124.205.62.xxx: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=52.125 ms ^C --- example.com ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 52.125/52.606/53.088/0.482 ms Add sites-available and sites-enabled $ ls -l /etc/apache2/sites-available/ total 16 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 948 2010-04-14 03:27 default -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7467 2010-04-14 03:27 default-ssl -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 365 2010-06-09 18:27 example.com $ ls -l /etc/apache2/sites-enabled/ total 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 26 2010-06-09 15:46 000-default -> ../sites-available/default lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 33 2010-06-09 18:17 001-example.com -> ../sites-available/example.com But it doesn't work and when I open the browser for www.example.com, it shows an 111 error: The following error was encountered: Connection to 124.205.62.48 Failed The system returned: (111) Connection refused Here is how example.com's config: $ cat /etc/apache2/sites-enabled/001-example.com <virtualhost *:80> DocumentRoot "/vhosts/example.com/htdocs/" ServerName www.example.com ServerAlias example.com <Location /> Order Deny,Allow Deny from None Allow from all </Location> #Include /etc/phpmyadmin/apache.conf ErrorLog /vhosts/example.com/logs/error.log CustomLog /vhosts/example.com/logs/access.log combined Could you please tell me how to solve this?

  Read the article

• How to import a text file into powershell and email it, formatted as HTML

  - by Don

  I'm trying to get a list of all Exchange accounts, format them in descending order from largest mailbox and put that data into an email in HTML format to email to myself. So far I can get the data, push it to a text file as well as create an email and send to myself. I just can't seem to get it all put together. I've been trying to use ConvertTo-Html but it just seems to return data via email like "pageFooterEntry" and "Microsoft.PowerShell.Commands.Internal.Format.AutosizeInfo" versus the actual data. I can get it to send me the right data if i don't tell it to ConvertTo-Html, just have it pipe the data to a text file and pull from it, but it's all ran together with no formatting. I don't need to save the file, i'd just like to run the command, get the data, put it in HTML and mail it to myself. Here's what I have currently: #Connects to Database and returns information on all users, organized by Total Item Size, User $body = Get-MailboxStatistics -database "Mailbox Database 0846468905" | where {$_.ObjectClass -eq “Mailbox”} | Sort-Object TotalItemSize -Descending | ft @{label=”User”;expression={$_.DisplayName}},@{label=”Total Size (MB)”;expression={$_.TotalItemSize.Value.ToMB()}} -auto | ConvertTo-Html #Pause for 5 seconds for Exchange write-host -foregroundcolor Green "Pausing for 5 seconds for Exchange" Start-Sleep -s 5 $toemail = "[email protected]" # Emails report to this address. $fromemail = "[email protected]" #Emails from this address. $server = "Exchange.company.com" #Exchange server - SMTP. #Email the report. $email = New-Object System.Net.Mail.MailMessage $email.IsBodyHtml = $True $email.To.Add($toemail) $email.From = $fromemail $email.Subject = "Exchange Mailbox Sizes" $email.Body = $body $client = New-Object System.Net.Mail.SmtpClient $server $client.UseDefaultCredentials = $true $client.Send($email) Any thoughts would be helpful, thanks!

  Read the article

• USB transfer speed for Windows 7 is incredibly slow to my external drive

  - by Wolfram

  I'm running Windows 7 Pro and am try to backup 116 GB of data to my external 1 TB hard drive. My laptop has only USB 2.0 ports and my hard drive is USB 3.0 compatible, as is the cable I'm using. I understand that the transfer speed should still be in accordance with USB 2.0 speeds. However, right now I'm getting 135 KB/s and it's been gradually dropping. For an earlier transfer, I would get between 4 MB/s to 8 MB/s. So, I'm really just wondering what's going on with my transfer rate and what I can do to improve it. I'm currently about 35 GB into the 116 GB transfer. Another strange thing is that the window which shows the transfer status decided to max out at 835 MB, and therefore shows items remaining as 0. However, it is still performing the rest of the transfer, and I can see it still cycling through files. Now that I think about it, it seems plausible that the speed being shown by the window is calculated merely as total data transferred / time elapsed. Since the "counter" of data, as far as what is being displayed in the window, maxed out at 835 MB, as time increases, the speed shown is going to keep decreasing because the 'total data transferred' value isn't being incremented. So with that in mind, I suppose I don't actually know at what rate the data is being transferred currently. Nonetheless, my best speed earlier was only around 8 MB/s. Shouldn't USB 2.0 deliver closer to 35 MB/s? Also, if someone can tell me why the transfer status window is displaying the incorrect data information and how to fix this, that would also be appreciated.

  Read the article

• aufs user permissions

  - by user56395

  Anyone know why this doesn't work? Is this user error, AUFS feature or bug maybe: rac@tecraS1:~/tmp$ mkdir orig tmp au rac@tecraS1:~/tmp$ sudo mount -t tmpfs none tmp rac@tecraS1:~/tmp$ sudo chown -R rac tmp rac@tecraS1:~/tmp$ echo hello > orig/hello rac@tecraS1:~/tmp$ sudo mount -t aufs -o br=tmp:orig none au rac@tecraS1:~/tmp$ ls -al au total 8 drwxrwxrwt 4 rac root 100 2011-01-06 13:53 . drwxr-xr-x 5 rac rac 4096 2011-01-06 13:52 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 rac rac 6 2011-01-06 13:53 hello rac@tecraS1:~/tmp$ rm au/hello rm: cannot remove `au/hello': Operation not permitted rac@tecraS1:~/tmp$ Seems the aufs files were created as root and user has no access to them: rac@tecraS1:~/tmp$ sudo rm au/hello rac@tecraS1:~/tmp$ ls -al tmp total 4 drwxrwxrwt 4 rac root 120 2011-01-06 13:53 . drwxr-xr-x 5 rac rac 4096 2011-01-06 13:52 .. -r--r--r-- 2 root root 0 2011-01-06 13:53 .wh.hello -r--r--r-- 2 root root 0 2011-01-06 13:53 .wh..wh.aufs drwx------ 2 root root 40 2011-01-06 13:53 .wh..wh.orph drwx------ 2 root root 40 2011-01-06 13:53 .wh..wh.plnk rac@tecraS1:~/tmp$ OS is the latest Lucid with 2.6.35-23 stock kernel. No idea about aufs version. Using sudo chown -R rac tmp/.wh* fixes the problem. Thanks for looking.

  Read the article

• Are these three brand new sticks of RAM really dead?

  - by David Brown

  I'm working on a Dell Dimension 4700 desktop for a friend. It came with 512MB of DDR2 RAM (two sticks of 256MB). One morning, it started blue screening on startup with no helpful error messages. It refused to boot into any form of Windows installation, including Safe Mode, original recovery disk, and my custom Windows PE disk. It did boot into the Ultimate Boot CD, so I ran memtest86, which reported errors everywhere. I removed one stick of RAM and the system booted up just fine. I moved the remaining stick into each slot and the system continued to operate normally, so I came to the conclusion that the stick that I removed was dead. I ordered an exact replacement, along with 2 more sticks of 256MB DDR2 (again, exactly the same as the original), bringing the total system memory to 1GB. Upon installing the three brand new sticks, the system blue screened again, this time stating that win32k.sys attempted to write to read-only memory. I inserted my custom Windows PE disk in order to get a better look at the memory dump with BlueScreenView, but it refused to boot and produced another blue screen, but without an error message. I removed each new stick one-by-one, restarting each time. It continued to blue screen until I was left with only the original stick. I then tried inserting the new sticks in various different orders, but this only produced more blue screens. I reinserted all three sticks (along with the original) and ran memtest86 again, which reported errors all over the place. So, now I'm right back where I started. I don't think it could be the slots themselves, because I can plug the original stick into any slot and it works just fine. System setup reports each stick correctly and shows the total as 1GB, however. It just seems strange to me that all three brand new sticks of RAM could be dead on arrival. Is there something I missed? Or should I just go ahead and RMA them?

  Read the article

• MS Excel and Access - which is better for reports?

  - by Nat

  Where I work, staff have just started to use a basic table in excel (1 october) to record sales which has about 10 columns (name, client, renewed, discount, paid etc). I record the data (total sold etc) every hour and email it to the manager. Each staff has the their own file on the network which they use constantly for that day (eg. John 08-10.xlsx; John 09-10.xlsx etc) and have been told to save the file after they complete a row with client data. I can see the file (in read only mode) to update the report but I am sure there must be a way of doing an autoupdate of their worksheets in real time. I can link worksheets and workbooks to my main workbook but manually. Does anyone have suggestions on have to do this on Excel? Or would Access allow me to make a report which shows the sales total for that hour without the staff closing the file or constantly clicking save every few minutes? We use office 2010. thanks

  Read the article

• Extending ext4 partition on debian7.0 on vsphere

  - by VoidPointer

  I have allocated thin provisioning of 15GB when i found 8GB as insufficient. Now debian guest is not able to recognize the change of size. root@debian7-x64:~# lvdisplay --- Logical volume --- LV Path /dev/debian7-x64/root LV Name root VG Name debian7-x64 LV UUID EU6mg0-XTXC-ci3D-bQJi-7XN6-r8Hp-SYxcj0 LV Write Access read/write LV Creation host, time debian7-x64, 2013-06-25 12:02:49 +0530 LV Status available # open 1 LV Size 7.39 GiB Current LE 1892 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 254:0 --- Logical volume --- LV Path /dev/debian7-x64/swap_1 LV Name swap_1 VG Name debian7-x64 LV UUID xDNtoz-tJUq-M5D6-GGCN-gzcD-fwUv-fYYDR1 LV Write Access read/write LV Creation host, time debian7-x64, 2013-06-25 12:02:49 +0530 LV Status available # open 2 LV Size 376.00 MiB Current LE 94 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 254:1 root@debian7-x64:~# pvdisplay --- Physical volume --- PV Name /dev/sda5 VG Name debian7-x64 PV Size 7.76 GiB / not usable 2.00 MiB Allocatable yes (but full) PE Size 4.00 MiB Total PE 1986 Free PE 0 Allocated PE 1986 PV UUID SehkzH-Gq8Y-jI2f-27Tb-uv1Z-tR1R-5OnTxR root@debian7-x64:~# sfdisk -s /dev/sda: 15728640 /dev/mapper/debian7--x64-root: 7749632 /dev/mapper/debian7--x64-swap_1: 385024 total: 23863296 blocks Help me to extend this partition. No problem in rebooting. I dont have any live CD. Environment : debian 7, with lvm, on vsphere, ext4 partition. Can provide more details when needed.

  Read the article

• Backup data from RAID 1 disk out of its server

  - by Doomsday

  I'm facing with a pretty easy problem in my opinion. I've extracted a working disk from a RAID1 and I'm looking to copy only data (FS and RAID configuration doesn't matter) into another location (another FS). My problem is I'm not able to mount properly this disk into another linux. I've first looked the partition table : # fdisk -l /dev/sdc Disk /dev/sdc: 640.1 GB, 640135028736 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 77825 cylinders, total 1250263728 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: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 63 1249535699 624767818+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc2 1249535700 1250017649 240975 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc3 1250017650 1250258624 120487+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris I've understood I should use dmraid tools. Once installed : # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : md0 : inactive sdc1[1](S) 624767744 blocks unused devices: <none> And some other informations : # mdadm --examine /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdc1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 0.90.00 UUID : 8f292f54:7e5aef72:7e5ab5fd:b348fd05 Creation Time : Mon Jun 2 03:39:41 2008 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 624767744 (595.82 GiB 639.76 GB) Array Size : 624767744 (595.82 GiB 639.76 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Tue Feb 7 22:34:59 2012 State : clean Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : a505b324 - correct Events : 15148 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 1 8 1 1 active sync /dev/sda1 0 0 8 17 0 active sync /dev/sdb1 1 1 8 1 1 active sync /dev/sda1 From here, I've tried to mount but I'm not comfortable with dmtools and how it's working. # mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt/sdc1 mount: unknown filesystem type 'linux_raid_member' # mount /dev/md0 /mnt/sdc1 mount: /dev/md0: can't read superblock I've seen some options to alter RAID array with mdadm but I only want to copy data on its filesystem before wiping them... Anyone has a clue ?

  Read the article

• Boot records messed on dual boot (win7 and ubuntu) machine with SSD and HDD

  - by Michael

  i have a lenovo ideapad y570 with two hard drives: SSD and normal HDD both managed by RapidDrive and windows 7 pre-installed. First, i have shrunk my 500 GB HDD a little bit to make some place for a linux installation. Then i installed linux mint 12 to it, also installed grub onto the drive (dev/sdb). Installation programm has not allowed me to install grub on sda. Then i replaced linux mint with ubuntu 12.04 but installed grub onto the SSD (which is dev/sda and was the default-option). After that i could boot into my windows, only ubuntu worked. So i did a research, and tried: rewriting mbr of windows into sda1, reinstalling grub, replacing grub2 with grub-legacy, and now i think my partitions table are totally messed. Here is fdisk -l output: ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 64.0 GB, 64023257088 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 7783 cylinders, total 125045424 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: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 411647 204800 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 411648 1009430959 504509656 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT Disk /dev/sdb: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 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: 0x5e5d1cc8 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 1979 884389887 442193954+ 12 Compaq diagnostics /dev/sdb2 884391934 976771071 46189569 5 Extended /dev/sdb5 884391936 937705471 26656768 83 Linux /dev/sdb6 937707520 967006207 14649344 83 Linux /dev/sdb7 967008256 976771071 4881408 82 Linux swap / Solaris I also cant mount any windows partitions to recover data. And when i open gparted, the whole sda-disk appears unallocated and it states "can not have a partition outside the disk!", also the end-sector address of /dev/sda2 confuses me. If i boot from the SSD, it throws some mbr error and wont boot, if i boot from the HDD, i only get the grub bash. How do i restore the partition tables? I can boot only from a live-cd at the machine. Thanks for any help.

  Read the article

• Ruby installed on Ubuntu 10.10 slow on one machine but not other

  - by Aaron Jensen

  I have a machine that was provisioned several months ago. RVM was used to install ruby 1.9.3-p125 as well as 1.9.3-p125-perf. When I compared raw ruby performance to another identical machine the older machine smoked them. For example: ================================================================================ With in-block needle calculation ================================================================================ Rehearsal ---------------------------------------------- detect 3.790000 0.000000 3.790000 ( 3.800895) each 2.410000 0.000000 2.410000 ( 2.420860) any 3.960000 0.000000 3.960000 ( 3.972099) include 1.440000 0.000000 1.440000 ( 1.442862) ------------------------------------ total: 11.600000sec vs ================================================================================ With in-block needle calculation ================================================================================ Rehearsal ---------------------------------------------- detect 10.740000 0.000000 10.740000 ( 10.769366) each 6.080000 0.010000 6.090000 ( 6.106323) any 10.600000 0.000000 10.600000 ( 10.641606) include 4.160000 0.000000 4.160000 ( 4.171530) ------------------------------------ total: 31.590000sec I attempted to reinstall 1.9.3-p125 with rvm on the fast machine and that ruby is now slow. It's as if something changed in RVM, or I installed some package that made compiled versions of ruby perform significantly worse. I know this is a tough question to answer, but what things should I look into in order to track down why the performance has suffered so much? edit I just attempted to install with ruby-build and the version installed was fast. Something rvm is doing to build it in my environment is slow.

  Read the article

• Is 1GB + 1GB RAM better than 2GB +0.5GB?

  - by pibboater

  My laptop has two slots for RAM, and currently has two 512 MB chips, for 1 GB. Windows XP is running terribly slow on it, so I want to upgrade the RAM. I could buy two 1 GB chips to replace both of the current 512 MB chips, to give me 2 GB of RAM. Or, the price is the same to buy one 2 GB chip, to replace just one of the 512 MB chips, and give me 2.5 GB total. The RAM it takes is PC2-4200 533MHz DDR2. What do you think would be better: buying two 1 GB chips so it can take advantage of dual-channel operation, or buying one 2 GB chip to end up with more total RAM but not dual-channel operation? Like I said, price is the same, so performance is the only consideration. I'm not doing anything especially intensive like video or photo editing -- just having multiple Office programs open, playing music, browsers, etc., but currently even opening the first application takes forever. If it matters, the laptop is a Toshiba Qosmio G25-AV513 running Windows XP Media Center SP3. Thanks! Kevin

  Read the article

• Why am I missing 4GB of RAM on Windows Server 2008 R2 64bit?

  - by Nick G

  I noticed today that a server was very low on memory. It physically has 8GB installed and runs Windows 2008 R2 Standard 64bit. It also hosts 2 virtual machines using HyperV. Server is Dell Poweredge R510. However the host OS reports in task manager that it only has 4GB of RAM, despite actually having 8GB and it being a 64bit OS. Computer properties shows Installed memory: 8.00GB (3.99GB usuable). Why would "usable" be half the real RAM installed under a 64bit OS? Additionally nearly all of the 4GB of visible RAM on the host OS is being used by something without anything showing up in task manager (presumably HyperV as it's allocated 3.6GB to the virtual machines its hosting). However that doesn't explain where the other 4GB has gone which Windows can't even see. Where is my missing 4GB of RAM? Update: Dell OpenManage says this: Total Installed Capacity 8192 MB Total Installed Capacity Available to the OS 4096 MB So looks like Nathan's suggestion of memory mirroring might be correct. I'll have to reboot to check this (I think?) Update 2 OK. So I reboot and I get a message saying "the amount of system memory has changed" (despite not having touched the hardware in a year). Once Windows has booted, all 8GB is visible again. Looks like I probably have a hardware RAM issue (I'll perhaps try reseating it whenever I can chuck everyone off the server next). Thanks for your answers and comments. I was hoping it was going to be the mirrored-RAM option but it seems not - that's not even mentioned in the BIOS.

  Read the article

• What is the best hosting option for Flash web-widget?

  - by par

  Our Flash web-widget has got highly popular. It is downloaded around 100,000 times per day. And that is the problem. Our server bandwidth is too narrow to deliver the widget to the clients fast. The widget is loaded very slow. Probably 20 times slower than before (at peak times). Probably I have choosen not the right hoster for my task - delivering 1 MB Flash widget to 100,000 users per day. What is the best hosting solution in my case? I'm not good at server administration so forgive me if I sound naive. The details are the following. Our hoster options: -Dedicated server, Ubuntu -10 Mbit Connection -monthly bandwidth limit: 2000 GB Widget size is 1 MB. The widget consists of the main SWF and a number of loaded SWF and data files. This is a part of Apache Status report taken right now ---- Server uptime: 1 hour 2 minutes 38 seconds Total accesses: 74865 - Total Traffic: 5.8 GB CPU Usage: u28 s7.78 cu0 cs0 - .952% CPU load 19.9 requests/sec - 1.6 MB/second - 81.1 kB/request 200 requests currently being processed, 0 idle workers WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCWWWWWWWCWWWW WWWWWCWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCWWWWWWWWWWWWCWWWWWWWWCWWCWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCWCWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCW WWWWWWWW........................................................ ----

  Read the article

• How can I measure actual memory usage from my running processes?

  - by NullUser

  I have two servers, server1 and server2. Both of them are identical HP blades, running the exact same OS (RHEL 5.5). Here's the output of free for both of them: ### server1: total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 8017848 2746596 5271252 0 212772 1768800 -/+ buffers/cache: 765024 7252824 Swap: 14188536 0 14188536 ### server2: total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 8017848 4494836 3523012 0 212724 3136568 -/+ buffers/cache: 1145544 6872304 Swap: 14188536 0 14188536 If I understand correctly, server2 is using significantly more memory for disk I/O caching, which still counts as memory used. But both are running the same OS and if I remember correctly, I configured both with the same parameters when they were installed. I did a diff on /etc/sysctl.conf and they are identical. The problem is, I am collecting memory usage and other metrics over a period of time, (eg: vmstat, iostat, etc.) while a load is generated on the system. The memory used for caching is throwing off my calculations on the results. How can I measure actual memory usage from my running processes, rather than system usage? Is used - (buffers + cached) a valid way to measure this?

  Read the article

• Set primary group of file or directory on Samba share from Windows

  - by Hubert Kario

  Short version: I have such situation on a Samba share: $ ls -lha total 12K drwxr-xr-x 3 hka Domain Users 4.0K Jan 11 17:07 . drwxrwxrwt 19 root root 4.0K Jan 11 17:06 .. drwxr-xr-x 2 hka Domain Users 4.0K Jan 11 17:07 dir A -rw-r--r-- 1 hka Domain Users 0 Jan 11 17:07 file A How am I able to change this to following using only Windows SMB/CIFS client (using 3rd party applications is OK) $ ls -lha total 12K drwxr-xr-x 3 hka Domain Users 4.0K Jan 11 17:07 . drwxrwxrwt 19 root root 4.0K Jan 11 17:06 .. drwxr-xr-x 2 hka ntpoweruser 4.0K Jan 11 17:07 dir A -rw-r--r-- 1 hka ntpoweruser 0 Jan 11 17:07 file A Rationale and background info I'm using POSIX ACLs on Samba shares. Together with acl group control for Samba, it allows me to delegate management of permissions to different users based on group membership. Thing is, when I create a new file on a Samba share, I'm unable to set its primary group (the one that grants permission to change its permissions). It's being set to my primary group (Domain Users) or group set using force group option in smb.conf share definition. Removing all groups in windows except the one I want to become the new primary group doesn't work. I can change it using chgrp group folder/ as regular user though shell, but it's suboptimal (not all users are *nix users). Trying to set new owner to group from Windows file permission window makes the Samba to return permission denied with following log entry: [2012/01/05 21:13:03.349734, 3] smbd/nttrans.c:1899(call_nt_transact_set_security_desc) call_nt_transact_set_security_desc: file = projects/project A/New folder, sent 0x1 [2012/01/05 21:13:03.349774, 3] smbd/posix_acls.c:1208(unpack_nt_owners) unpack_nt_owners: unable to validate owner sid for S-1-5-21-4526631811-884521863-452487935-11025 [2012/01/05 21:13:03.349804, 3] smbd/error.c:80(error_packet_set) error packet at smbd/nttrans.c(1909) cmd=160 (SMBnttrans) NT_STATUS_INVALID_OWNER The SID is correct and belongs to group I specified in GUI.

  Read the article

• Ubuntu inside VirtualBox is slow

  - by Kapsh

  I am running an Ubuntu instance on VirtualBox inside XP. Here are the details: Host: Windows XP Pro Guest: Ubuntu 8.10 Total RAM: 3GB RAM For VM: 1GB Total Video Memory: 128MB Video Memory for VM: 40MB Hard Drive: 200GB Hard Drive for VM: 30GB Processor: 2.80GHz Core Duo The problem is that whenever I am inside the virtual machine, things seem so much slower in general. For example Firefox, Eclipse take longer to load, dragging windows show a lag etc. I have tried running Ubuntu before (not inside a VM) and it seemed fantastically fast. So I am disappointed to have to deal with this situation. But I need access to the XP partition without having to reboot and hence the attempt. I am surprised with the perceived slowness since the whole world seems to be doing virtualization and I cannot imagine everyone works on slow systems knowingly. My question is - is there something I should be doing to boost performance? Am I doing something wrong? This is my home machine and I am not sure if this is the right forum to ask. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Slow DB Performance. Seems to be memory related.

  - by David

  I am seeing a pooorly performing web app with a SQL 2005 backend. The db is on a w2k3 machine with 4GB RAM. When I run perfmon on it I see the following. Page life expectancy is low. Consistently under 300 while the Buffer cache hit ratio is always 99% +. The target server memory is always 1618304 and the total server memory is always a number just below that. So it seems that it isn't grabbing enough of the available memory. I have AWE enabled, with the lock pages right for the SQL service account and have set a maximum of 2.25Gb... but it doesn't go near that. When I restart the SQL service the page life expectancy goes much higher, 1000+, and the total target memory starts at 0 and slowly works its way back up to the previous limit. Then it hits the limit and the page life expectancy goes back down massively to <300. So I'm guessing there is something limiting the amount of memory. Any ideas on what that would be and how I can fix it?

  Read the article

• Extending partition on linux gparted but not more space in the vm

  - by Asken

  I have a vm test installation of a linux running a build server. Unfortunately I just pressed ok when adding the disk and ended up with an 8gb drive to play with. Well into the test the builds are consuming more and more space, of course. The vm drive was resized to 21gb and using gparted I expanded the drive partitions and that all worked fine but when I go back into the console and do df there's still only 8gb available. How can I claim the other 13gb I added? fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 21.0 GB, 20971520000 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 2549 cylinders, total 40960000 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: 0x0006d284 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 499711 248832 83 Linux /dev/sda2 501758 40959999 20229121 5 Extended /dev/sda5 501760 40959999 20229120 8e Linux LVM vgdisplay --- Volume group --- VG Name ct System ID Format lvm2 Metadata Areas 1 Metadata Sequence No 4 VG Access read/write VG Status resizable MAX LV 0 Cur LV 2 Open LV 2 Max PV 0 Cur PV 1 Act PV 1 VG Size 19.29 GiB PE Size 4.00 MiB Total PE 4938 Alloc PE / Size 1977 / 7.72 GiB Free PE / Size 2961 / 11.57 GiB VG UUID MwiMAz-52e1-iGVf-eL4f-P5lq-FvRA-L73Sl3 lvdisplay --- Logical volume --- LV Name /dev/ct/root VG Name ct LV UUID Rfk9fh-kqdM-q7t5-ml6i-EjE8-nMtU-usBF0m LV Write Access read/write LV Status available # open 1 LV Size 5.73 GiB Current LE 1466 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 252:0 --- Logical volume --- LV Name /dev/ct/swap_1 VG Name ct LV UUID BLFaa6-1f5T-4MM0-5goV-1aur-nzl9-sNLXIs LV Write Access read/write LV Status available # open 2 LV Size 2.00 GiB Current LE 511 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 252:1

  Read the article

• Optimizing Apache for large file serving

  - by D_Guy13

  I have a random problem with Apache that I can't quite figure out, here is my setup, Windows Server 2008 R2, 64 Bit, 5GB RAM, SSD with 200 MB(Read/write) and Dual Core CPU @ 2.1 GHz A dump from mod-staus, Server Version: Apache/2.4.7 (Win32) mod_limitipconn/0.24 mod_antiloris/0.5.2 PHP/5.5.9 Server MPM: WinNT Apache Lounge VC11 Server Built: Nov 21 2013 20:13:01 Current Time: Thursday, 21-Aug-2014 23:38:06 W. Europe Daylight Time Restart Time: Thursday, 21-Aug-2014 20:30:47 W. Europe Daylight Time Parent Server Config. Generation: 1 Parent Server MPM Generation: 1 Server uptime: 3 hours 7 minutes 18 seconds Server load: -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 Total accesses: 283025 - Total Traffic: 1172.2 GB 25.2 requests/sec - 106.8 MB/second - 4.2 MB/request 62 requests currently being processed, 388 idle workers Serving large .zip & iso files using mod_xsendfile. (File size range 500 MB - 1.5 GB) The setup works and is running fine. CPU usage is very unstable, jumps all the time between 10% - 90% and the servers goes down when it hits 100%. In that case I have to hard restart the server. Server it outputting traffic at 30 Mbps. Is there anything else I should think about to get a more stable CPU usage? Is that CPU usage normal? Can switching to Linux help me achieve better CPU usage?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >