Search Results

Search found 12918 results on 517 pages for 'hard turner'.

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 66/517 | < Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >

  • Win7 'locking' process/files/folders?

    - by Dynde
    I've had a fair bit problems with sometimes files/folders/processes being 'locked' by Windows. The weird thing is, it's not like the traditional sense, I think, where tools like UnlockIT and wholockme would work. It seems that just giving it a little often helps - making me think it could either be the HDD, the memory, or something in Windows. A scenario: I go into a folder - don't open anything at all, go back up, cut or drag-move the folder to someplace else, it says "Action can't be completed because the folder or a file in it is open in another program". Waiting sometimes 20 seconds sometimes a little longer, and I can move it. Another scenario is deleting a bunch of files in a folder, and it appears that everything is gone, but then suddenly after a few seconds an .exe file pops back up, and I can't delete it. Waiting a few minutes, then pressing refresh and it's gone. I have the strangest feeling that there's a problem with either HDD or memory. I already tried disabling Windows indexing service with no luck. Does anyone have any ideas? EDIT: I should say, that I have a very fast system, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, i7-2600k CPU, SSD main HDD, so I really should not be experiencing any sort of problems, where one might say that it's "reasonable" for the system not to respond right away. Edit2: And I updated SSD firmware a couple months ago, so it shouldn't be bad release FW either

    Read the article

  • can I consolidate a multi-disk zfs zpool to a single (larger) disk?

    - by rmeden
    I have this zpool: bash-3.2# zpool status dpool pool: dpool state: ONLINE scan: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM dpool ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t600601604F021A009E1F867A3E24E211d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t600601604F021A00141D843A3F24E211d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 I would like to replace both of these disks with a single (larger disk). Can it be done? zpool attach allows me to replace one physical disk, but it won't allow me to replace both at once.

    Read the article

  • Can't change current working directory to external drive in Windows

    - by Tom
    I'm trying to run a program located on an external USB disk using the Windows command prompt. I'm running Windows 7 64-bit (running in VMWare Workstation 8.0.) Here's what happens: I plug in the USB disk and it appears as drive letter 'E' in My Computer. I launch cmd from the start menu. I notice the prompt displays C:\Users\Tom> I type cd E:\ I notice the prompt displays C:\Users\Tom> (cd also yields C:\Users\Tom>) I can explore the drive using explorer.exe just fine, and it is connected according to VMWare Workstation. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Why some recovery tools are still able to find deleted files after I purge Recycle Bin, defrag the disk and zero-fill free space?

    - by Ivan
    As far as I understand, when I delete (without using Recycle Bin) a file, its record is removed from the file system table of contents (FAT/MFT/etc...) but the values of the disk sectors which were occupied by the file remain intact until these sectors are reused to write something else. When I use some sort of erased files recovery tool, it reads those sectors directly and tries to build up the original file. In this case, what I can't understand is why recovery tools are still able to find deleted files (with reduced chance of rebuilding them though) after I defragment the drive and overwrite all the free space with zeros. Can you explain this? I thought zero-overwritten deleted files can be only found by means of some special forensic lab magnetic scan hardware and those complex wiping algorithms (overwriting free space multiple times with random and non-random patterns) only make sense to prevent such a physical scan to succeed, but practically it seems that plain zero-fill is not enough to wipe all the tracks of deleted files. How can this be?

    Read the article

  • How can I combine non-identical disks efficiently?

    - by Odys
    There are some not-identical disk of various capacities that I want to combine (somehow). Since there are no duplicate models, I can't use raid between none of them. Is there a way to use them efficiently while being safe? What I have in mind is a software that will use them as if it were Raid-5 or something. I really don't care about max speed. I want in the end to have as less logical drives as possible. Also, I don't mind spending some money on hardware, if needed.

    Read the article

  • Install Windows 8 Apps to custom directory

    - by Timothy Ford
    I'm running Windows 8 Pro on a laptop. I initially installed the OS just to fiddle round with it and get to know something I'd inevitably end up having to fix for someone. The problem being I only gave the partition about 32gb and that ran out pretty quick. I'd like to install office and get used to that as well but unfortunately I'm a few gigabytes short. I'd like to know if I can change the install location of office 2013 and other apps so that I can run them from another partition because there is no space left to the right of this partition I can't extend it.

    Read the article

  • Would an array of SSD drives be able to succesfully substitute the system memory?

    - by Florin Mircea
    I watched a few videos trying to answer this. This video (youtube.com/watch?v=eULFf6F5Ri8) shows a bunch of guys stacking 24 SSD's reaching a peak of around 2GBps r/w. That's under the limit of the worst DDR3 in this list (memorybenchmark.net/write_ddr3_amd.html) - that shows DDR3 memory performance varying from 2.78 to 6.55 Gb per second, but that video is over 3 years old. This video (youtube.com/watch?v=27GmBzQWwP0) shows a more optimistic situation, but for PCI-E SSD drives: 5 drives peaking at around 4Gb. And this other video shows that stacking up more than 3 SSD's doesn't realistically offer a substantial added performance. This and the fact that in all benchmarks the drives act quite poorly when dealing with small files (5k file read/write averaging from 10MB to around 30-40MBps) as opposed to how native memory handles such files, seems to indicate a definite NO to this question. Also, the write life cycle is indeed limited and the drives might wear out quickly, as kindly pointed out by paddy. However, I wanted to get more opinions on this. Would it be possible to at least obtain current memory performance with SSD's in RAID 0? And if so, in what circumstances? I am assuming using this configuration with a Windows OS that has a memory pagefile resident to that stack of SSD's, thus making it very fast to work with.

    Read the article

  • Configuring Windows Server Backup Destination Drive Sets

    - by Nicholas
    Is it possible to set up the standard backup system in SBS 2011 (or Server 2008 R2) to use an internal drive as a destination as well as external drives? Before you say yes, from my tests and from what I've read on the web, backups with internal drives included as a destination always seems to prefer the internal drive over connected external ones. (Regardless of what drive might be marked as 'active'). So no data ever gets written to a plugged in external drive. In my opinion external drives should always have priority over internal drives or including them is pointless.

    Read the article

  • Convert FAT32 to NTFS, risk/time?

    - by Rakward
    After a quick search I found that through a command prompt I can convert a drive from FAT32 to NTFS without losing data(see here). What I want to ask here is, how safe is this method on a 1.5 TB drive with 500 GB of data? What are the chances of this freezing up(or is there really nothin to worry about) and what is the probable time, a couple of minutes or a whole hour? Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, just want to play on the safe side here ...

    Read the article

  • External HDD incorrectly detected as internal - how change to enable hot swap/eject?

    - by Sam
    I have win 7 x64 Home Prem. The HDD is a seagate barracuda, 7200.7 ST3120827AS. 3.5", Serial: 3ms006n6, Firmware: 3.42 (no further updates) NexStar CX External case (drivers installed). I have three drives: WD320 with OS installed WD750 data storage (internal) seagate 120 (external) - connected via esata board connected to sata on motherboard (MSI p43 neo) Tried uninstalling HDD in device manager to no effect. Also the internal WD750 is detected as an external drive and win taskbar icon allows for it to be ejected (unlike the seagate). All drives are configured - Online, Simple, Basic, NTFS, Active, Primary Partition (except c drive). The seagate was previously used as a primary disk with XP operating system so I deleted the volume and created/reformatted (not quick). HDD is no longer "Active". But did not fix problem. Background Originally, I installed win 7 with the bios set to IDE and forgot to install the chipset drivers. Then I changed win 7 to install the AHCI drivers, changed the bios to AHCI and rebooted. Win 7 loaded drivers but WD HDD gave problems/crashed. I installed chipset drivers and latest intell storage matrix software thingie (in safe mode). Everything worked fine after that except for the problem of not corrrectly detecting the external drive] I have noticed that under the driver properties (and similarly in the registry) the two drives are configured differently (e.g. in driver details property capabilities for the WD the value is set to 0000006, CM_DEVCAP_REMOVABLE & EJECTSUPPORTED - whereas the seagate shows 0000080 & CM_DEVCAP_SURPRISEREMOVALOK). Any easy way to configure things? I tried physically swapping the sata connections on the mainboard without success So far I have found that a solution to my problem might be to perform some reg changes: How do I remove the option to eject SATA drives from the Windows 7 tray icon?

    Read the article

  • how can i move ext3 partition to the beginning of drive without losing data?

    - by Felipe Alvarez
    I have a 500GB external drive. It had two partitions, each around 250GB. I removed the first partition. I'd like to move the 2nd to the left, so it consumes 100% of the drive. How can this be accomplished without any GUI tools (CLI only)? fdisk Disk /dev/sdd: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xc80b1f3d Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdd2 29374 60801 252445410 83 Linux parted Model: ST350032 0AS (scsi) Disk /dev/sdd: 500GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 2 242GB 500GB 259GB primary ext3 type=83 dumpe2fs Filesystem volume name: extstar Last mounted on: <not available> Filesystem UUID: f0b1d2bc-08b8-4f6e-b1c6-c529024a777d Filesystem magic number: 0xEF53 Filesystem revision #: 1 (dynamic) Filesystem features: has_journal dir_index filetype needs_recovery sparse_super large_file Filesystem flags: signed_directory_hash Default mount options: (none) Filesystem state: clean Errors behavior: Continue Filesystem OS type: Linux Inode count: 15808608 Block count: 63111168 Reserved block count: 0 Free blocks: 2449985 Free inodes: 15799302 First block: 0 Block size: 4096 Fragment size: 4096 Blocks per group: 32768 Fragments per group: 32768 Inodes per group: 8208 Inode blocks per group: 513 Filesystem created: Mon Feb 15 08:07:01 2010 Last mount time: Fri May 21 19:31:30 2010 Last write time: Fri May 21 19:31:30 2010 Mount count: 5 Maximum mount count: 29 Last checked: Mon May 17 14:52:47 2010 Check interval: 15552000 (6 months) Next check after: Sat Nov 13 14:52:47 2010 Reserved blocks uid: 0 (user root) Reserved blocks gid: 0 (group root) First inode: 11 Inode size: 256 Required extra isize: 28 Desired extra isize: 28 Journal inode: 8 Default directory hash: half_md4 Directory Hash Seed: d0363517-c095-4f53-baa7-7428c02fbfc6 Journal backup: inode blocks Journal size: 128M

    Read the article

  • I found a some bad sectors with chkdsk. Should I be worried?

    - by mottalrd
    Yesterday I found a corrupted file in my external usb drive. Since I am using the drive quite often (I am running my vms over there) I decided to run the chkdsk on it This is the result 488384000 KB of total space on disk. 351202364 KB in 1042390 file. 489920 KB in 81101 indexes. 16 KB in damaged sectors. 1204584 KB in use. 65536 KB used from the registry. 135487116 KB available on disk. therefore it has found 16KB of damaged sectors. Now the file is recovered Should I be worried about the HD and run chkdsk periodically from now on?

    Read the article

  • Is SATA bandwith per Port or per Controller?

    - by instanceofTom
    I always assumed that it was per Controller channel, and that If I have 4xSATA 3.0Gb/s ports on my Motherboard then I should have a potential 12.0Gb/s of bandwith. However, after doing some searching I found conflicting information suggesting that if I had 4xSATA drives connected to my MB and were using them simultaneously each drive would get only 3.0Gb/s /4 = 768 Mb/s max bandwith. So I wanted to clear up my understanding. Side question: Are there other hdd/ssd bandwith bottlenecks to be aware of? (Links to already answered questions are more than welcome)

    Read the article

  • C drive should only contain OS. Myth or fact?

    - by Fasih Khatib
    So, I have a 500GB HDD @7200RPM. It is split as: C: 97GB D: 179GB E: 188GB My belief is to keep OS ONLY in C:\ and any adamant programs that won't go anywhere apart from C:\ [because this speeds up the PC during startup process] and install programs in D:\ so that in case I have to reinstall the OS, I will have the programs readily available after reinstall. But I have begun to think this approach is flawed because if C:\ is formatted, I will lose registry values and stuff that goes in %appdata% and so it is no use keeping programs in D:/ drive because they will be useless after all. Should I go ahead and install ALL of my programs in C:\ and then use D:\ and E:\ for storing my data like photos, text files, java files n all? How will this impact the performance of the HDD? I only have 3 programs in D:\Program Files so it will be easy to reinstall them :)

    Read the article

  • Recover data from a Windows Dynamic Volume Spanned Disk

    - by iCe
    I have a dynamic volume created with two spanned partitions over two disk. Recently, one disk has started failing, and I want to copy the data inside that disk to another disk, before replacing it. However I don't know how to select only what is inside the failing disk, because the partitions spans across both disks. Maybe imaging the entire disk should do the work? Or I have to copy all the data from both disks? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Move EFI System Partition to another drive

    - by Pincopallino
    I had a Windows 8 installation on an HDD, using UEFI as boot. The HDD has the following GPT table: DISKPART> list partition Partizione ### Tipo Dim. Offset --------------- ---------------- ------- ------- Partizione 1 Ripristino 300 Mb 1024 Kb Partizione 2 Sistema 100 Mb 301 Mb Partizione 3 Riservato 128 Mb 401 Mb Partizione 4 Primario 390 Gb 529 Mb Partizione 5 Primario 540 Gb 390 Gb (I apologize it's in Italian, but the translation is quite straightforward). I recently bought an SSD drive, connected it and installed a fresh Windows 8. Now I have a working dual boot, but the UEFI partition is on the HDD instead of the SSD. Here's the SDD partition list: Partizione ### Tipo Dim. Offset --------------- ---------------- ------- ------- Partizione 1 Riservato 128 Mb 1024 Kb Partizione 2 Primario 221 Gb 129 Mb I think that the best solution would be to have it on the SSD for two reasons: the first is performance (I guess it would be a little be faster on the SSD due to the spin up time for an HDD, but I may be wrong about that) second reason is consistency. As I plan to use only the Windows 8 installation that is located on the SSD and I'm probably going to erase the system partition on the HDD to use it as a data storage device, I think that the boot partition should be on the same drive as the OS. So the question is how do I move the EFI System Partition to the SSD?

    Read the article

  • Is it wise to use SSHDs (Solid state hybrid drives) on a server?

    - by Seb
    I have a bunch of servers with very heavy I/O that currently use SATA3/SAS drives, but do suffer from I/O wait on the SATA drives, and I have just been alerted to the existence of SSHDs which cost the same for 1TB as the 1TB SATA drives that we currently use. However, previously (until Seagate shipped their first 3.5" SSHD in March) they seemed to be exclusively for Netbooks/Notebooks, which leads me to suspect they're not exactly built for the heavy I/O they'd be in for with my servers. So, would an SSHD give me a performance boost over my SATA3 drives in a heavy I/O environment (such as multiple very large high speed file transfers) or is it best to stick with SATA3 with I/O wait??

    Read the article

  • Cloning single disk drive to multiple drives simultaneously

    - by mr.b
    I am looking for a way to clone single disk drive to more than one disk drive at the same time. I have prepared system images on 1TB disks, and it takes almost 2 hours to clone one disk to another, and then it goes up exponentially, in order to have say 30 disks cloned. If it was possible to clone one disk to more than single target, it would simplify whole procedure a lot. Also, is there something that prevents this kind of operation? I mean, is there some special reason why every disk cloning software that I know about supports only single target drive? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How can I retrieve data from a Western Digital Passport External Disk which is not getting recognized but getting shown as healthy in Device manager

    - by Rabimba Karanjai
    When I plug in this external harddisk It is not getting shown in the My Computer. But it gets shown perfectly well in the Device Manager When I go into the Computer Administrative panel and into the disk manager it asks me to initialize the disk Now when I try to initialize it, regardless of the method I try it shows me an error "Incorrect Function" As you can see windows tells me it is working properly. Is there anyway I can retrieve data from this?/access it? I have googled and it seems to be a frequent problem with WD drives. Anyone has any solutions on how I can get the data back?

    Read the article

  • Is there a limit on the number of USB external drives?

    - by Beska
    I've got three external HDDs, all My Books, 500 GB, 750 GB, and 1 TB. If I hook one or two of them up to a computer, everything seems fine. If I hook all three of them to a computer (I've tried this on two different computers, one running Windows XP, one running Windows Vista), the bootup time goes up by more than an order of magnitude. It can suddenly take about 10-20 minutes to boot the machine, whereas before it might take a minute. All three drives work fine on their own. I'm not using any kind of hub; all three are plugged directly into the machine. Is this associated with some kind of inherent limit in USB? Is this bad hardware design in the CPU box? Is this a My Book problem?

    Read the article

  • High disk I/O activity in CentOS server

    - by triiim
    I have about 16 websites in a CentOS dedicated, and I am having some problems on high traffic hours, it seems to be a high disk I/O activity causing a general slowdown. I've installed atop and this is what I see on the bottom (the server has been restarted thats why the values are so low): *** system and process activity since boot *** PID RDDSK WRDSK WCANCL DSK CMD 1/18 2176 1.7G 7.3G 854.4M 39 mysqld 671 1248K 3.0G 0K 13 flush-8:0 566 0K 1.1G 0K 5 jbd2/sda2-8 2401 124.2M 529.1M 22408K 3 crond 2032 2.2G 502.0M 0K 12 nginx 2360 425.8M 115.3M 4188K 2 httpd flush-8:0 and jbd2/sda2-8 are the processes I see with iotop using 99% on the IO column, and they are the processes that write the most on the hdd (after mysql). From what I saw in google this could be caused by some ext4 related bug, the current kernel is: Linux srvr.com 2.6.32-71.29.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Jun 27 19:49:27 BST 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux I asked the hosting support to update the kernel and they tried but they now say that the server wont boot with the new installed kernel and they had to go back to the previous, they are not helping very much. Does someone has any idea how could I solve the high disk usage caused by flush-8:0 and jbd2/sda2-8 processes?

    Read the article

  • Is there a clean way to obtain exclusive access to a physical partition under Windows?

    - by zneak
    Hey guys, I'm trying, under Windows 7, to run a virtual machine with VMWare Player from an OS installed on a physical partition. However, when I boot the virtual machine, VMWare Player says that it couldn't access the physical drive for writing. This seems to be a generally acknowledged problem in the VMWare community, as Windows Vista introduced a compelling new security feature that makes it impossible to write to a raw drive without obtaining exclusive access to it first. I have googled the issue and found a few workarounds. However, the clean ones seem to only work on whole physical disks, and not on partitions. So I would be left with the dirty solution. In short, it meddles with the MBR to erase any trace of the partitions to use, makes Windows forget about them, then restores the MBR so we can launch the VM. I'm not sure I want to do that. Is there a way to let VMWare acquire exclusive access to the partition without requiring me to nuke it away? What I'd be looking for, I suppose, is a way to put just partitions offline instead of whole physical drives.

    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 | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >