Search Results

Search found 25442 results on 1018 pages for 'disk size'.

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 7/1018 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Disk image of a Windows 2000 NTFS hard drive

    - by Federico
    Hi, I need to create a disk image from a Windows 2000, NTFS formatted, hard drive. This image has to be used to create backup hard drives to replace the original disk in case an emergency situation arises. This is a medical equipment, so I cannot physically disconnect the disk because I would violate the warranty of the equipment. This machine has a DVD R/W, ethernet and USB 2.0 access, and we have the rights to install any application I want in the Windows 2000 system. 1) Is there any way to do this without installing any new software in the Windows 2000 system, so it is the least invasive as possible? 2) If we have to install a software to do the backup, which software do you recommend? Any hint will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Federico

    Read the article

  • Why isn't Startup Disk Creator working in 12.04?

    - by Steve Kelem
    I'm trying to create a bootable USB stick (7.5G) for Ubuntu 12.04 (x86_64) from another Ubuntu 12.04 x86_64 PC. I downloaded the Ubuntu 12.04 LTS "Precise Pangolin" - Release amd64 (20120425). When I run Make Startup Disk, I selected the downloaded release. The drive shows up with a capacity of 7.5GB and a blank space under "Free Space". I have tried using the "Erase Disk" button, which seems to erase the disk. The problem is that the options below the "Disk to use" section are grayed out. The "Make Startup Disk" is colored dull orange, while the source disc image and device to use are bright orange. The "Make Startup Disk" button doesn't do anything when I click it. The only working buttons are "Other...", "Erase Disk", and "Close". Upon using Other button to select the ISO, it allows to select the ISO but it doesn't load and the "Source Disk Image" field remains empty.

    Read the article

  • Virtual Machine files on ramdisk doesn't run faster than on physical disk

    - by Landy
    I installed total 36G memory (4x8G + 2x2G) in the host (Windows 7) and I used ImDisk to create a 32G ramdisk and format it to NTFS file system. Then I copied the virtual machine (in VMware Workstation format) folder, including vmx, vmdk, etc... to the new created ram disk. Then I tried to power on it in VMware Workstation. What made me surprised is that the performance is not better than before. It cost almost the same time to power on the Windows 7 VM. I check the Resource Monitor in the Windows 7 host, and the statistics of CPU, disk, network are rather normal. The memory has reported 3000+ hard fault/sec when guest OS boot then drop to 0 after the guest powered on. Any idea about this issue? I had thought the performance of ramdisk will be better than physical disk in this case. Am I wrong? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Dynamic Disk: Revert back to basic or...?

    - by someguy
    When I was trying to create a new partition (via Disk Management) it warned me that the disk would be dynamic, but I thought it meant the partition and went ahead. Now, my hard disk, which has the main C partition, is dynamic. I haven't shut down the computer, and I'm not sure what the consequences are. Should I revert back to basic or...? What ever happens, I don't want to lose my data. Edit: I think I should mention that I don't know how to revert back to basic...

    Read the article

  • Hard Drive Fundamentals And Verifying Disk Performance

    - by Agnel Kurian
    Over the past few months, my Windows XP machine has slowed down to a crawl. It takes about 10-15 minutes to go from power-up to reaching a responsive state. I have reasons to believe that this is a result of the hard disk slowing down. Questions: Do hard disks slow down as a result of mechanical wear and tear ...or age? How do I check if my disk has slowed down? Conversely, how can I verify that my disk is indeed running at the speed it's designed to run at? Could drivers be at fault here? Do hard disks come with drivers or does Windows use a generic driver?

    Read the article

  • Missing disk space in Windows XP

    - by Jørn Schou-Rode
    On my mother's Lenovo laptop, Windows XP claims that the hard drive is almost full. According to the properties window, 52.7 out of 55.2 GB is in use: By deleting temp files from Internet Explorer, System Restore, Recycle bin, Windows Update, System Cleanup, I managed to free up about one GB. That's still 50 GB in use, which still is a lot more than I expected. Hence, I gave good old WinDirStat a spin, and here's the output: It might be hard to read here, but the first line says that the total amount of disk space in use on drive C is 24.3 GB. So Windows claims usage of 52.7 GB and WinDirStat can only account for 24.3 GB. Where is the other half of that disk space being used? I hope someone has an answer, or some tricks or tips to do further research. UPDATE: The laptop in question has an SSD hard drive. I am aware that these disk (at least the earlier ones) have a limited life-time. Could the symptoms described be caused by wear and tear on the SSD?

    Read the article

  • Solaris kstat sdX disk nread counter value decreasing

    - by mykhal
    I get strange disk io nread (bytes read) counter values (from kstat) on Solaris. Example of collected nread value for sd6 disk collected in 30s interval (command kstat -n sd6): 768579416 768579416 768579416 768579416 768579416 768579416 768579416 768496080 768496080 768496080 768496080 768496080 768496080 768496080 768496080 768530896 768530896 768447560 768447560 768447560 One would suppose that the relative read bytes count can't be negative.. I wonder what can couse this situation and whether there is more reliable disk io data available. Some info about the system: machine:~ # uname -a SunOS machine 5.10 Generic_127112-11 i86pc i386 i86pc machine:~ # cat /etc/release Solaris 10 11/06 s10x_u3wos_10 X86 Copyright 2006 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 14 November 2006

    Read the article

  • Calculate minimum ext3 partition size for certain amount of data

    - by Daniel Beck
    These following ext3 partitions contain identical data. As we can see, the larger the partition size, the more space is required for the same files: Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/loop11 3965777 561064 3199964 15% [...] /dev/loop19 573029 543843 29186 95% [...] Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/loop11 3.8G 548M 3.1G 15% [...] /dev/loop19 560M 532M 29M 95% [...] Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/loop11 1024000 1656 1022344 1% [...] /dev/loop19 1024000 1656 1022344 1% [...] I start with a partition of fixed size that possibly wasted a lot of space and I want to create a partition that is able to hold that data but with (almost) minimal size. How can I reliably calculate that minimal partition size needed for storing a certain amount of data? The amount of data changes over time, and I need to automate these calculations.

    Read the article

  • Tracking down rogue disk usage

    - by Amadan
    I found several other questions regarding the theory behind my problem (e.g. this, this), but I don't know how to apply the answers to my machine. # du -hsx / 11000283 / # df -kT / Filesystem Type 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/csisv13-root ext4 516032952 361387456 128432532 74% / There is a big difference between 11G (du) and 345G (df). Where are the remaining 334G? It's not in deleted files. There was only one, it was short, and I truncated it just in case. This is what remains: # lsof -a +L1 / COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF NLINK NODE NAME zabbix_ag 4902 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4902 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4906 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4906 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4907 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4907 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4908 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4908 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4909 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4909 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4910 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4910 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) I rebooted to see if fsck does anything. But, from /var/log/boot.log, it seems there are no issues: /dev/mapper/server-root: clean, 3936097/32768000 files, 125368568/131064832 blocks Thinking maybe someone overzealously reserved root space, I checked the master record: # tune2fs -l /dev/mapper/server-root tune2fs 1.42 (29-Nov-2011) Filesystem volume name: <none> Last mounted on: / Filesystem UUID: 86430ade-cea7-46ce-979c-41769a41ecbe Filesystem magic number: 0xEF53 Filesystem revision #: 1 (dynamic) Filesystem features: has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index filetype needs_recovery extent flex_bg sparse_super large_file huge_file uninit_bg dir_nlink extra_isize Filesystem flags: signed_directory_hash Default mount options: user_xattr acl Filesystem state: clean Errors behavior: Continue Filesystem OS type: Linux Inode count: 32768000 Block count: 131064832 Reserved block count: 6553241 Free blocks: 5696264 Free inodes: 28831903 First block: 0 Block size: 4096 Fragment size: 4096 Reserved GDT blocks: 992 Blocks per group: 32768 Fragments per group: 32768 Inodes per group: 8192 Inode blocks per group: 512 Flex block group size: 16 Filesystem created: Fri Feb 1 13:44:04 2013 Last mount time: Tue Aug 19 16:56:13 2014 Last write time: Fri Feb 1 13:51:28 2013 Mount count: 9 Maximum mount count: -1 Last checked: Fri Feb 1 13:44:04 2013 Check interval: 0 (<none>) Lifetime writes: 1215 GB 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 First orphan inode: 28836028 Default directory hash: half_md4 Directory Hash Seed: bca55ff5-f530-48d1-8347-25c004f66d43 Journal backup: inode blocks The system is: # uname -a Linux server 3.2.0-67-generic #101-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jul 15 17:46:11 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # cat /etc/lsb-release DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu DISTRIB_RELEASE=12.04 DISTRIB_CODENAME=precise DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS" Does anyone have any tips on what exactly to do to find and hopefully reclaim the missing space?

    Read the article

  • Disk performance below expectations

    - by paulH
    this is a follow-up to a previous question that I asked (Two servers with inconsistent disk speed). I have a PowerEdge R510 server with a PERC H700 integrated RAID controller (call this Server B) that was built using eight disks with 3Gb/s bandwidth that I was comparing with an almost identical server (call this Server A) that was built using four disks with 6Gb/s bandwidth. Server A had much better I/O rates than Server B. Once I discovered the difference with the disks, I had Server A rebuilt with faster 6Gbps disks. Unfortunately this resulted in no increase in the performance of the disks. Expecting that there must be some other configuration difference between the servers, we took the 6Gbps disks out of Server A and put them in Server B. This also resulted in no increase in the performance of the disks. We now have two identical servers built, with the exception that one is built with six 6Gbps disks and the other with eight 3Gbps disks, and the I/O rates of the disks is pretty much identical. This suggests that there is some bottleneck other than the disks, but I cannot understand how Server B originally had better I/O that has subsequently been 'lost'. Comparative I/O information below, as measured by SQLIO. The same parameters were used for each test. It's not the actual numbers that are significant but rather the variations between systems. In each case D: is a 2 disk RAID 1 volume, and E: is a 4 disk RAID 10 volume (apart from the original Server A, where E: was a 2 disk RAID 0 volume). Server A (original setup with 6Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 63 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 170 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 68 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 320 MB/s Server B (original setup with 3Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 52 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 88 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 112 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 130 MB/s Server A (new setup with 3Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 55 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 85 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 67 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 180 MB/s Server B (new setup with 6Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 61 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 95 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 69 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 180 MB/s Can anybody suggest any ideas what is going on here? The drives in use are as follows: Dell Seagate F617N ST3300657SS 300GB 15K RPM SAS Dell Hitachi HUS156030VLS600 300GB 3.5 inch 15000rpm 6GB SAS Hitachi Hus153030vls300 300GB Server SAS Dell ST3146855SS Seagate 3.5 inch 146GB 15K SAS

    Read the article

  • Store Varnish cache in hard disk

    - by Great Kuma
    Hello, The situation is: Im building PHP application, and need http caching. Varnish is great, and lots of people tell me that Varnish store the cached data in RAM. But I want it cached in hard disk. Is there any way to store the Varnish cached data in hard disk? thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why is the disk making my motherboard beep?

    - by Mark Ransom
    Whenever I let my PC do heavy disk accesses for a long time, the speaker on the motherboard starts making a continuous chirping sound. Thankfully it doesn't happen often, but it drives me nuts when it does. Anybody know where this sound might be coming from, or have any hints as to how to track it down? Edit: The problem appears to be with the processor, the correlation with disk access was coincidental. Thanks for all the answers.

    Read the article

  • Clean install vs disk image

    - by Thanos
    Once a year I am making a clean install on windows, in order to keep my system fast. After posting a question on making a bootable windows usb with exe programs where I was adviced to make a disk image, a new question rose. What is the difference in making a disk image and performing a clean install on windows? Which is better in terms of speed, general performance, value for time and transfering between different computers?

    Read the article

  • How do I Change a damaged Disk in a Raid 5 array

    - by Egakagoc2xI
    Hi, I have a server with a 4-drives Raid 5 array; one of the disks is damaged. All the disks are hot pluggable. My Question is, I want to replace the damaged disk with a new one, do I have to shutdown the server or should I just change the hard disk with the server on and it will rebuild the array? There is a procedure to follow? My Server is a HP. Regards.

    Read the article

  • Programatically determining file "size on disk" in advance

    - by porkchop
    I need to know how big a given in-memory buffer will be as an on-disk (usb stick) file before I write it. I know that unless the size falls on the block size boundary, its likely to get rounded up, e.g. a 1 byte file takes up 4096 bytes on-disk. I'm currently doing this using GetDiskFreeSpace() to work out the disk block size, then using this to calculate the on-disk size like this: GetDiskFreeSpace(szDrive, &dwSectorsPerCluster, &dwBytesPerSector, NULL, NULL); dwBlockSize = dwSectorsPerCuster * dwBytesPerSector; if (dwInMemorySize % dwBlockSize != 0) { dwSizeOnDisk = ((dwInMemorySize / dwBlockSize) * dwBlockSize) + dwBlockSize; } else { dwSizeOnDisk = dwInMemorySize; } Which seems to work fine, BUT GetDiskFreeSpace() only works on disks up to 2GB according to MSDN. GetDiskFreeSpaceEx() doesn't return the same information, so my question is, how else can I calculate this information for drives 2GB? Is there an API call I've missed? Can I assume some hard values depending on the overall disk size?

    Read the article

  • Issues with LVM partition size in Server 13.04

    - by Michael
    I am new to ubuntu and a little confused about how hard drive partitions and LVM works. I remember setting up Ubuntu server 13.04 and telling to to use 1TB of a 3TB server. Well I have maxed that out with blu-ray rips and want the rest of the drive for space. On log-in it says: System load: 2.24 Processes: 179 Usage of /: 88.7% of 912.89GB Users logged in: 0 Memory usage: 6% IP address for p5p1: 192.168.0.100 Swap usage: 0% => / is using 88.7% of 912.89GB lvdisplay outputs: --- Logical volume --- LV Path /dev/DeathStar-vg/root LV Name root VG Name DeathStar-vg LV Write Access read/write LV Creation host, time DeathStar, 2013-05-18 22:21:11 -0400 LV Status available # open 1 LV Size 2.70 TiB Current LE 707789 Segments 2 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 252:0 --- Logical volume --- LV Path /dev/DeathStar-vg/swap_1 LV Name swap_1 VG Name DeathStar-vg LV Write Access read/write LV Creation host, time DeathStar, 2013-05-18 22:21:11 -0400 LV Status available # open 2 LV Size 3.75 GiB Current LE 959 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 252:1 vgdisplay outputs: VG Name DeathStar-vg 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 2.73 TiB PE Size 4.00 MiB Total PE 715335 Alloc PE / Size 708748 / 2.70 TiB Free PE / Size 6587 / 25.73 GiB df outputs: Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/DeathStar--vg-root 957238932 848972636 59634696 94% / none 4 0 4 0% /sys/fs/cgroup udev 1864716 4 1864712 1% /dev tmpfs 374968 1060 373908 1% /run none 5120 4 5116 1% /run/lock none 1874824 148 1874676 1% /run/shm none 102400 24 102376 1% /run/user /dev/sda2 234153 56477 165184 26% /boot And fdisk /dev/sda -l outputs: Disk /dev/sda: 3000.6 GB, 3000592982016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 364801 cylinders, total 5860533168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 1 4294967295 2147483647+ ee GPT Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary. I just don't know what to make of all this and am not sure how I can make it use all 2.73TBs. Thanks in advance for any help. EDIT-- Yes I did make changes to the LVM Config, but it didnt do anything. As requested, output of parted -l /dev/sda Model: ATA WDC WD30EFRX-68A (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 3001GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 1049kB 2097kB 1049kB bios_grub 2 2097kB 258MB 256MB ext2 3 258MB 3001GB 3000GB lvm Model: ATA WDC WD30EFRX-68A (scsi) Disk /dev/sdb: 3001GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags Model: Linux device-mapper (linear) (dm) Disk /dev/mapper/DeathStar--vg-swap_1: 4022MB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: loop Number Start End Size File system Flags 1 0.00B 4022MB 4022MB linux-swap(v1) Model: Linux device-mapper (linear) (dm) Disk /dev/mapper/DeathStar--vg-root: 2969GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: loop Number Start End Size File system Flags 1 0.00B 2969GB 2969GB ext4

    Read the article

  • Bad disk performance on HP DL360 with Smarty Array P400i RAID controller

    - by sarge
    I have a HP DL360 server with 4x 146GB SAS disks and a Smart Array P400i RAID controller with 256MB cache. The disks are in RAID 5 (3 disks + 1 hot spare). The server is running VMware ESX 3i. The disk write performance is really bad. Here are some numbers: ns1:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 3364 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1685.69 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 18 MB in 3.79 seconds = 4.75 MB/sec ns1:~# time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=ddfile bs=8k count=125000 && sync" 125000+0 records in 125000+0 records out 1024000000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 282.307 s, 3.6 MB/s real 4m52.003s user 0m2.160s sys 3m10.796s Compared to another server those number are terrible: Dell R200, 2x 500GB SATA disks, PERC raid controller (disks are mirrored). web4:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 6584 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3297.79 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 316 MB in 3.02 seconds = 104.79 MB/sec web4:~# time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=ddfile bs=8k count=125000 && sync" 125000+0 records in 125000+0 records out 1024000000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 35.2919 s, 29.0 MB/s real 0m36.570s user 0m0.476s sys 0m32.298s The server isn't very loaded and the VMware Infrastructure Client performance monitor is showing 550KBps average read and 1208KBps average write for the last 30 minutes (highest write rate: 6.6MBps). This has been a problem from the start. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 keeps insisting that it needs to check disk for consistency, but never does

    - by Mike
    Lately Windows 7 has been telling me that I need to check disk D: for consistency. This happens more than 50% of the time when booting up. The first time, I didn't touch anything so that it would go ahead and do its scan. It didn't seem to do anything - just booted straight into Windows. The second time I tried to skip it by pressing any key. It ignored all of my keystrokes and still counted down to 0 (then skipped the disk check). Sometimes, it gets down to 0 but then just hangs... no indication that anything is going on. This is happening on a < 3 month old laptop. C: and D: are on the same physical disk - just two partitions. I never get any notification that C: needs to be checked for consistency. It's a ~300GB HD. C: has 60gb (32gb free) and D: has ~240GB (122gb free). What could be causing this to keep coming up? What can I do to fix it? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • After reinstallation, Disk Cleanup disappears when I click OK.

    - by James
    After I reinstalled Windows 7, Disk Cleanup stopped working. I can start Disk Cleanup and select the drive to clean, but when I click on the OK button, the window disappears. Any solutions? Here's the data from Windows LogsApplication :- EventData 1744235005 1 APPCRASH Not available 0 cleanmgr.exe 6.1.7600.16385 4a5bc5e1 Csi.dll 14.0.4733.1000 4b5662be c0000005 00135213 F:\Users\Jacob\AppData\Local\Temp\WER419.tmp.WERInternalMetadata.xml F:\Users\Jacob\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\WER\ReportArchive\AppCrash_cleanmgr.exe_6514b6ecb633f97cbf78e3a5bcae2c4bd74351_0d3b109c 0 75fa9599-41b1-11e0-b864-001966b2bcb6 0 The above one was with an Information icon. The one below was with an Error icon:-- EventData cleanmgr.exe 6.1.7600.16385 4a5bc5e1 Csi.dll 14.0.4733.1000 4b5662be c0000005 00135213 bbc 01cbd5be36b572bf F:\Windows\system32\cleanmgr.exe F:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\OFFICE14\Csi.dll 75fa9599-41b1-11e0-b864-001966b2bcb6 I also used process explorer:- When i started disk cleanup, a cleanmgr.exe process appeared under explorer.exe.But when i clicked on the "OK" button after selecting the drive, cleanmgr.exe was there for some seconds before it disappeared. But a new process - WerFault.exe appeared under svchost.exe a few seconds after i clicked the "OK" button. It disappeared, too, from the process list after some time (i think it disappeared along with cleanmgr.exe).

    Read the article

  • Win 2008 R2 - copying TO disk is very slow, copying FROM is more or less okay

    - by avs099
    I have Windows 2008 R2 SP1 with 4 identical SATA disks (Seagate Barracude 7200) in RAID 5 array. It has 4Gb of memory; all recent updates are installed. Problem: when I copy large file from one folder to another, I get about 10MB/s average speed. When I read this file from network share via 1Gbps connection - I get about 25-30 MB/s. Both numbers seems to be low for me - but specifically I'm very frustrated with low write speed. there is no antivirus, no hyper-v, it's just a fileserver - i when i do my tests nobody else reads/write from it (we have only 4 people in a team, so I'm sure). Not sure if that matters, but there is only 1 logic disk "C" with all available space (1400 GB). I'm not an admin at all, so I have no idea where to look and what other information to provide. I did run performance monitor with "% idle time", "avg bytes read", "avg byte write" - here is the screenshot: I'm not sure why there are such obvious spikes. Any idea? Please let me know if you need me to provide more information - what counters should I check, etc. I'm very eager to get this solved. Thank you. UPDATE: we have another Windows 2008 R2 SP1 server with 2 RAID1 arrays - one is disk C (where windows is installed, another one is disk E). It is running Hyper-V and does not have antivirus. I noticed the following behavior when I copy large file (few GBs): C - C: about 50MB/sec C - E: about 55MB/sec E - E: 8MB/sec!!! E - C: 8MB/sec!!! what could cause this?? E drive is RAID1 array from same Seagate Barracuda 1TB drives..

    Read the article

  • Mac OS X Disk Encryption - Automation

    - by jfm429
    I want to setup a Mac Mini server with an external drive that is encrypted. In Finder, I can use the full-disk encryption option. However, for multiple users, this could become tricky. What I want to do is encrypt the external volume, then set things up so that when the machine boots, the disk is unlocked so that all users can access it. Of course permissions need to be maintained, but that goes without saying. What I'm thinking of doing is setting up a root-level launchd script that runs once on boot and unlocks the disk. The encryption keys would probably be stored in root's keychain. So here's my list of concerns: If I store the encryption keys in the system keychain, then the file in /private/var/db/SystemKey could be used to unlock the keychain if an attacker ever gained physical access to the server. this is bad. If I store the encryption keys in my user keychain, I have to manually run the command with my password. This is undesirable. If I run a launchd script with my user credentials, it will run under my user account but won't have access to the keychain, defeating the purpose. If root has a keychain (does it?) then how would it be decrypted? Would it remain locked until the password was entered (like the user keychain) or would it have the same problem as the system keychain, with keys stored on the drive and accessible with physical access? Assuming all of the above works, I've found diskutil coreStorage unlockVolume which seems to be the appropriate command, but the details of where to store the encryption key is the biggest problem. If the system keychain is not secure enough, and user keychains require a password, what's the best option?

    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 | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >