Search Results

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

Page 75/1018 | < Previous Page | 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82  | Next Page >

  • Persistent (purely functional) Red-Black trees on disk performance

    - by Waneck
    I'm studying the best data structures to implement a simple open-source object temporal database, and currently I'm very fond of using Persistent Red-Black trees to do it. My main reasons for using persistent data structures is first of all to minimize the use of locks, so the database can be as parallel as possible. Also it will be easier to implement ACID transactions and even being able to abstract the database to work in parallel on a cluster of some kind. The great thing of this approach is that it makes possible implementing temporal databases almost for free. And this is something quite nice to have, specially for web and for data analysis (e.g. trends). All of this is very cool, but I'm a little suspicious about the overall performance of using a persistent data structure on disk. Even though there are some very fast disks available today, and all writes can be done asynchronously, so a response is always immediate, I don't want to build all application under a false premise, only to realize it isn't really a good way to do it. Here's my line of thought: - Since all writes are done asynchronously, and using a persistent data structure will enable not to invalidate the previous - and currently valid - structure, the write time isn't really a bottleneck. - There are some literature on structures like this that are exactly for disk usage. But it seems to me that these techniques will add more read overhead to achieve faster writes. But I think that exactly the opposite is preferable. Also many of these techniques really do end up with a multi-versioned trees, but they aren't strictly immutable, which is something very crucial to justify the persistent overhead. - I know there still will have to be some kind of locking when appending values to the database, and I also know there should be a good garbage collecting logic if not all versions are to be maintained (otherwise the file size will surely rise dramatically). Also a delta compression system could be thought about. - Of all search trees structures, I really think Red-Blacks are the most close to what I need, since they offer the least number of rotations. But there are some possible pitfalls along the way: - Asynchronous writes -could- affect applications that need the data in real time. But I don't think that is the case with web applications, most of the time. Also when real-time data is needed, another solutions could be devised, like a check-in/check-out system of specific data that will need to be worked on a more real-time manner. - Also they could lead to some commit conflicts, though I fail to think of a good example of when it could happen. Also commit conflicts can occur in normal RDBMS, if two threads are working with the same data, right? - The overhead of having an immutable interface like this will grow exponentially and everything is doomed to fail soon, so this all is a bad idea. Any thoughts? Thanks! edit: There seems to be a misunderstanding of what a persistent data structure is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_data_structure

    Read the article

  • Feeding the kernels entropy source from other machines and/or increasing its maximum size

    - by David Spillett
    We have has a little trouble with a small box that acts as a VPN end-point and mail relay for our network, caused by the available entropy for /dev/random being too low (which causes TLS connection attempts by exim to fail). The machine doesn't do anything else, so the normal feed into the entropy pool (interrupt timings from things like disk access) is not enough. As a quick hack I've set a looping script that reads from /dev/hda at a couple of Mbyte/sec which keeps it topped up. Other than buying a hardware RNG, is there a clean way of piping data for entry from elsewhere, such as a copy of the data our file server uses for its entropy source? I've spotted several tips for using rng-tools to feed it from /dev/urandom on the same machine but that "feels dirty". Also, is it possible to increase the maximum pool size? It currently seems to max out at 3585.

    Read the article

  • Expanding RAID 1 array size (Adaptec 1420SA controller)

    - by cincura.net
    I have an Adaptec 1420SA controller in server and RAID 1 array created. The old disks slowly started to report S.M.A.R.T errors so I replaced first one, rebuild array and then other one and rebuild the array again. But the new drives are bigger, so I'd like to expand the array to use full disk capacity. Is it somehow possible? In the Adaptec configuration utility, after POST, I didn't found anything that could do it. I still have the old drives, if it helps. The array is used for system (Windows 2008 R2 SP1) booting. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why does the first partition start at sector 34 when I choose "Guided - Use entire disk" during install?

    - by Kent
    After choosing "Guided - Use entire disk" during installation I find that the first partition starts on sector 34. Why that specific sector and not the first one? (parted) print Model: ATA WDC WD30EZRX-00M (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 5860533168s Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 34s 390659s 390626s fat32 boot 2 390660s 890660s 500001s ext2 3 890661s 5860533118s 5859642458s (parted) In case you prefer bytes as the unit: (parted) unit B (parted) print Model: ATA WDC WD30EZRX-00M (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 3000592982016B Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 17408B 200017919B 200000512B fat32 boot 2 200017920B 456018431B 256000512B ext2 3 456018432B 3000592956927B 3000136938496B

    Read the article

  • How to resize a ubuntu partition to make more room for windows

    - by Jeremy
    My laptop has Windows 7 and Ubuntu 13.10 installed alongside each other. My laptop has two 225GB hard drives. I give Ubuntu 133.65GB and I give Windows 87.76GB on the same hard drive (C). My problem now is that Windows is almost out of space but Ubuntu is only using a few GB of the 133.65GB that I gave it. I want to reduce Ubuntu's partition size and give that space to increase Windows partition size. Is that any program that can to do this?

    Read the article

  • c++ struct size

    - by kiokko89
    struct CExample { int a; } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { CExample ce; CExample ce2; cout << "Size:" << sizeof(ce)<< " Address: "<< &ce<< endl; cout << "Size:" << sizeof(ce2)<< " Address: "<< &ce2 << endl; CExample ceArr[2]; cout << "Size:" << sizeof(ceArr[0])<< " Address: "<<&ceArr[0]<<endl; cout << "Size:" << sizeof(ceArr[1])<< " Address: "<<&ceArr[1]<<endl; return 0; } Excuse me I'm just a beginner but i'd like to know why with this code, there is a difference of 12 bytes between the addresses of the first two objects(ce and ce2) (i thought about data allignment), but there is only a difference of 4 bytes between the two objects in the array. Sorry for my bad English...

    Read the article

  • c++ overloading delete, retrieve size

    - by user300713
    Hi, I am currently writing a small custom memory Allocator in c++, and want to use it together with operator overloading of new/delete. Anyways, my memory Allocator basicall checks if the requested memory is over a certain threshold, and if so uses malloc to allocate the requested memory chunk. Otherwise the memory will be provided by some fixedPool allocators. that generally works, but for my deallocation function looks like this: void MemoryManager::deallocate(void * _ptr, size_t _size){ if(_size heapThreshold) deallocHeap(_ptr); else deallocFixedPool(_ptr, _size); } so I need to provide the size of the chunk pointed to, to deallocate from the right place. No the problem is that the delete keyword does not provide any hint on the size of the deleted chunk, so I would need something like this: void operator delete(void * _ptr, size_t _size){ MemoryManager::deallocate(_ptr, _size); } But as far as I can see, there is no way to determine the size inside the delete operator.- If I want to keep things the way it is right now, would I have to save the size of the memory chunks myself? Any ideas on how to solve this are welcome! Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Picking all the Text files from hard disk from c++

    - by muhammad-aslam
    Hello Frierndz u r very helping............. plz help me as i am doing my project where i have to search the user input from all the text files of hard disk in c++ i am not able to do so.... plz help what i have to do. which library will be helpful for me to pick text files directory from hard drive i m using visual studio C++

    Read the article

  • How to limit TCP writes to particular size and then block untlil the data is read

    - by ustulation
    {Qt 4.7.0 , VS 2010} I have a Server written in Qt and a 3rd party client executable. Qt based server uses QTcpServer and QTcpSocket facilities (non-blocking). Going through the articles on TCP I understand the following: the original implementation of TCP mentioned the negotiable window size to be a 16-bit value, thus maximum being 65535 bytes. But implementations often used the RFC window-scale-extension that allows the sliding window size to be scalable by bit-shifting to yield a maximum of 1 gigabyte. This is implementation defined. This could have resulted in majorly different window sizes on receiver and sender end as the server uses Qt facilities without hardcoding any window size limit. Client 1st asks for all information it can based on the previous messages from the server before handling the new (accumulating) incoming messages. So at some point Server receives a lot of messages each asking for data of several MB's. This the server processes and puts it into the sender buffer. Client however is unable to handle the messages at the same pace and it seems that client’s receiver buffer is far smaller (65535 bytes maybe) than sender’s transmit window size. The messages thus get accumulated at sender’s end until the sender’s buffer is full too after which the TCP writes on sender would block. This however does not happen as sender buffer is much larger. Hence this manifests as increase in memory consumption on the sender’s end. To prevent this from happening, I used Qt’s socket’s waitForBytesWritten() with timeout set to -1 for infinite waiting period. This as I see from the behaviour blocks the thread writing TCP data until the data has actually been sensed by the receiver’s window (which will happen when earlier messages have been processed by the client at application level). This has caused memory consumption at Server end to be almost negligible. is there a better alternative to this (in Qt) if i want to restrict the memory consumption at server end to say x MB's? Also please point out if any of my understandings is incorrect.

    Read the article

  • Storing large numbers of varying size objects on disk

    - by Foredecker
    I need to develop a system for storing large numbers (10's to 100's of thousands) of objects. Each object is email-like - there is a main text body, and several ancillary text fields of limited size. A body will be from a few bytes, to several KB in size. Each item will have a single unique ID (probably a GUID) that identifies it. The store will only be written to when an object is added to it. It will be read often. Deletions will be rare. The data is almost all human readable text so it will be readily compressible. A system that lets me issue the I/Os and mange the memory and caching would be ideal. I'm going to keep the indexes in memory, using it to map indexes to the single (and primary) key for the objects. Once I have the key, then I'll load it from disk, or the cache. The data management system needs to be part of my application - I do not want to depend on OS services. Or separately installed packages. Native (C++) would be best, but a manged (C#) thing would be ok. I believe that a database is an obvious choice, but this needs to be super-fast for look up and loading into memory of an object. I am not experienced with data base tech and I'm concerned that general relational systems will not handle all this variable sized data efficiently. (Note, this has nothing to do with my job - its a personal project.) In your experience, what are the viable alternatives to a traditional relational DB? Or would a DB work well for this?

    Read the article

  • Resize a new database to predicted maximum size

    - by John Oxley
    Currently I have a SQL Server database which is about 2 Gb. I know over the next year it's going to grow to a maximum of about 10Gb. Hard drive space is not an issue in the slightest. Is there a down side to resizing the datafile to 20Gb now, then defragmenting the hard drive? Should I resize the log file to 1Gb as well? Something ridiculously large so that fragmentation doesn't happen there either. With this question I would like to avoid the datafile becoming fragmented on the disk itself, but I don't want to negatively impact performance.

    Read the article

  • Safely resizing partitions in CentOS 6

    - by Fariborz Navidan
    I have deployed two VMs on VMware with CentOS 6.3 Net Install. It has automatically created some partitions. It has created two major partition for root and home. root partition has size of 50GB and home 168GB. root partition has 35GB of free space. I want to resize partitions safely without data loose. server is running CPanel and home partition has important user data. I want to reduce root size and increase to home. home partition has only 7GB used. Please advise the safest way

    Read the article

  • BitLocker with Windows DPAPI Encryption Key Management

    - by bigmac
    We have a need to enforce resting encryption on an iSCSI LUN that is accessible from within a Hyper-V virtual machine. We have implementing a working solution using BitLocker, using Windows Server 2012 on a Hyper-V Virtual Server which has iSCSI access to a LUN on our SAN. We were able to successfully do this by using the "floppy disk key storage" hack as defined in THIS POST. However, this method seems "hokey" to me. In my continued research, I found out that the Amazon Corporate IT team published a WHITEPAPER that outlined exactly what I was looking for in a more elegant solution, without the "floppy disk hack". On page 7 of this white paper, they state that they implemented Windows DPAPI Encryption Key Management to securely manage their BitLocker keys. This is exactly what I am looking to do, but they stated that they had to write a script to do this, yet they don't provide the script or even any pointers on how to create one. Does anyone have details on how to create a "script in conjunction with a service and a key-store file protected by the server’s machine account DPAPI key" (as they state in the whitepaper) to manage and auto-unlock BitLocker volumes? Any advice is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • win8: access denied to external USB disk; update access rights fails

    - by Gerard
    I use to work with 2 laptops (vista and win7), my work being files on an external usb disk. My oldest laptop broke down, so I bought a new one. I had no option other than take win8. 1/ I suspect something changed with access rights, as my external disk suffered some "access denied" problem on win8. I was prompted (by win8) somehow to fix the access rights, which I tried to do, getting to the properties - security. This process was very slow and ended up saying "disk is not ready". Additonnally, the usb somehow was not recognized anymore. 2/ Back to win7, I was warned that my disk needed to be verified, which I did. In this process, some files were lost (most of them i could recover from the folder found00x, but I have some backup anyway). Also, I don't know why, but under win7, all the folder showed with a lock. 3/ Then back again to win8. Same problem : access denied to my disk + no way to change access rights as it gets stuck "disk is not ready". Now I am pretty sure there is some kind of bug or inconsistence in win8 / win7. I did 2/ and 3/ a few times. At some point, I also got an access denied in win7. I could restore access rigths to the disk to "system" (properties - security - EDIT for full control to group "system" ...). But then I still get the same access right pb on win8, and getting stuck in the process to restore full control to "system" -- and "admin" groups. Now, after I tried for more than 3 days, I am losing my patience with that bloody win8 which I did not want to buy but had no choice. I upgraded win8 with the windows updates available. Does not help. Anybody can help me ?

    Read the article

  • Does a 3ware "ECC-ERROR" matter on a JBOD when I have ZFS?

    - by Stefan Lasiewski
    I have a FreeBSD 8.x machine running ZFS and with a 3ware 9690SA controller. The 3ware controller shows an ECC-ERROR with one of the disks: //host> /c0 show VPort Status Unit Size Type Phy Encl-Slot Model ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ p0 OK u0 279.39 GB SAS 0 - SEAGATE ST3300657SS p1 OK u0 279.39 GB SAS 1 - SEAGATE ST3300657SS p2 OK u1 931.51 GB SAS 2 - SEAGATE ST31000640SS p3 ECC-ERROR u2 931.51 GB SAS 3 - SEAGATE ST31000640SS p4 OK u3 931.51 GB SAS 4 - SEAGATE ST31000640SS /c0 show events shows no ECC errors in it's recent history. ZFS does not currently detect any errors. zpool status says No known data errors My question: Is this ECC-ERROR something that I need to be concerned about? According to the 3ware CLI 9.5.2 Manual, an ECC-ERROR means that the 3ware controller caught a read-error for one or more sectors on this drive. This sometimes occurs when a RAID array is recovering from a failed disk. I believe that ECC-ERRORS can also be detected when the 3ware Controller verifies each disk. None of the drives have failed and thus there was no drive rebuild, so I assume that 3ware discovered a bad sector when it ran it's weekly auto-verify scan of the disks. Is this a safe assumption? According to our logs, ZFS has not detected any bad sectors on this drive. ZFS can work around read errors -- if ZFS detects a bad sector on the drive, it will simply mark that sector as bad and never use it again. From the ZFS perspective one bad sector isn't a big deal, although it might indicate that the drive is starting to go bad.

    Read the article

  • How to configure VirtualBox server for performance at home

    - by BluJai
    I currently have two physical Ubuntu Server 10.10 servers at home: one serves as our firewall/router/DHCP/VPN server and the other performs double-duty as a file server and a VirtualBox host for an Ubuntu Desktop 10.10 machine which I use from remote connections (via NoMachine) for many thin-client purposes which are irrelevant to my question. What I'd like to accomplish is to consolidate the two physical machines into one which is a dedicated VirtualBox host (most likely running Ubuntu Server 10.10). Note that I'd like to stick with VirtualBox (if possible) because I'm most comfortable with it and use it on a daily basis at both home and work. Specifically, I plan to have one VM set up as file server, another as the firewall/router/DHCP/VPN (or possibly split those a bit) and a third, which is the only current VM (already VirtualBox), which is the thin-client host. My question comes down to performance and/or recommendations about the file server VM. The file server hosts about 6 terabytes of data across 4 drives. What I'd like to do is use raw disk access from the VM directly to the existing disks. However, I'm curious what performance advantage/disadvantage that would have as compared to using shared folders from the VM host and basically just have the whole drive served as a shared folder to the VM which would then serve it to the other machines on the network. I don't know if virtual disks would even work in this scenario and I certainly wouldn't want a drive to be filled with just a single file which is 1.5 TB (disk image). To add understanding of context, but not to get additional advice, I want to virtualize these machines because I intend to regularly use the snapshot capabilities of VirtualBox for the system disks (which will be virtual drives) of the VMs and I have some physical space/power needs to address (as I mentioned, this is at home).

    Read the article

  • How to configure VirtualBox server for performance at home

    - by BluJai
    I currently have two physical Ubuntu Server 10.10 servers at home: one serves as our firewall/router/DHCP/VPN server and the other performs double-duty as a file server and a VirtualBox host for an Ubuntu Desktop 10.10 machine which I use from remote connections (via NoMachine) for many thin-client purposes which are irrelevant to my question. What I'd like to accomplish is to consolidate the two physical machines into one which is a dedicated VirtualBox host (most likely running Ubuntu Server 10.10). Note that I'd like to stick with VirtualBox (if possible) because I'm most comfortable with it and use it on a daily basis at both home and work. Specifically, I plan to have one VM set up as file server, another as the firewall/router/DHCP/VPN (or possibly split those a bit) and a third, which is the only current VM (already VirtualBox), which is the thin-client host. My question comes down to performance and/or recommendations about the file server VM. The file server hosts about 6 terabytes of data across 4 drives. What I'd like to do is use raw disk access from the VM directly to the existing disks. However, I'm curious what performance advantage/disadvantage that would have as compared to using shared folders from the VM host and basically just have the whole drive served as a shared folder to the VM which would then serve it to the other machines on the network. I don't know if virtual disks would even work in this scenario and I certainly wouldn't want a drive to be filled with just a single file which is 1.5 TB (disk image). To add understanding of context, but not to get additional advice, I want to virtualize these machines because I intend to regularly use the snapshot capabilities of VirtualBox for the system disks (which will be virtual drives) of the VMs and I have some physical space/power needs to address (as I mentioned, this is at home).

    Read the article

  • Cannot access drive in Windows 7 after scandisk lockup, but can in safe mode....

    - by Matt Thompson
    I ran scandisk on my external USB drive due to the inability to delete a few files. Windows asked me if I wanted to unmount the drive before the scan, warning me that it would be unusable until the scan was finished, and I said yes. During the scan, my machine locked up, and I was forced to reboot the machine. When it came up, I was unable to access the drive, getting an error that "L:is not accessible, access is denied". Comupter Management sees the drive, and has the proper amount of disk space filled. I booted into safe mode, and can access the drive with no problems, and I noticed that in explorer, all the folders have locks on them. I booted back into windows, but still could not access the drive, getting the same error as above. Hovever, if I right click on the drive, select properties, and go to Customize, in the folder pictures ares, I select Choose File, and a window open up, that shows the root of the directory, with all the folder able to be accessed, but again, the icon is the folder icon with a lock on it. I can even copy files from the drive to another. So, the files are not gone, windows can obviously access the drive no matter what it thinks, so there has to be a problem with the flag windows put on the drive when it ran the original scan that failed. I was able to run a scan both in safe mode with no problems, and in windows. In windows, I received the cannot access error the first time I run scan disk on it, but if I try again, it works fine. Any ideas on how to clear the flag that windows set, so I can access the drive normally again?

    Read the article

  • PC only boots from Linux-based media and won't boot from DOS-based media

    - by Xolstice
    I have this problem where the PC only seems to boot from a floppy disk or CD if it was created as a Linux-based bootable media. If it was created as a DOS-based bootable media the system just freezes at the starting point of the boot process. I originally asked this under question 139515 for CD booting only, and based on the given answers, I was under the impression the problem was with the CD-ROM drive; however, I have since installed a newly purchased CD-ROM drive and the same freezing occurs. This then made me try the DOS bootable floppy disk approach and I was quite surprised that it exhibited the same freezing problem. I then tried try a Linux bootable floppy and everything booted from it without any issues. As I mentioned in my original question, the PC was booting just fine from the DOS-based bootable CD, and then it suddenly decides to pull this freezing stunt. I can't remember if I changed anything in the BIOS settings that may I have caused the problem, but I am wondering if that could be the case - it is currently using the Award Module BIOS v4.60PGMA. Can anyone help?

    Read the article

  • Quota, AD and C#

    - by Gnial0id
    At first, my mother tongue is not English, so I apologize for the possible mistakes. I'm working on a WS2008R2 server with an Active Directory and a web platform manages this AD with C# code. A group of users have to be able to create user accounts but during the procedure, a disk quota for this new account is (and have to be) created. As the "creator" must not be a member of the Administrators group, the access to the c/: disk is denied. So, I want to perform the File Server Resource Manager operations with C# code by an non-admin account. The code is correct, it works normally with admin account. So, the problem turns around the permissions on the hard drive. I've looked after help on the Internet, without success. It seems that quota delegation is impossible. Only admin can perform this. A colleague helped me a bit, and found the GPO "By pass traverse checking" on a forum but it doesn't seems to be the good way. Any help would be appreciate.

    Read the article

  • Copy all installed programs & files in a hard disk (which has 32 bit Windows 7) and clone/transfer it to another computer which has 64 bit Windows 7

    - by galacticninja
    I recently got a new PC which has a 64-bit Windows 7 installed. The current PC that I am using has a 32-bit Windows 7 installed. I would like to know if there is a software that can copy all my installed programs and files in the hard disk with the 32-bit Windows 7 PC and transfer it to the newer PC's hard disk which has a 64 bit version of Windows 7. This is essentially like "cloning" a hard disk but I would like to use a 64-bit OS in the target drive, instead of also using the 32-bit OS of the source drive. I would like to do this I can avoid reinstalling and reconfiguring my installed programs and files again on the new PC. If possible, I would like the new PC to work as it was in my previous PC, with the installed programs, configuration and files intact except that the OS is now 64-bit and the hard disk has a larger capacity. I have heard of programs that can clone a hard disk, but my concern is that the 32-bit Windows 7 OS will also be cloned to the new 64-bit PC. If it is not possible to transfer my installed programs and settings like the way I described, are there software that can make it easier to migrate my installed programs, their configurations and my files from a 32-bit Windows 7 PC to a 64-bit Windows 7 PC? Details: I have a SATA to USB connector/adapter to copy files in the current hard disk to the newer one. The two PCs are connected through LAN, so I can also transfer files through LAN. Both PCs only have one hard disk.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82  | Next Page >