Search Results

Search found 11478 results on 460 pages for 'disk partition'.

Page 87/460 | < Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >

  • Possible to migrate from non-RAID to RAID 1 and then RAID 5?

    - by stueng
    Using software RAID only Is it possible to start with a 2TB disk full of data and safely add it to a RAID 1 array? Is it then possible to add a third disk and migrate the RAID 1 array into a RAID 5 array? OR Is it possible to start with a 2 disk degraded RAID 5 array and then add the third disk later to create a health RAID 5 array? Backstory: I wish to migrate from a 2 disk NAS (RAID 1) to a 3 disk NAS and only purchase one new disk in doing so

    Read the article

  • Writing direct to disk with php

    - by Jurander
    I would like to create an upload script that doesn't fall under the php upload limit. There might be an occasion where I need to upload a 2GB, or larger file and I don't want to have to change the whole server execution to above 32MB. Is there a way to write direct to disk from php? What method might you propose someone would use to accomplish this? I have read around stack overflow but haven't quite found what I am looking to do.

    Read the article

  • Using Pisa to write a pdf to disk

    - by phoebebright
    I have pisa producing .pdfs in django in the browser fine, but what if I want to automatically write the file to disk? What I want to do is to be able to generate a .pdf version file at specified points in time and save it in a uploads directory, so there is no browser interaction. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • 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

  • Install Ubuntu on Asus Eee-PC 1005PE - Dealing with special partitions

    - by MestreLion
    I have an Asus EeePC 1005PE netbook and im planning on doing a massive re-partitioning (going to install Ubuntu, Mint, XP, etc) Ive noticed it has 2 "special" partitions: a 10Gb Fat32 RESTORE hidden partition (used by BIOS "F9 recovery" feature) and a 16Mb "unknown" partition at the end of the drive (used by BIOS "Boot Booster" feature). So, for both partitions, my question is: Can I move/resize the recovery partition freely? What are the requirements for it? (i mean, for it still be found by BIOS when i press F9/Activate BootBooster?). Partition table order? Partition type? Flags? Label? UUID? Can i make it a Logical (instead of primary) partition? Does it must be the flagged as boot? And, more importantly: where can i find any official documentation about it? Ive ready many (mis)information about it... some say Boot Booster partition must be last (in partition table), some say Recovery must be 2nd, that it must be bootable, etc. How can I know what is really needed for the BIOS to use both F9 and Boot Booster? Note: Im using gParted from a Live USB Stick (Mint 10 / Ubuntu 10.10), and ive noticed that, since the filesystem type of the Boot Booster is not recongnized, it cant move or resize it. Can I delete it and re-create it somewhere else? Whenever i create a 0xEF partition gParted crashes and quits and i cannot open it again (must delete the partition using fdisk / cfdisk)

    Read the article

  • Have I lost my entire Windows drive and all the files?

    - by xiaohouzi79
    I previously had Heron 8.04 installed. Today I decided to upgrade. During the partition phase of the install of 10.10 it asked me what portion of the drive I should use. There were a few options: Drag the partition size to indicate what I wanted to use A button that said use entire partition A button that said use entire drive I selected use entire partition as the Windows partition did not appear on the screen I assumed this was just displaying the existing Ubuntu partition. After install I think I have wiped my entire Windows partition, I can't see it anywhere. I would appreciate some advice as to find if it really is gone forever (My stupidity I didn't back up my Windows partition which includes 3 years of baby photos).

    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

  • What is the best way of testing Ubuntu?

    - by Jay
    I'm a little confused as to whether I should install Ubuntu on its own partition on my hard drive, use VirtualBox or another virtualization package to install it, or use Wubi to install it directly on top of my current OS (Win 7). I definitely want to learn and use Ubuntu, so this is not just for playing around with it. Also, if I choose to partition, should I partition the hard drive myself or should I let the Ubuntu installation menu do it for me? I understand that I am going to need a main partition, for Ubuntu's core components, and also a swap partition. Then there is the option to add a partition for "home"- I don't understand what combination of these partitioning options I should choose, or whether it is better to partition in Windows before I install Ubuntu or just partition my hard drive when I install Ubuntu itself

    Read the article

  • Does "I securely erased my drive" really work with Truecrypt partitions?

    - by TheLQ
    When you look at Truecrypt's Plausible Deniability page it says that one of the reasons for partition with solely random data is that you securely erased your drive. But what about the partition table with full disk encryption? How can you explain why the partition table says there's a partition of unknown type (With my limited knowledge of partition tables I think that they store all the partition filesystem types) and with solely random data? It seems that if your going to securely erase the drive you would destroy everything, including the partition table. And even if you just wiped the partition, the partition table would still say that the partition was originally NTFS, which it isn't anymore. Does the "I securely erased my drive" excuse still work here? (Note: I know that there's hidden truecrypt volumes, but I'm avoiding them due to the high risk of data loss)

    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

  • What GPT partition type to use for protecting DRBD metadata?

    - by Carsten Scholtes
    I'm planning to install a DRBD device on a (replicated) disk with two GPT partitions. DRBD requires some space for (preferentially "internal") metadata at the end of the underlying device. I'm hesitant to leave this space unpartitionend (or unformatted in a normal partition). I'd like to reserve an extra partition at the end of the underlying disk device for the metadata. (If I understand correctly, DRBD would not care about the partition or its type and could then use that space exclusively.) My question is: Which would be a suitable GPT partition type for such a metadata partition? It should not be a type interpreted while booting (such as EF00 EFI System). It should not be a type prone to be modified accidentialy by the booted OS (such as 8200 Linux swap, 8e00 Linux LVM, fd00 Linux raid). (The booted OS will be Ubuntu Linux 12.04.3.) It should not be a type indicating a normal filesystem (such as 0c01 or 8301), prone to be formatted correspondingly. It should not be a type requiring any special content in the partition (since the content is to be handled exclusively by DRBD). It should express the purpose of being reserved for something special (namely DRBD). (The types I listed are as provided by gdisk. I'm thinking about using some type unlikely to be used by the OS (maybe bf0a Solaris Reserved 4) or an invented(?) type such as fd01 (close to fd00 Linux raid…). Would something like this be suitable, too dangerous or even possible?)

    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

  • How can I restore my laptop from Windows 7 to its original Windows Vista recovery partition?

    - by Cam Jackson
    I bought my Acer laptop 4 years ago with Vista Home Premium x86. It has a recovery partition that I have used successfully in the past to format everything and reinstall Windows to factory settings. I have since upgraded to Windows 7, but I now need to get back to my original installation. Not sure what it's called, but I can successfully get into this recovery thingy: However, when I click the third option (for me I think it says 'Windows Image Recovery' or something like that) it tells me that it can't find any images to recover from :( I have checked and I don't have a windows.old that I can recover from either. One final note, if I launch diskmgmt.msc, these are the partitions: Why is the first partition shaded? Does that mean anything? Both of the 'unlettered' partitions are 100% empty. Did the Windows 7 upgrade process format my Vista system recovery partition?! And finally: How can I get back to my factory settings? EDIT: I did see this question, but neither of the answers apply to my situation. Edit to address jdh's answer: From what I can tell, I never get the option to boot the Vista recovery partition. After hitting F10, I get this screen, except it's partition 2, and I don't have the IN/MINT bit: I hit Escape, and then I get this screen, except without Ubuntu listed, and without the auto-countdown thing: I hit F8, and then I get this screen: I hit Enter on the first option, I end up at the screen in the first screen shot. As I said, from there I click the third option, and it fails to find the image, which I guess makes sense if it's only looking for a Windows 7 recovery. So I either need to make the Windows 7 tool see the Vista recovery partition, or I need the boot loader (?) to let me select Vista earlier in the process. Any ideas?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >