Search Results

Search found 9105 results on 365 pages for 'disk quota'.

Page 88/365 | < Previous Page | 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95  | Next Page >

  • mount remotely mybook live network drive

    - by bob
    I have a mybook live western digital 1TB hard disk connected to fritzbox 7270 router in office. When I am in the office, I can mount this drive to ubuntu since I have added to the etc/fstab file: //192.168.178.30/user /home/user/DISK cifs auto,iocharset=utf8,user=user%password 0 0 Is there a similar, easy & safe way, to do the same when I am out of the office using the static IP of the fritzbox router? I have already added tcp port forwarding in the router for ports 8080 (to 80 of the disk) and 8443 (to 443 of the disk). Thank you in advance

    Read the article

  • Create windows XP's live USB using ubuntu

    - by Avnish
    My hard disk crashed.. I can run Ubuntu using a pendrive by making a live USB of Ubuntu, which I made using Windows 7. In the similar way, I want to run Windows XP too using another pen drive (without hard disk) and I want to make it from Ubuntu (12.04). The resources I have are Ubuntu's live USB, Windows XP and Windows 7 installation disk, some blank DVDs but no hard drive. I have very basic knowledge of Linux. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Grub2 attempting to boot hd1 when it should boot hd0

    - by JoBu1324
    I'm attempting to perform a "normal" install on a USB3 SSD (I don't know if it is noteworthy, but I don't have a swap partition). The installation proceeds normally (I'm installing from a USB2 device I created using LiLi Boot, with a copy of Ubuntu 12.10 64bit that I downloaded directly from the source. The system I'm running Ubuntu on has had a more traditional installation of ubuntu running on it without issue (also 12.10), so I know that everything works A-OK when booting from a 7200RPM internal disk. There are a number of oddities that I've noticed so far, including graphics corruption, but the first and most pressing issue is that Grub2 refuses to recognize the correct hd. From /boot/grub/grub.cfg: if [ x$feature_default_font_path = xy ] ; then font=unicode else insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='hd1,msdos1' if [ x$feature_platform_search_hint = xy ]; then search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root --hint-bios=hd1,msdos1 --hint-efi=hd1,msdos1 --hint-baremetal=ahci1,msdos1 b58ee4f7-d41d-400a-b7b8-18bd1f0ae9d3 else search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root b58ee4f7-d41d-400a-b7b8-18bd1f0ae9d3 fi font="/usr/share/grub/unicode.pf2" fi This is from a 100% fresh install of linux (first boot), which was installed while no hard drives were connected to the system, other than the USB2 LiLi drive. The system refuses to boot unless I change the hd1,msdos1 - hd0,msdos1 in the grub menu at boot, when it is the only disk device connected to the PC. What options are left for me to troubleshoot this issue? I've been racking my brains and taxing the internet trying to dig up something on this problem, but now I'd like to see if the Ubuntu community can rise to the challenge and help me fix this boot problem. This is the second time I've attempted this particular setup. The first time, after days of wasted time, I managed to get it to boot every other boot - i.e. every even boot it would boot into Ubuntu like it was happy; every odd boot it would boot into the BusyBox or Grub prompt. At one point it complained that it couldn't find /dev/disk/by-uuid/[the disk], which I found most perplexing, since the disk was there and booted before and after the occurrence (with intervention).

    Read the article

  • How can I successfully install Ubuntu 12.10 next to windows 7

    - by Ian
    I have an installation of Windows 7 and I would like to install Ubuntu 12.10 side by side. During the installation of Ubuntu GRUB comes up with an error and gives me the option to select which disk it should be installed to. I have always found this difficult as I am never sure which disk to select. In my case I see one with "Windows bootloader". I was guessing that was the boot disk for my system but having selected it and completing the Ubuntu installation, GRUB did not appear and Windows loaded. I had no way to get to my Ubuntu installation. I then tried another disk for GRUB after receiving the same message on a re-install of Ubuntu but it didn't work either. In stead of fumbling about I thought I would ask here. Thanks for any advice!

    Read the article

  • Windows 8 not booting from DVD while trying to install in a Ubuntu 14.04 system

    - by Tom
    Currently my system runs on Ubuntu 14.04. Yesterday, I deleted and formatted the partition(C drive) as NTFS in which Windows 7 was installed because Windows 7 was not booting for more than a week. I have a Windows 8 disk and it was able to boot from that disk when there was Windows 7 on my system. After the formatting of C drive yesterday, I tried to install Windows 8 by booting from the disk. Unfortunately, this time no booting happened from the disk. So I pressed F2 during the system start up and checked Boot Device Priority, Optical Drive has the first priority there. So why Windows 8 didn't boot from the disk ? I need to install Windows 8 too in my system without doing any damage to Ubuntu 14.04. How can I do it ?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to have a very full hard drive on a high traffic database server?

    - by MikeN
    Running an Ubuntu server with MySQL for a high traffic production database server. Nothing else is running on the machine except the MySQL instance. We store daily database backups on the DB server, is there any performance hit or reason why we should keep the hard disk relatively empty? If the disk is filled up to 86%+ with the database and all of the backups, does it hurt performance at all? So would the DB server running with 86-90%+ full capacity perform less well in any way than the server running with only a 10% full disk? The total disk size on the server is over 1 TB so even 10% of the disk should be enough for basic O/S swapping and such.

    Read the article

  • "Misaligned partition" - Should I do repartition (how?)

    - by RndmUbuntuAmateur
    Tried to install Ubuntu 12.04 from USB-stick alongside the existing Win7 OS 64bit, and now I'm not sure if install was completely successful: Disk Utility tool claims that the Extended partition (which contains Ubuntu partition and Swap) is "misaligned" and recommends repartition. What should I do, and if should I do this repartition, how to do it (especially if I would like not to lose the data on Win7 partition)? Background info: A considerably new Thinkpad laptop (UEFI BIOS, if that matters). Before install there were already a "SYSTEM_DRV" partition, the main Windows partition and a Lenovo recovery partition (all NTFS). Now the table looks like this: SYSTEM_DRV (sda1), Windows (sda2), Extended (sda4) (which contains Linux (sda5; ext4) and Swap (sda6)) and Recovery (sda3). Disk Utility Tool gives a message as follows when I select Ext: "The partition is misaligned by 1024 bytes. This may result in very poor performance. Repartitioning is suggested." There were couple of problems during the install, which I describe below, in the case they happen to be relevant. Installer claimed that it recognized existing OS'es fine, so I checked the corresponding option during the install. Next, when it asked me how to allocate the disk space, the first weird thing happened: the installer give me a graphical "slide" allocate disk space for pre-existing Win7 OS and new Ubuntu... but it did not inform me which partition would be for Ubuntu and which for Windows. ..well, I decided to go with the setting installer proposed. (not sure if this is relevant, but I guess I'd better mention it anyway - the previous partition tools have been more self-explanatory...) After the install (which reported no errors), GRUB/Ubuntu refused to boot. Luckily this problem was quite straightforwardly resolved with live-Ubuntu-USB and Boot-Repair ("Recommended repair" worked just fine). After all this hassle I decided to check the partition table "just to be sure"- and the disk utility gives the warning message I described.

    Read the article

  • Deployment from OVA format

    - by Manvendra Bele
    I am deploying a VM using a OVA format. The size of OVA format is 57 GB. Currently free space on my datastore is 388 GB. At the time of selecting Disk Format type if shows me in red that the disk size required is 1 TB therefore you cannot select THICK provisioning. Therefore, i selected THIN provisiong. It THIN provisioing i am showed that Estimated Disk Usage is 112 GB which is less than the free space available. But even after selecting THIN proviosing at the time of deployment it throws an error that it cannot create disk as the size of disk is larger than the maximum specified limit. My block size is of 1 MB. Pasting my exact error here: Failed to deploy OVF package:File [datastore1] IMS Tester 1/IMS Tester1_2.vmdk is larger than maximum size supported by datastore 'datastore1

    Read the article

  • Are Windows partitions gone?

    - by Gigili
    I had Windows 7 on my laptop (factory setting), because of some performance issues, I decided to use recovery options to restore it to its factory condition but I don't know what has happened or what I have done that the whole operating system was gone after playing around with recovery options from the boot menu. I couldn't find Windows, so I installed Ubuntu 11.04 on my laptop. Last time I had Ubuntu on it, it was not really compatible with laptop's configuration and I had a bit of problems trying to do normal tasks I used to do on Windows. Now I want to make sure that Windows and its drivers are gone so that I can try to install a newer version of Ubuntu or Windows. I tried the command sudo fdisk -l And the result shown was: myaccount@myaccount-VPCS116FG:~$ sudo fdisk -l [sudo] password for myaccount: Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00025b5f Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 38409 308515840 83 Linux /dev/sda2 38409 38914 4052993 5 Extended /dev/sda5 38409 38914 4052992 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/dm-0: 4150 MB, 4150263808 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 504 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0xa668cfe8 Disk /dev/dm-0 doesn't contain a valid partition table Is it gone? If not, what command should I try to have access to Windows partitions? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Deduping your redundancies

    - by nospam(at)example.com (Joerg Moellenkamp)
    Robin Harris of Storagemojo pointed to an interesting article about about deduplication and it's impact to the resiliency of your data against data corruption on ACM Queue. The problem in short: A considerable number of filesystems store important metadata at multiple locations. For example the ZFS rootblock is copied to three locations. Other filesystems have similar provisions to protect their metadata. However you can easily proof, that the rootblock pointer in the uberblock of ZFS for example is pointing to blocks with absolutely equal content in all three locatition (with zdb -uu and zdb -r). It has to be that way, because they are protected by the same checksum. A number of devices offer block level dedup, either as an option or as part of their inner workings. However when you store three identical blocks on them and the devices does block level dedup internally, the device may just deduplicated your redundant metadata to a block stored just once that is stored on the non-voilatile storage. When this block is corrupted, you have essentially three corrupted copies. Three hit with one bullet. This is indeed an interesting problem: A device doing deduplication doesn't know if a block is important or just a datablock. This is the reason why I like deduplication like it's done in ZFS. It's an integrated part and so important parts don't get deduplicated away. A disk accessed by a block level interface doesn't know anything about the importance of a block. A metadata block is nothing different to it's inner mechanism than a normal data block because there is no way to tell that this is important and that those redundancies aren't allowed to fall prey to some clever deduplication mechanism. Robin talks about this in regard of the Sandforce disk controllers who use a kind of dedup to reduce some of the nasty effects of writing data to flash, but the problem is much broader. However this is relevant whenever you are using a device with block level deduplication. It's just the point that you have to activate it for most implementation by command, whereas certain devices do this by default or by design and you don't know about it. However I'm not perfectly sure about that ? given that storage administration and server administration are often different groups with different business objectives I would ask your storage guys if they have activated dedup without telling somebody elase on their boxes in order to speak less often with the storage sales rep. The problem is even more interesting with ZFS. You may use ditto blocks to protect important data to store multiple copies of data in the pool to increase redundancy, even when your pool just consists out of one disk or just a striped set of disk. However when your device is doing dedup internally it may remove your redundancy before it hits the nonvolatile storage. You've won nothing. Just spend your disk quota on the the LUNs in the SAN and you make your disk admin happy because of the good dedup ratio However you can just fall in this specific "deduped ditto block"trap when your pool just consists out of a single device, because ZFS writes ditto blocks on different disks, when there is more than just one disk. Yet another reason why you should spend some extra-thought when putting your zpool on a single LUN, especially when the LUN is sliced and dices out of a large heap of storage devices by a storage controller. However I have one problem with the articles and their specific mention of ZFS: You can just hit by this problem when you are using the deduplicating device for the pool. However in the specifically mentioned case of SSD this isn't the usecase. Most implementations of SSD in conjunction with ZFS are hybrid storage pools and so rotating rust disk is used as pool and SSD are used as L2ARC/sZIL. And there it simply doesn't matter: When you really have to resort to the sZIL (your system went down, it doesn't matter of one block or several blocks are corrupt, you have to fail back to the last known good transaction group the device. On the other side, when a block in L2ARC is corrupt, you simply read it from the pool and in HSP implementations this is the already mentioned rust. In conjunction with ZFS this is more interesting when using a storage array, that is capable to do dedup and where you use LUNs for your pool. However as mentioned before, on those devices it's a user made decision to do so, and so it's less probable that you deduplicating your redundancies. Other filesystems lacking acapability similar to hybrid storage pools are more "haunted" by this problem of SSD using dedup-like mechanisms internally, because those filesystem really store the data on the the SSD instead of using it just as accelerating devices. However at the end Robin is correct: It's jet another point why protecting your data by creating redundancies by dispersing it several disks (by mirror or parity RAIDs) is really important. No dedup mechanism inside a device can dedup away your redundancy when you write it to a totally different and indepenent device.

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to create all primary partitions.?

    - by james
    I have a 320GB hard disk. I only use either ubuntu or kubuntu (12.04 for now). I don't want to use windows or any other dual boot os. And i need only 3 partitions on my hard disk. One for the OS and remaining two for data storage. I don't want to create swap also. Now can i create all primary partitions on the hard disk. Are there any disadvantages in doing so. If all the partitions are primary i think i can easily resize partitions in future. On second thought i have the idea of using seperate partition for /home. Is it good practice . If i have to do this, i will create 4 partitions all primary. In any case i don't want to create more than 4 partitions . And i know the limit will be 4. So is it safe to create all 3 or 4 primary partitions. Pls suggest me, What are the good practices . (previously i used win-xp and win-7 on dual boot with 2 primary partitions and that bugged me somehow i don't remember. Since then i felt there should be only one primary partition in a hard disk.) EDIT 1 : Now i will use four partitions in the sequence - / , /home , /for-data , /swap . I have another question. Does a partition need continuous blocks on the disk. I mean if i want to resize partitions later, can i add space from sda3 to sda1. Is it possible and is it safe to do ?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04 USB (HP)

    - by xShadoWolf
    I have put ubuntu 12.04 on a USB (Kingston 8GB) and I go to install and I can't it gives options for erase and something else I have 4 primary partitions win7 for my main partition and 3 created by HP HP_TOOLS, HP_RECOVERY and SYSTEM To get to my point how do I install ubuntu on HDD I have a HP probook 200 notebook PC. Can I remove any partitions? When I do sudo fdisk -l This Comes Up Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x3ed7e7b0 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 409599 203776 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 409600 946591743 473091072 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 946591744 976560127 14984192 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda4 976560128 976771119 105496 c W95 FAT32 (LBA) Disk /dev/sdb: 7803 MB, 7803174912 bytes 122 heads, 58 sectors/track, 2153 cylinders, total 15240576 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0xc3072e18 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 8064 15240575 7616256 c W95 FAT32 (LBA)

    Read the article

  • UbuntuStudio 12.04 does not boot after install - no "intrd" image

    - by user72705
    After installing Ubuntu Studio 12.04 from DVD onto the fourth hard disk, it fails to boot, even when explicitly choosing the fourth hard disk as the boot device. I have SUSE 11.2 on the first 2 SCSI disks (which form a RAID) and Studio64 on the 1st IDE disk (that is, the third disk). Looking at the /boot directory on the Ubuntu partition, I see there is no initrd image. Editing the GRUB configuration file to include (hd3,1)/vmlinuz and of course (hd3,1)/initrd should fix the problem. But still GRUB gives a file not found error. This appears to me that, no mkintrd during the booting process (checked with LiveCD) runs like in OpenSUSE. How do I create the initrd to make Ubuntu bootable.

    Read the article

  • Can't boot to Ubuntu 11.10 after installation with Windows 7

    - by Tylor
    I just installed Ubuntu 11.10 on a machine with Windows 7 already installed. I want to setup the dualboot environment. I have a block of unallocated disk space at the end of the disk (some blog post suggested to do so). Then I started installing Ubuntu 11.10 on that part of disk. I installed the boot loader to /boot partition and the installation finished successfully. However, after installation, Ubuntu 11.10 doesn't show up on boot menu. Then I searched on Internet and I used EasyBCD to add a grub2 boot to boot menu. After this, the boot entry does show up in the boot menu, however it only boot into some sort of grub console. I tried many times, and it doesn't work. It looks like the boot loader is not properly installed? I only have one 1.5TB disk and the first 800GB is NTFS partition with Windows 7. Does this work?

    Read the article

  • How can I fix the screen blurred while installing Ubuntu 12.10 Bate1

    - by Marslo
    I installed Ubuntu 12.10 Bate1 yesterday, but the screen blurred always shows after selecting Install Ubuntu on a Hard Disk option and before waiting for the installation interface. Click here to check the screenshot. The method of installation is by U-disk, the name of Ubuntu 12.10 is quantal-desktop-i386.iso (the download link is from Universal-USB-Installer), and Universal-USB-Installer was used to write the Ubuntu 12.10 into U-disk. PS. Ubuntu 12.04 could be installed successful on my computer!

    Read the article

  • No Windows Option on Boot

    - by Okoning
    I've installed Ubuntu alongside Windows but at first didn't have a boot option menu. So, I installed bootrepair and ran it. This succeeded in granting me a GRUB boot option menu, but Windows isn't on it. Here is the bootrepair report: http://paste.ubuntu.com/8098527 Can anyone tell me what might be wrong? EDIT: I ran sudo fdisk -l and this is the output: Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00023fe0 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 960096255 480047104 83 Linux /dev/sda2 960098302 976771071 8336385 5 Extended /dev/sda5 960098304 976771071 8336384 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdb: 32.0 GB, 32015679488 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3892 cylinders, total 62530624 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 32 62530623 31265296 c W95 FAT32 (LBA)

    Read the article

  • Grub not loading after Windows 8 Install

    - by RazorXsr
    My system was configured to dual boot Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS and Windows 7. Today I got my hands on the MSDN release of Windows 8 and I installed it over my Windows 7. Now the computer just boots to Windows 8 directly without loading the GRUB screen. So I followed the steps as suggested in: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RecoveringUbuntuAfterInstallingWindows. Running this command: ls -l /dev/disk/by-label/ gives the following output: total 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Sep 11 07:51 Entertainment -> ../../sda2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Sep 11 02:45 PENDRIVE -> ../../sdb1 Also fdisk -l command gives this as the output: Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x1246aa23 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 319582199 159790076 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 319582208 602906623 141662208 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 602908672 625135615 11113472 83 Linux Disk /dev/sdb: 1939 MB, 1939865600 bytes 64 heads, 63 sectors/track, 939 cylinders, total 3788800 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0xc3072e18 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 2248 3788799 1893276 c W95 FAT32 (LBA) So I assume that I have to run this: sudo grub-install /dev/sda3 to get GRUB up and running. But I am getting this error: /usr/sbin/grub-probe: error: cannot find a device for /boot/grub (is /dev mounted?). Can anyone please guide me in the right direction? The current Ubuntu installation is far too customized to my needs to lose it to a boot manager issue! Any help is much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Can't install Ubuntu 11.10 on a seperate disk partition. I have a log file. Please help!

    - by les02jen17
    Before I installed Ubuntu, I resized my C: drive (which has my Windows 7 OS). Prior to resizing, I even defragged the said drive. I tried using Wubi to install it on the created partition, but I receive an error. I have the log file and I would post it but it's too long and the site won't let me. :(So anyway, I wasn't able to install it, so I uninstalled it. Upon uninstalling Wubi and Ubuntu, I tried installing it by having the CD to my CD ROM. The installation was a success, however, upon rebooting I can neither boot to Ubuntu OR Windows 7. I get stuck in an infinite bootloop. I hope you can help me out! :(

    Read the article

  • Stop Windows boot

    - by Parley Applegate
    Installed Ubuntu over a Windows8 trial. After installation, Windows8 still tries to boot. Wiped disk clean with Acronis and reinstall Ubuntu. Windows8 still tries to start, but goes to blank screen. Ubuntu never tries to boot. Naturally live mode works fine. What do you think of wiping disk again, install Windows7 and try using GRUB approach or do you know how to remove Windows from the cleaned disk?

    Read the article

  • ???????/?????!?????????????????

    - by user788995
    ????? ??:2012/01/23 ??:??????/?? ??????????????????????????????????Disk I/O???????????????????Disk I/O???????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? / ?????????????????Appendix ????????? ????????????????? http://otndnld.oracle.co.jp/ondemand/otn-seminar/movie/120106_D-12_Disk_1.wmv http://otndnld.oracle.co.jp/ondemand/otn-seminar/movie/mp4/120106_D-12_Disk_1.mp4 http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/jp/ondemand/db-technique/d-12-disk-1484778-ja.pdf

    Read the article

  • PostgreSQL, Foreign Keys, Insert speed & Django

    - by Miles
    A few days ago, I ran into an unexpected performance problem with a pretty standard Django setup. For an upcoming feature, we have to regenerate a table hourly, containing about 100k rows of data, 9M on the disk, 10M indexes according to pgAdmin. The problem is that inserting them by whatever method literally takes ages, up to 3 minutes of 100% disk busy time. That's not something you want on a production site. It doesn't matter if the inserts were in a transaction, issued via plain insert, multi-row insert, COPY FROM or even INSERT INTO t1 SELECT * FROM t2. After noticing this isn't Django's fault, I followed a trial and error route, and hey, the problem disappeared after dropping all foreign keys! Instead of 3 minutes, the INSERT INTO SELECT FROM took less than a second to execute, which isn't too surprising for a table <= 20M on the disk. What is weird is that PostgreSQL manages to slow down inserts by 180x just by using 3 foreign keys. Oh, disk activity was pure writing, as everything is cached in RAM; only writes go to the disks. It looks like PostgreSQL is working very hard to touch every row in the referred tables, as 3MB/sec * 180s is way more data than the 20MB this new table takes on disk. No WAL for the 180s case, I was testing in psql directly, in Django, add ~50% overhead for WAL logging. Tried @commit_on_success, same slowness, I had even implemented multi row insert and COPY FROM with psycopg2. That's another weird thing, how can 10M worth of inserts generate 10x 16M log segments? Table layout: id serial primary, a bunch of int32, 3 foreign keys to small table, 198 rows, 16k on disk large table, 1.2M rows, 59 data + 89 index MB on disk large table, 2.2M rows, 198 + 210MB So, am I doomed to either drop the foreign keys manually or use the table in a very un-Django way by defining saving bla_id x3 and skip using models.ForeignKey? I'd love to hear about some magical antidote / pg setting to fix this.

    Read the article

  • Desktop SATA drives in SATA <-> FC array

    - by chris
    Let's assume you've got a box like one of these with space for 24 SATA disks. What are the best bits of advice for deploying this? For instance, should you be greedy and go for the 1.5 or 2tb disks or are they just not reliable enough to be used in an array like this and you should stick with 640gb or 750gb disks instead? Also, I know that FC (or generically, "enterprise class") disks have a different error recovery strategy than desktop disks. An enterprise disk will fail a read quickly and report to the controller that it wasn't able to read that block, and the RAID controller will quickly regenerate the info from the parity disk and mark the block as bad. A desktop disk, on the other hand, will try and try and try again to get the data, and in pathological cases this may cause a raid controller to fail the whole disk because the read operation times out. So there are a couple aspects to this question: What's the best sort of disk to get today? (ie specific disks on the market in Feb 2010) Generically, what should someone look for when trying to buy something like this that kinda walks the line between enterprise and consumer? Lastly -- is there anything that can be done with current "consumer" disks to make them more suitable for array use? IE can you use a SMART configuration to change the error recovery strategy used by the disk? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • I cannot format my PC

    - by Jesus Buelna
    I have a Toshiba Satellite(1) l505 6gb RAM, 6.00GB hard disk.Initially I have problem with another satellite(2) I had (mother board problem). I took my Laptop to a technician and cost a lot of money (almost as much as buying new one). So, since I have HDD problems with the first one(1) I decided to use the hard disk of the other one(2). I formatted the HDD and erased the partitions it had into 1 partition (or no partition). The problem is that when I try to format with the SO CD, in the screen, where I have to decide in which partition I want to install the SO, the only one option I have says "unallocated partition and I receive this message "Windows cannot install the SO in this partition, run files do not existed or maybe corrupted" When I erased the disk with Parted Magic, Did I erased any files needed for running the installing disk? I don't know. Is it possible to fixed or reinstate the disk to install the OS? By the way, I checked the disk physical health with Parted Magic, and it is OK. One more thing when I erased the disc to 0, I used the safety option offered by the Parted Magic.Need help please.

    Read the article

  • Boot iMac into Centos from external hard drive

    - by user1704978
    I have Centos 6.3 installed on an external Western Digital drive with Firewire and USB interfaces. I want to be able to boot an iMac (2008, 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo) from this disk. The iMac has Mac OS X 10.5.8 and also a Window XP installation. I have tried holding 'T' on bootup for target disk mode but the external disk is ignored (presumably as it's not a Mac OSX image). I created an rEFit boot DVD which when booted in CD mode (holding 'C' on startup) displays three options, Mac OS (on internal drive), Linux and Windows. Selecting the Linux option unfortunately boots the Mac into XP. Three options are only displayed when the external disk is plugged into the Firewire port. If the external disk is plugged into a USB port the Linux option is not displayed and I can only boot into Mac OS X or Windows. This external disk will happily boot a Lenovo T410 laptop into Centos. My questions are: 1) Is it actually possible to boot into Centos on an iMac with an external hard drive. If so how do I achieve this? 2) Why is rEFit apparently booting from the wrong partition?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95  | Next Page >