Search Results

Search found 10693 results on 428 pages for 'raw disk'.

Page 98/428 | < Previous Page | 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Mac Mini drive problems but SMART verified: bad hard drive or controller?

    - by Zac Thompson
    I have a 3-year-old Intel Mac Mini at home. About a month ago, it stopped booting from the hard drive (internal, SATA, 80GB). I tried booting from the Install Disc to repair the filesystem but Disk Utility was unable to do so ("invalid node structure"). I was also unable to use the hard drive in the Terminal from the Install Disc nor from an Ubuntu boot CD ("DRDY err"). I could see the contents of some directories, but others would give an error and I would get failures when trying to copy files. At this point I was sure the filesystem was hosed and I'd want to reformat at least. DiskWarrior was able to let me retrieve the data files I was interested in, which are now copied to an external hard drive, but it reported a high number of problems ("speed reduced by disk malfunction" count was over 2000) when in the process of trying to rebuild the directory for the drive. It also would not let me use the rebuilt directory to replace the one on the drive; it claimed the disk errors prevented recovery in this way. Under normal circumstances I would now assume that the drive itself was going bad: DiskWarrior's "disk malfunction" error above is supposed to imply hardware problems. My initial plan was to buy a replacement for the internal 2.5" drive. However: Disk Utility, command-line tools and DiskWarrior had reported all along that the SMART status of the drive was okay/Verified. So I'm now worried that the drive hardware is actually fine, and that the problems were due to a disk controller that has gone "bad" somehow. If this is the case, I'll probably just replace the whole computer. Any advice on how I can tell what is to blame? I don't have a lot of extra hardware sitting around, so I don't have the option of simply dropping the drive in another machine or popping another hard drive inside the Mini.

    Read the article

  • sg_map & lsscsi showing old storage version

    - by PratapSingh
    I am using SUN storage and recently upgraded/refreshed my ISCSI LUN storage. We have replicated old storage to new storage and attached to our servers. I can see at SUN storage side that storage is attached to server and also from server when I run the below command it prints the following output : iscsiadm -m session tcp: [1] 10.1.1.10:3260,2 iqn.86-03.com.sun:02:afsfsf58-c56a-6ba8-a944-addd258687cd The above storage is SUN STORAGE 7420 But when I run sg_map or lsscsi command it prints different version: lsscsi disk SUN Sun Storage 7410 1.0 /dev/sda disk SUN Sun Storage 7410 1.0 /dev/sdb disk SUN Sun Storage 7410 1.0 /dev/sdc disk SUN Sun Storage 7410 1.0 /dev/sdd Output of ls on "/dev/disk/by-path/" ls -1 /dev/disk/by-path/ ip-10.1.1.10:3260-iscsi-iqn.86-03.com.sun:02:afsfsf58-c56a-6ba8-a944-addd258687cd-lun-0 ip-10.1.1.10:3260-iscsi-iqn.86-03.com.sun:02:afsfsf58-c56a-6ba8-a944-addd258687cd-lun-0-part1 ip-10.1.1.10:3260-iscsi-iqn.86-03.com.sun:02:afsfsf58-c56a-6ba8-a944-addd258687cd-lun-18 ip-10.1.1.10:3260-iscsi-iqn.86-03.com.sun:02:afsfsf58-c56a-6ba8-a944-addd258687cd-lun-18-part1 ip-10.1.1.10:3260-iscsi-iqn.86-03.com.sun:02:afsfsf58-c56a-6ba8-a944-addd258687cd-lun-2 ip-10.1.1.10:3260-iscsi-iqn.86-03.com.sun:02:afsfsf58-c56a-6ba8-a944-addd258687cd-lun-2-part1 ip-10.1.1.10:3260-iscsi-iqn.86-03.com.sun:02:afsfsf58-c56a-6ba8-a944-addd258687cd-lun-4 ip-10.1.1.10:3260-iscsi-iqn.86-03.com.sun:02:afsfsf58-c56a-6ba8-a944-addd258687cd-lun-4-part1 ip-10.1.1.10:3260-iscsi-iqn.86-03.com.sun:02:afsfsf58-c56a-6ba8-a944-addd258687cd-lun-6 ip-10.1.1.10:3260-iscsi-iqn.86-03.com.sun:02:afsfsf58-c56a-6ba8-a944-addd258687cd-lun-6-part1 I have rebooted server twice but still I am getting the same output as given above.

    Read the article

  • What are "Excess Fragments" in defragmenting a hard drive?

    - by Andrew Swift
    I'm defragmenting my hard drive (XP SP3) with PerfectDisk 7.0, and it finds 816,659 excess fragments when I ask for an analysis. [update] Specifically, it shows that the 1TB disk is 14% fragmented with 19693 fragments and 816,659 excess fragments. About 20% of the disk is still free space. What does excess fragments refer to? What is the difference between fragments and excess fragments? I have had problems in the past where I defragmented a fragmented disk and many files were corrupted. It seemed as though "excess fragments" referred to orphan pieces, where the program couldn't find out where to put them. If that was true, then defragmenting a disk resulted in many incomplete files, and in fact I defragmented a disk full of MP3's and got a lot of corrupted files as a result. Instead, I started to simply format a separate disk and copy everything from one to the other. That way there were no orphan bits, and no file corruption. Does anybody know what "excess fragments" really are?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 13.04 to 13.10: Filesystem check or mount failed [migrated]

    - by SamHuckaby
    I attempted to upgrade from Ubuntu 13.04 to 13.10 today, and mid upgrade the system started flaking out, and eventually locked up entirely. I was forced to restart the computer, and am now unable to get the computer to boot up at all. When I boot currently, it takes me to the GRUB menu, and I can choose to boot normally, or boot in an older version. I have tried several things, which I list below, but no matter what, when I try to finish booting into Ubuntu, I receive the following error: Filesystem check or mount failed. A maintenance shell will now be started. CONTROL-D will terminate this shell and continue booting after re-trying filesystems. Any further errors will be ignored root@ubuntu-computername:~# I have fun fsck -f and everything appears correct, no errors are reported. and it passes all 5 checks. If I run fdisk -l then I get the following information: 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): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00010824 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 608456703 304227328 83 Linux /dev/sda2 608458750 625141759 8341505 5 Extended Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary. /dev/sda5 608458752 625141759 8341504 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdb: 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 / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0fb4b7e8 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 8192 625139711 312565760 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT I am considering just installing a new OS on the other disk, that currently has nothing on it, and then just attempting to scrape my data off the old disk (thankfully I didn't encrypt the files). Really my question is this: Can I salvage this Ubuntu install, or should I give up and just reinstall?

    Read the article

  • scan partition for bad blocks

    - by user22559
    Hello everyone I have a hard disk with bad sectors on it. I want to partition the drive so that the partitions are in the good part of the hard disk, and the parts that have bad sectors are not used. The first ~20GB of the hard disk are good. Then comes a ~13GB part that is riddled with bad sectors. After that, the hard disk is good again, but at the very end there is a ~2GB part with bad sectors. I have used an app called "Hdtune" to get this information, and I have created a 19GB c: partition at the beginning of the drive, then skipping the 13GB of bad sectors, then creating the D: partition that spans the rest of the disk, minus the last 2GB. The C: partition works well (i have been using it for a month and i have got no error whatsoever), but the D partition has been giving me problems. Somehow, it seems that I have some bad sectors in the D: partition. I am looking for an app that scans the HDD, finds the bad blocks, and shows them in a map so I can see if they are in the D partition. Or, an app that scans only a specified partition for bad sectors, and then shows in a map where the bad sectors are in the partition. I want to know this so I can resize the D partition so that it is outside of the bad area of the disk.

    Read the article

  • Formula to calculate probability of unrecoverable read error during RAID rebuild

    - by OlafM
    I need to compare the reliability of different RAID systems with either consumer or enterprise drives. The formula to have the probability of success of a rebuild, ignoring mechanical problems, is simple: error_probability = 1 - (1-per_bit_error_rate)^bit_read and with 3 TB drives I get 38% probability to experience an URE (unrecoverable read error) for a 2+1 disks RAID5 (4.7% for enterprise drives) 21% for a RAID1 (2.4% for enterprise drives) 51% probability of error during recovery for the 3+1 RAID5 often used by users of SOHO products like Synologys. Most people don't know about this. Calculating the error for single disk tolerance is easy, my question concerns systems tolerant to multiple disks failures (RAID6/Z2, RAIDZ3 and RAID1 with multiple disks). If only the first disk is used for rebuild and the second one is read again from the beginning in case or an URE, then the error probability is the one calculated above squared (14.5% for consumer RAID5 2+1, 4.5% for consumer RAID1 1+2). However, I suppose (at least in ZFS that has full checksums!) that the second parity/available disk is read only where needed, meaning that only few sectors are needed: how many UREs can possibly happen in the first disk? not many, otherwise the error probability for single-disk tolerance systems would skyrocket even more than I calculated. If I'm correct, a second parity disk would practically lower the risk to extremely low values. Am I correct?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way in Windows 7 to disable "journaling"?

    - by Psycogeek
    C:\$extend\$Usn.Jrnl:$J:$data Here is a picture finally. The large strip in the center of the top band is the largest chunk, in the other, grey areas are the various clusters with it. On the right, the big long grey line is $logfile (not paging), and it is 63&nbsb;MB. Paging, 500&nbsb;MB is the dark cyan chunk, next to the yellow MFTres in the inner rings.. The disk was defragged so they could be seen easier. Not all clusters of this type of file are tagged, but the idea is there. The disk is 4k clusters, now about 12 GB size. Each cute little block in the picture is .81 MB and represents 207 clusters. The dkGreen section, is mostly the whole Winsxs pile, also interesting when they keep telling us it doesn't take much disk space. Wikipedia suggests that in previous NT systems "USN journaling" would be turned on when enabled (assumes it could also be turned off?). What aspects, services, or program is working on putting that stuff all over the disk which is known by $jrnl$ type clusters, even if it is not actual USN journaling? Is it possible in a Windows 7 system to completly disable the journaling, and what would be the ramifications of that? On a Windows XP NTFS system, I do not recall seeing the quantity of disk clusters used with these $jrnl$ names, so I do not recall this being necessary in this quantity for an NTFS file system itself? I understand that it would not be there, if it did not have a useful function :-) Information about how wonderful is fine, if that information will help track down what parts of the system create and use it. Change Journals states: Change journals are also needed to recover file system indexing Hmm, that might explain some of them, or why it was left on the disk. A crash while background indexing?

    Read the article

  • Application (was Firefox) crash on first load on Ubuntu Linux on older Dell Laptop

    - by Ira Baxter
    I've had a Dell Latitude laptop since about 2000 without managing to destroy it. A month ago the Windows 2000 system on it did something stupid to its file system and Windows was completely lost. No point in reinstalling Windows 2000, so I installed an Ubuntu Linux on the laptop. Everything seems normal (installed, rebooted, I can log in, run GnuChess, poke about). ... but ... when I attempt to launch Firefox from the top bar menu icon, I get a bunch of disk activity, the whirling cursor icon goes round a bit and then (WAS: everything stops: icon, mouse. Literally nothing happens for 5 minutes. Ubuntu is dead, as far as I can tell. EDIT : on further investigation, spinning icon, mouse operated by touchpad freeze. There's apparantly a little disk activity occuring about every 5 seconds. I wait 5-10 minutes, behavior doesn't change) A reboot, and I can repeat this reliably. So on the face of it, everything works but Firefox. That seems really strange. The only odd thing about this system when Firefox is booting is that while it has an Ethernet port (that worked fine under Windows), it isn't actually plugged into an Ethernet. As this is the first Firefox boot since the Ubuntu install, maybe Firefox mishandles Internet access? Why would that crash Ubuntu? (I need to go try the obvious experiment of plugging it in). EDIT: I tried to run the Disk manager tool, not that I cared what it was, just a menu-available application. It started up like Firefox, I get a little tag in the lower left saying Disk P*** something had started, and then the same behavior as Firefox. At this point, I don't think its the Ethernet. Is it possible that the Ubuntu disk driver can't handle the disk controller in this older laptop? The install seemed to go fine.

    Read the article

  • How ZFS handles online replacement in a RAID-Z (theoretical)

    - by Kevin
    This is a somewhat theoretical question about ZFS and RAID-Z. I'll use a three disk single-parity array as an example for clarity, but the problem can be extended to any number of disks and any parity. Suppose we have disks A, B, and C in the pool, and that it is clean. Suppose now that we physically add disk D with the intention of replacing disk C, and that disk C is still functioning correctly and is only being replaced out of preventive maintenance. Some admins might just yank C and install D, which is a little more organized as devices need not change IDs - however this does leave the array degraded temporarily and so for this example suppose we install D without offlining or removing C. Solaris docs indicate that we can replace a disk without first offlining it, using a command such as: zpool replace pool C D This should cause a resilvering onto D. Let us say that resilvering proceeds "downwards" along a "cursor." (I don't know the actual terminology used in the internal implementation.) Suppose now that midways through the resilvering, disk A fails. In theory, this should be recoverable, as above the cursor B and D contain sufficient parity and below the cursor B and C contain sufficient parity. However, whether or not this is actually recoverable depnds upon internal design decisions in ZFS which I am not aware of (and which the manual doesn't say in certain terms). If ZFS continues to send writes to C below the cursor, then we are fine. If, however, ZFS internally treats C as though it were gone, resilvering D only from parity between A and B and only writing A and B below the cursor, then we're toast. Some experimenting could answer this question but I was hoping maybe someone on here already knows which way ZFS handles this situation. Thank you in advance for any insight!

    Read the article

  • Cloned Win7: Keyboard doesn't work

    - by Marc
    I cloned my old Windows7 hard disk to a shiny new Seagate Momentus XT 500GB using the free EaseUs Disk Copy tool on my laptop. After the clone process I used the Windows 7 installation disc to start the automatic startup repair. This took maybe 15 minutes and then my cloned disk was able to start. Now the cloned disk boots until the login screen and then I can't do anything because my keyboard just doesn't work. I tried connecting an external USB keyboard but this didn't help. The mouse is working fine. Note that the keyboard works fine in BIOS and in the Windows startup options menu. I booted into safe mode and again the keyboard is not working at all. I also noticed that the letters "Press CTRL+ALT+Delete to login" are now shown in italic font but they used to be shown non-italic on the original disk. I have now replaced the clone with the original disk again and from here everything works fine. Doesn't anybody have an idea how I can get my keyboard back?

    Read the article

  • SATA DVD drive refuses to read movie DVDs

    - by poke
    Hey, I have a problem with my DVD Drive (Asus DRW-2014L1T, most current firmware installed) on Windows 7 x64. When I insert a DVD movie and Windows starts to access the drive (for autoplay, or when I manually click on the drive icon), my computer hangs up in a particular way, while trying to read the disk. Explorer stops reacting and several programs won't run or their launch is horribly delayed (like the device manager). In th end, I can't access the movie and can't even eject the disk (probably because Windows is still trying to access it). To get the disk out of the drive I then have to reboot (which sometimes doesn't work either) and eject the disk before Windows boots. BIOS recognizes the drive just fine, and Windows is also able to read data disks (tried it with some software disks), but just refuses any movies. I have checked the region code in the device manager, but it is correct. My notebook is reading the disks just fine btw.. I remember having the same problem with an older drive as well, but I don't remember what I did to make it work again (maybe I didn't even fix the problem back then). I do remember however that booting with the disk inserted made Windows recognize the disk, however this doesn't work in this situation either. Do you have any idea what to do to fix that problem?

    Read the article

  • Western Digital HDD disappears and reappears in BIOS

    - by tbkn23
    I know many people asked about similar problems, but I have a very specific case where I can't understand what's going on... I have a 3TB Western Digital Caviar Green disk connected in my Desktop, that also has a seagate 1.5TB disk and 2 SSD drives (OCZ and Sandisk). After working fine for quite some time (probably more than a year), suddenly my Caviar Green drive disappeared from windows. I checked the BIOS, and it wasn't there either. I opened my PC, played with the connectors, power, etc, but nothing helped. Even tried switching connectors with those of the 1.5TB disk, and nothing changed, the 1.5TB seagate was there, but the 3TB WD was not. Ok, now for the strange part. I have another desktop at home, so I took out my 3TB drive, connected it there, and it worked fine! I copied the most important files out of it, and then made another attempt in the original desktop. Surprise! It now appeared in the BIOS and worked fine! I even ran the SMART test with the WD tools and it said everything was intact. It doesn't end here. After leaving it overnight in the original desktop, it disappeared again in the morning. I repeated the entire process, connecting it to the second desktop, and there it is again working fine. Now for my question... Whats going on? The disk seems to be appearing on/off in my original Desktop, while other drives there work fine. SMART test says the disk is fine. Any ideas? Is the disk defective and should be replaced? Or maybe there's a problem with the controller in the desktop? I'm using a Gigabyte GA-880GA-UD3H motherboard and tried connecting the drive to both bridges (SATA2 and SATA3 bridges). Thanks EDIT: Power options are set never to turn off hard drives:

    Read the article

  • Boot records messed on dual boot (win7 and ubuntu) machine with SSD and HDD

    - by Michael
    i have a lenovo ideapad y570 with two hard drives: SSD and normal HDD both managed by RapidDrive and windows 7 pre-installed. First, i have shrunk my 500 GB HDD a little bit to make some place for a linux installation. Then i installed linux mint 12 to it, also installed grub onto the drive (dev/sdb). Installation programm has not allowed me to install grub on sda. Then i replaced linux mint with ubuntu 12.04 but installed grub onto the SSD (which is dev/sda and was the default-option). After that i could boot into my windows, only ubuntu worked. So i did a research, and tried: rewriting mbr of windows into sda1, reinstalling grub, replacing grub2 with grub-legacy, and now i think my partitions table are totally messed. Here is fdisk -l output: ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 64.0 GB, 64023257088 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 7783 cylinders, total 125045424 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/sda1 * 2048 411647 204800 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 411648 1009430959 504509656 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT Disk /dev/sdb: 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: 0x5e5d1cc8 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 1979 884389887 442193954+ 12 Compaq diagnostics /dev/sdb2 884391934 976771071 46189569 5 Extended /dev/sdb5 884391936 937705471 26656768 83 Linux /dev/sdb6 937707520 967006207 14649344 83 Linux /dev/sdb7 967008256 976771071 4881408 82 Linux swap / Solaris I also cant mount any windows partitions to recover data. And when i open gparted, the whole sda-disk appears unallocated and it states "can not have a partition outside the disk!", also the end-sector address of /dev/sda2 confuses me. If i boot from the SSD, it throws some mbr error and wont boot, if i boot from the HDD, i only get the grub bash. How do i restore the partition tables? I can boot only from a live-cd at the machine. Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Windows Home Server 2011, No disks "suitable for a backup destination"

    - by Scott Beeson
    I recently installed Windows Home Server 2011 and love it. However, when I try to set up server backups, it says no suitable disks are available. Initially, before I set up my RAID, it found one of my twin drives and said it would work. Once I set up the mirroring, that one is no longer available (obviously). However, I have an internal SATA 1TB drive and an external USB2.0 1TB drive hooked up. Both are recognized by Disk Management. WHS11 still says nothing suitable for backups. The two drives details are as follows: Edit to clarify: The system partition is on Disk 0, not listed below. The two below are the two that SHOULD be available for system backups. Disk 1: Dynamic "Data" (D:) 931.51 GB NTFS, Healthy Disk 3: Basic 200 MB Healthy (EFI System Partition) "Backup" 930.66 GB NTFS, Healthy (Primary Partition) What's a bit odd is that in Disk Management the "Backup" volume does not show a drive letter, even though I assigned Z: (which is reflected in "My Computer". I also cannot make this a dynamic disk as it says it's unsupported by the device.

    Read the article

  • Partition problem tyring to install window 7 starter

    - by ant2009
    Hello HP Mini 210 I am trying to install windows starter 7. Currently I have installed fedora 14 xfce. And I have allocated 24 GB NTFS for hard disk for the windows partition. My current partitions are as follows: /dev/sda2 97G 4.9G 91G 6% / tmpfs 494M 92K 494M 1% /dev/shm /dev/sda1 485M 68M 392M 15% /boot /dev/sda5 169G 26G 135G 16% /home I have created a boot USD to install windows starter 7. When the computer boots into the windows setup and I selected the partition I want to install windows on. I get the following message: "Setup was unable to create a new system partition or locate an existing system partition." This is setup displaying all my partitions: Disk 0 Partition 1 500MB 0 Primary Disk 0 Partition 2 97.7GB 0 Primary Disk 0 Partition 3 4GB 0 Primary Disk 0 Partition 4 171.3GB 0 Logical Disk 0 Partition 5 24.6GB 24.5 Logical <-- Trying install on this partition NTFS I have also tried to delete the partition in setup and create a new one. And also tried to format the partition. However, I still get the same error message. Many thanks for any advice,

    Read the article

  • Can't mount hard drive. Ubuntu 12.04

    - by Sam
    I am trying to recover some pictures on my 320 GB Hard Disk, so I put in a Live Ubuntu CD and am in that right now. In the devices list, it shows my USB drive, but not my 320 GB Hard Disk. I can see the disk in Disk Utility (it says it's on /dev/sda), but it's not mounted, and it says it has a few bad sectors but it is OK. In Disk Usage Analyzer, it says my maximum capacity is 13.4 GB, so it's definitely not using the 320 GB Hard Disk. I tried the following: sudo mkdir /media/newhd (worked) sudo mount /dev/sda /media/newhd (didn't work. it says I must specify the filesystem type) I then tried: fsck.ext4 -f /dev/sda (didn't work. Said: Superblock invalid, trying to backup blocks. then: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/sda. The superblock could not be read or does not describe a correct ext2 filesystem. If the device is valid and it contains an ext2 filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock) Does anyone have any ideas? The whole problem started when my Windows Vista said "Can't find operating system". Any ideas on how I can get on to my hard drive at /dev/sda?

    Read the article

  • Shrinking windows and recovery partitions on the samsung new series 9

    - by bobbaluba
    I just bought a samsung NP900X3C, and as I was going to install linux, I noticed the windows partitions and recovery partitions occupied a major portion of the disk. The disk is a 128 GB SSD, and I want to keep the windows partition in order to play some games once in a while, but the windows disk is already 45GB full (with no installed programs) and the recovery partition is 20GB. That leaves under 60 GB for linux, which is not optimal, since that is what I'm going to be using most of the time, and there would be no room for games on the windows partition. There are also two small partitions that I don't know what are doing, one 100mb at the start of the disk that I'm guessing is some kind of boot partition, and one 5GB, that is described as an OS/2 hidden C: drive What I'm wondering is: can i delete the recovery partition? What about the mystical 5gb partition? Here is what fdisk reports: ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 128.0 GB, 128035676160 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 15566 cylinders, total 250069680 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: 0x83953ffc Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 206847 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 206848 198273023 99033088 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 198273024 207276031 4501504 84 OS/2 hidden C: drive /dev/sda4 207276032 250068991 21396480 27 Hidden NTFS WinRE

    Read the article

  • SBS 2008 Backup Drive Full - Error Code '2147942512'

    - by HK1
    We are using Windows Backup on SBS 2008 SP2 and backing up to 1TB external hard drives. Recently after switching drives our backup started failing because the backup drive is full and auto-delete isn't automatically deleting older backups/show copies. I'm trying to get more information to help me effectively prevent this problem from reoccurring in the future. How I can tell that the drive is getting full: In the event viewer under Windows Logs Application, I'm seeing Event ID 517 but it fails to show an intelligible description. However, under Applications and Services Logs Microsoft Windows Backup Operational, I'm seeing an event with the ID of 5 and a description like this: Backup started at '10/4/2011 12:30:12 PM' failed with following error code '2147942512'. One of the most informative posts I've found on this error is located on Microsoft's Technet Forums here. In that post, a Microsoft representative gives this hazy explanation: auto-delete feature to ensure that at least some old backup copies are maintained on the disk -- does not automatically delete backups if space utilization by older copies is less than 1/8 of the disk size or in other words, 13% of the disk size. that means if the one full backup copy does not fit in the 7/8 of the disk size, backup may fail with disk full error. auto-delete will not automatically delete older versions to reclaim more older versions of backup. In the above explanation, I do not understand what is meant by "older copies" except that it appears that anything older than the very last shadow copy would be considered "older copies". I'm going to make the assumption that this problem where auto-delete will not work will affect any hard drive that is large enough to make an effective backup drive, or in other words, any hard drive that is large enough to hold more than one backup/shadow copy at once. The same MS representative proposes the solution of using a larger backup drive. I can't understand how this will help. It appears to me it will simply delay the problem until a later date. In order to resolve this problem for now, I did the following: Assign the backup drive a disk letter under disk management. Run the command line with Administrative rights. diskshadow.exe [enter] delete shadows oldest x: [enter] (where X: is the letter you assigned your backup drive) I manually ran the above command some 60 or 80 times to free up about 200 GB of space on my 1 Terrabyte External Hard drive. However, I do not feel this is a satisfactory solution to prevent the problem from happening again in the future. Does anyone have a solution to prevent your Windows Server backup drive from getting full?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105  | Next Page >