Search Results

Search found 8888 results on 356 pages for 'disk'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 10/356 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Ubuntu 14.04 disk utility SMART self-test failed threshold not exceeded

    - by user2323470
    I'm using the "Disks" program in Ubuntu 14.04 (live DVD) to assess the health of a drive I suspect is failing. However, when I first opened the program, it showed that the overall health was OK and all assessments are OK as well. I then tried to run a short self-test, but now the overall assessment shows a red "SELF-TEST FAILED". In the details section it says "Last self-test failed (read)" and "threshold not exceeded". All individual assessments are still OK though!! What I don't understand is, does that mean that the test executed and determined that the drive is a goner, or does it mean that the test didn't actually execute properly?

    Read the article

  • vista winsxs folder eats disk space

    - by Simpzon
    My machine has been running Vista Ultimate 64-Bit for about two years now. ServicePacks SP1 and SP2 are installed, too. The system partition has a size of 55 GB, which should be quite comfortable under normal circumstances, but about 40GB (no typo) are used by the Windows-Folder, especially the subfolder winsxs, which takes about 35 GB. I have already uninstalled as many programs as possible and did run compcln.exe, to reduce it, but this only gained 2-3 GB. What can I do to clean up without risking system stability? I'm a software developer and this is my daily work environment, which means - I can't risk to get strange side-effects from blindly deleting stuff. - You can maybe deduce some typical usage patterns from this information. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • how to limit disk space per user in a PHP web application & CentOS

    - by solid
    we have a web application written in PHP and we want all our users to be able to upload images for e.g. 50MB. We will create a directory structure so that every user has its own folder like app/user1/images app/user2/images ... Now everytime a user uploads an image, we need to check if this is still allowed or not but we don't want 1000 users to continously scan our hard drive counting file sizes in their directory. So writing a script that counts all file sizes in a user directory is not an option I guess? Is there an easier way to calculate used up space per user and limit our app accordingly?

    Read the article

  • Tracking down rogue disk usage

    - by Amadan
    I found several other questions regarding the theory behind my problem (e.g. this, this), but I don't know how to apply the answers to my machine. # du -hsx / 11000283 / # df -kT / Filesystem Type 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/csisv13-root ext4 516032952 361387456 128432532 74% / There is a big difference between 11G (du) and 345G (df). Where are the remaining 334G? It's not in deleted files. There was only one, it was short, and I truncated it just in case. This is what remains: # lsof -a +L1 / COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF NLINK NODE NAME zabbix_ag 4902 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4902 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4906 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4906 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4907 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4907 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4908 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4908 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4909 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4909 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4910 zabbix 1w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) zabbix_ag 4910 zabbix 2w REG 252,0 0 0 28836028 /var/log/zabbix-agent/zabbix_agentd.log.1 (deleted) I rebooted to see if fsck does anything. But, from /var/log/boot.log, it seems there are no issues: /dev/mapper/server-root: clean, 3936097/32768000 files, 125368568/131064832 blocks Thinking maybe someone overzealously reserved root space, I checked the master record: # tune2fs -l /dev/mapper/server-root tune2fs 1.42 (29-Nov-2011) Filesystem volume name: <none> Last mounted on: / Filesystem UUID: 86430ade-cea7-46ce-979c-41769a41ecbe Filesystem magic number: 0xEF53 Filesystem revision #: 1 (dynamic) Filesystem features: has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index filetype needs_recovery extent flex_bg sparse_super large_file huge_file uninit_bg dir_nlink extra_isize Filesystem flags: signed_directory_hash Default mount options: user_xattr acl Filesystem state: clean Errors behavior: Continue Filesystem OS type: Linux Inode count: 32768000 Block count: 131064832 Reserved block count: 6553241 Free blocks: 5696264 Free inodes: 28831903 First block: 0 Block size: 4096 Fragment size: 4096 Reserved GDT blocks: 992 Blocks per group: 32768 Fragments per group: 32768 Inodes per group: 8192 Inode blocks per group: 512 Flex block group size: 16 Filesystem created: Fri Feb 1 13:44:04 2013 Last mount time: Tue Aug 19 16:56:13 2014 Last write time: Fri Feb 1 13:51:28 2013 Mount count: 9 Maximum mount count: -1 Last checked: Fri Feb 1 13:44:04 2013 Check interval: 0 (<none>) Lifetime writes: 1215 GB Reserved blocks uid: 0 (user root) Reserved blocks gid: 0 (group root) First inode: 11 Inode size: 256 Required extra isize: 28 Desired extra isize: 28 Journal inode: 8 First orphan inode: 28836028 Default directory hash: half_md4 Directory Hash Seed: bca55ff5-f530-48d1-8347-25c004f66d43 Journal backup: inode blocks The system is: # uname -a Linux server 3.2.0-67-generic #101-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jul 15 17:46:11 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # cat /etc/lsb-release DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu DISTRIB_RELEASE=12.04 DISTRIB_CODENAME=precise DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS" Does anyone have any tips on what exactly to do to find and hopefully reclaim the missing space?

    Read the article

  • Mac Disk-Utility input/output error

    - by Michelle
    a couple of other people have posted about this but my specific problem has not been addressed. For months I have been backing up DVDs and home movies with no problem then all of a sudden I get an "input/output" error. Yes I have cleaned the disks. Actually I have tried 8 different ones - they are not all bad so its obviously my computer. I have done a scan and cleaned up the HD a bit just in case but nothing is helping. I don't want to download other programs since this one works but seems to be having a problem. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Save Website To Disk

    - by Christian
    Hello everyone! I have a very poor internet connection when I'm living at home. The only time I have a good internet is at college. When I get home, the most mundane task like opening a web-page becomes a five minute stress-test. So what I was thinking was to download the web-page, for example superdickery. I was wondering what the best method would be to download the entire image archive of the page? Would this be illegal, if I did this? It's just that I don't want to be frustrated every time I just want to load a simple jpeg image.

    Read the article

  • Server nearly unusable when doing disk writes

    - by Wikser
    My question closely relates to my last question here on serverfault. I was copying about 5GB from a 10 year old desktop computer to the server. The copy was done in Windows Explorer. In this situation I would assume the server to be bored by the dataflow. But as usual with this server, it really slowed down. At least I could work with the remote session, even there was some serious latency. The copy took its time (20min?). In this time I went to a colleague and he tried to log in in the same server via remote desktop (for some other reason). It took about a minute to get to the login screen, a minute to open the control panel, a minute to open the performance monitor, ... Icons were loading maybe one per second. We saw the following (from memory): CPU: 2% Avg. Queue Length: 50 Pages/sec: 115 (?) There was no other considerable activity on the server. The server seldom serves some ASP.NET pages, which became also very slow in this time. The relevant configuration is as follows: Windows 2003 SEAGATE ST3500631NS (7200 rpm, 500 GB) LSI MegaRAID based RAID 5 4 disks, 1 hot spare Write Through No read-ahead Direct Cache Mode Harddisk-Cache-Mode: off Is this normal behaviour for such a configuration? What measurements could give further clues? Is it reasonable to reduce the priority of such copy I/O and favour other processes like the remote desktop? How would you do that? Many thanks!

    Read the article

  • Testing for disk write

    - by Montecristo
    I'm writing an application for storing lots of images (size <5MB) on an ext3 filesystem, this is what I have for now. After some searching here on serverfault I have decided for a structure of directories like this: 000/000/000000001.jpg ... 236/519/236519107.jpg This structure will allow me to save up to 1'000'000'000 images as I'll store a max of 1'000 images in each leaf. I've created it, from a theoretical point of view seems ok to me (though I've no experience on this), but I want to find out what will happen when there will be directories full of files in there. A question about creating this structure: is it better to create it all in one go (takes approx 50 minutes on my pc) or should I create directories as they are needed? From a developer point of view I think the first option is better (no extra waiting time for the user), but from a sysadmin point of view, is this ok? I've thought I could do as if the filesystem is already under the running application, I'll make a script that will save images as fast as it can, monitoring things as follows: how much time does it take for an image to be saved when there is no or little space used? how does this change when the space starts to be used up? how much time does it take for an image to be read from a random leaf? Does this change a lot when there are lots of files? Does launching this command sync; echo 3 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches has any sense at all? Is this the only thing I have to do to have a clean start if I want to start over again with my tests? Do you have any suggestions or corrections?

    Read the article

  • Mounting an FTP as a virtual disk (FTPDrive analogue)

    - by axk
    FTPDrive has been a great utility for me, but it does not support 64bit Windows 7. The feature of FTPDrive that is useful for me is accesing files from an FTP as local files without pre-downloading so that I can preview and watch movies from a local FTP server without waiting for a full movie to get downloaded first. Do you know of any software which allows accessing files over FTP without pre-downloading? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • the effect of large number of files on disk space in unix filesystems

    - by user46976
    If I have a text file in Unix that contains N-many independent entries (e.g. records about employees, where each employee has a separate record), is it expected that this file will take up less space than if I split the file into N files, each containing the entry for one employee? in other words, can one save significant space on unix file systems by concatenating many files together, or is the difference negligible? thanks.

    Read the article

  • Relayout LVM Disk

    - by Tom
    I have an Ubuntu 11.10 system with two 500GB disks. The partition tables look like this: /dev/sda1 primary 465.52GB /dev/sda2 extended 243.17MB -> /dev/sda5 logical 243.14MB /dev/sdb1 primary 465.76GB sda1 and sdb1 are in a single LVM physical volume group containing a single logical volume containing a single logical filesystem which is mounted as /. sda5 is mounted as /boot. The problem comes when I want to upgrade to Ubuntu 12.04, which requires at least 247MB free on /boot. So I need to reduce the size of sda1 so that I can increase the size of sda2 and sda5. How the heck do I do that? I can find how to shrink the logical volume group, but I'm not at all clear on how to clear out the end part of sda1 so that I can reduce the physical volume group. Does pvresize just deal with this automagically? Or is that wild wishful thinking? I guess the alternatives are to back everything up onto something or other and recreate the thing from scratch or find out whether GRUB2 supports using LVM for /boot.

    Read the article

  • Why is an Ext4 disk check so much faster than NTFS?

    - by Brendan Long
    I had a situation today where I restarted my computer and it said I needed to check the disk for consistancy. About 10 minutes later (at "1%" complete), I gave up and decided to let it run when I go home. For comparison, my home computer uses Ext4 for all of the partitions, and the disk checks (which run around once week) only take a couple seconds. I remember reading that having fast disk checks was a priority, but I don't know how they could do that. So, how does Ext4 do disk checks so fast? Is there some huge breakthrough in doing this after NTFS came out (~10 years ago)? Note: The NTFS disk is ~300 GB and the Ext4 disk is ~500 GB. Both are about half full.

    Read the article

  • Why is an Ext4 disk check so much faster than NTFS?

    - by Brendan Long
    I had a situation today where I restarted my computer and it said I needed to check the disk for consistancy. About 10 minutes later (at "1%" complete), I gave up and decided to let it run when I go home. For comparison, my home computer uses Ext4 for all of the partitions, and the disk checks (which run around once week) only take a couple seconds. I remember reading that having fast disk checks was a priority, but I don't know how they could do that. So, how does Ext4 do disk checks so fast? Is there some huge breakthrough in doing this after NTFS came out (~10 years ago)? Note: The NTFS disk is ~300 GB and the Ext4 disk is ~500 GB. Both are about half full.

    Read the article

  • GParted in UBUNTU shows entire disk as UNALLOCATED SPACE

    - by msPeachy
    Good day to everyone. I hope someone can help me with my problem. I have a dual boot Windows and Ubuntu system. I recently encountered an hd0 out of disk error and wasn't able to boot Ubuntu. So I booted into Windows, after 2 to 3 times of booting and rebooting Windows, I tried booting Ubuntu but still I get the hd0 out of disk error. I decided to run Ubuntu from LIVEUSB to try to fix my Ubuntu partition using GParted, but when I run GParted, it shows my entire disk as UNALLOCATED SPACE! The strange thing is that Nautilus still shows and mounts my partitions. Also every time I boot into Windows , my partitions exists and I am able to read and write to them. I have no idea what is wrong. Please help! I can't stand using Windows since most of the tools I use are in Ubuntu. I don't mind reinstalling Ubuntu. In fact I already tried reinstalling using the LIVEUSB but I wasn't able to, since GParted or the Ubuntu installer itself does not recognized my partitions and shows the entire disk as unallocated space. I am currently running Ubuntu from LIVEUSB. Here's the outpuf of sudo fdisk -l 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: 0xb30ab30a Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 104869887 52433920 83 Linux /dev/sda2 104869888 105074687 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 105074688 156149759 25537536 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda4 156151800 625153409 234500805 f W95 Ext'd (LBA) /dev/sda5 156151808 169156591 6502392 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda6 169158656 294991871 62916608 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda7 294993920 471037944 88022012+ 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda8 471041928 625121152 77039612+ 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT When I run, sudo parted -l, I got this error message: ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo parted -l Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk!

    Read the article

  • iOS get file size on disk

    - by F2_CMD
    I'm trying to get the size on disk of a file in iOS using Objective C. As of now I've been able to get the actual size of the file and other file information using NSFileManager and then getting the attributes attributesOfItemAtPath:error but not the size on disk. I also tried getting the file size from struct stat but again it doesn't give me size on disk.I tried using NSTask to make a call to du -h but iOS didn't allow me to fork other processes. Any ideas are welcome :) I know this questions is similar to many others but the difference is that I'm trying to do this in iOS and most of the methods used in other systems don't work here. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Checksum Errors From Hard Disk

    - by Ademos
    After running GSmartControl, I received three checksum errors on my storage hard disk. Error in Attribute Data structure: checksum error Error in Attribute Thresholds structure: checksum error Error in ATA Error Log structure: checksum error Does this indicate a hard disk failure? Because, this is the THIRD TIME I have replaced the same hard disk. (after seeing this error) The hard disk is a Western Digital Caviar Green. (2 TB)

    Read the article

  • How can I increase my disk space when Ubuntu is installed alongside with Windows?

    - by Matthew
    Some time ago i reinstalled windows, formating and deleting every partition. I then made 3 partitions: One only for Windows OS (about 25GB) One for Ubuntu OS (about 25GB, if i remember corectly 10GB for swap memory and 15GB as an ext4 partition) (not sure if it was that, hope I am not wrong) and like 200GB for all the other stuff. Recently I got a message that i am running out of disk space. My question is: is there a way to resize the 200GB partition and add more space for the Ubuntu partition?

    Read the article

  • How do I easily repair a single unreadable block on a Linux disk?

    - by Nelson
    My Linux system has started throwing SMART errors in the syslog. I tracked it down and believe the problem is a single block on the disk. How do I go about easily getting the disk to reallocate that one block? I'd like to know what file got destroyed in the process. (I'm aware that if one block fails on a disk others are likely to follow; I have a good ongoing backup and just want to try to keep this disk working.) Searching the web leads to the Bad block HOWTO, which describes a manual process on an unmounted disk. It seems complicated and error-prone. Is there a tool to automate this process in Linux? My only other option is the manufacturer's diagnostic tool, but I presume that'll clobber the bad block without any reporting on what got destroyed. Worst case, it might be filesystem metadata. The disk in question is the primary system partition. Using ext3fs and LVM. Here's the error log from syslog and the relevant bit from smartctl. smartd[5226]: Device: /dev/hda, 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Error 1 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 17449 hours (727 days + 1 hours) ... Error: UNC at LBA = 0x00d39eee = 13868782 There's a full smartctl dump on pastebin.

    Read the article

  • Linux usd disk just create sg device

    - by MTilsted
    I have a Corsair R60 ssd disk which is a disk with both sata and usb connectors. But the usb thing seems to be a bit non-standard, or maybe its just my fedora linux. When I insert the disk using a usb cabel to a running Fedora 14 linux system, a device called /dev/sg3 is added but that is all. No new /dev/sd* device is created so I can't mount the disk. If I look at cat /proc/scsi/sg/device_strs I get ATA Hitachi HTS54321 FB2O HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-T50N RP05 Seagate Desktop 0130 Corsair CSSD-R60GB2 So the disk is there. (The last entry) but my linux will for some reason not see it as a usb hard disk. When I insert other usb disks they work fine. It is only this specific disk which causes problems. I have tried on 3 different computers with the same result. A hint to the problem may be that if I add the disk to a windows system(With usb) the disk is called "A fixed disk" and not a portable disk as expected. The disk works fine with linux If i connect it with the sata cabel, but I would really like to have it working with usb too. (To mount it on computers without sata).

    Read the article

  • Expand a volume residing on one X-RAID disk installed on a Netgear ReadyNas Duo v2

    - by Sid
    I've got a Netgear ReadyNas Duo v2 (2 disk slots). System is configured with X-RAID which does not provide flexibility but automatically expands based on a sort of RAID-5 logic. I had 2 500 GB hard disk installed, redundant, so I had 500 GB of volume size. I wanted to upgrade the whole system to 3 GB * 2 hard disk maintaining both the data already on the NAS and the data on one of the two 3 TB hard disks. So I did this: Unplugged one disk from the ReadyNas. Now the readynas has 1*500 GB non redundant. Plugged one empty 3 TB hard disk. Now the readynas has 1*500 GB + 1*3 TB, redundant. I waited for the resync. I then unplugged the 500 GB hard disk, so that I have only the 3 TB hard disk with the previous data. Now what I want is to copy the data on my other 3 TB hard disk in the NAS, so that I can plug this other disk in the NAS and use it for redundancy. The problem is that: the NAS has the (single) 3 TB hard disk in X-RAID, but the volume does not expand to 3 TB, it remains fixed to 500 GB. Is there a way to tell the ReadyNas to force expanding the volume to the whole disk without plugging in another hard disk of the same size?

    Read the article

  • Windows Datacenter 2008 recovery ISO

    - by Will
    Hello, I am using virtualBox with windows datacenter to play around with some web development. The last time I had to shut down the computer, it installed an update and shut down normally. When I rebooted, it started doing a checkdisk and processed a bunch of files (from hard poweroffs before mabey). Now when I start, I get a bluescreen of death every time it loads (Safe mode,etc) I have googled around for a boot / recovery disk, but can't seem to find one for datacenter. Cheers -Will

    Read the article

  • System Reserved partition no longer marked as System

    - by Mark
    I recently posted a question to Super User about accidentally marking my external HDD's partition as Active and how I could undo my accidental mistake. I followed the instructions provided and they worked fine. This involved some command line magic and from what I understand, I did not have to really do this, but I just wanted to get things back to how they were originally. After making the fix things went back to normal in disk management. After I restarted my computer though i had an issue: BOOTMGR is missing Press Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart Rugh roh! I brought my laptop to work so I could search for a solution on my work computer and I found a nice guide on fixing the issue. To summarize the instructions, I had to reboot with my Windows 7 install disc and click the Repair button. Once there I could then repair the start-up options. One of the commenters on the site claimed you need to do this twice, as the first time the "repair" doesn't actually fix it. I found this to be true as well. I tried to repair it and it did some work, then rebooted. I then got the same error again. I booted from the CD again and repaired the start-up options then after this second time Windows started to boot up. Before the restart I got a nice info window telling me that it did make repairs to the boot info (this was promising). I've been using Windows 7 for a few days now with no problem, but I just recently noticed that I now can see the System Reserved partition in Computer: (click for full size) I immediately went to disk management to see what was up. I noticed that my System Reserved partition is no longer marked as System and instead I believe the repair operation made my C: drive the system partition. I'm not fully aware of what the System partition really is but I briefly read that its a Windows 7 thing that gets created on install of Win7 that writes some BitLocker encryption stuff to a isolated partition as well as some boot files. (click for full size) How can I undo this and make the System Partition marked as System instead of my OS C: partition? How can I make it so that I don't see this partition in Computer (I believe fixing #1 will fix this) What are the implications of what the current state is and the fact that I can now browse into this new partition? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >