Search Results

Search found 1833 results on 74 pages for 'floppy disks'.

Page 14/74 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

• Access Western Digital My Book World II RAID array on my Ubuntu Linux

  - by ZeDalaye

  Hi, My WD My Book World II (Blue Rings) NAS has overheated, I think the motherboard is dead. I extracted the disks and plugged them in my desktop PC running Ubuntu Linux. The disks seems to be alive, they are spinning and the BIOS recognize them but Ubuntu is not able to boot as soon as these drives are plugged in. I got an initramfs shell after few minutes telling explaining that the root disk is not available. I suspect that one of my WD drives took the precedence on the system ? Considering that Ubuntu is able to boot and can see my Western Digital disks... is it possible to access the RAID 0 array ? How ? Many thanks for your help, regards, -- Pierre Yager

  Read the article

• What would be the optimal disk config for SQL Server 2008 R2?

  - by Kev

  We have a new Dell R710 server that came with the following storage configuration: 8 x 146GB SAS 10k 6Gbps disks 1 x Perc H700 Integrated Controller (2 x 4 disks - 2 ports each supporting 4 disks) What would be the optimal configuration if we were just after performance? What would be the optimal configuration if we were after performance but wanted data resilience. As per 2 above but with a hot standby disk? We plan to run Windows 2008 R2 and SQL Server 2008 R2. Maximising storage capacity isn't a prime concern.

  Read the article

• grow/shrink a zfs RAIDZ

  - by c2h2

  I'm going to build a freenas server, would like to make sure what I can do with such magical and advanced zfs. If I have 5 * 3TB disks in RAIDZ (12TB storage in total), now I am trying to add another 2 * 3TB disks to this existing array. Q: Am I able to do it without affect/touch any existing data on RAIDZ volume? What about take away some existing disk? say take away 1 disk out of the 5 disks, assuming only very small portion of data exists on the raidz.

  Read the article

• Linux SW Raid: whole disk or per-partition?

  - by Steve Pomeroy

  I have inherited a machine which has 2 physical disks and uses Linux SW RAID(1). Both disks are partitioned and are are all individual arrays (/dev/md0, /dev/md6, etc.). Those arrays are then mounted (/boot, /home, etc. even /tmp). As RAID is designed to mitigate physical failures, is there any reason why one would use this technique over whole-disk arrays that are then partitioned (perhaps using LVM)? This seems prone to more potential issues, but may have some special properties that I haven't been able to glean. I'm planning on moving this setup to: disks?SWRAID(1)?LVM as I'll be making multiple VMs out of the one machine, but wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing when I got rid of the old setup.

  Read the article

• Receiving Event ID: 10107, Hyper-V -VMMS

  - by Stargaten

  We are using physical disk on two of Guest operating systems. Is this a know issue? Do we need to have DPM 2010? "One or more physical disks are attached to virtual machine 'Myserver'. Back up programs that use the Hyper-V VSS writer cannot back up volumes that are attached to virtual machines as physical disks. To avoid potential data loss, use another method to back up the data on the physical disks. If you restore the data on this virtual machine, make sure to check the data of the physical disk for integrity. (Virtual machine ID 8EF3C0CB-967D-4D67-B4D8-7B782C7AC07C)"

  Read the article

• Server freeze (Disk I/O possibly)

  - by user973917

  I have a Windows Server 2008 machine that is resyncing disks after a powerloss. The issue is that the system becomes unresponsive after about 10 minutes. We've checked with resource monitor and found that the CPU's aren't maxed; but the disk I/O is well over 250MB/s. We've attempted copying data from 1 disk to another; bypassing syncing of disks and this too causes the machine to freeze after about 10 minutes of copying data. I have attempted to let the machine resync the disks for a few days with the machine on in this "frozen" state. By frozen I mean that NOTHING works on the machine, it's completely unresponsive; no mouse movement, etc. I want to know how I would go about definitively checking if this is Disk I/O that is freezing the system. I know that disk I/O can freeze a system; but what can I use to run tests to be sure?

  Read the article

• Image file can't be opened by windows store app if the file is in the Ext4's external hard disk

  - by ? ?

  My question is described below: I have two disks, external hard disk and removable disk. They are formatted with EXT4. I put the same image in the disks, and use Ext2Fsd to mount the disks. I open the file in win8, and it will default open by the windows store app : photos. It will be success to open if the file is in the Ext4's removable disk. It will be failed to open if the file is in the Ext4's external hard disk. I don't know why it will be failed to open if the file is in the Ext4's external hard disk. Does anyone have similar experiences?

  Read the article

• Problems with Xen installation

  - by Rodnower

  Hello, I have CentOS 5.4 installed. Now I'm trying to install Xen with out connecting to Internet (I have any driver for modem, so I search on Inernet only from Windows). All I have are 7 installation disks. First I done was to find kind of some add/remove programs wizard but it needed connection to Inernet. Second I try was to find Xen rpm on all disks and install it. But I fell on some dependency of some dependency. Third I attempted was to boot from first disk and do upgrade, but also it was unsuccessfully... So my question is: is there some way to install Xen from CentOS installation disks with out network? Thank you for ahead.

  Read the article

• Is there any way to stop or pause Windows fake-raid re-synching?

  - by haimg

  I have two physical disks, each one holds two volumes, they are Windows fake-RAID1. E.g.: Disk A: Partition1 Partition2 Disk B: Partition1-Mirror Partition2-Mirror After an unclean reboot, Windows started resynching these as expected. What was not expected, however, is that it started resynching both volumes at the same time. Both disks seek back and forth like crazy, and synching performance is horrible. Question: Is these any option to stop or pause synching of just one volume? I know I can put one of the disks offline, but that will stop synchronization of all volumes on that disk. Note: I have certain reasons why I need to torture myself with Windows RAID. I'm not interested in alternative RAID solutions right now.

  Read the article

• Horrible performing RAID

  - by Philip

  I have a small GlusterFS Cluster with two storage servers providing a replicated volume. Each server has 2 SAS disks for the OS and logs and 22 SATA disks for the actual data striped together as a RAID10 using MegaRAID SAS 9280-4i4e with this configuration: http://pastebin.com/2xj4401J Connected to this cluster are a few other servers with the native client running nginx to serve files stored on it in the order of 3-10MB. Right now a storage server has a outgoing bandwith of 300Mbit/s and the busy rate of the raid array is at 30-40%. There are also strange side-effects: Sometimes the io-latency skyrockets and there is no access possible on the raid for 10 seconds. The file system used is xfs and it has been tuned to match the raid stripe size. Does anyone have an idea what could be the reason for such a bad performing array? 22 Disks in a RAID10 should deliver way more throughput.

  Read the article

• Anyone tried dd'ing Raidmembers?

  - by DusteD

  I want replace all disks in a 10 disk raid6 (linux software raid). I could do this by pulling a disk, let the array rebuild, rinse, repeat. But this would take a very long time, and cause 10 rebuilds, which would most likely stress all 10 disks much more than simply reading each disk through once. My question is thus: Could I just shut down the array, and dd each old disk to a new disk and then start the array with the 10 new disks? In an ideal world, I would build another server and just copy the data via network, but this is not an ideal world.

  Read the article

• fd partitions gone from 2 discs, md happy with it and resyncs. How to recover ?

  - by d0nd

  Hey gurus, need some help badly with this one. I run a server with a 6Tb md raid5 volume built over 7*1Tb disks. I've had to shut down the server lately and when it went back up, 2 out of the 7 disks used for the raid volume had lost its conf : dmesg : [ 10.184167] sda: sda1 sda2 sda3 // System disk [ 10.202072] sdb: sdb1 [ 10.210073] sdc: sdc1 [ 10.222073] sdd: sdd1 [ 10.229330] sde: sde1 [ 10.239449] sdf: sdf1 [ 11.099896] sdg: unknown partition table [ 11.255641] sdh: unknown partition table All 7 disks have same geometry and were configured alike : dmesg : Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x1e7481a5 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 121601 976760001 fd Linux raid autodetect All 7 disks (sdb1, sdc1, sdd1, sde1, sdf1, sdg1, sdh1) were used in a md raid5 xfs volume. When booting, md, which was (obviously) out of sync kicked in and automatically started rebuilding over the 7 disks, including the two "faulty" ones; xfs tried to do some shenanigans as well: dmesg : [ 19.566941] md: md0 stopped. [ 19.817038] md: bind<sdc1> [ 19.817339] md: bind<sdd1> [ 19.817465] md: bind<sde1> [ 19.817739] md: bind<sdf1> [ 19.817917] md: bind<sdh> [ 19.818079] md: bind<sdg> [ 19.818198] md: bind<sdb1> [ 19.818248] md: md0: raid array is not clean -- starting background reconstruction [ 19.825259] raid5: device sdb1 operational as raid disk 0 [ 19.825261] raid5: device sdg operational as raid disk 6 [ 19.825262] raid5: device sdh operational as raid disk 5 [ 19.825264] raid5: device sdf1 operational as raid disk 4 [ 19.825265] raid5: device sde1 operational as raid disk 3 [ 19.825267] raid5: device sdd1 operational as raid disk 2 [ 19.825268] raid5: device sdc1 operational as raid disk 1 [ 19.825665] raid5: allocated 7334kB for md0 [ 19.825667] raid5: raid level 5 set md0 active with 7 out of 7 devices, algorithm 2 [ 19.825669] RAID5 conf printout: [ 19.825670] --- rd:7 wd:7 [ 19.825671] disk 0, o:1, dev:sdb1 [ 19.825672] disk 1, o:1, dev:sdc1 [ 19.825673] disk 2, o:1, dev:sdd1 [ 19.825675] disk 3, o:1, dev:sde1 [ 19.825676] disk 4, o:1, dev:sdf1 [ 19.825677] disk 5, o:1, dev:sdh [ 19.825679] disk 6, o:1, dev:sdg [ 19.899787] PM: Starting manual resume from disk [ 28.663228] Filesystem "md0": Disabling barriers, not supported by the underlying device [ 28.663228] XFS mounting filesystem md0 [ 28.884433] md: resync of RAID array md0 [ 28.884433] md: minimum _guaranteed_ speed: 1000 KB/sec/disk. [ 28.884433] md: using maximum available idle IO bandwidth (but not more than 200000 KB/sec) for resync. [ 28.884433] md: using 128k window, over a total of 976759936 blocks. [ 29.025980] Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: md0 (logdev: internal) [ 32.680486] XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid [ 32.680495] XFS: log mount/recovery failed: error 5 [ 32.682773] XFS: log mount failed I ran fdisk and flagged sdg1 and sdh1 as fd. I tried to reassemble the array but it didnt work: no matter what was in mdadm.conf, it still uses sdg and sdh instead of sdg1 and sdh1. I checked in /dev and I see no sdg1 and and sdh1, shich explains why it wont use it. I just don't know why those partitions are gone from /dev and how to readd those... blkid : /dev/sda1: LABEL="boot" UUID="519790ae-32fe-4c15-a7f6-f1bea8139409" TYPE="ext2" /dev/sda2: TYPE="swap" /dev/sda3: LABEL="root" UUID="91390d23-ed31-4af0-917e-e599457f6155" TYPE="ext3" /dev/sdb1: UUID="2802e68a-dd11-c519-e8af-0d8f4ed72889" TYPE="mdraid" /dev/sdc1: UUID="2802e68a-dd11-c519-e8af-0d8f4ed72889" TYPE="mdraid" /dev/sdd1: UUID="2802e68a-dd11-c519-e8af-0d8f4ed72889" TYPE="mdraid" /dev/sde1: UUID="2802e68a-dd11-c519-e8af-0d8f4ed72889" TYPE="mdraid" /dev/sdf1: UUID="2802e68a-dd11-c519-e8af-0d8f4ed72889" TYPE="mdraid" /dev/sdg: UUID="2802e68a-dd11-c519-e8af-0d8f4ed72889" TYPE="mdraid" /dev/sdh: UUID="2802e68a-dd11-c519-e8af-0d8f4ed72889" TYPE="mdraid" fdisk -l : Disk /dev/sda: 40.0 GB, 40020664320 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4865 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x8c878c87 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 12 96358+ 83 Linux /dev/sda2 13 134 979965 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda3 135 4865 38001757+ 83 Linux Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x1e7481a5 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 121601 976760001 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdc: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xc9bdc1e9 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 1 121601 976760001 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdd: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xcc356c30 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdd1 1 121601 976760001 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sde: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xe87f7a3d Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sde1 1 121601 976760001 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdf: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xb17a2d22 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdf1 1 121601 976760001 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdg: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x8f3bce61 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdg1 1 121601 976760001 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdh: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xa98062ce Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdh1 1 121601 976760001 fd Linux raid autodetect I really dont know what happened nor how to recover from this mess. Needless to say the 5TB or so worth of data sitting on those disks are very valuable to me... Any idea any one? Did anybody ever experienced a similar situation or know how to recover from it ? Can someone help me? I'm really desperate... :x

  Read the article

• Best way to grow Linux software RAID 1 to RAID 10

  - by Hans Malherbe

  mdadm does not seem to support growing an array from level 1 to level 10. I have two disks in RAID 1. I want to add two new disks and convert the array to a four disk RAID 10 array. My current strategy: Make good backup. Create a degraded 4 disk RAID 10 array with two missing disks. rsync the RAID 1 array with the RAID 10 array. fail and remove one disk from the RAID 1 array. Add the available disk to the RAID 10 array and wait for resynch to complete. Destroy the RAID 1 array and add the last disk to the RAID 10 array. The problem is the lack of redundancy at step 5. Is there a better way?

  Read the article

• Best way to grow Linux software RAID 1 to RAID 10

  - by Hans Malherbe

  mdadm does not seem to support growing an array from level 1 to level 10. I have two disks in RAID 1. I want to add two new disks and convert the array to a four disk RAID 10 array. My current strategy: Make good backup. Create a degraded 4 disk RAID 10 array with two missing disks. rsync the RAID 1 array with the RAID 10 array. fail and remove one disk from the RAID 1 array. Add the available disk to the RAID 10 array and wait for resynch to complete. Destroy the RAID 1 array and add the last disk to the RAID 10 array. The problem is the lack of redundancy at step 5. Is there a better way?

  Read the article

• How to view status of software RAID 1 resynching?

  - by tputkonen

  I have two 500 GB disks and yesterday I mirrored first drive to the second one using software RAID 1. PC has now been on for 30 hours. Both disks say "Resynching", but there is no progress indicator. In addition, there is a small yellow exclamation mark on both disks. My questions are: How long could the synch take for 500 GB drive with about 150 GB of data? PC has 4 GBs of RAM and AMD dual core 4000+ Is there a way to monitor status of the synching? How can I check what the exclamation mark means?

  Read the article

• Issues with non-HP harddisk in HP ML 350 server?

  - by Torben Warberg Rohde

  I'm looking to buy some extra disk space for a HP ML 350 G5 server. It is for simple file-serving - not OS/system stuff. HP harddisks are insanely expensive, so I'm tempted to buy some other brand instead. I have heard that they sometime use special firmware on their disks, but I suspect that might just be HP spreading rumors to sell disks. Does anyone have experience using non-HP disks? Any features not working, or not being able to build the RAID at all? I'm looking at 2.5" SAS Seagate drives - Constellation 500 GB (7.2k) or Savvio 600 GB (10k).

  Read the article

• Methodologies for performance-testing a WAN link

  - by Chopper3

  We have a pair of new diversely-routed 1Gbps Ethernet links between locations about 200 miles apart. The 'client' is a new reasonably-powerful machine (HP DL380 G6, dual E56xx Xeons, 48GB DDR3, R1 pair of 300GB 10krpm SAS disks, W2K8R2-x64) and the 'server' is a decent enough machine too (HP BL460c G6, dual E55xx Xeons, 72GB, R1 pair of 146GB 10krpm SAS disks, dual-port Emulex 4Gbps FC HBA linked to dual Cisco MDS9509s then onto dedicated HP EVA 8400 with 128 x 450GB 15krpm FC disks, RHEL 5.3-x64). Using SFTP from the client we're only seeing about 40Kbps of throughput using large (2GB) files. We've performed server to 'other local server' tests and see around 500Mbps through the local switches (Cat 6509s), we're going to do the same on the client side but that's a day or so away. What other testing methods would you use to prove to the link providers that the problem is theirs?

  Read the article

• What is the safest and least expensive way to store 10 terabytes of data?

  - by Josh T

  I'm a member of a production company and we're preparing for our first feature film. We've been discussing methods of data storage to keep all of our original content safe (for as long as possible). While we understand data is never 100% safe, we'd like to find the safest solution for us. We've considered: 16TB NAS for on-site storage 4-5 2TB hard drives (cheap, but not redundant), copy original footage to drives then seal in static free bag Burn data to Blu-Ray disks (time consuming and expensive: 200 disks == $5000) Tape drive(s)? I know the least about tape drives, except the fact that they're more reliable than disks. Any experience/knowledge with this amount of data is hugely appreciated.

  Read the article

• win2008 R2 server core software RAID

  - by shimonyk

  I am trying to set up software raid on a win2008 R2 server core. I have the disks configured as dynamic. In the server manager gui, i can see the disks, but when i right click, the option to set up "new mirrored volume" is not listed. I tried it with the command line using diskpart, and it gives the error "Virtual Disk Service Error: The size of the extent is less than the minimum." The drive are a new pair of 1Tb disks. Is this not supported in server core, or am i missing something else? Thank you

  Read the article

• LVM mirroring VS RAID1

  - by syrenity

  Hi. Having learned a bit about LVM mirroring, I thought about replacing the current RAID-1 scheme I'm using to gain some flexibility. Problem is that according to what I found on the Internet, LVM is: 1) Slower then RAID-1, at least in reading (as only single volume being used for reading). 2) Non-reliable on power interrupts, and requires disk cache disabling for prevention of data loss. http://www.joshbryan.com/blog/2008/01/02/lvm2-mirrors-vs-md-raid-1/ Also it seems, at least to several setup guides I read (http://www.tcpdump.com/kb/os/linux/lvm-mirroring/intro.html), that one actually requires a 3rd disk for storing the LVM log. This makes the setup completely unusable on 2 disks installations, and lowers the amount of used mirror disks on higher amount of disks. Can anyone comment the above facts, and let me know his experience of using LVM mirroring? Thanks.

  Read the article

• PostgreSQL RAID configuration

  - by Yoldar-Zi

  I'm stuck how best to configure disk array. We have Hp P2000 G3 disk array with 24 SAS physical disks 300Gb each. We need to configure this array got 2 copies of PostgreSQL 9.2 because two different system. As we know it's recommended to store database and transaction logs(pg_xlog) files on separate disks. So we must setup 4 logical disk: 2 for transaction logs with RAID 1 2 for database with RAID 10 Is this right scheme of distribution? Or may be it is best to just make one big RAID 10 with 4 logical disks?

  Read the article

• Changed array composition, mdadm --detail still shows the old array size

  - by Prody

  I have a machine with 8 disks. I installed it with my hoster's install automation (it's OVH, I don't have physical access to it). The machine installed correctly, but it made an array that I wanted to change. It created a raid5 array across 5/8 disks and I've changed it to raid10 across 8 disks. I've done this by first --stopping the old array and then --creating the new array. It warned me that a previous array was there, but I chose to continue. So it created the array, spent 10ish hours syncing it and now that it's ready I get this strange behavior: When I fdisk p on it, I see the correct size. But when I mdadm --detail it I see the old array's size even tho I get the new composition and level. When I try to pvcreate on it, i get the old size again for some reason. Did I have to do something else? Did I miss something?

  Read the article

• choosing the right RAID level for PostgresQL database

  - by Sergey

  Hi, I got an disk array appliance of 8 disks 1T each (UltraStor RS8IP4). It will be used solely by PostgresQL database and I am trying to choose the best RAID level for it. The most priority is for read performance since we operate large data sets (tables, indexes) and we do lots of searches/scans. With the old disks that we have now the most slowdowns happen on SELECTs. Fault tolerance is less important, it can be 1 or 2 disks. Space is the least important factor. Even 1T will be enough. Which RAID level would you recommend in this situation. The current options are 60, 50 and 10, but probably other options can be even better.

  Read the article

• What RAID level for a backup server?

  - by ispirto

  I'm building a server with 12 x 3TB disks to use daily backups. I'm thinking to use RAID50 to get a good 27TB usable space. The disks will be used brutally to backup 9 servers with 1.5TB of data once a day. I'll keep the backups for 2 days. So for each server I'll have 3TB of separate partitions. Do you think this kind of huge backups would stress the disks too much and make them fail? Should I better go with RAID10? Oktay

  Read the article

• Maximum burn speed keeps decreasing from Nero?

  - by Bob King

  I have a 16x DL DVD burner in my work machine (XP SP3). I'm using 8x TDK DVD+R media. The first dozen or so disks burned fine using Nero, but after that I started to coaster every disk. I asked Nero to calculate the maximum speed, and it calculated it at 4x. This worked for a few disks, then the same issues. I'm currently burning at 1.2x. I've since tried other brands and full 16x compatible disks, I can't get my burn speed to be recognized as any faster than what it's currently at. I've tried uninstalling Nero. I've tried burning directly in Windows, and also tested an MP3 CD in iTunes, and no luck. Any suggestions, short of reinstalling Windows, would be great!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >