Search Results

Search found 3324 results on 133 pages for 'gb'.

Page 14/133 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • How do you monitor the health of a mirrored disk in Windows?

    - by NitroxDM
    I have a Mirrored Dynamic disk on my Windows 2003 Server. How do you monitor the health of the volume? Is there a way to have the server send an email when there is an issue with the volume? Is there a way to have the server run S.M.A.R.T. tests? EDIT: Nothing says WTF like logging into a client server, running DISKPART LIST VOLUME and seeing this. Volume ### Ltr Label Fs Type Size Status Info ---------- --- ----------- ----- ---------- ------- --------- -------- Volume 0 X xDrive NTFS Mirror 233 GB Failed Rd Volume 1 C NTFS Simple 57 GB Healthy System Volume 2 D DVD-ROM 0 B Healthy Volume 3 F RAW Partition 466 GB Healthy Volume 4 E New Volume NTFS Partition 932 GB Healthy

    Read the article

  • volume group disappeared after xfs_check run

    - by John P
    EDIT** I have a volume group consisting of 5 RAID1 devices grouped together into a lvm and formatted with xfs. The 5th RAID device lost its RAID config (cat /proc/mdstat does not show anything). The two drives are still present (sdj and sdk), but they have no partitions. The LVM appeared to be happily using sdj up until recently. (doing a pvscan showed the first 4 RAID1 devices + /dev/sdj) I removed the LVM from the fstab, rebooted, then ran xfs_check on the LV. It ran for about half an hour, then stopped with an error. I tried rebooting again, and this time when it came up, the logical volume was no longer there. It is now looking for /dev/md5, which is gone (though it had been using /dev/sdj earlier). /dev/sdj was having read errors, but after replacing the SATA cable, those went away, so the drive appears to be fine for now. Can I modify the /etc/lvm/backup/dedvol, change the device to /dev/sdj and do a vgcfgrestore? I could try doing a pvcreate --uuid KZron2-pPTr-ZYeQ-PKXX-4Woq-6aNc-AG4rRJ /dev/sdj to make it recognize it, but I'm afraid that would erase the data on the drive UPDATE: just changing the pv to point to /dev/sdj did not work vgcfgrestore --file /etc/lvm/backup/dedvol dedvol Couldn't find device with uuid 'KZron2-pPTr-ZYeQ-PKXX-4Woq-6aNc-AG4rRJ'. Cannot restore Volume Group dedvol with 1 PVs marked as missing. Restore failed. pvscan /dev/sdj: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 0: Input/output error Couldn't find device with uuid 'KZron2-pPTr-ZYeQ-PKXX-4Woq-6aNc-AG4rRJ'. Couldn't find device with uuid 'KZron2-pPTr-ZYeQ-PKXX-4Woq-6aNc-AG4rRJ'. Couldn't find device with uuid 'KZron2-pPTr-ZYeQ-PKXX-4Woq-6aNc-AG4rRJ'. Couldn't find device with uuid 'KZron2-pPTr-ZYeQ-PKXX-4Woq-6aNc-AG4rRJ'. PV /dev/sdd2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [74.41 GB / 0 free] PV /dev/md2 VG dedvol lvm2 [931.51 GB / 0 free] PV /dev/md3 VG dedvol lvm2 [931.51 GB / 0 free] PV /dev/md0 VG dedvol lvm2 [931.51 GB / 0 free] PV /dev/md4 VG dedvol lvm2 [931.51 GB / 0 free] PV unknown device VG dedvol lvm2 [1.82 TB / 63.05 GB free] Total: 6 [5.53 TB] / in use: 6 [5.53 TB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] vgscan Reading all physical volumes. This may take a while... /dev/sdj: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 0: Input/output error /dev/sdj: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 2000398843904: Input/output error Found volume group "VolGroup00" using metadata type lvm2 Found volume group "dedvol" using metadata type lvm2 vgdisplay dedvol --- Volume group --- VG Name dedvol System ID Format lvm2 Metadata Areas 5 Metadata Sequence No 10 VG Access read/write VG Status resizable MAX LV 0 Cur LV 1 Open LV 0 Max PV 0 Cur PV 5 Act PV 5 VG Size 5.46 TB PE Size 4.00 MB Total PE 1430796 Alloc PE / Size 1414656 / 5.40 TB Free PE / Size 16140 / 63.05 GB VG UUID o1U6Ll-5WH8-Pv7Z-Rtc4-1qYp-oiWA-cPD246 dedvol { id = "o1U6Ll-5WH8-Pv7Z-Rtc4-1qYp-oiWA-cPD246" seqno = 10 status = ["RESIZEABLE", "READ", "WRITE"] flags = [] extent_size = 8192 # 4 Megabytes max_lv = 0 max_pv = 0 physical_volumes { pv0 { id = "Msiee7-Zovu-VSJ3-Y2hR-uBVd-6PaT-Ho9v95" device = "/dev/md2" # Hint only status = ["ALLOCATABLE"] flags = [] dev_size = 1953519872 # 931.511 Gigabytes pe_start = 384 pe_count = 238466 # 931.508 Gigabytes } pv1 { id = "ZittCN-0x6L-cOsW-v1v4-atVN-fEWF-e3lqUe" device = "/dev/md3" # Hint only status = ["ALLOCATABLE"] flags = [] dev_size = 1953519872 # 931.511 Gigabytes pe_start = 384 pe_count = 238466 # 931.508 Gigabytes } pv2 { id = "NRNo0w-kgGr-dUxA-mWnl-bU5v-Wld0-XeKVLD" device = "/dev/md0" # Hint only status = ["ALLOCATABLE"] flags = [] dev_size = 1953519872 # 931.511 Gigabytes pe_start = 384 pe_count = 238466 # 931.508 Gigabytes } pv3 { id = "2EfLFr-JcRe-MusW-mfAs-WCct-u4iV-W0pmG3" device = "/dev/md4" # Hint only status = ["ALLOCATABLE"] flags = [] dev_size = 1953519872 # 931.511 Gigabytes pe_start = 384 pe_count = 238466 # 931.508 Gigabytes } pv4 { id = "KZron2-pPTr-ZYeQ-PKXX-4Woq-6aNc-AG4rRJ" device = "/dev/md5" # Hint only status = ["ALLOCATABLE"] flags = [] dev_size = 3907028992 # 1.81935 Terabytes pe_start = 384 pe_count = 476932 # 1.81935 Terabytes } }

    Read the article

  • Hard Drive Compatibility with Motherboard

    - by Wesley
    Here are the current specs to put things in context: ECS P4VXASD2+ V5.0 Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8 GHz 2x 512MB PC2100 DDR266 SDRAM Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250 GB PATA (IDE) HDD Gigabyte 52x CD-ROM NVIDIA TNT2 Pro 16 MB OKIA 300W ATX PSU USB bracket Modem PCI Before, I actually had a 300 GB hard drive installed. However, I read the FAQ for the motherboard and discovered that a maximum of 250 GB hard drive was supported. So I ended up finding the one listed above and put that in. However, upon booting up, I reset the BIOS to defaults and auto-detected all the drives installed. The 250 GB came up as something like 251.0 GB. I didn't think much about it until I tried to boot up a Windows XP installation disc. It booted up successfully and run for about a minute before the computer randomly rebooted. I've made sure that all the jumpers and settings are correct and everything has been installed correctly. I've tried running it without the addons and one stick of RAM but still the same thing. What else could be causing this problem?

    Read the article

  • Will a higher hard drive size affect performance

    - by user273010
    My laptop came with a 500 GB hard drive. I use my laptop for storing my digital photographs, and only have about 14 GB of file storage left on the original hard drive. I have a 750 GB external hard drive, but am leery of relying on it for primary storage as I tend to knock things over and it has already crashed once and I lost a lot of the files. I am looking at a 1 TB internal hard drive, but am concerned if storing so much data will affect the computer's performance. Should I also increase RAM from 4 to 8 GB (the limit for my 64-bit, Windows 7, Asus A54C laptop)?

    Read the article

  • How do I repartition an SDHC card in Windows?

    - by Peter Mortensen
    How do I repartition an SDHC card (4 GB or more)? Do I need third-part tools or Linux (a live CD solution would be OK)? In Windows' Disk Management the option Delete Partition is dimmed out: I can reformat the card as FAT32, copy files to and from the card and even change the file system to NTFS using the command line command CONVERT, but not repartition it. The article How to Partition an SD Card in Windows XP talks about using "a Windows enabler program" which sound rather dubious to me. I have tried to change from “Optimize for quick removal” to “Optimize for performance”. The option to format as NTFS appeared, but the Delete Partition option is still dimmed out. Platform: Windows XP 64-bit SD card reader: USB 2.0 device, LogiLink® CR0005C Cardreader 3,5' USB 2.0 intern 54-in-1 mit USB Front Kingston 16 GB SDHC card, speed class 4. (It could be formatted as FAT32 and successfully used in a 4 GB ReadyBoost setup (Windows 7).) I have also tried on different versions of Windows and with different cards with the same result: Kingston 4 GB SDHC card, speed class 4 (the one shown in the screenshot) Transcend 2 GB (not marked as SDHC, but SD) Windows 7 32-bit (albeit with a somewhat an older card reader) and Windows XP 32-bit on an EliteBook 8730w

    Read the article

  • Why is domU faster than dom0 on IO?

    - by Paco
    I have installed debian 7 on a physical machine. This is the configuration of the machine: 3 hard drives using RAID 5 Strip element size: 1M Read policy: Adaptive read ahead Write policy: Write Through /boot 200 MB ext2 / 15 GB ext3 SWAP 10GB LVM rest (~500GB) emphasized text I installed postgresql, created a big database (over 1GB). I have an SQL request that takes a lot of time to run (a SELECT statement, so it only reads data from the database). This request takes approximately 5.5 seconds to run. Then, I installed XEN, created a domU, with another debian distro. On this OS, I also installed postgresql, with the same database. The same SQL request takes only 2.5 seconds to run. I checked the kernel on both dom0 and domU. uname-a returns "Linux debian 3.2.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.2.41-2+deb7u2 x86_64 GNU/Linux" on both systems. I checked the kernel parameters, which are approximately the same. For those that are relevant, I changed their values to make them match on both systems using sysctl. I saw no changes (the requests still take the same amount of time). After this, I checked the file systems. I used ext3 on domU. Still no changes. I installed hdparm, and ran hdparm -Tt on both systems, on all my partitions on both systems, and I get similar results. Now, I am stuck, I don't know what is different, and what could be the cause of such a big difference. Additional Info: Debian runs on a Dell server PowerEdge 2950 postgresql: 9.1.9 (both dom0 and domU) xen-linux-system: 3.2.0 xen-hypervisor: 4.1 Thanks EDIT: As Krzysztof Ksiezyk suggested, it might be due to some file caching system. I ran the dd command to test both the read and write speed. Here is domU: root@test1:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/dd count=5MB bs=1MB ^C2020+0 records in 2020+0 records out 2020000000 bytes (2.0 GB) copied, 18.8289 s, 107 MB/s root@test1:~# dd if=/root/dd of=/dev/null count=5MB bs=1MB 2020+0 records in 2020+0 records out 2020000000 bytes (2.0 GB) copied, 15.0549 s, 134 MB/s And here is dom0: root@debian:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/dd count=5MB bs=1MB ^C1693+0 records in 1693+0 records out 1693000000 bytes (1.7 GB) copied, 8.87281 s, 191 MB/s root@debian:~# dd if=/root/dd of=/dev/null count=5MB bs=1MB 1693+0 records in 1693+0 records out 1693000000 bytes (1.7 GB) copied, 0.501509 s, 3.4 GB/s What can be the cause of this caching system? And how can we "fix" it? Can we apply it to dom0? EDIT 2: I switched my virtual disk type. To do so I followed this article. I did a dd if=/dev/vg0/test1-disk of=/mnt/test1-disk.img bs=16M Then in /etc/xen/test1.cfg, I changed the disk parameter to use file: instead of phy: it should have removed the file caching, but I still get the same numbers (domU being much faster for Postgres)

    Read the article

  • Non-ECC memory with ZFS: a stupid idea?

    - by iconoclast
    I'm the proud new owner of an HP Proliant Microserver N40L, and planning to upgrade the (obviously paltry 2 GB of) memory to the maximum of 16 GB. (Theoretically 8 GB is the limit, but empirically 16 GB has been shown to work.) Some guides advise that ECC memory is not that important, but I'm not so sure I believe this. I've installed FreeNAS and am planning to add ZFS volumes as soon as my new hard drives arrive. Would it be stupid to skimp and get non-ECC memory for a ZFS-based NAS? If it's necessary, then I'll bite the bullet, but if it's just paranoia, then I'll probably skip it.

    Read the article

  • Windows 8.1 - Why are there multiple recovery partitions in the system?

    - by Abhiram
    DISKPART> list partition Partition ### Type Size Offset ------------- ---------------- ------- ------- Partition 1 System 500 MB 1024 KB Partition 2 OEM 40 MB 501 MB Partition 3 Reserved 128 MB 541 MB Partition 4 Recovery 490 MB 669 MB Partition 5 Primary 920 GB 1159 MB Partition 6 Recovery 350 MB 921 GB Partition 7 Recovery 9 GB 921 GB Above is the list of partitions on my system that I recently upgraded to Windows 8.1. Why are there multiple recovery partitions (4,6,7)? Shouldn't there be just one recovery partition? And what is the Reserved partition (#3) for?

    Read the article

  • C Drive Hard Disk Problem

    - by Amit
    I have Windows XP OS. C: Drive has 7 Gb disk space out of that I can see only 4 GB are occopied. Currently only 265 MB are free space showing. I am not sure how to retrive remaining 3 GB space. Can any one have any idea.

    Read the article

  • Can applications use all of the memory in Windows 8?

    - by Barleyman
    Windows 7 (and Windows Vista) have a built-in limit of not being able to use the last 25% of RAM. You will get a low memory warning when you get close to the limit. Even if you disable that warning, applications will run out of memory and crash since the OS will refuse to allocate memory from that last 25%. That was fine when Vista was designed, when machines had 1 GB of total memory, but is pretty daft for today's 8 GB machines. Yes, the system will run cache, etc. on that extra 2 GB, but running out of memory when you have "merely" 2 GB left.... NB: this has nothing to do with the page file. If you limit the page file to a sensible size like 2 GB, you will still see this behavior. The system will cram the page file to the last byte while refusing to touch that 1/4th of the RAM. Does Windows 8 change this behavior? Is there now some fixed minimum free RAM requirement, like 512 MB, or is it still 25%? Can you actually adjust the low memory limit?

    Read the article

  • Have I created the recovery disk from recovery partition correctly?

    - by Tim
    I was creating recovery disk from recovery partition on my Lenovo T400 with Windows 7. 6.5 GB of the recovery partition has been occupied. But in the process, I created three DVDs. I might remember wrong, but the first two DVDs were called by the wizard as disk 1, and the third one was called disk 2. The first one has been written 0.22 GB only. Following is the content of the DVD (right click the image and select view the image in a bigger size): The second one has been written 3.97 GB as follows: The third one has been written 2.44 GB as follows: I am allowed only one time to create recovery disk. So I cannot try again. So I was wondering if I missed something? How is the creation process supposed to be like? Thanks and regards!

    Read the article

  • quad sli with gtx 690 not working

    - by Moaadh
    I have two cards GTX 690 (dual core). I did the Sli successfully. Nvidia control panel acknowledges the two cards as quad Sli. However, the problem is that Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate is showing me the graph memory size as 4 GB while it is supposed to be 8 GB because of the Sli. Also the benchmark from all software is giving me a very low score compared to some other guy's benchmark on YouTube. It gives me a big headache. Does anyone know why this is happening? If so, how can I get Windows 7 to recognize all 8 GB of memory? Thanks for your help in advance. My computer specifications: (Processor: Intel Core i7-3930k @3.2GHz(12CPUs))--- (Memory: 65536 MB Ram 1866 MHz)-- (OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit)-- (OCZ 240GB as SSD PCIe drive for booting and storage disk)-- (DirextX version: DirectX 11)-- (VGA Card: 2 X EVGA GTX 690 Dual GPU. Each GPU is 2 GB, so total memory should be 8 GB.)-- (MotherBoard: ASUS Rampage IV Extreme)-- Others with lesser specifications get a 2500 score in heaven benchmark while I get 1501 as if it is one card.

    Read the article

  • Why sizes are different, and what do they mean?

    - by Ramy
    I have a 1 TB hard drive that consists of one NTFS partition which I use to back up my data (no operating system). The size of all the data in it is : 726 GB, size on disk: 728 GB, and the used space when I check the properties is: 731 GB. There's a 5 GB difference between the size and the used space. Why is that huge difference there? What's the difference between these sizes? (size, size on disk, and used space) Is there a way to calculate the difference, and be sure the HDD is not messing around? Is that normal?

    Read the article

  • Do I need to reserve space before installing Ubuntu alongside Windows 7?

    - by CRM Junkie
    I had Windows 7 32 bit on my existing system, but I am planning to install Ubuntu alongside it. So, I just decided to do a fresh installation of both the operating systems. When I insert the Windows 7 DVD, I can create 3 partitions at maximum, with one being the one where Windows 7 will be installed. I just wanted to know – do I need to keep some un-partitioned space for Ubuntu to install? By "unpartitioned space" I mean the space left after creating 3 partitions for Windows 7. I have a 500 GB HDD, so the three partitions I would be creating are 120 GB, 120 GB and 120 GB. The rest is shown as some logical drive, is that unpartitioned space? Can I install Ubuntu over there? I am pretty sure the space shown as logical won't be available as drives when I log into Windows 7. Is that space lost or can I use that to install ubuntu?

    Read the article

  • Windows 8 "ate" 100GB of my SSD

    - by Eleeist
    Yesterday I've done a completely fresh Windows 8 Pro install on brand new Samsung SSD. I recall that just after the installation Windows was taking about 10GB. I've installed all the updates and when today I entered My Computer I've almost got a heart attack: disk C: 12.3 GB free of 118 GB! The file explorer, when I enter the disk highlight everything and go to Properties, tells me that the files in there take only 22.5 GB of space which seems reasonable. So where is my 100 GB?

    Read the article

  • How to fix windows 7 loader?

    - by Adio
    I have an HD 250 Gb It is portioned to C,D,E C has 50 GB D has 50 GB and the rest is given to E, On C I have Windows 7, I decided to install Opensuse On E. I have installed Opensuse Successfully. Now Opensuse loader shows Windows7 option when I it loads but, when I chose to load windows 7 I get " A Disk read error occured, press ctrl+alt+e to restart". Does any one has an Idea How to fix windows 7 and keep Opensuse ? My Opensuse is 12.2. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Installing/dual-booting Fedora 17 on existing Windows 7 HDD

    - by Moose4
    I have a 64-bit Windows 7 install as the only partition on a 1 TB HDD, with about 350 GB free. I would like to install Fedora 17 as a dual-boot option on this system and give it about 100 GB to play with. If in the Fedora install utility I choose to shrink the W7 partition by 100 GB to give it space, will that cause me to lose my existing W7 data? And how do I go about setting up dual-boot (with Windows 7 as the default)?

    Read the article

  • Hyper-V snapshots – unable to start VM

    - by ahmedz
    I restarted my Host server after shutting down three guest VMs. After I restarted the machine I tried to start the VMs and got an error stating the the VM failed to start. SERVERNAME failed to start. Attachment 'avhd file path' is read only. Please provide read/write access to the attachment. Error: 'General access denied error' SERVENAME failed to start. (virtual machine ID 17292200-wd22-dd22-d23-dddddd2222) The issue seems to be with the disk space. The VHD file for this VM is 128 GB and there are two AVHD files of 58 and 75 GB. Whereas the total disk space on this drive (E) is 280 GB - the free space is only around 23 GB. I understand that the error is caused by the unavailability of the required disk space. Unfortunately, I cannot increase the disk space on this drive. However I have another drive (D) that has 400 GB of free space. I exported this VM to D drive and then tried to add the copied AVHD files but it gives me a similar error. I am running Windows Server 2008 R2 Datacenter. Any help is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Sync folder outside SkyDrive on OS X

    - by Asmodiel
    After the recent 25 GB update, I wanted to sync my pictures with SkyDrive as I finally have enough space (My almost 10 GB Dropbox is full with other data and I need more than 10 GB for my pictures alone). Anyway, the symlink (ln -s) option is not really working as it just creates an alias inside the skydrive which is not even synchronised. Is there any other option or do I have to live with moving the pictures folder into SkyDrive (which I wouldn't really want to do).

    Read the article

  • Disk (EXT4) suddenly empty without any sign of why

    - by Ohnomydisk
    I have a Ubuntu 10.04 server with several disks in it. The disks are setup with a union filesystem, which presents them all as one logical /home. A few days ago, one of the disks appears to have suddenly 'become empty', for lack of better explanation. The amount of data on the /home mount almost halved within minutes - the disk appears to have had just over 400 GB of data prior to 'becoming empty'. I have absolutely no idea what happened. I was not using the server at the other time, but there are half a dozen other users who may have been (without root access and without the ability to hose a whole disk). I've ran SMART tests on the disk and it comes back clean. The filesystem checks fine (it has 12 GB used now, as some user software continued downloading after the incident). All I know is that around around midnight on October 19, the disk usage changed dramatically: The data points are every 15 minutes, and the full loss occured between captures: 2012-10-18 23:58:03.399647 - has 953.97/2059.07 GB [46.33 percent] 2012-10-19 00:13:15.909010 - has 515.18/2059.07 GB [25.02 percent] Other than that, I have not much to go off :-( I know that: There's nothing interesting in log files at that time Nobody appeared to be logged in via SSH at the time it occured (most users do not even use SSH) The server was online through whatever occured (3 months uptime) None of the other disks were affected and everything else on the server looks completely normal I have tried using "extundelete" on the disk and it didn't really find anything (some temporary files, but they looked new anyway) I am completely at a loss to what could have caused this. I was initially thinking maybe root escalation exploit, but even if someone did maliciously "rm" the disk contents, it would take more than 15 minutes for 400 GB?

    Read the article

  • Why do SSD drives get so much more expensive as they get larger?

    - by futuraprime
    Normal HDD costs go up very little as drives get larger. For example, an average 1TB drive costs a little under $90, 2TB costs a little over $100, and a 3TB drive costs close to $150. For HDDs, the cost per GB goes down as the number of GB goes up. SSD costs don't work like this: a 128GB SSD goes for $120ish, 256GB goes for $250ish, and 512GB drives get up to $600. The cost per GB goes up as the number of GB rises. What is it about SSDs that makes them so much costlier as they get larger?

    Read the article

  • How do brand laptop manufacturers restrict hard disk drive?

    - by user176705
    I'm curious to know, when I bought a brand new laptop there are limitations to create or change the HDD partitions, except the following partitions: c:\ drive (Main partition + OS drive) NTFS. 400 Gb. Recovery drive NTFS. 15 Gb. Tools drive FAT32. 2 Gb. System drive NTFS. 0.3 Gb. My questions are: How do manufacturers restrict HDDs ? What is the term for these restrictions? Can this be applied to desktop PCs? Is it possible to modify the restrictions by an end-user?

    Read the article

  • Buy iPhone 4 Without Contract: $599 (AT&T) and $699 (Verizon)

    - by Gopinath
    Purchasing iPhone without a contract is a good option when you are planning to gift it to someone or going to use it outside US. Both AT&T and Verizon lets you iPhone 4 without a contract but this information is buried deep under blurred text in FAQs and agreements.  Here is the pricing information of AT&T and Verizon iPhone 4 without contract AT&T iPhone 4 16 GB without contract – $599.99 AT&T iPhone 4 32 GB without contract – $699.99 Verizon iPhone 4 16 GB without contract – $649.99 Verizon iPhone 4 32 GB without contract – $749.99 This information is seen on the bottom of Apple’s iPhone purchase page and on Verizon’s frequently asked questions about the iPhone 4 page. Screenshots embedded below I live in India and I’m happy to know the price at which  I can buy an authentic iPhone 4 without contract . Now I can ask my friends to gift an iPhone 4 for me iphone cc image credit: flickr/williamhook This article titled,Buy iPhone 4 Without Contract: $599 (AT&T) and $699 (Verizon), was originally published at Tech Dreams. Grab our rss feed or fan us on Facebook to get updates from us.

    Read the article

  • Sun Storage 2500-M2 Array and Sun Fire X4470 M2 Server

    - by nospam(at)example.com (Joerg Moellenkamp)
    There is some new hardware in the Oracle portfolio. The first one is the Sun Fire X4470 M2 Server. There was a lot of talk about the system before because of benchmark results, but now it's finally announced. Two or four Intel Xeon E7-4800. Up to 1 TB as the system provides 64 DIMM slots with 16 GB DDR DIMMs. The memory is placed on those riser cards right behind the fans of this chassis. Up to 6 internal drives. In a 3 RU package. Another announcement was the Sun Storage 2500 M2 announced yesterday: From 5 to 48 drives (the later number with three expansion trays) for up to 28.8 TB of storage. The array is SAS based internally. You can put 300GB and 600 GB in it. The 2540-M2 provides 4 (8 optional) FC ports with up to 8 GB/sec. The 2530-M2 has 4 SAS2 ports with up to 6 GBit/s. It has 2 integrated controllers providing 2 GB cache protected by a power backup for 72 hours. The controller enables the arrays to deliver 0, 1, 10, 3, 5, 6, (P+Q) RAID levels.

    Read the article

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