Search Results

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

Page 4/133 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Which Windows OS Supports 8 GB RAM in a Laptop and Suggestions for a Better Laptop for Personal & De

    - by Ellen
    I am about to purchase a laptop and have zeroed on the following two of them. Toshiba L500-ST2544 Toshiba L505-ES5034 The Common Specification for both of them are as follows - RAM - 4GB DDR3 Memory HDD - 320 GB Processor - Intel® Core™ i3-330M Processor WebCam and Mic - Available HDMI Port - Available Numeric Key Pad - Available Windows 7 (64 bit) Home Premium Now, the only difference between ST2544 and ES5034 is that, the ST2544 has a maximum of 2 slots with 2 GB in each. So, you can have a max of 4 GB RAM in that. The ES5034 can support 8 GB RAM, so, in a couple of years, if I want to add another 4 GB RAM I will be able to do it. The price for ST2544 is USD 629.00 whereas, the price for a ES5034 is USD685. A difference is USD 55.00 (not a major amount, but still something extra). Is it worthwhile going for the ES5034? Which Windows Operating System supports 8 GB of RAM?

    Read the article

  • Free en-GB dictionary for spell check in Silverlight

    - by Craig Shearer
    I'm trying to use the Vectorlight spell checker for Silverlight. The demo code comes with the en-US.dic file, but I'm trying to find a compatible one for British English. I have found one here but it doesn't work. The format seems similar to the en-US one, but it just doesn't work (i.e. it doesn't suggest any words).

    Read the article

  • Pass Memory in GB Using Import-CSV Powershell to New-VM in Hyper-V Version 3

    - by PowerShell
    I created the below function to pass memory from a csv file to create a VM in Hyper-V Version 3 Function Install-VM { param ( [Parameter(Mandatory=$true)] [int64]$Memory=512MB ) $VMName = "dv.VMWIN2K8R2-3.Hng" $vmpath = "c:\2012vms" New-VM -MemoryStartupBytes ([int64]$memory*1024) -Name $VMName -Path $VMPath -Verbose } Import-Csv "C:\2012vms\Vminfo1.csv" | ForEach-Object { Install-VM -Memory ([int64]$_.Memory) } But when i try to create the VM it says mismatch between the memory parameter passed from import-csv, i receive an error as below VERBOSE: New-VM will create a new virtual machine "dv.VMWIN2K8R2-3.Hng". New-VM : 'dv.VMWIN2K8R2-3.Hng' failed to modify device 'Memory'. (Virtual machine ID CE8D36CA-C8C6-42E6-B5C6-2AA8FA15B4AF) Invalid startup memory amount assigned for 'dv.VMWIN2K8R2-3.Hng'. The minimum amount of memory you can assign to a virtual machine is '8' MB. (Virtual machine ID CE8D36CA-C8C6-42E6-B5C6-2AA8FA15B4AF) A parameter that is not valid was passed to the operation. At line:48 char:9 + New-VM -ComputerName $HyperVHost -MemoryStartupBytes ([int64]$memory*10 ... + ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + CategoryInfo : InvalidArgument: (Microsoft.HyperV.PowerShell.VMTask:VMTask) [New-VM], VirtualizationOpe rationFailedException + FullyQualifiedErrorId : InvalidParameter,Microsoft.HyperV.PowerShell.Commands.NewVMCommand Also please not in the csv file im passing memory as 1,2,4.. etc as shown below, and converting them to MB by multiplying them with 1024 later Memory 1 Can Anyone help me out on how to format and pass the memory details to the function

    Read the article

  • What "Drained" mean in this llstatus result?

    - by xslittlegrass
    I'm trying to run jobs on the cluster of our university, and I come across this result when I trying to see the status of the cluster: llstatus Name Schedd InQ Act Startd Run LdAvg Idle Arch OpSys pandora001 Down 0 0 Run 29 41.04 9999 POWER7 AIX61 pandora002 Down 0 0 Busy 32 32.06 9999 POWER7 AIX61 pandora003 Down 0 0 Drned 0 0.03 9999 POWER7 AIX61 pandora004 Down 0 0 Busy 32 32.07 9999 POWER7 AIX61 pandora005 Down 0 0 Busy 32 32.02 9999 POWER7 AIX61 pandora006 Down 0 0 Busy 32 34.01 9999 POWER7 AIX61 pandora007 Down 0 0 Busy 32 32.02 9999 POWER7 AIX61 pandora008 Down 0 0 Drned 0 0.00 9999 POWER7 AIX61 pandora1 Avail 15 5 Idle 0 0.00 86 POWER7 AIX61 llstatus -R Machine Consumable Resource(Available, Total) ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------- pandora001 ConsumableCpus< 28-31 >< 0-31 > ConsumableMemory(28.297 gb,124.000 gb)+ pandora002 ConsumableCpus< >< 0-31 > ConsumableMemory(14.625 gb,124.000 gb)+ pandora003 ConsumableCpus< 0-31 >< 0-31 > ConsumableMemory(124.000 gb,124.000 gb)+ pandora004 ConsumableCpus< >< 0-31 > ConsumableMemory(28.000 gb,124.000 gb)+ pandora005 ConsumableCpus< >< 0-31 > ConsumableMemory(28.000 gb,124.000 gb)+ pandora006 ConsumableCpus< >< 0-31 > ConsumableMemory(14.625 gb,124.000 gb)+ pandora007 ConsumableCpus< >< 0-31 > ConsumableMemory(5.250 gb,124.000 gb)+ pandora008 ConsumableCpus< 0-31 >< 0-31 > ConsumableMemory(124.000 gb,124.000 gb)+ pandora1 ConsumableCpus< 0-7 >< 0-7 > ConsumableMemory(32.000 gb,32.000 gb) It seems that the pandora003 and pandora008 are in the status of "Drned". What does that mean? Why I can't use the resources of at thoes nodes? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • is it normal for ubuntu 11.10 to use 1 GB of memory?

    - by robert
    On my older system i ran the 32 bit version of Ubuntu with 4 GB of ram and noticed it rarely come near 1 gig of usage.I have my new system running with the 64 bit version.The new system is a quad core with 8 GB of ram and Ubuntu is using 1 gig now.Is this normal?I have run top and noticed certain processes such as compiz,xorg and lightdm seeming to be using a lot.I also upgraded in my new system with an msi radeon hd6450 graphics card that s supposed to have 2 gigs on it.

    Read the article

  • Could 1 GB of RAM work better than 1.25?

    - by user67082
    This is for a server running Ubuntu Server 10.10. The server is an old desktop PC. It had 2 sticks of 256 MB of 182-pin DDR 400 MHz RAM in it (total 512 MB of RAM). I just ordered a 1 GB stick of compatible RAM for the machine (now would have a total of 1.25 GB of RAM). A friend told me that it might run better if I removed both sticks of 256 MB RAM and used just the 1 GB stick I will be receiving. This seems counterintuitive since then there would only be 1 GB of RAM instead of 1.25; is it possible that it would be better to run with 1 GB or is he totally wrong? Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • Partition resize

    - by borax12
    I have a dual boot system with 1.C:drive with windows 227 GB 2.E: drive in windows 185 GB 3.Ext4 Ubuntu - 38 GB 4.Linux swap - 4 GB I want to decrease the space from E: drive from 185 GB to say about 160 GB and assign the 25 GB achieved from the resizing to the ext4 partition so that my ubuntu home has more space I was told that do a resize in gparted could cause some boot problems,please tell me a safe way to achieve this resizing

    Read the article

  • Partition resize[SOLVED]

    - by borax12
    I have a dual boot system with 1.C:drive with windows 227 GB 2.E: drive in windows 185 GB 3.Ext4 Ubuntu - 38 GB 4.Linux swap - 4 GB I want to decrease the space from E: drive from 185 GB to say about 160 GB and assign the 25 GB achieved from the resizing to the ext4 partition so that my ubuntu home has more space I was told that do a resize in gparted could cause some boot problems,please tell me a safe way to achieve this resizing

    Read the article

  • How can I merge two non-contiguous partitions using GParted?

    - by theprise
    My dual-boot machine has partitions as follows: sda1 50 GB NTFS sda2 15 GB unallocated sda3 20 GB ext3 sda4 20 GB ext4 I would like to allocate the unused space on sda2 to my Ubuntu partition on sda4, hopefully leaving the other two partitions untouched, leaving this configuration: sda1 50 GB NTFS sda3 20 GB ext3 sda4 35 GB ext4 Is this possible? If so, how can it be done, preferably using GParted?

    Read the article

  • KVM guest io is much slower than host io: is that normal?

    - by Evolver
    I have a Qemu-KVM host system setup on CentOS 6.3. Four 1TB SATA HDDs working in Software RAID10. Guest CentOS 6.3 is installed on separate LVM. People say that they see guest performance almost equal to host performance, but I don't see that. My i/o tests are showing 30-70% slower performance on guest than on host system. I tried to change scheduler (set elevator=deadline on host and elevator=noop on guest), set blkio.weight to 1000 in cgroup, change io to virtio... But none of these changes gave me any significant results. This is a guest .xml config part: <disk type='file' device='disk'> <driver name='qemu' type='raw'/> <source file='/dev/vgkvmnode/lv2'/> <target dev='vda' bus='virtio'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x05' function='0x0'/> </disk> There are my tests: Host system: iozone test # iozone -a -i0 -i1 -i2 -s8G -r64k random random KB reclen write rewrite read reread read write 8388608 64 189930 197436 266786 267254 28644 66642 dd read test: one process and then four simultaneous processes # dd if=/dev/vgkvmnode/lv2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024 iflag=direct 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 4.23044 s, 254 MB/s # dd if=/dev/vgkvmnode/lv2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024 iflag=direct skip=1024 & dd if=/dev/vgkvmnode/lv2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024 iflag=direct skip=2048 & dd if=/dev/vgkvmnode/lv2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024 iflag=direct skip=3072 & dd if=/dev/vgkvmnode/lv2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024 iflag=direct skip=4096 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 14.4528 s, 74.3 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 14.562 s, 73.7 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 14.6341 s, 73.4 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 14.7006 s, 73.0 MB/s dd write test: one process and then four simultaneous processes # dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=1M count=1024 oflag=direct 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 6.2039 s, 173 MB/s # dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=1M count=1024 oflag=direct & dd if=/dev/zero of=test2 bs=1M count=1024 oflag=direct & dd if=/dev/zero of=test3 bs=1M count=1024 oflag=direct & dd if=/dev/zero of=test4 bs=1M count=1024 oflag=direct 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 32.7173 s, 32.8 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 32.8868 s, 32.6 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 32.9097 s, 32.6 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 32.9688 s, 32.6 MB/s Guest system: iozone test # iozone -a -i0 -i1 -i2 -s512M -r64k random random KB reclen write rewrite read reread read write 524288 64 93374 154596 141193 149865 21394 46264 dd read test: one process and then four simultaneous processes # dd if=/dev/mapper/VolGroup-lv_home of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024 iflag=direct skip=1024 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 5.04356 s, 213 MB/s # dd if=/dev/mapper/VolGroup-lv_home of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024 iflag=direct skip=1024 & dd if=/dev/mapper/VolGroup-lv_home of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024 iflag=direct skip=2048 & dd if=/dev/mapper/VolGroup-lv_home of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024 iflag=direct skip=3072 & dd if=/dev/mapper/VolGroup-lv_home of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024 iflag=direct skip=4096 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 24.7348 s, 43.4 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 24.7378 s, 43.4 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 24.7408 s, 43.4 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 24.744 s, 43.4 MB/s dd write test: one process and then four simultaneous processes # dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=1M count=1024 oflag=direct 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 10.415 s, 103 MB/s # dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=1M count=1024 oflag=direct & dd if=/dev/zero of=test2 bs=1M count=1024 oflag=direct & dd if=/dev/zero of=test3 bs=1M count=1024 oflag=direct & dd if=/dev/zero of=test4 bs=1M count=1024 oflag=direct 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 49.8874 s, 21.5 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 49.8608 s, 21.5 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 49.8693 s, 21.5 MB/s 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 49.9427 s, 21.5 MB/s I wonder is that normal situation or did I missed something?

    Read the article

  • Swap and hibernation

    - by maaartinus
    I saw a lot of recommendations claiming that for hibernation the swap partition/file must be at least as large as the main memory. This makes no sense to me. Lets assume I have 8 GB of main memory and 8 GB swap area and want to hibernate: case 1: I'm using 4 GB of virtual memory - 8 GB of swap is unnecessarily large. case 2: I'm using 8 GB of virtual memory - 8 GB of swap is just right. case 3: I'm using 12 GB of virtual memory - 8 GB of swap is too small. The outcome is: A swap area of size equal to the memory size is sufficient for hibernate IFF it doesn't get used for swapping at all. So what is the reason behind the claim that you need at least as much swap area as main memory for hibernate to work? I know that virtual memory gets used for caching too, and that the cache may be simply discarded, but what happens to hibernation if a program allocates 12 GB of virtual memory (given the above memory and swap sizes)?

    Read the article

  • SanDisk présente une CompactFlash de 128 GB à 1500 $ l'unité, de telles capacités ont-elles un sens ?

    SanDisk présente une CompactFlash de 128 GB à 1500 $ l'unité, de telles capacités ont-elles un sens ? SanDisk vient de lancer une nouvelle carte mémoire CompactFlash dont les spécifications sont impressionnantes : 128 GB de capacité de stockage pour une vitesse d'écriture de 100MB par seconde. Appuyer sur le déclencheur pour prendre un cliché en deviendrait presque plus long que le transfert de l'image numérique sur les circuits ! De plus, ses dimensions aident à dissiper la chaleur qui découle de ce haut taux d'échange de données ; et offrent aussi plus de place pour l'insertion d'une protection, qui la protège des températures extrêmes. Mais cette Extreme Pro CompactFlash a un prix, et pas un petit... Elle coûte 15...

    Read the article

  • How can I get gcc to write a file larger than 2.0 GB?

    - by fred.bear
    I wanted to recompile 'xxd' (written in C), so I installed CodeBlocks as the IDE. All seemed to go well unil I discovered that I couldn't write past the 2.0 GB barrier... I've read that 'gcc' needs to be recompiled... (That sounds a bit dramatic..) I've read that I can use 'fread64()' instead of 'fread()' ... (didn't work) I've read something about a compiler options (?)... but I get lost at that point? I am surprised that it didn't work out-of-the-box, as I thought the 2.0 GB limit was ancient history as far as defaults go ... wrong again?:( My OS is 32-bit, on 32-bit hardware. The gcc version report in as: gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3 Is there a simple way around this issue? PS.. I was fascinated by the WARNINGS: section of 'info xxd' (..only on Linux ;)

    Read the article

  • Intel présente une technologie qui pourrait bien mettre l'USB 3.0 au placard : Thunderbolt permettra des transferts jusqu'à 100 GB/s

    Intel présente une technologie qui pourrait bien mettre l'USB 3.0 au placard : Thunderbolt permettra des transferts jusqu'à 100 GB/s Mise à jour du 25.02.2011 par Katleen Intel vient d'annoncer Thunderbolt : une nouvelle technologie pour relier les machines et les périphériques, qui était en cours de développement depuis des années. En 2009, elle avait déjà été annoncée sous le nom de Light Peak. La système est sensé permettre des transferts à des taux deux fois plus rapides que l'USB 3.0 (soit à 10 Gb/s). Si ces chiffres vous paraissent bons, sachez qu'ils sont largement en dessous du maximum théorique que peut fournire cette technologie, puisque Intel utilisera au départ des fils de...

    Read the article

  • San Disk Cruzer Glide 32 GB and 8Gb can't be copied to.

    - by chrisfs
    I have Ubuntu 12.04 with a kernal of 3.0.0-17-generic (#30-Ubuntu SMP Thu Mar 8 17:34:21 UT When I tried to copy files to a San Disk Cruzer 8gb usb drive, the copy process went a short way and then completely stopped. Although I have copied items to the USB drive from my PC before, this time the files would start quickly enough but always stop shortly after starting. I figure the 8 gb was bad, so I went and got a brand new 32 gb usb drive from a store, unpackaged it and plugged it in, still unable to copy to the usb drive. So is there some kind of incompatibility or issue where San Disk Cruzer Glides are no longer supporting it. Is there an obscure setting that I am missing? Any help would be appreciated

    Read the article

  • Why does 12.04 upgrade abort with out of space error when I have lots of it?

    - by Kristian Thomsen
    When upgrading Ubuntu from 11.10 to 12.04 I discovered an unexpected problem. The upgrade was stopped because there wasn't enough free space for the installation. I managed to free some space and do the upgrade but now a prompt appears after logging in saying I'm out of space. This prompt asks me if I want to examine the problem. The "Disk Usage Analyser" is opened. In the top it says: Total filesystem capacity: 47.0 GB (used: 13.5 GB available: 33.4 GB) Folder -- Usage -- Size / -- 100% -- 12.5 GB usr -- 44.8 % -- 5.6 GB home -- 30.3 % -- 3.8 GB lib -- 13.0 % -- 1.6 GB var -- 9.1 % -- 1.1 GB boot 2.5 % 309.5 GB and a lot of small contributors like: etc, opt, sbin, bin etc. I do not really understand this problem since the analyser in the top says that I have 33.4 GB left in this file system. What can I do to make Ubuntu use the remaining space? Running df -i in the terminal gives: Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/sda7 610800 576874 33926 95% / udev 213451 563 212888 1% /dev tmpfs 218524 486 218038 1% /run none 218524 3 218521 1% /run/lock none 218524 7 218517 1% /run/shm /dev/sda8 2264752 16371 2248381 1% /home The output of df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda7 9,3G 7,8G 1,1G 88% / udev 993M 4,0K 993M 1% /dev tmpfs 401M 884K 400M 1% /run none 5,0M 0 5,0M 0% /run/lock none 1003M 152K 1002M 1% /run/shm /dev/sda8 35G 4,0G 29G 13% /home /dev/sda2 101G 64G 37G 64% /media/A2C8E28BC8E25CD3 Running sudo fdisk -l gives Disk /dev/sda: 160.0 GB, 160041885696 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19457 cylinders, total 312581808 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: 0x00000080 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 63 96389 48163+ de Dell Utility /dev/sda2 * 98304 210434488 105168092+ 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 210436094 312576704 51070305+ f W95 Ext'd (LBA) /dev/sda5 306279288 312576704 3148708+ dd Unknown /dev/sda6 210436096 214341631 1952768 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda7 214343680 233873407 9764864 83 Linux /dev/sda8 233875456 306278399 36201472 83 Linux Partition table entries are not in disk order

    Read the article

  • Installer doesn't display partition I want to install to

    - by Aditya
    While performing a Ubuntu 10.10 installation on my laptop, it doesn't show partitions pertaining to the PC. My PC configuration is as follows : HP Pavilion dv6 - 2020AX AMD Turion II Dual Core Mobile Processor M500 4 GB RAM OS Installed : Windows 7 500 GB Hard drive partitioned as follows : C : 227 GB (Free : 142 GB) D : 11.9 GB (Free : 1.98 GB) - Recovery F : 174 GB (Free : 18 GB) G : 50.5 GB (Free : 50.4 GB) So, I want to perform a Dual-boot installation on my PC, so that Ubuntu resides in the free disk space G:. Therefore, I started the Ubuntu 10.10 installation and select the manual partitioning feature in the installation. However, in the 'Allocate Drive Space' section of the installation, following partitions information is displayed: Partition Type Size Used /dev/sda /dev/sda1      1 MB    unknown /dev/sda2    ntfs    208 MB   unknown /dev/sda3   ntfs    244813 MB    168540 MB /dev/sda4    ntfs    255083 MB   3221 MB where /dev/sda - 500 GB So, what exactly is the problem? What is it should I do to install Ubuntu 10.10 in the G: disk space? Why are the partitions not being shown as the way they should be? Any Suggestions. Thank you for the help.

    Read the article

  • Installation on SSD with Windows preinstalled

    - by ebbot
    I bought a laptop with this fancy SSD drive, fancy new UEFI aso. I figured at first Windows out Ubuntu in but after doing 3 DoA on 3 laptops in one day I realized that maybe keeping Windows could come in handy. So dual boot it is. And this is what I've got: Disk 1 - 500 Gb HD 300 Mb Windoze only says "Healthy" don't know what it's for. 600 Mb "Healthy (EFI partition)" 186.30 Gb NTFS "OS (C:)" "Healthy (Boot, Page File, Crash Dump, Primary Partition)" 258.45 Gb NTFS "Data (D:)" "Healthy" 20.00 Gb "Healthy (Recovery Partition)" Disk 2 - 24 Gb SSD 4.00 Gb "Healthy (OEM Partition)" 18.36 Gb "Healthy (Primary Partition)" So I'm not sure what the first partition on each drive does (the 300 Gb on the HD and the OEM Partition on the SSD. Nor do I know what Data (D:). I think the 2nd partition on the SSD is for some speedup of Windoze. I'm debating if I should shrink the OS (C:) drive to around 120 GB or so. Clear the Data (D:) and also use the whole SSD for Ubuntu. That would leave me 24 Gb for e.g. / on the SSD and some 320 Gb on the HD for /home and swap. Is this a reasonable setup? Do I need to configure fstab for the SSD differently to a HD?

    Read the article

  • What free space thresholds/limits are advisable for 640 GB and 2 TB hard disk drives with ZEVO ZFS on OS X?

    - by Graham Perrin
    Assuming that free space advice for ZEVO will not differ from advice for other modern implementations of ZFS … Question Please, what percentages or amounts of free space are advisable for hard disk drives of the following sizes? 640 GB 2 TB Thoughts A standard answer for modern implementations of ZFS might be "no more than 96 percent full". However if apply that to (say) a single-disk 640 GB dataset where some of the files most commonly used (by VirtualBox) are larger than 15 GB each, then I guess that blocks for those files will become sub optimally spread across the platters with around 26 GB free. I read that in most cases, fragmentation and defragmentation should not be a concern with ZFS. Sill, I like the mental picture of most fragments of a large .vdi in reasonably close proximity to each other. (Do features of ZFS make that wish for proximity too old-fashioned?) Side note: there might arise the question of how to optimise performance after a threshold is 'broken'. If it arises, I'll keep it separate. Background On a 640 GB StoreJet Transcend (product ID 0x2329) in the past I probably went beyond an advisable threshold. Currently the largest file is around 17 GB –  – and I doubt that any .vdi or other file on this disk will grow beyond 40 GB. (Ignore the purple masses, those are bundles of 8 MB band files.) Without HFS Plus: the thresholds of twenty, ten and five percent that I associate with Mobile Time Machine file system need not apply. I currently use ZEVO Community Edition 1.1.1 with Mountain Lion, OS X 10.8.2, but I'd like answers to be not too version-specific. References, chronological order ZFS Block Allocation (Jeff Bonwick's Blog) (2006-11-04) Space Maps (Jeff Bonwick's Blog) (2007-09-13) Doubling Exchange Performance (Bizarre ! Vous avez dit Bizarre ?) (2010-03-11) … So to solve this problem, what went in 2010/Q1 software release is multifold. The most important thing is: we increased the threshold at which we switched from 'first fit' (go fast) to 'best fit' (pack tight) from 70% full to 96% full. With TB drives, each slab is at least 5GB and 4% is still 200MB plenty of space and no need to do anything radical before that. This gave us the biggest bang. Second, instead of trying to reuse the same primary slabs until it failed an allocation we decided to stop giving the primary slab this preferential threatment as soon as the biggest allocation that could be satisfied by a slab was down to 128K (metaslab_df_alloc_threshold). At that point we were ready to switch to another slab that had more free space. We also decided to reduce the SMO bonus. Before, a slab that was 50% empty was preferred over slabs that had never been used. In order to foster more write aggregation, we reduced the threshold to 33% empty. This means that a random write workload now spread to more slabs where each one will have larger amount of free space leading to more write aggregation. Finally we also saw that slab loading was contributing to lower performance and implemented a slab prefetch mechanism to reduce down time associated with that operation. The conjunction of all these changes lead to 50% improved OLTP and 70% reduced variability from run to run … OLTP Improvements in Sun Storage 7000 2010.Q1 (Performance Profiles) (2010-03-11) Alasdair on Everything » ZFS runs really slowly when free disk usage goes above 80% (2010-07-18) where commentary includes: … OpenSolaris has changed this in onnv revision 11146 … [CFT] Improved ZFS metaslab code (faster write speed) (2010-08-22)

    Read the article

  • How to add unused space to another partition in gparted?

    - by user1490211
    In my hard drive windows takes up 100 gb, then backtrack takes up 100 gb. When I make backtrack's partition smaller i get 100 gb for windows, 50 gb for backtrack, and 50 gb of unused space (in that exact order). How do I reallocate that 50 gb of space to windows so that instead it is 150 gb for windows, then 50 gb for backtrack? I'm using gparted and i can't move the unused space or add it to windows' partition.

    Read the article

  • ¿Cómo utilizar 2º disco duro de Ubuntu?

    - by Lightday
    Recientemente he instalado Windows y Ubuntu 12.04. Tengo 2 discos duros ( 160 GB y 320 GB). Datos de la instalación: Partición Sistema de archivos Etiqueta Tamaño Punto de montaja /dev/sda1 ntfs Sistema Windows 21 GB ^/dev/sda2 extendida 128,54 GB /dev/sda5 Linux-swap Linux-swap 4,39 GB intercambio /dev/sda6 ext4 Sistema Linux 14,65 GB / /dev/sda7 ext4 Datos Linux 109,49 GB /home /dev/sdb1 ext4 Datos Linux 298.09 /opt Si pincho en la carpeta /home, me dice que hay 106 GB libres y es donde está la carpeta personal y puedo usar ese espacio del disco. Si pincho en la carpeta de /opt, no hay carpeta personal, ¿y como uso ese espacio del disco? Gracias.

    Read the article

  • Installing 64-bit Ubuntu alongside 32-bit Ubuntu?

    - by Macha
    I have a 64-bit processor in my PC, but because of worries over application compatibility, up until now I have been using 32-bit Ubuntu (and 32-bit Vista because Dell wouldn't sell me 64-bit with my PC). Is it possible for me to install 64-bit Ubuntu alongside 32-bit ubuntu and 32-bit Windows Vista, so I can choose between them at boot and share data, and without uninstalling my 32-bit Ubuntu? My partitions are as follows Drive 1: 10 GB Vista recovery partition (E:), 240 GB Windows NTFS parition (230 GB used, C:). Drive 2: 167 GB Windows NTFS Partition (130 GB used, D: ), 8 GB swap partition, 13 GB / partition (6 GB used), 62 GB /home partition (20 GB used).

    Read the article

  • Out of space despite lots of free space remaining

    - by Kristian Thomsen
    When upgrading Ubuntu from 11.10 to 12.04 I discovered an unexpected problem. The upgrade was stopped because there wasn't enough free space for the installation. I managed to free some space and do the upgrade but now a prompt appears after logging in saying I'm out of space. This prompt asks me if I want to examine the problem. The "Disk Usage Analyser" is opened. In the top it says: Total filesystem capacity: 47.0 GB (used: 13.5 GB available: 33.4 GB) Folder -- Usage -- Size / -- 100% -- 12.5 GB usr -- 44.8 % -- 5.6 GB home -- 30.3 % -- 3.8 GB lib -- 13.0 % -- 1.6 GB var -- 9.1 % -- 1.1 GB boot 2.5 % 309.5 GB and a lot of small contributors like: etc, opt, sbin, bin etc. I do not really understand this problem since the analyser in the top says that I have 33.4 GB left in this file system. What can I do to make Ubuntu use the remaining space? Running df -i in the terminal gives: Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/sda7 610800 576874 33926 95% / udev 213451 563 212888 1% /dev tmpfs 218524 486 218038 1% /run none 218524 3 218521 1% /run/lock none 218524 7 218517 1% /run/shm /dev/sda8 2264752 16371 2248381 1% /home What does this mean?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >