Search Results

Search found 1150 results on 46 pages for 'partitioning'.

Page 1/46 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Partitioning: SSD + HDD Encrypted

    - by wegsehen
    I have a new computer and thinking about partitioning. Situation is this: 60GB SSD 1TB HD On my laptop I'm using full encryption but what do you suggest for encryption? I heard, encryption is bad for SSDs. So I first thought of making SSD / and HDD als /home/ but then I'd be losing advantages of the SSD. Because all config-files would be on the HDD. Other way would be: SSD: / 15 GB unencrypted /home encrypted HDD: 1TB and store Pictures & Music on HDD and link the folders. But that would leave my personal files unencrypted. Also what's about SWAP? What would you suggest for partitioning?

    Read the article

  • Parallelism in .NET – Part 5, Partitioning of Work

    - by Reed
    When parallelizing any routine, we start by decomposing the problem.  Once the problem is understood, we need to break our work into separate tasks, so each task can be run on a different processing element.  This process is called partitioning. Partitioning our tasks is a challenging feat.  There are opposing forces at work here: too many partitions adds overhead, too few partitions leaves processors idle.  Trying to work the perfect balance between the two extremes is the goal for which we should aim.  Luckily, the Task Parallel Library automatically handles much of this process.  However, there are situations where the default partitioning may not be appropriate, and knowledge of our routines may allow us to guide the framework to making better decisions. First off, I’d like to say that this is a more advanced topic.  It is perfectly acceptable to use the parallel constructs in the framework without considering the partitioning taking place.  The default behavior in the Task Parallel Library is very well-behaved, even for unusual work loads, and should rarely be adjusted.  I have found few situations where the default partitioning behavior in the TPL is not as good or better than my own hand-written partitioning routines, and recommend using the defaults unless there is a strong, measured, and profiled reason to avoid using them.  However, understanding partitioning, and how the TPL partitions your data, helps in understanding the proper usage of the TPL. I indirectly mentioned partitioning while discussing aggregation.  Typically, our systems will have a limited number of Processing Elements (PE), which is the terminology used for hardware capable of processing a stream of instructions.  For example, in a standard Intel i7 system, there are four processor cores, each of which has two potential hardware threads due to Hyperthreading.  This gives us a total of 8 PEs – theoretically, we can have up to eight operations occurring concurrently within our system. In order to fully exploit this power, we need to partition our work into Tasks.  A task is a simple set of instructions that can be run on a PE.  Ideally, we want to have at least one task per PE in the system, since fewer tasks means that some of our processing power will be sitting idle.  A naive implementation would be to just take our data, and partition it with one element in our collection being treated as one task.  When we loop through our collection in parallel, using this approach, we’d just process one item at a time, then reuse that thread to process the next, etc.  There’s a flaw in this approach, however.  It will tend to be slower than necessary, often slower than processing the data serially. The problem is that there is overhead associated with each task.  When we take a simple foreach loop body and implement it using the TPL, we add overhead.  First, we change the body from a simple statement to a delegate, which must be invoked.  In order to invoke the delegate on a separate thread, the delegate gets added to the ThreadPool’s current work queue, and the ThreadPool must pull this off the queue, assign it to a free thread, then execute it.  If our collection had one million elements, the overhead of trying to spawn one million tasks would destroy our performance. The answer, here, is to partition our collection into groups, and have each group of elements treated as a single task.  By adding a partitioning step, we can break our total work into small enough tasks to keep our processors busy, but large enough tasks to avoid overburdening the ThreadPool.  There are two clear, opposing goals here: Always try to keep each processor working, but also try to keep the individual partitions as large as possible. When using Parallel.For, the partitioning is always handled automatically.  At first, partitioning here seems simple.  A naive implementation would merely split the total element count up by the number of PEs in the system, and assign a chunk of data to each processor.  Many hand-written partitioning schemes work in this exactly manner.  This perfectly balanced, static partitioning scheme works very well if the amount of work is constant for each element.  However, this is rarely the case.  Often, the length of time required to process an element grows as we progress through the collection, especially if we’re doing numerical computations.  In this case, the first PEs will finish early, and sit idle waiting on the last chunks to finish.  Sometimes, work can decrease as we progress, since previous computations may be used to speed up later computations.  In this situation, the first chunks will be working far longer than the last chunks.  In order to balance the workload, many implementations create many small chunks, and reuse threads.  This adds overhead, but does provide better load balancing, which in turn improves performance. The Task Parallel Library handles this more elaborately.  Chunks are determined at runtime, and start small.  They grow slowly over time, getting larger and larger.  This tends to lead to a near optimum load balancing, even in odd cases such as increasing or decreasing workloads.  Parallel.ForEach is a bit more complicated, however. When working with a generic IEnumerable<T>, the number of items required for processing is not known in advance, and must be discovered at runtime.  In addition, since we don’t have direct access to each element, the scheduler must enumerate the collection to process it.  Since IEnumerable<T> is not thread safe, it must lock on elements as it enumerates, create temporary collections for each chunk to process, and schedule this out.  By default, it uses a partitioning method similar to the one described above.  We can see this directly by looking at the Visual Partitioning sample shipped by the Task Parallel Library team, and available as part of the Samples for Parallel Programming.  When we run the sample, with four cores and the default, Load Balancing partitioning scheme, we see this: The colored bands represent each processing core.  You can see that, when we started (at the top), we begin with very small bands of color.  As the routine progresses through the Parallel.ForEach, the chunks get larger and larger (seen by larger and larger stripes). Most of the time, this is fantastic behavior, and most likely will out perform any custom written partitioning.  However, if your routine is not scaling well, it may be due to a failure in the default partitioning to handle your specific case.  With prior knowledge about your work, it may be possible to partition data more meaningfully than the default Partitioner. There is the option to use an overload of Parallel.ForEach which takes a Partitioner<T> instance.  The Partitioner<T> class is an abstract class which allows for both static and dynamic partitioning.  By overriding Partitioner<T>.SupportsDynamicPartitions, you can specify whether a dynamic approach is available.  If not, your custom Partitioner<T> subclass would override GetPartitions(int), which returns a list of IEnumerator<T> instances.  These are then used by the Parallel class to split work up amongst processors.  When dynamic partitioning is available, GetDynamicPartitions() is used, which returns an IEnumerable<T> for each partition.  If you do decide to implement your own Partitioner<T>, keep in mind the goals and tradeoffs of different partitioning strategies, and design appropriately. The Samples for Parallel Programming project includes a ChunkPartitioner class in the ParallelExtensionsExtras project.  This provides example code for implementing your own, custom allocation strategies, including a static allocator of a given chunk size.  Although implementing your own Partitioner<T> is possible, as I mentioned above, this is rarely required or useful in practice.  The default behavior of the TPL is very good, often better than any hand written partitioning strategy.

    Read the article

  • Need help partitioning when reinstalling Ubuntu 14.04

    - by Chris M.
    I upgraded to 14.04 about a month ago on my HP Mini netbook (about 16 GB hard disk). A few days ago the system crashed (I don't know why but I was using internet at the time). When I restarted the computer, Ubuntu would not load. Instead, I got a message from the BIOS saying Reboot and Select proper Boot device or Insert Boot Media in selected Boot device and press a key I took this to mean that I needed to reinstall 14.04. When I try to reinstall Ubuntu from the USB stick, I choose "Erase disk and install Ubuntu" but then I get a message: Some of the partitions you created are too small. Please make the following partitions at least this large: / 3.3 GB If you do not go back to the partitioner and increase the size of these partitions, the installation may fail. At first I hit Continue to see if it would install anyway, and it gave the message: The attempt to mount a file system with type ext4 in SCSI1 (0,0,0), partition # 1 (sda) at / failed. You may resume partitioning from the partitioning menu. The second time I hit Go Back, and it took me to the following partitioning table: Device Type Mount Point Format Size Used System /dev/sda /dev/sda1 ext4 (checked) 3228 MB Unknown /dev/sda5 swap (not checked) 1063 MB Unknown + - Change New Partition Table... Revert Device for boot loader installation: /dev/sda ATA JM Loader 001 (4.3 GB) At this point I'm not sure what to do. I've never partitioned my hard drive before and I don't want to screw things up. (I'm not particularly tech savvy.) Can you instruct me what I should do. (P.S. I'm afraid the table might not appear as I typed it in.) Results from fdisk: [email protected]:~$ sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 4294 MB, 4294967296 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 522 cylinders, total 8388608 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Disk /dev/sda doesn't contain a valid partition table Disk /dev/sdb: 7860 MB, 7860125696 bytes 155 heads, 31 sectors/track, 3194 cylinders, total 15351808 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: 0x0009a565 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 2768 15351807 7674520 b W95 FAT32 [email protected]:~$ Here is what it displays when I open the Disks utility (I tried the screenshot terminal command you suggested but it didn't seem to do anything): 4.3 GB Hard Disk /dev/sda Model: JM Loader 001 (01000001) Size: 4.3 GB (4,294,967,296 bytes) Serial Number: 01234123412341234 Assessment: SMART is not supported Volumes Size: 4.3 GB (4,294,967,296 bytes) Device: /dev/sda Contents: Unknown (There is a button in the utility that when you click it gives the following options: Format... Create Disk Image... Restore Disk Image... Benchmark but SMART Data & Self-Tests... is dimmed out) When I hit F9 Change Boot Device Order, it shows the hard drive as: SATA:PM-JM Loader 001 When I hit F10 to get me into the BIOS Setup Utility, under Diagnostic it shows: Primary Hard Disk Self Test Not Support NetworkManager Tool State: disconnected Device: eth0 Type: Wired Driver: atl1c State: unavailable Default: no HW Address: 00:26:55:B0:7F:0C Capabilities: Carrier Detect: yes Wired Properties Carrier: off When I run command lshw -C network, I get: WARNING: you should run this program as super-user. *-network description: Network controller product: BCM4312 802.11b/g LP-PHY vendor: Broadcom Corporation physical id: 0 bus info: [email protected]:01:00.0 version: 01 width: 64 bits clock: 33MHz capabilities: bus_master cap_list configuration: driver=b43-pci-bridge latency=0 resources: irq:16 memory:feafc000-feafffff *-network description: Ethernet interface product: AR8132 Fast Ethernet vendor: Qualcomm Atheros physical id: 0 bus info: [email protected]:02:00.0 logical name: eth0 version: c0 serial: 00:26:55:b0:7f:0c capacity: 100Mbit/s width: 64 bits clock: 33MHz capabilities: bus_master cap_list ethernet physical tp 10bt 10bt-fd 100bt 100bt-fd autonegotiation configuration: autonegotiation=on broadcast=yes driver=atl1c driverversion=1.0.1.1-NAPI latency=0 link=no multicast=yes port=twisted pair resources: irq:43 memory:febc0000-febfffff ioport:ec80(size=128) WARNING: output may be incomplete or inaccurate, you should run this program as super-user.

    Read the article

  • Partitioning a hard drive before install

    - by yohbs
    I have a new ASUS laptop that I got from the university. The guys at the computing centre recieved it before me, erased the hard disk, and installed all their crappy software (Novel, outlook, and the like). I tried to install Ubuntu with dual boot, but because they apparently did whatever it is they did wrong, and the installer does not recognize the existing windows installation and only suggests to install Ubuntu as a sole OS. None of the advices here or here helped. My final decision is to indeed let Ubuntu erase all existing windows stuff (and then use windows occasionally through VirtualBox). However, when I try to do that it tells me that the partitioning looks like GPT but doesn't have the correct signatures, or something like this. It asks whether this is indeed a GPT HD, and I don't know what to tell it. What I ask is: should I simply use gparted from the CD to repartition the HD? If so, what would be the recommended partitioning (I have 750GB), and the recommended filesystem (ext3? ext4?). Update: here's a screen shot Thanks in advance for any advice.

    Read the article

  • Read only file system error on ubuntu after partitioning

    - by Ranjith R
    I am not sure if I am the root cause of this problem but this is what I did: I wanted latest ubuntu and latest linux mint together on my thinkpad laptop. Windows 7 was already there. I already had mint. So I put in the USB with ubuntu image and started installing ubuntu. I chose to install side by side. It was taking a long time to finish defragmenting and partitioning. I decided to give up as I became a little impatient and I pressed the skip button. After the skipping, I realized that the partitioning was complete and went ahead with installing ubuntu. Now the linux mint OS starts reporting the file system as read only at least once every day and I have restart and tell the OS to fix errors in hard disk. After I press F key, the system fixes the issues, restarts and all is well again. Is there some way to fix the issue permanently. I think reinstalling will solve the issues, but I can not do it as I have a lot of data and I will have reinstall and configure a lot of softwares that I use daily. I checked the smart check in disk utility and the hard disk seems to be fine Also I checked both the partitions for errors with disk utility and the report says they are fine. Is there something I can do before I reinstall?

    Read the article

  • How to change partitioning - may involve conversion of a partition from primary to extended

    - by george_k
    I am having trouble thinking through how I can achieve my partitioning goals. Now my partitions are: sda1 (winA) (primary) sda2 (winB) (primary) sda3 (/ for ubuntu) (primary) What I want to migrate into is (obviously partition numbers need not be exactly like that) sda1 (winA) (primary) sda2 (winB) (primary) sda3 (/boot) (primary) sda4 - extended which will contain sda5 (/home) sda6 (/ for ubuntu) sda7 (swap) I know I may be asking too much, but what would a way to do it? One way I have thought is Create a new primary partition for /boot and split it from the root partition into the new one. It shouldn't be too hard. Then the disk will have 4 primary partitions. Somehow convert the root ubuntu partition from primary to extended. Split that last partition in 3 extended partitions (root, /home, swap) and split the contents there. I am obviously stuck on the 2nd part. Another way could be (maybe easier): Create an extended partition (or two) Split /home there Somehow move everything except /boot to the extended partition. This way /boot will stay on the primary partition that exists now, and will be shrunk as needed, and everything else will end up to the extended partitions. This may sound better, but I'm not too sure how to do the 3rd part. Some details: The disk is almost empty, so I have space to move things around in it, shrink the ubuntu partition etc. I don't want to touch the windows partitions in any way. Reinstallation is not an option. Also using a different partitioning scheme with fewer partitions is not an option (for example not having a separate /boot) Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Partitioning Webcast Details - 17/03/2010

    - by Alex Blyth
    Hi AllHere are the details for Wednesday's (17th March 2010) webcast on Partitioning:Webcast is at http://strtc.oracle.com (IE6, 7 & 8 supported only)Conference ID for the webcast is 6168728There is no conference keyPlease use your real name in the name field (just makes it easier for us to help you out if we can't answer your questions on the call)Audio details:NZ Toll Free - 0800888157 orAU Toll Free - 1800420354Meeting ID: 7914841Meeting Passcode: 17032010Talk to you all WednesdayAlex

    Read the article

  • Partitioning a 128GB SSD and 500GB HDD

    - by Gladen
    So I have a 128GB SSD and 500GB HDD. I want to reïnstall my laptop and put Ubuntu 12.10 on this setup. I already looked around on the internet and came up with this partitioning schema: about 2GB of swap on the SSD (I got 4GB of RAM in my laptop) / using the rest of that space /home on the HDD So I was wondering, are there any better schemes or extra partitions that I should consider putting on a particular drive? Thanks in advance! :)

    Read the article

  • Netbook partitioning scheme suggestions

    - by David B
    I got a new Asus EEE PC 1015PEM with 2GB RAM and a 250GB HD. After playing with the netbook edition a little, I would like to install the desktop edition I'm used to. In addition to ubunto partition(s), I would like to have one separate partition for data (documents, music, etc.), so I could try other OSs in the future without losing the data. What partition scheme would you recommend? I usually like to let the installation do it by itself, but when I try to that I can only use the entire disk, so I don't get the desired data partition. I wish there was a way to see the recommended default partitioning scheme, then just tweak it a bit to fit your needs (instead of building one from scratch). So, how would you recommend I partition my HD? Please be specific since I never manually partitioned before. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Partitioning Windows 7 so I can use ubuntu

    - by thommo1919
    I have been recording happily using Audacity for many years but after upgrading to Windows 7, the latency has meant that recording music is impossible. My mate suggested partitioning my hard drive, installing ubuntu on it and then using this alongside Windows. He reckons I can use music recording software then on the partitioned Ubuntu drive without the latency problems. A few questions: a) Is my mate correct? b) How do I go about doing the partition and installing? c) What music recording software would you recommend? Many many thanks to anyone who can help me.

    Read the article

  • Question about Partitioning

    - by Trent C
    I am looking to dual boot Windows 7 and Ubuntu 13.10. I have been using windows for work and school for over a year, and have about 100 gig of stored files (backed up of course) and some paid programs. Because of this, I really want my partitioning experience to go well. Unfortunately, I am running into a bit of an anomoly When I load GPart, I see that my sda drive is unallocated http://i.imgur.com/Hi2XhIr.png Whereas my sdb appears to contain all of the windows files and partitions, and make up my C: drive http://i.imgur.com/aaCOXje.png Is this going to be an issue, as all literature on dual boot installation references sda? How do I work around it? System Info: Lenovo IdeaPad Y570- 750GB HDD with 64GB SSD Processor: Intel® Core™ i7-2670QM CPU @ 2.20GHz × 8

    Read the article

  • Space partitioning when everything is moving

    - by Roy T.
    Background Together with a friend I'm working on a 2D game that is set in space. To make it as immersive and interactive as possible we want there to be thousands of objects freely floating around, some clustered together, others adrift in empty space. Challenge To unburden the rendering and physics engine we need to implement some sort of spatial partitioning. There are two challenges we have to overcome. The first challenge is that everything is moving so reconstructing/updating the data structure has to be extremely cheap since it will have to be done every frame. The second challenge is the distribution of objects, as said before there might be clusters of objects together and vast bits of empty space and to make it even worse there is no boundary to space. Existing technologies I've looked at existing techniques like BSP-Trees, QuadTrees, kd-Trees and even R-Trees but as far as I can tell these data structures aren't a perfect fit since updating a lot of objects that have moved to other cells is relatively expensive. What I've tried I made the decision that I need a data structure that is more geared toward rapid insertion/update than on giving back the least amount of possible hits given a query. For that purpose I made the cells implicit so each object, given it's position, can calculate in which cell(s) it should be. Then I use a HashMap that maps cell-coordinates to an ArrayList (the contents of the cell). This works fairly well since there is no memory lost on 'empty' cells and its easy to calculate which cells to inspect. However creating all those ArrayLists (worst case N) is expensive and so is growing the HashMap a lot of times (although that is slightly mitigated by giving it a large initial capacity). Problem OK so this works but still isn't very fast. Now I can try to micro-optimize the JAVA code. However I'm not expecting too much of that since the profiler tells me that most time is spent in creating all those objects that I use to store the cells. I'm hoping that there are some other tricks/algorithms out there that make this a lot faster so here is what my ideal data structure looks like: The number one priority is fast updating/reconstructing of the entire data structure Its less important to finely divide the objects into equally sized bins, we can draw a few extra objects and do a few extra collision checks if that means that updating is a little bit faster Memory is not really important (PC game)

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 - Ubuntu 10.10 Dual Boot Partitioning Recommendation for HP Laptop OEM

    - by Denja
    Hi Linux Community, After been temporary impressed with the newb Windows 7 and after intensly using it I find my self struggling with the ever slow and buggy windows OS once again. It's Time to go with the Ubuntu/Linux way for a better and faster tomorrow. Unfortunately in my country most Users/Business use Windows based Systems. As a Computer technician i want to learn and use both Systems and possibly introduce New users to more affordable Linux Based Systems. For now I want to create dual-boot or even triple boot layouts on my laptop machine Here's the layout in use now: * (C:) Windows 7 system partition NTFS - 284,89GB (Primary,Boot,Pagefile,Dump) * HP_TOOLS system partition FAT32 - 99MB (Primary) * (D:) RECOVERY partition NTFS - 12,90GB (Primary) * SYSTEM partition NTFS 199MB (Primary) Here's the layout I want to make. * (C:) Windows 7 system partition NTFS - 60GB (Primary) (sda1) * (D:) Windows data partition (user files) NTFS - 60GB(Extended or Primary)(sda2);wanna share with Linux * Linux root Ext4 - 10GB (Primary)(sda3) * Linux swap swap- RAM size, 3GB (sda4) * Linux home Ext4- 164,9GB (Extended)(sda5) Question 1: Is the layout that i want to make correct as the Primary and Extended Partition concerns ? Question 2: Can I definitely get rid of SYSTEM Boot loader of windows? Question 3: If I get rid of HP_TOOLS and RECOVERY partition will it be a problem? Question 4: Based on my layout what is your suggestion for a Triple Boot layout for OSX or Puppy Linux? Thank you in advance for your advises and suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Partitioning During Installation, Reinstalling Ubuntu, Backup donwloaded Repositories

    - by user209645
    I am new to Ubuntu and I have just finished installing 13.10 amd64 on my PC. This will replace my Windows 7 as my only OS. I just want to clarify some issues that've been bugging me. I tried reading posts with the same topics but I just can't wrap my head to it yet. I partitioned my 80GB drive into: /root: 30GB (sorry for the confusion, I actually meant /) /home: 40GB /var : 3GB swap : 4GB (2GB of mem) Please correct me if I'm wrong about these: All of the users' documents are saved in their respective folders in /home. But say I want to clean install (format) Ubuntu, I don't need to make backups of /home and /var as they are on separate partitions. But when re-installing, do I just choose /root and format and it will recognize all the partitions (not making another /home and /var inside /root)? Downloaded packages (from all the repositories) and all their dependencies are saved in /var. So after re-installing on the same PC (assuming I'm offline), it will just use the latest updates in /var if I choose to update? And if all the installed apps and their dependents are all in there, all I need to do is re-install them without encountering errors? I have also read that you can back them up using aptoncd and then adding the DVD to the sources. So if I download all the high ranking apps using Synaptic, could I then have an all-in-one DVD installer? 30GB for / is excessive because the bulk of files will either be in /home (personal, downloads, music, videos) or /var (updates, packages, installed apps)? Please excuse me for asking such a question but I really want to explore and learn more.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu installation does not recognize drive partitioning

    - by Woltan
    I have a 1TB drive and installed Windows 7 on a 128GB partition. When I now try to install Ubuntu 11.04 it does not recognize the Windows partition but offers the complete 1TB drive to install Ubuntu on instead. It displays: However, in the Ubuntu Disk Utility the Windows partitions are recognized. What do I need to do in order for Ubuntu to recognize the Windows 7 partition and install Ubuntu as a dual boot? Response to comments The following commands were executed and the results are shown below: fdisk -l WARNING: GPT (GUID Partition Table) detected on '/dev/sda'! The util fdisk doesn't support GPT. Use GNU Parted. Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x34a38165 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 13 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda2 13 16318 130969600 7 HPFS/NTFS Disk /dev/sdb: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x14a714a6 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 60801 488384001 83 Linux parted -l Warning: Unable to open /dev/sr0 read-write (Read-only file system). /dev/sr0 has been opened read-only. Error: /dev/sr0: unrecognised disk label

    Read the article

  • partitioning in ubuntu with gparted cant resize

    - by user288830
    I opened gparted and as i can see i have 3 partitions(or i think so) first one sda1 (236 mb) its ext2 type file and its booting point, second one is sda2(rest of the hdd 1.36 tb) extended ntfs type file and i have third one that is within the sda2 called sda5 it takes the same space as sda 2 and its file type is crypt luks, so when i try to resize the sda2 i cant resize it not for even 1 mb, i dont know if that crypt luks file is causing the problem, so i dont know what to do, by the way i can format the crypt luks(sda5) file that in inside sda 2 but i dont know if i should.Can anyone help me please? here are the pictures when i open gparted when i try to resize sda 2 i think i did use encryption i mean while it is booting i type password and its says sda5/scrypt set up succefully or something like that and then it goes to my login screen where i type username and pass that is it

    Read the article

  • Windows 7/Ubuntu 10.10 Dual-Triple Boot Partitioning Recommendation for HP Laptop OEM

    - by Denja
    Hi Linux Community, I find my self struggling with the ever slow and buggy windows OS once again. It's Time for me to go with the Ubuntu/Linux way for a better and faster Operating System. As a Computer technician i want to learn and use both Systems but possibly introduce New users to more affordable Linux Based Systems. For now, Im in the process of creating dual-boot or even triple boot layouts on my laptop machine Here's the layout in use now: * (C:) Windows 7 system partition NTFS - 284,89GB (Primary,Boot,Pagefile,Dump) * HP_TOOLS system partition FAT32 - 99MB (Primary) * (D:) RECOVERY partition NTFS - 12,90GB (Primary) * SYSTEM partition NTFS 199MB (Primary) Here's the layout I want to make. * (C:) Windows 7 system partition NTFS - 60GB (Primary) (sda1) * (D:) Windows data partition (user files) NTFS - 60GB(Extended or Primary)(sda2);wanna share with Linux * Linux root Ext4 - 10GB (Primary)(sda3) * Linux swap swap- RAM size, 3GB (sda4) * Linux home Ext4- 164,9GB (Extended)(sda5) Question 1: Based on my layout what is your suggestion for a Triple Boot layout for an additional Linux OS (Like Puppy)? Thank you in advance for your advises and suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Partitioning Strategies for P6 Reporting Database

    - by Jeffrey McDaniel
    Prior to P6 Reporting Database version 3.2 sp1 range partitioning was used. This was applied only to the history tables. The ranges were defined during installation and additional ranges would need to be added once your date range entered the final defined range. As of P6 Reporting Database version 3.2 sp1, interval partitioning was implemented. Interval partitioning was applied to the existing History table as well as Slowly Changing Dimension tables. One of the major advantages of interval partitioning is there is no more manual addition of ranges. The interval partitioning will automatically create partitions for the defined interval when data is inserted into the table and it exceeds the existing partitions. In 3.2 sp1 there are steps on how to update your partitioning. For all versions after 3.2 sp1 interval partitioning is the only partitioning option used. When upgrading it is important to be aware of these changes. Here is a link with more information on partitioning -the types and the advantages. http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e25523/partition.htm

    Read the article

  • Partitioning Software for Windows 7

    - by nunos
    I used to use Patition Magic Pro from Norton to do disk partitioning. Now that I have Windows 7, I have been warned, by the OS itself and later confirmed on the internet, that Partition Magic Pro has compatibility issues with Windows 7. So, I am asking you which software partitioning software do you recommend. It would be great if it was freeware but I know it is hard to find a good parititioning app that's free, so, if you know a good one that's paid, there's no problem and please mention it in your reply. Thanks in advance. P.S. I am aware of "create and format disk partitions feature" of Windows 7, but that's not enough for me. I am using Windows 7 Professional 64 bits.

    Read the article

  • Rocksclusters reinstalling nodes partitioning error.

    - by Antiarchitect
    I have a HPC based on rocksclusters So when I've added new roll (torque) I send a kickstart command to all nodes to reinstall them. But after loading X installer on nodes all of them showed me an error: Could not allocate requested partitions: Partitioning failed: Could not allocate partitions as primary partitions. Cannot allocate partition for /boot

    Read the article

  • If I want to dual-boot Ubuntu with another OS, what partitioning method should I use?

    - by Jay
    I have Ubuntu running as a vm in VirtualBox at the moment, but in the future, if I want to dual-boot it with Windows or another OS installed on my hard-drive, what partitioning method should I use to make room for it? 1)Manually partition my hard drive via disk management in Windows (or the equivalent in another OS), making appropriate room for the main partition upon which Ubuntu will be installed and swap space; 2)Partition via the Ubuntu installer options; 3)Use gparted or another free tool like it. I am uncertain as to why I would want to use one over the other. Lastly, am I correct to think that it would be the acme of foolishness to try to partition drives within a virtual machine (since that partitioning would be inherently limited to the limitations set upon it by the virtualization software, e.g., VirtualBox)? Thanks! P.S. Oh, and I am also planning on not modifying the MBR of Windows if I ever do dual-boot with Ubuntu, using instead a piece of free software (like easyBCD or something) to avoid the headaches of Grub being overwritten by a Windows update.

    Read the article

  • Foreign keys vs partitioning

    - by Industrial
    Hi! Since foreign keys are not supported by partitioned mySQL databases for the moment, I would like to hear some pro's and con's for a read-heavy application that will handle around 1-400 000 rows per table. Unfortunately, I dont have enough experience yet in this area to make the conclusion by myself... Thanks a lot! References: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1537219/how-to-handle-foreign-key-while-partitioning http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2496140/mysql-partitioning-with-foreign-keys

    Read the article

  • Partitioning mySQL tables that has foreign keys?

    - by Industrial
    Hi! What would be an appropriate way to do this, since mySQL obviously doesnt enjoy this. To leave either partitioning or the foreign keys out from the database design would not seem like a good idea to me. I'll guess that there is a workaround for this? Update 03/24: http://opendba.blogspot.com/2008/10/mysql-partitioned-tables-with-trigger.html http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1537219/how-to-handle-foreign-key-while-partitioning Thanks!

    Read the article

  • When to use which mysql partitioning model

    - by Industrial
    Ok guys, just starting out with partitioning some tables in mySQL. There's a couple of different ways describing this, but what I cant find is a more practical approach. - Which type of data does each way of partitioning have the best effect on? Or doesn't it really matter?

    Read the article

  • UNR Installation: Partitioning Error

    - by Wesley
    Hi all, I have a Samsung N120 netbook (with upgraded 2GB RAM). I'm trying to install Ubuntu Netbook Remix, but when I set my partitions, I get an error. The setup I want right now is: Recovery Partition - 6 GB Windows XP Home Partition - 40 GB General Partition - remaining space UNR Partition - 40 GB I am told that I need to resize a partition and it will take a while. However, when it nearly starts, I get an ERROR!!! dialog that says, "Error informing the kernel about modifications to partition /dev/sda5 - Device or resource busy. This means Linux won't know about any changes you made to /dev/sda5 so you shouldn't mount it or use it in any way before rebooting." I'm not too sure what I should do right now... any ideas? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

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