Search Results

Search found 449 results on 18 pages for 'shrink'.

Page 10/18 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • SQL SERVER – SSMS: Disk Usage Report

    - by Pinal Dave
    Let us start with humor!  I think we the series on various reports, we come to a logical point. We covered all the reports at server level. This means the reports we saw were targeted towards activities that are related to instance level operations. These are mostly like how a doctor diagnoses a patient. At this point I am reminded of a dialog which I read somewhere: Patient: Doc, It hurts when I touch my head. Doc: Ok, go on. What else have you experienced? Patient: It hurts even when I touch my eye, it hurts when I touch my arms, it even hurts when I touch my feet, etc. Doc: Hmmm … Patient: I feel it hurts when I touch anywhere in my body. Doc: Ahh … now I get it. You need a plaster to your finger John. Sometimes the server level gives an indicator to what is happening in the system, but we need to get to the root cause for a specific database. So, this is the first blog in series where we would start discussing about database level reports. To launch database level reports, expand selected server in Object Explorer, expand the Databases folder, and then right-click any database for which we want to look at reports. From the menu, select Reports, then Standard Reports, and then any of database level reports. In this blog, we would talk about four “disk” reports because they are similar: Disk Usage Disk Usage by Top Tables Disk Usage by Table Disk Usage by Partition Disk Usage This report shows multiple information about the database. Let us discuss them one by one.  We have divided the output into 5 different sections. Section 1 shows the high level summary of the database. It shows the space used by database files (mdf and ldf). Under the hood, the report uses, various DMVs and DBCC Commands, it is using sys.data_spaces and DBCC SHOWFILESTATS. Section 2 and 3 are pie charts. One for data file allocation and another for the transaction log file. Pie chart for “Data Files Space Usage (%)” shows space consumed data, indexes, allocated to the SQL Server database, and unallocated space which is allocated to the SQL Server database but not yet filled with anything. “Transaction Log Space Usage (%)” used DBCC SQLPERF (LOGSPACE) and shows how much empty space we have in the physical transaction log file. Section 4 shows the data from Default Trace and looks at Event IDs 92, 93, 94, 95 which are for “Data File Auto Grow”, “Log File Auto Grow”, “Data File Auto Shrink” and “Log File Auto Shrink” respectively. Here is an expanded view for that section. If default trace is not enabled, then this section would be replaced by the message “Trace Log is disabled” as highlighted below. Section 5 of the report uses DBCC SHOWFILESTATS to get information. Here is the enhanced version of that section. This shows the physical layout of the file. In case you have In-Memory Objects in the database (from SQL Server 2014), then report would show information about those as well. Here is the screenshot taken for a different database, which has In-Memory table. I have highlighted new things which are only shown for in-memory database. The new sections which are highlighted above are using sys.dm_db_xtp_checkpoint_files, sys.database_files and sys.data_spaces. The new type for in-memory OLTP is ‘FX’ in sys.data_space. The next set of reports is targeted to get information about a table and its storage. These reports can answer questions like: Which is the biggest table in the database? How many rows we have in table? Is there any table which has a lot of reserved space but its unused? Which partition of the table is having more data? Disk Usage by Top Tables This report provides detailed data on the utilization of disk space by top 1000 tables within the Database. The report does not provide data for memory optimized tables. Disk Usage by Table This report is same as earlier report with few difference. First Report shows only 1000 rows First Report does order by values in DMV sys.dm_db_partition_stats whereas second one does it based on name of the table. Both of the reports have interactive sort facility. We can click on any column header and change the sorting order of data. Disk Usage by Partition This report shows the distribution of the data in table based on partition in the table. This is so similar to previous output with the partition details now. Here is the query taken from profiler. SELECT row_number() OVER (ORDER BY a1.used_page_count DESC, a1.index_id) AS row_number ,      (dense_rank() OVER (ORDER BY a5.name, a2.name))%2 AS l1 ,      a1.OBJECT_ID ,      a5.name AS [schema] ,       a2.name ,       a1.index_id ,       a3.name AS index_name ,       a3.type_desc ,       a1.partition_number ,       a1.used_page_count * 8 AS total_used_pages ,       a1.reserved_page_count * 8 AS total_reserved_pages ,       a1.row_count FROM sys.dm_db_partition_stats a1 INNER JOIN sys.all_objects a2  ON ( a1.OBJECT_ID = a2.OBJECT_ID) AND a1.OBJECT_ID NOT IN (SELECT OBJECT_ID FROM sys.tables WHERE is_memory_optimized = 1) INNER JOIN sys.schemas a5 ON (a5.schema_id = a2.schema_id) LEFT OUTER JOIN  sys.indexes a3  ON ( (a1.OBJECT_ID = a3.OBJECT_ID) AND (a1.index_id = a3.index_id) ) WHERE (SELECT MAX(DISTINCT partition_number) FROM sys.dm_db_partition_stats a4 WHERE (a4.OBJECT_ID = a1.OBJECT_ID)) >= 1 AND a2.TYPE <> N'S' AND  a2.TYPE <> N'IT' ORDER BY a5.name ASC, a2.name ASC, a1.index_id, a1.used_page_count DESC, a1.partition_number Using all of the above reports, you should be able to get the usage of database files and also space used by tables. I think this is too much disk information for a single blog and I hope you have used them in the past to get data. Do let me know if you found anything interesting using these reports in your environments. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com)Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Server Management Studio, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL Tagged: SQL Reports

    Read the article

  • Stupid Geek Tricks: Compare Your Browser’s Memory Usage with Google Chrome

    - by The Geek
    Ever tried to figure out exactly how much memory Google Chrome or Internet Explorer is using? Since they each show up a bunch of times in Task Manager, it’s not so easy! Here’s the quick and easy way to compare them. Both Chrome and IE use multiple processes to isolate tabs from each other, to make sure that one tab doesn’t kill the whole browser. Firefox, on the other hand, just uses a single process for everything. Rather than pulling out a calculator and adding them all up, you can just open up Google Chrome, and type in about:memory into the location bar to see a full list of each browser’s memory usage.   On my test system with 6 GB of system RAM, I’m running the Development channel version of Chrome, and I’ve got about 40 different tabs open, which is why the memory usage is so high. Firefox has 8 tabs open, and IE is enjoying being opened for the first time in forever. Want to help cut down on memory usage and keep your Chrome browser running fast? Disable all unnecessary extensions, and then make sure you disable any plug-ins that you don’t need either. Similar Articles Productive Geek Tips Stupid Geek Tricks: Duplicate a Tab with a Shortcut Key in Chrome or FirefoxStupid Geek Tricks: Shrink the XP Volume ControlStupid Geek Tricks: Tile or Cascade Multiple Windows in Windows 7Fix for Firefox memory leak on WindowsHow to Purge Memory in Google Chrome TouchFreeze Alternative in AutoHotkey The Icy Undertow Desktop Windows Home Server – Backup to LAN The Clear & Clean Desktop Use This Bookmarklet to Easily Get Albums Use AutoHotkey to Assign a Hotkey to a Specific Window Latest Software Reviews Tinyhacker Random Tips DVDFab 6 Revo Uninstaller Pro Registry Mechanic 9 for Windows PC Tools Internet Security Suite 2010 Download Free MP3s from Amazon Awe inspiring, inter-galactic theme (Win 7) Case Study – How to Optimize Popular Wordpress Sites Restore Hidden Updates in Windows 7 & Vista Iceland an Insurance Job? Find Downloads and Add-ins for Outlook

    Read the article

  • Is recursion really bad?

    - by dotneteer
    After my previous post about the stack space, it appears that there is perception from the feedback that recursion is bad and we should avoid deep recursion. After writing a compiler, I know that the modern computer and compiler are complex enough and one cannot automatically assume that a hand crafted code would out-perform the compiler optimization. The only way is to do some prototype to find out. So why recursive code may not perform as well? Compilers place frames on a stack. In additional to arguments and local variables, compiles also need to place frame and program pointers on the frame, resulting in overheads. So why hand-crafted code may not performance as well? The stack used by a compiler is a simpler data structure and can grow and shrink cleanly. To replace recursion with out own stack, our stack is allocated in the heap that is far more complicated to manage. There could be overhead as well if the compiler needs to mark objects for garbage collection. Compiler also needs to worry about the memory fragmentation. Then there is additional complexity: CPUs have registers and multiple levels of cache. Register access is a few times faster than in-CPU cache access and is a few 10s times than on-board memory access. So it is up to the OS and compiler to maximize the use of register and in-CPU cache. For my particular problem, I did an experiment to rewrite my c# version of recursive code with a loop and stack approach. So here are the outcomes of the two approaches:   Recursive call Loop and Stack Lines of code for the algorithm 17 46 Speed Baseline 3% faster Readability Clean Far more complex So at the end, I was able to achieve 3% better performance with other drawbacks. My message is never assuming your sophisticated approach would automatically work out better than a simpler approach with a modern computer and compiler. Gage carefully before committing to a more complex approach.

    Read the article

  • Why is lassoing ink in OneNote so slow in general? Doesn't anyone care?

    - by GuoLiang Oon
    Now I understand that this is especially an (known) issue in the OneNote 2013 preview and that it will probably be fixed in the final release. But lassoing in OneNote 2010 was no sprightly affair either. I'm just perplexed really, why on earth is there such an issue? Is lassoing intrinsically computationally expensive? OneNote would be soooooooooooo much more useful if there's no lasso lag. And doing a laggy lasso on tablet pcs with weak processors is just so much worse. Or do most folks just don't use the lasso feature much? I use it primarily to shrink intermediate calculations for future retrieval.

    Read the article

  • Weird canvas/page size printing problem in Adobe Acrobat

    - by Justin
    I am trying to print a document in Adobe Acrobat. For some reason, Acrobat wants to print my document smaller than it actually is, despite having chosen that I DO NOT want the image to be scaled: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?945fbb3f41.png See the grey area on the top and left of the preview? That's the area that's getting cut off. Notice that the whole preview (INCLUDING the gray areas) is 8.5x11 in. Also look at the paper size, a nice 8.5x11 in. This happens for any real printer I connect to my computer. However, printing to a "fake" software printer is not a problem: Printing to a software printer: Use the above link but change the image name to this: 769eaf59ab.png Any ideas? I've tried messing with the paper sizes but no luck. I can't use "Shrink to printable area" because ultimately I'm doing this to print to a preprinted form (the same issue occurs when I select "Form fields only" but this demonstrates it better).

    Read the article

  • Cannot resize OS X partition

    - by David Pearce
    I am trying to resize my existing Mac OS Extended partition on my Macbook to install Windows 7 (using steps similar to these), but when ever I go to apply the changes, I get this error: Partition failed Partition failed with the error: The partition cannot be resized. Try reducing the amount of change in the size of the partition. The total capacity of the hard drive in question is 260GB, with the entirety being taken up by the OS X boot partition. There is I am aiming to shrink that partition down to 60GB. How can I fix this problem? I have been reducing the amount of change by 10GB each attempt, but it still is not working. I assume the problem is that there is not a large amount of continuous space on the device. Is there some way to can do a manual defrag that would rectify this problem?

    Read the article

  • Resize underlying partitions in mdadm RAID1

    - by kyork
    I have a home built NAS, and I need to slightly reconfigure some of my drive usage. I have an mdadm RAID1 composed of two 3TB drives. Each drive has one ext3 partition that uses the entire drive. I need to shrink the ext3 partition on both drives, and add a second 8GB or so ext3 partition to one, and swap partition of equal size to the other. I think I have the steps figured out, but wanted some confirmation. Resize the mdadm RAID resize2fs /dev/md0 [size] where size is a little larger than the currently used space on the drive Remove one of the drives from the RAID mdadm /dev/md0 --fail /dev/sda1 Resize the removed drive with parted Add the new partition to the drive with parted Restore the drive to the RAID mdadm -a /dev/md0 /dev/sda1 Repeat 2-5 for the other device Resize the RAID to use the full partition mdadm --grow /dev/md0 -z max Is there anything I've missed, or haven't considered?

    Read the article

  • Runaway version store in tempdb

    - by DavidWimbush
    Today was really a new one. I got back from a week off and found our main production server's tempdb had gone from its usual 200MB to 36GB. Ironically I spent Friday at the most excellent SQLBits VI and one of the sessions I attended was Christian Bolton talking about tempdb issues - including runaway tempdb databases. How just-in-time was that?! I looked into the file growth history and it looks like the problem started when my index maintenance job was chosen as the deadlock victim. (Funny how they almost make it sound like you've won something.) That left tempdb pretty big but for some reason it grew several more times. And since I'd left the file growth at the default 10% (aaargh!) the worse it got the worse it got. The last regrowth event was 2.6GB. Good job I've got Instant Initialization on. Since the Disk Usage report showed it was 99% unallocated I went into the Shrink Files dialogue which helpfully informed me the data file was 250MB.  I'm afraid I've got a life (allegedly) so I restarted the SQL Server service and then immediately ran a script to make the initial size bigger and change the file growth to a number of MB. The script complained that the size was smaller than the current size. Within seconds! WTF? Now I had to find out what was using so much of it. By using the DMV sys.dm_db_file_space_usage I found the problem was in the version store, and using the DMV sys.dm_db_task_space_usage and the Top Transactions by Age report I found that the culprit was a 3rd party database where I had turned on read_committed_snapshot and then not bothered to monitor things properly. Just because something has always worked before doesn't mean it will work in every future case. This application had an implicit transaction that had been running for over 2 hours.

    Read the article

  • Cannot resize OS X partition

    - by joshhunt
    I am trying to resize my existing Mac OS Extended partition on my Macbook to install Windows 7 (using steps similar to these), but when ever I go to apply the changes, I get this error: Partition failed Partition failed with the error: The partition cannot be resized. Try reducing the amount of change in the size of the partition. The total capacity of the hard drive in question is 260GB, with the entirety being taken up by the OS X boot partition. There is I am aiming to shrink that partition down to 60GB. How can I fix this problem? I have been reducing the amount of change by 10GB each attempt, but it still is not working. I assume the problem is that there is not a large amount of continuous space on the device. Is there some way to can do a manual defrag that would rectify this problem?

    Read the article

  • How can I find the right UV coordinates for interpolating a bezier curve?

    - by ssb
    I'll let this picture do the talking. I'm trying to create a mesh from a bezier curve and then add a texture to it. The problem here is that the interpolation points along the curve do not increase linearly, so points farther from the control point (near the endpoints) stretch and those in the bend contract, causing the texture to be uneven across the curve, which can be problematic when using a pattern like stripes on a road. How can I determine how far along the curve the vertices actually are so I can give a proper UV coordinate? EDIT: Allow me to clarify that I'm not talking about the trapezoidal distortion of the roads. That I know is normal and I'm not concerned about. I've updated the image to show more clearly where my concerns are. Interpolating over the curve I get 10 segments, but each of these 10 segments is not spaced at an equal point along the curve, so I have to account for this in assigning UV data to vertices or else the road texture will stretch/shrink depending on how far apart vertices are at that particular part of the curve.

    Read the article

  • Reversing an lvreduce of LVM to original size

    - by praspa
    On a RHEL system that uses LVM 2 with 4K blocks. Have been successful in reducing the LV, but trying to get steps to reverse the operation so that the LV returns to its original size. Using these steps to reduce the LV by 1GB, # umount /foo # e2fsk -f /dev/mylvm/foo # resize2fs /dev/mylvm/foo <Current LV Block count - 1GB/4K> # lvreduce --size <Current # GB - 1GB> /dev/mylvm/foo Then to reverse the reduction # lvextend --size <Original #GB> /dev/mylvm/foo # resize2fs /dev/mylvm/foo The reversal gets close to the orignal size. A 'df -h' reports that it seems to be about ~ 0.1GB shy of the original size. Using these utilities, is there a better procedure to shrink and grow the LV so that the original state can be recovered effectively?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.10 + Windows 7 - No option to install alongside windows 7

    - by user1828314
    I have a 64-bit Windows 7 OS installed at the moment. I have used GPartEd to shrink the current Windows 7 partition on my 720GB HDD to 200GB. I have then made a new NTFS partition of 200GB which I will keep for later on as a shared drive between both Windows 7 and Ubuntu. So in GPartEd I now have 3 partitions which were all automatically there from the Windows 7 installation, I only shrank the 3rd one from the 698GB or so that it was to 200GB and created the 200GB for the shared drive. I first tried creating another 200GB partition at this stage to install Ubuntu too but when I burnt the DVD and loaded it, Ubuntu gave me no option to install alongside Windows, only the option to erase the entire disk and install Ubuntu on the blank drive...not what I want to do. So I tried installing it through clicking 'Something else', it downloaded all the install files but didn't install. I then had a lot of problems with getting the DVD drive to work and what not but now have this fixed so I can use Windows again. So now I've used GPartEd to delete the partitions so again I'm now left with the 3 partitions there which Windows 7 automatically installs and a 200GB NTFS partition I will later use as a shared drive. Booting up from the Ubuntu disc and again there is no option to install alongside Windows 7. How do I get it to do so? All I would like is Windows 7 and Ubuntu on a dual boot, with a 200GB NTFS partition to dump my work onto so that I can access it from both OS's. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Kindle 2 and PDFs in landscape

    - by doronkatz
    Hi guys, I am looking at getting a Kindle 2, read a lot about the PDF support (or lack off) and wanted to ask someone who has a kindle, a question. If you read a pdf in landscape mode, does it shrink the text to have it all in the one screen, or does it increase font size and split it into two or more pages. I have another reader, the iRiver Story and it does that, splits it into multiple pages thus making it readable. I know you can't zoom or anything like that in portrait view (i assume) I know you will say stick with iRiver, but the make of the kindle is a lot better (metallic back) and its useful to have a hybrid amazon book/pdf reader in one.

    Read the article

  • How do I transition from WUBI to a native installation?

    - by Sammy Black
    I have Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid installed through wubi on my laptop (it came with Windows 7 preinstalled). This was my first foray into Linux, and I'm here to stay. I have no use for Windows, and yet I must manually choose not to boot into it! Should I shrink the Windows partition to something negligible and grow the Linux one using something like gparted or fdisk, and just be content that everything runs? In that case, I need to understand the filesystems. Which is which? Here's the output of $ df -h: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/loop0 17G 11G 4.5G 71% / none 1.8G 300K 1.8G 1% /dev none 1.8G 376K 1.8G 1% /dev/shm none 1.8G 316K 1.8G 1% /var/run none 1.8G 0 1.8G 0% /var/lock none 1.8G 0 1.8G 0% /lib/init/rw /dev/sda3 290G 50G 240G 18% /host I would prefer to start over with a clean install of 10.10 Maverick, but I fear what I may lose. Certainly, I will backup my home directory tree (gzip?), but what about various pieces of software that I've acquired from the repositories? Can I keep a record of them? By the way, I asked a similar question over on Ubuntu forums.

    Read the article

  • MSSQL:Ultimate configuration for rebuilding indexes+statistics

    - by Niels Bosma
    My database is growing slower even though I have a bunch of indexes setup. Yesterday I figured out that I need to setup a maintenance plan to build the indexes etc. So my question is what's the ultimate configuration for this? Do I need All: "Rebuild idex task", "Reorganize index task" and "update statistics task". Anything else I need to setup. Shrink database? (Today, the only maintenance plans I have is backup) Does it matter in what order I run them? Any configuration options I should be aware of? I've read of problems with log growing wild, how do I fix that? My transaction log is quite small and is usually a problem for me. -

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to modify the default size of a new side note in OneNote 2010?

    - by user1202747
    I am a fan of OneNote, but there is one aspect of it that makes it less useful than it could be. When I make a new side note (i.e. by clicking the OneNote icon in the system tray or pressing WindowsKey + N), the size of the window of the resulting note that opens is far too large. It probably takes up 20% of my reasonably high-res screen by default. I have to click and drag to resize it, and that's a waste of my time. So, I have a two part question: Is there a way of modifying some settings somewhere (perhaps in the registry?) so that the default window size of a new side note is smaller than the default? I would prefer something more in line with the size of a new "sticky" note in OS X. If not, does anyone know of a fast way to shrink the size of a window using the keyboard? I'd appreciate any advice that anyone can give. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to configure/save layout of SQL Server's Log File Viewer?

    - by gernblandston
    When I'm viewing the job history of a particular SQL Agent Job, I typically want to see whether it succeeded, its duration and maybe the duration of the individual steps of the job. When I open the history in the Log File Viewer, I always need to scroll over and shrink the 'Message' column and drag the 'Duration' column over next to the 'Step Name' column. Is there a way to configure the layout of the Log File Viewer (e.g. reposition columns, resize columns) and save it for future sessions? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 Image Restore with a smaller hard drive

    - by Vaccano
    I have a 500 GB drive that I have made a system image of. I would like to move that to a 250 GB drive (because it is a Solid State drive). I have made a Windows 7 Backup Image of my 500 GB drive. I am currently only using 163 GB of that drive. Can I just restore that to the target drive or will the restore be expecting a 500 GB drive? If it is expecting it I can shrink my partition to less that 250 and backup again. But I would rather not if that is not needed. Will the restore realize that it is not using all the space and just take what it needs?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 7 Transaction Logs Issues

    - by nate
    Over the week my database server transaction log was full. With our app people could select from the database but could not update or insert into the database. In the past we have just truncated the transaction logs. After that, everything was back to normal. This week I truncated the transaction logs, and shrink that database. Now we can select, update, and insert into the database. The only issue is when we do a big job, and to a lot on inserting or updating, we get the following error: Database error: S1008:[Microsft][ODBC]Operation canceled We never had this issue before, I am assuming the that is the same as a timeout error. Has anyone else had this issue before, or know how I resolve this?

    Read the article

  • Excel - Linking multiple source spreadsheets with variable amounts of rows to a destination spreadsh

    - by Emilio
    I have multiple source spreadsheets, each with a variable number of rows. An example might be one spreadsheet per bank account, with one row for each transaction, with a date and amount. One spreadsheet might have 30 rows, the other 50, and so on. I want to create another spreadsheet which links to the various source spreadsheets and lists an aggregate of all transactions from all sources. So if 3 source sheets with 30, 50 and 20 rows respectively, the destination sheet would have 100 rows. The number of rows (transactions) in the source sheets can grow or shrink over time. I'd like the destination sheet to show one contiguous list of transactions without gaps (spaces). How can I do this?

    Read the article

  • Reduce visual redundancies in Outlook 2013?

    - by GaTechThomas
    Outlook 2013 has taken a direction of "how much space can I fill with noise and redundancies". Is it possible to reduce this noise in order to maximize use of screen real estate? For example, in the preview pane, can I shrink the header so that it doesn't include so much info. I don't need any info for the sender and I don't need the subject, as they are both included in the email list pane. Additionally, the ability to turn off the detail bar at the bottom of the preview windows would be helpful. Having Reply/ReplyAll/Forward are also redundant and can go. Is it possible to turn this noise off?

    Read the article

  • How to install Ubuntu 13.10 on Hybrid Disk alongside Windows 8.1

    - by user205691
    I am having trouble installing Ubuntu 13.10 on HP Envy 4-1046tx ultrabook. When i bought this, it came with windows 7 pre-installed, but i upgraded it to 8 and now recently to 8.1. But somehow, i feel 8.1 is slower or something went wrong with the upgrade and made my system slow. I want to try Dual booting Ubuntu 13.10 with windows 8.1 The system recovery drive has windows 7 recovery files. SSD has 4GB allocated to windows 8 (i think for hibernation/rapid start). 25GB of SSD is free and i want to install ubuntu on this SSD pointing it to "/" I will also shrink the windows partition (the only other partition available apart from recovery & SSD) to free up 100GB and allocate this space to "/home" during ubuntu installation. I tried the above steps while on windows 8, but not successful. Ubuntu installation went fine, but the grub was not loaded. I tried to deploy linux via EasyBCD, but after that also, selecting linux in the boot would load grub on command prompt and do nothing. While ubuntu installation, i also deleted the raid drivers with sudo dmraid -rE, but still ubuntu didnt recognize my windows. I think i am missing some steps, so this time i want to do it right with proper info before starting the process. My requirements: dual boot Ubuntu with windows 8.1 c:\ shrinked windows with 300GB on sda1, 100GB for /home on sda1 & ubuntu installed on 25GB SSD volume sda2 (this is mSata i think) GRUB or EFI that helps me load both OS properly without breaking anything SWAP partition can be added if needed on sda1 (4gb?)? I have backed up my drive and have a 16GB usb3.0 with ubuntu loaded. I hope i have mentioned everything i need and know.. All i need now is some guidance and what to do right so that this installation goes as planned :)

    Read the article

  • OpenGL ES 2.0 texture distortion on large geometry

    - by Spruce
    OpenGL ES 2.0 has serious precision issues with texture sampling - I've seen topics with a similar problem, but I haven't seen a real solution to this "distorted OpenGL ES 2.0 texture" problem yet. This is not related to the texture's image format or OpenGL color buffers, it seems like it's a precision error. I don't know what specifically causes the precision to fail - it doesn't seem like it's just the size of geometry that causes this distortion, because simply scaling vertex position passed to the the vertex shader does not solve the issue. Here are some examples of the texture distortion: Distorted Texture (on OpenGL ES 2.0): http://i47.tinypic.com/3322h6d.png What the texture normally looks like (also on OpenGL ES 2.0): http://i49.tinypic.com/b4jc6c.png The texture issue is limited to small scale geometry on OpenGL ES 2.0, otherwise the texture sampling appears normal, but the grainy effect gradually worsens the further the vertex data is from the origin of XYZ(0,0,0) These texture issues do not occur on desktop OpenGL (works fine under Windows XP, Windows 7, and Mac OS X) I've only seen the problem occur on Android, iPhone, or WebGL(which is similar to OpenGL ES 2.0) All textures are power of 2 but the problem still occurs Scaling the vertex data - The values of a vertex's X Y Z location are in the range of: -65536 to +65536 floating point I realized this was large, so I tried dividing the vertex positions by 1024 to shrink the geometry and hopefully get more accurate floating point precision, but this didn't fix or lessen the texture distortion issue Scaling the modelview or scaling the projection matrix does not help Changing texture filtering options does not help Disabling mipmapping, or using GL_NEAREST/GL_LINEAR does nothing Enabling/disabling anisotropic does nothing The banding effect still occurs even when using GL_CLAMP Dividing the texture coords passed to the vertex shader and then multiplying them back to the correct values in the fragment shader, also does not work precision highp sampler2D, highp float, highp int - in the fragment or the vertex shader didn't change anything (lowp/mediump did not work either) I'm thinking this problem has to have been solved at one point - Seeing that OpenGL ES 2.0 -based games have been able to render large-scale, highly detailed geometry

    Read the article

  • GRUB Error after Deleting Linux Partition

    - by Nironan12
    I was dual-booting with Windows 7 and Windows Vista each taking up half of my hard drive. In Windows 7 I used Easeus Partition Manager to shrink my Windows 7 volume 8GB. On the unallocated space, I installed Linux Mint 8 RC1. After a little bit of playing around with it, I booted in Windows 7, used EPM again and deleted the 8GB Linux partition. I then extended Windows 7 on the 8GB. After restarting my computer, all I get is a black screen and this: GRUB loading. error: no such partition grub rescue> I do not have a Windows 7 disk nor does my computer come with Startup Repair. What do I do?

    Read the article

  • Extending C drive not possible

    - by gokul
    This is my computer partition list. You can see my C drive is running very low on disk space. I wanted to extend my disk space, so I used mmc Disk managment to shrink a volume, but I can't extend it to the C drive because the extended volume in dropdown list of C is not clickable. I've tried many packages, but none were able to do it. My C drive is simple, basic, NTFS, healthy (boot, crash dump, primary partition). The MMC Windows: What should I do?

    Read the article

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