Search Results

Search found 11155 results on 447 pages for 'disk sleep'.

Page 101/447 | < Previous Page | 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108  | Next Page >

  • Boot from external usb hdd won't work in 12.04

    - by Ben Andersen
    I've been running 10.04 on an external USB HDD without problems for years. I installed 12.04 on an external USB HDD and it worked until I upgraded to all the new packages. But after that it wouldn't boot. I just got into the grub prompt. So then I tried installing on the disk inside the computer and that worked fine. But when I take it out and use it as an external USB HDD I just get: error: hd0 out of disk. grub rescue> How can I fix this? So why do I want this you might wonder? Well I have a laptop at home and a somewhat similar at work. And I just move the disk between them and don't have to move a heavy laptop. So I really hope I can continue doing this with 12.04! The old disk is only 80Gb but the new one is 320Gb (7200rpm Toshiba). I'm using 12.04 on a 64Gb SSD as an external drive and it warns about out of disk but it boots anyway most of the times.

    Read the article

  • Fresh Ubuntu Install - Grub not loading

    - by Ryan Sharp
    System Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit Windows 7 SP1 Samsung 64GB SSD - OS' Samsung 1TB HDD - Games, /Home, Swap WD 300'ishGB HDD - Backup Okay, so I'm very frustrated, so please excuse me if I miss anything out as my head is clouded by anger and impatience, etc. I'll try me best, though. First of all, I'll explain how I got to my predicament. I finally got my new SSD. I firstly installed Windows, which completed without a hitch. Afterwards, I tried to install Ubuntu, which failed several times due to problems irrelevant to this question, but I mention this to explain my frustrations, sorry. Anyway, I finally installed Ubuntu. However, I chose the 'bootloader' to be installed on the same partition as where I was installing the Ubuntu Root partition, as that was what I believed to be the best choice. It was of my thinking that it was supposed to go on the same partition and on the SSD, which is my OS drive, though with my problem, it apparently was wrong. So I tried to fix it by checking guides and following their directions, but seemed to have messed it up even more. Here is what I receive after I use the fdisk -l command: (I also added explanations for which I used each partition for) Disk /dev/sda: 64.0 GB, 64023257088 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 7783 cylinders, total 125045424 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: 0x324971d1 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 206847 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 208896 48957439 24374272 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 48959486 125044735 38042625 5 Extended /dev/sda5 48959488 125044735 38042624 83 Linux sda1 --/ Windows Recovery sda2 --/ Windows 7 sda3/5 --/ Ubuntu root [ / ] Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders, total 1953525168 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: 0xc0ee6a69 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1024208894 1953523711 464657409 5 Extended /dev/sdb3 * 2048 1024206847 512102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sdb5 1024208896 1939851263 457821184 83 Linux /dev/sdb6 1939853312 1953523711 6835200 82 Linux swap / Solaris sdb3 --/ Partition for Steam games, etc. sdb5 --/ Ubuntu Home [ /home ] sdb6 --/ Ubuntu Swap Partition table entries are not in disk order Disk /dev/sdc: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 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: 0x292eee23 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 2048 625141759 312569856 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT sdc1 --/ Generic backup I also used a Boot Script that other users suggested, so that I can give more details on my partitions and also where Grub is located... ============================= Boot Info Summary: =============================== => Grub2 (v1.99) is installed in the MBR of /dev/sda and looks at sector 1 of the same hard drive for core.img. core.img is at this location and looks for (,msdos5)/boot/grub on this drive. => Grub2 (v1.99) is installed in the MBR of /dev/sdb and looks at sector 1 of the same hard drive for core.img. core.img is at this location and looks for (,msdos5)/boot/grub on this drive. => Windows is installed in the MBR of /dev/sdc. Now that is weird... Why would Grub2 be installed on both my SSD and HDD? Even weirder is why is Windows on the MBR of my backup hard drive? Nothing I did should have done that... Anyway, here is the entire Output from that script... PASTEBIN So, to summarize what I need: How can I fix my setup so grub loads on startup? How can I clean my partitions to remove unnecessary grubs? What did I do wrong so that I don't do something so daft again? Thank you so much for reading, and I hope you can help me. I've been trying to have a successful setup since Friday, and I'm almost at the point that I'm really tempted to throw my computer out the window due to my frustration.

    Read the article

  • Cannot open an external hard drive in Windows

    - by SeeBees
    In Windows 7, I was installing wubi ubuntu to an external hard drive when suddenly it disconnected from the PC. After I connected it back to PC, and double clicked the drive's icon, Windows didn't show the content of the disk but asked me whether I wanted to format it. The hard drive has only one partition. Its format is NTFS. I also connected the disk to Windows XP. It makes the Windows Explorer super slow and I cannot open the disk as well. I can open the disk on Ubuntu and Mac. Is it possible to restore the disk and make it run in Windows? Thanks

    Read the article

  • A Basic Thread

    - by Joe Mayo
    Most of the programs written are single-threaded, meaning that they run on the main execution thread. For various reasons such as performance, scalability, and/or responsiveness additional threads can be useful. .NET has extensive threading support, from the basic threads introduced in v1.0 to the Task Parallel Library (TPL) introduced in v4.0. To get started with threads, it's helpful to begin with the basics; starting a Thread. Why Do I Care? The scenario I'll use for needing to use a thread is writing to a file.  Sometimes, writing to a file takes a while and you don't want your user interface to lock up until the file write is done. In other words, you want the application to be responsive to the user. How Would I Go About It? The solution is to launch a new thread that performs the file write, allowing the main thread to return to the user right away.  Whenever the file writing thread completes, it will let the user know.  In the meantime, the user is free to interact with the program for other tasks. The following examples demonstrate how to do this. Show Me the Code? The code we'll use to work with threads is in the System.Threading namespace, so you'll need the following using directive at the top of the file: using System.Threading; When you run code on a thread, the code is specified via a method.  Here's the code that will execute on the thread: private static void WriteFile() { Thread.Sleep(1000); Console.WriteLine("File Written."); } The call to Thread.Sleep(1000) delays thread execution. The parameter is specified in milliseconds, and 1000 means that this will cause the program to sleep for approximately 1 second.  This method happens to be static, but that's just part of this example, which you'll see is launched from the static Main method.  A thread could be instance or static.  Notice that the method does not have parameters and does not have a return type. As you know, the way to refer to a method is via a delegate.  There is a delegate named ThreadStart in System.Threading that refers to a method without parameters or return type, shown below: ThreadStart fileWriterHandlerDelegate = new ThreadStart(WriteFile); I'll show you the whole program below, but the ThreadStart instance above goes in the Main method. The thread uses the ThreadStart instance, fileWriterHandlerDelegate, to specify the method to execute on the thread: Thread fileWriter = new Thread(fileWriterHandlerDelegate); As shown above, the argument type for the Thread constructor is the ThreadStart delegate type. The fileWriterHandlerDelegate argument is an instance of the ThreadStart delegate type. This creates an instance of a thread and what code will execute, but the new thread instance, fileWriter, isn't running yet. You have to explicitly start it, like this: fileWriter.Start(); Now, the code in the WriteFile method is executing on a separate thread. Meanwhile, the main thread that started the fileWriter thread continues on it's own.  You have two threads running at the same time. Okay, I'm Starting to Get Glassy Eyed. How Does it All Fit Together? The example below is the whole program, pulling all the previous bits together. It's followed by its output and an explanation. using System; using System.Threading; namespace BasicThread { class Program { static void Main() { ThreadStart fileWriterHandlerDelegate = new ThreadStart(WriteFile); Thread fileWriter = new Thread(fileWriterHandlerDelegate); Console.WriteLine("Starting FileWriter"); fileWriter.Start(); Console.WriteLine("Called FileWriter"); Console.ReadKey(); } private static void WriteFile() { Thread.Sleep(1000); Console.WriteLine("File Written"); } } } And here's the output: Starting FileWriter Called FileWriter File Written So, Why are the Printouts Backwards? The output above corresponds to Console.Writeline statements in the program, with the second and third seemingly reversed. In a single-threaded program, "File Written" would print before "Called FileWriter". However, this is a multi-threaded (2 or more threads) program.  In multi-threading, you can't make any assumptions about when a given thread will run.  In this case, I added the Sleep statement to the WriteFile method to greatly increase the chances that the message from the main thread will print first. Without the Thread.Sleep, you could run this on a system with multiple cores and/or multiple processors and potentially get different results each time. Interesting Tangent but What Should I Get Out of All This? Going back to the main point, launching the WriteFile method on a separate thread made the program more responsive.  The file writing logic ran for a while, but the main thread returned to the user, as demonstrated by the print out of "Called FileWriter".  When the file write finished, it let the user know via another print statement. This was a very efficient use of CPU resources that made for a more pleasant user experience. Joe

    Read the article

  • GRUB2 not working after installing xubuntu 14.04

    - by h3bm
    I have a vaio laptop and it used to have installed windows 8 and Xubuntu 13.04 in dual boot, everything was working fine. I decided to update my version of xubuntu 14.04 LTS mainly because the support for 13.04 is finished and LTS version have 3 years of support. What I did was to format the partition where xubuntu 13.04 was installed and install 14.04 in that formated partition. When I restarted my computer willing to start using my new system I got the following message: error: symbol 'grub_term_highlight_color' not found and I was not able to enter any OS. I tried boot-repair from live USB more than two times and it did not fix the problem. I tried to enter to my computer using super GRUB2 disk, however it does not apperar to work with UEFI active (besides super grub2 disk says it can) I only get the message "no operating system found". If I boot super grub2 disk with UEFI disabled, super grub2 disk can not detect any OS,I also tried Rescatux distro, however, as of super grub2 disk, rescatux cannot enter when UEFI is active. I tried boot-repair with the option of "restore EFI backups", after that I was able to boot on windows, but no grub menu appeared. I ran boot-repair again with no improving results Here is the last Bootinfo report I got: http://paste.ubuntu.com/7609801/ Do you have any idea of what is happening? I really appreciate your help, Best regards,

    Read the article

  • Need to Extend Volume

    - by Roger Galindo
    Ok Here is where I am... I have an HP Proliant with 8 Drives configured as RAID5, and C:\Drive Disk 0 and D:\ drive Disk 1. I need to add more space to Disk 0 (C:) and have 150GB available on Disk 1 (D:). I tested the Disk Mgmt on D:\ and freed up 4GB which now shows to be Unallocated. How do I add the 4GB of Unallocated to the c:\? When I click on C:\ the Menu shows "Extend Volume" as Grayed Out not Black but the D:\ Drive shows Extend Volume as selectable/black.

    Read the article

  • I cannot remove/install software some dependency issue?

    - by Ryuzaki
    I'm having difficulty trying to install/uninstall applications in Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. I have this warning error that appears on my desktop in the form of a red icon with a line through it and it states: An error occurred, please run Package Manager from the right-click menu or apt-get in a terminal to see what is wrong. The error message was: 'Error: BrokenCount 0' — This usually means that your installed packages have unmet dependencies. I tried to repair automatically through ubuntu software center and I kept getting errors or it just didn't seem to work. Afterwards, I opened terminal and used sudo apt-get check command to see what the problem was and the results yielded: Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done You might want to run 'apt-get -f install' to correct these. The following packages have unmet dependencies: libjack-jackd2-0 : Breaks: libjack-jackd2-0:i386 (!= 1.9.8~dfsg.1-1ubuntu1) but 1.9.8~dfsg.2-1precise1 is installed libjack-jackd2-0:i386 : Breaks: libjack-jackd2-0 (!= 1.9.8~dfsg.2-1precise1) but 1.9.8~dfsg.1-1ubuntu1 is installed E: Unmet dependencies. Try using -f. After I ran sudo apt-get -f install (in an attempt to fix the issue at hand), I encountered the following errors/code: okudaira@haru-kano:~$ sudo apt-get -f install Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Correcting dependencies... Done The following extra packages will be installed: libjack-jackd2-0 Suggested packages: jackd2 The following packages will be upgraded: libjack-jackd2-0 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 24 not upgraded. 1 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0 B/197 kB of archives. After this operation, 3,072 B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y (Reading database ... 181702 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace libjack-jackd2-0 1.9.8~dfsg.1-1ubuntu1 (using .../libjack-jackd2-0_1.9.8~dfsg.2-1precise1_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking replacement libjack-jackd2-0 ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libjack-jackd2-0_1.9.8~dfsg.2-1precise1_amd64.deb (--unpack): './usr/share/doc/libjack-jackd2-0/buildinfo.gz' is different from the same file on the system dpkg-deb: error: subprocess paste was killed by signal (Broken pipe) Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/libjack-jackd2-0_1.9.8~dfsg.2-1precise1_amd64.deb localepurge: Disk space freed in /usr/share/locale: 0 KiB localepurge: Disk space freed in /usr/share/man: 0 KiB localepurge: Disk space freed in /usr/share/gnome/help: 0 KiB localepurge: Disk space freed in /usr/share/omf: 0 KiB Total disk space freed by localepurge: 0 KiB E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) The real problem I'm having is interpreting what is being stated. I'm fairly new to the ubuntu experience so I'm not very well-versed with the terminology and the entire in's and out's. Can someone tell me what's wrong with my system? I can no longer install/remove any programs at all.

    Read the article

  • 12.04 indicates filesystem check on next boot, but never does one

    - by pcm
    Just installed 12.04 32 bit on my machine, with 3 drives. When I open a terminal window or ssh in remotely, I see: Welcome to Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS (GNU/Linux 3.2.0-29-generic-pae i686)  * Documentation:  https://help.ubuntu.com/ *** /dev/sda1 will be checked for errors at next reboot *** *** /dev/sda2 will be checked for errors at next reboot *** *** /dev/sdg1 will be checked for errors at next reboot *** Last login: Fri Aug 31 08:15:41 2012 from .... However, if I reboot, I never see it doing a disk check on boot up, like I used to see with 10.10. Note, after install, I was not seeing the grub menu on boot. I made a ISO disk with BootRepair and now I get the normal grub menu. Any idea as to why the disk check is not happening on boot (I know I can boot a Live CD and then check the disk - I just want the check on boot working)?

    Read the article

  • power manger keeps on shuting down the display even when i state in the power manger to never do that.

    - by david25
    i'm probably missing something here, i'm using the default ubuntu power manger, i setup it like that: on AC: no screen dimming when ideal. never put computer to sleep. never put display to sleep. on battery i kept the default setting. and still ubuntu does what ever it likes :\ , after 15 min it puts the display to sleep. any one having the same problem and found a way to bypass it? im using eee pc with ubuntu 10.10 desktop.

    Read the article

  • Are Windows partitions gone?

    - by Gigili
    I had Windows 7 on my laptop (factory setting), because of some performance issues, I decided to use recovery options to restore it to its factory condition but I don't know what has happened or what I have done that the whole operating system was gone after playing around with recovery options from the boot menu. I couldn't find Windows, so I installed Ubuntu 11.04 on my laptop. Last time I had Ubuntu on it, it was not really compatible with laptop's configuration and I had a bit of problems trying to do normal tasks I used to do on Windows. Now I want to make sure that Windows and its drivers are gone so that I can try to install a newer version of Ubuntu or Windows. I tried the command sudo fdisk -l And the result shown was: myaccount@myaccount-VPCS116FG:~$ sudo fdisk -l [sudo] password for myaccount: Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 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: 0x00025b5f Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 38409 308515840 83 Linux /dev/sda2 38409 38914 4052993 5 Extended /dev/sda5 38409 38914 4052992 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/dm-0: 4150 MB, 4150263808 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 504 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: 0xa668cfe8 Disk /dev/dm-0 doesn't contain a valid partition table Is it gone? If not, what command should I try to have access to Windows partitions? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to have a very full hard drive on a high traffic database server?

    - by MikeN
    Running an Ubuntu server with MySQL for a high traffic production database server. Nothing else is running on the machine except the MySQL instance. We store daily database backups on the DB server, is there any performance hit or reason why we should keep the hard disk relatively empty? If the disk is filled up to 86%+ with the database and all of the backups, does it hurt performance at all? So would the DB server running with 86-90%+ full capacity perform less well in any way than the server running with only a 10% full disk? The total disk size on the server is over 1 TB so even 10% of the disk should be enough for basic O/S swapping and such.

    Read the article

  • Create windows XP's live USB using ubuntu

    - by Avnish
    My hard disk crashed.. I can run Ubuntu using a pendrive by making a live USB of Ubuntu, which I made using Windows 7. In the similar way, I want to run Windows XP too using another pen drive (without hard disk) and I want to make it from Ubuntu (12.04). The resources I have are Ubuntu's live USB, Windows XP and Windows 7 installation disk, some blank DVDs but no hard drive. I have very basic knowledge of Linux. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Deployment from OVA format

    - by Manvendra Bele
    I am deploying a VM using a OVA format. The size of OVA format is 57 GB. Currently free space on my datastore is 388 GB. At the time of selecting Disk Format type if shows me in red that the disk size required is 1 TB therefore you cannot select THICK provisioning. Therefore, i selected THIN provisiong. It THIN provisioing i am showed that Estimated Disk Usage is 112 GB which is less than the free space available. But even after selecting THIN proviosing at the time of deployment it throws an error that it cannot create disk as the size of disk is larger than the maximum specified limit. My block size is of 1 MB. Pasting my exact error here: Failed to deploy OVF package:File [datastore1] IMS Tester 1/IMS Tester1_2.vmdk is larger than maximum size supported by datastore 'datastore1

    Read the article

  • How can I successfully install Ubuntu 12.10 next to windows 7

    - by Ian
    I have an installation of Windows 7 and I would like to install Ubuntu 12.10 side by side. During the installation of Ubuntu GRUB comes up with an error and gives me the option to select which disk it should be installed to. I have always found this difficult as I am never sure which disk to select. In my case I see one with "Windows bootloader". I was guessing that was the boot disk for my system but having selected it and completing the Ubuntu installation, GRUB did not appear and Windows loaded. I had no way to get to my Ubuntu installation. I then tried another disk for GRUB after receiving the same message on a re-install of Ubuntu but it didn't work either. In stead of fumbling about I thought I would ask here. Thanks for any advice!

    Read the article

  • mount remotely mybook live network drive

    - by bob
    I have a mybook live western digital 1TB hard disk connected to fritzbox 7270 router in office. When I am in the office, I can mount this drive to ubuntu since I have added to the etc/fstab file: //192.168.178.30/user /home/user/DISK cifs auto,iocharset=utf8,user=user%password 0 0 Is there a similar, easy & safe way, to do the same when I am out of the office using the static IP of the fritzbox router? I have already added tcp port forwarding in the router for ports 8080 (to 80 of the disk) and 8443 (to 443 of the disk). Thank you in advance

    Read the article

  • Windows 8 not booting from DVD while trying to install in a Ubuntu 14.04 system

    - by Tom
    Currently my system runs on Ubuntu 14.04. Yesterday, I deleted and formatted the partition(C drive) as NTFS in which Windows 7 was installed because Windows 7 was not booting for more than a week. I have a Windows 8 disk and it was able to boot from that disk when there was Windows 7 on my system. After the formatting of C drive yesterday, I tried to install Windows 8 by booting from the disk. Unfortunately, this time no booting happened from the disk. So I pressed F2 during the system start up and checked Boot Device Priority, Optical Drive has the first priority there. So why Windows 8 didn't boot from the disk ? I need to install Windows 8 too in my system without doing any damage to Ubuntu 14.04. How can I do it ?

    Read the article

  • How to create a filesystem mountable by windows in linux?

    - by wcoenen
    I have attached an external USB disk to my debian gnu/linux system. The disk showed up as device /dev/sdc, and I prepared it like this: created a single partition with fdisk /dev/sdc (and some more commands in the interactive session that follows) formatted the partition with mkfs.msdos /dev/sdc1 If I then attach the USB disk to a Windows XP or Vista system, then no new drive becomes available. The disk and its partition show up fine in the disk managment tool under "computer management", but apparently the file system in the partition is not recognized. How do I create a FAT32 file system which can actually be used in windows? edit: I've given up on this and went with a NTFS file system created by windows. In debian lenny this can be mounted read-write but apparently it requires you to install the "ntfs-3g" package and explicitly pass the -t ntfs-3g option to the mount command.

    Read the article

  • Grub2 attempting to boot hd1 when it should boot hd0

    - by JoBu1324
    I'm attempting to perform a "normal" install on a USB3 SSD (I don't know if it is noteworthy, but I don't have a swap partition). The installation proceeds normally (I'm installing from a USB2 device I created using LiLi Boot, with a copy of Ubuntu 12.10 64bit that I downloaded directly from the source. The system I'm running Ubuntu on has had a more traditional installation of ubuntu running on it without issue (also 12.10), so I know that everything works A-OK when booting from a 7200RPM internal disk. There are a number of oddities that I've noticed so far, including graphics corruption, but the first and most pressing issue is that Grub2 refuses to recognize the correct hd. From /boot/grub/grub.cfg: if [ x$feature_default_font_path = xy ] ; then font=unicode else insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='hd1,msdos1' if [ x$feature_platform_search_hint = xy ]; then search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root --hint-bios=hd1,msdos1 --hint-efi=hd1,msdos1 --hint-baremetal=ahci1,msdos1 b58ee4f7-d41d-400a-b7b8-18bd1f0ae9d3 else search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root b58ee4f7-d41d-400a-b7b8-18bd1f0ae9d3 fi font="/usr/share/grub/unicode.pf2" fi This is from a 100% fresh install of linux (first boot), which was installed while no hard drives were connected to the system, other than the USB2 LiLi drive. The system refuses to boot unless I change the hd1,msdos1 - hd0,msdos1 in the grub menu at boot, when it is the only disk device connected to the PC. What options are left for me to troubleshoot this issue? I've been racking my brains and taxing the internet trying to dig up something on this problem, but now I'd like to see if the Ubuntu community can rise to the challenge and help me fix this boot problem. This is the second time I've attempted this particular setup. The first time, after days of wasted time, I managed to get it to boot every other boot - i.e. every even boot it would boot into Ubuntu like it was happy; every odd boot it would boot into the BusyBox or Grub prompt. At one point it complained that it couldn't find /dev/disk/by-uuid/[the disk], which I found most perplexing, since the disk was there and booted before and after the occurrence (with intervention).

    Read the article

  • Deduping your redundancies

    - by nospam(at)example.com (Joerg Moellenkamp)
    Robin Harris of Storagemojo pointed to an interesting article about about deduplication and it's impact to the resiliency of your data against data corruption on ACM Queue. The problem in short: A considerable number of filesystems store important metadata at multiple locations. For example the ZFS rootblock is copied to three locations. Other filesystems have similar provisions to protect their metadata. However you can easily proof, that the rootblock pointer in the uberblock of ZFS for example is pointing to blocks with absolutely equal content in all three locatition (with zdb -uu and zdb -r). It has to be that way, because they are protected by the same checksum. A number of devices offer block level dedup, either as an option or as part of their inner workings. However when you store three identical blocks on them and the devices does block level dedup internally, the device may just deduplicated your redundant metadata to a block stored just once that is stored on the non-voilatile storage. When this block is corrupted, you have essentially three corrupted copies. Three hit with one bullet. This is indeed an interesting problem: A device doing deduplication doesn't know if a block is important or just a datablock. This is the reason why I like deduplication like it's done in ZFS. It's an integrated part and so important parts don't get deduplicated away. A disk accessed by a block level interface doesn't know anything about the importance of a block. A metadata block is nothing different to it's inner mechanism than a normal data block because there is no way to tell that this is important and that those redundancies aren't allowed to fall prey to some clever deduplication mechanism. Robin talks about this in regard of the Sandforce disk controllers who use a kind of dedup to reduce some of the nasty effects of writing data to flash, but the problem is much broader. However this is relevant whenever you are using a device with block level deduplication. It's just the point that you have to activate it for most implementation by command, whereas certain devices do this by default or by design and you don't know about it. However I'm not perfectly sure about that ? given that storage administration and server administration are often different groups with different business objectives I would ask your storage guys if they have activated dedup without telling somebody elase on their boxes in order to speak less often with the storage sales rep. The problem is even more interesting with ZFS. You may use ditto blocks to protect important data to store multiple copies of data in the pool to increase redundancy, even when your pool just consists out of one disk or just a striped set of disk. However when your device is doing dedup internally it may remove your redundancy before it hits the nonvolatile storage. You've won nothing. Just spend your disk quota on the the LUNs in the SAN and you make your disk admin happy because of the good dedup ratio However you can just fall in this specific "deduped ditto block"trap when your pool just consists out of a single device, because ZFS writes ditto blocks on different disks, when there is more than just one disk. Yet another reason why you should spend some extra-thought when putting your zpool on a single LUN, especially when the LUN is sliced and dices out of a large heap of storage devices by a storage controller. However I have one problem with the articles and their specific mention of ZFS: You can just hit by this problem when you are using the deduplicating device for the pool. However in the specifically mentioned case of SSD this isn't the usecase. Most implementations of SSD in conjunction with ZFS are hybrid storage pools and so rotating rust disk is used as pool and SSD are used as L2ARC/sZIL. And there it simply doesn't matter: When you really have to resort to the sZIL (your system went down, it doesn't matter of one block or several blocks are corrupt, you have to fail back to the last known good transaction group the device. On the other side, when a block in L2ARC is corrupt, you simply read it from the pool and in HSP implementations this is the already mentioned rust. In conjunction with ZFS this is more interesting when using a storage array, that is capable to do dedup and where you use LUNs for your pool. However as mentioned before, on those devices it's a user made decision to do so, and so it's less probable that you deduplicating your redundancies. Other filesystems lacking acapability similar to hybrid storage pools are more "haunted" by this problem of SSD using dedup-like mechanisms internally, because those filesystem really store the data on the the SSD instead of using it just as accelerating devices. However at the end Robin is correct: It's jet another point why protecting your data by creating redundancies by dispersing it several disks (by mirror or parity RAIDs) is really important. No dedup mechanism inside a device can dedup away your redundancy when you write it to a totally different and indepenent device.

    Read the article

  • "Misaligned partition" - Should I do repartition (how?)

    - by RndmUbuntuAmateur
    Tried to install Ubuntu 12.04 from USB-stick alongside the existing Win7 OS 64bit, and now I'm not sure if install was completely successful: Disk Utility tool claims that the Extended partition (which contains Ubuntu partition and Swap) is "misaligned" and recommends repartition. What should I do, and if should I do this repartition, how to do it (especially if I would like not to lose the data on Win7 partition)? Background info: A considerably new Thinkpad laptop (UEFI BIOS, if that matters). Before install there were already a "SYSTEM_DRV" partition, the main Windows partition and a Lenovo recovery partition (all NTFS). Now the table looks like this: SYSTEM_DRV (sda1), Windows (sda2), Extended (sda4) (which contains Linux (sda5; ext4) and Swap (sda6)) and Recovery (sda3). Disk Utility Tool gives a message as follows when I select Ext: "The partition is misaligned by 1024 bytes. This may result in very poor performance. Repartitioning is suggested." There were couple of problems during the install, which I describe below, in the case they happen to be relevant. Installer claimed that it recognized existing OS'es fine, so I checked the corresponding option during the install. Next, when it asked me how to allocate the disk space, the first weird thing happened: the installer give me a graphical "slide" allocate disk space for pre-existing Win7 OS and new Ubuntu... but it did not inform me which partition would be for Ubuntu and which for Windows. ..well, I decided to go with the setting installer proposed. (not sure if this is relevant, but I guess I'd better mention it anyway - the previous partition tools have been more self-explanatory...) After the install (which reported no errors), GRUB/Ubuntu refused to boot. Luckily this problem was quite straightforwardly resolved with live-Ubuntu-USB and Boot-Repair ("Recommended repair" worked just fine). After all this hassle I decided to check the partition table "just to be sure"- and the disk utility gives the warning message I described.

    Read the article

  • Xubuntu fails to stay awake when the machine is under load

    - by Alex
    I have the following problem with a fresh install of Xubuntu 12.04: I set up power management options so as to send the machine to sleep after it's been idle for a while. My intention was to have it finish some lengthy numbercrunching and then fall asleep late at night when nobody's present to shut it down. What actually happened, however, is that the machine goes to sleep whenever the desktop session has been idle for the specified amount of time, and it does not seem to care at all about CPU load, and I had to disable sleep altogether. Is there any way to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Can't boot to Ubuntu 11.10 after installation with Windows 7

    - by Tylor
    I just installed Ubuntu 11.10 on a machine with Windows 7 already installed. I want to setup the dualboot environment. I have a block of unallocated disk space at the end of the disk (some blog post suggested to do so). Then I started installing Ubuntu 11.10 on that part of disk. I installed the boot loader to /boot partition and the installation finished successfully. However, after installation, Ubuntu 11.10 doesn't show up on boot menu. Then I searched on Internet and I used EasyBCD to add a grub2 boot to boot menu. After this, the boot entry does show up in the boot menu, however it only boot into some sort of grub console. I tried many times, and it doesn't work. It looks like the boot loader is not properly installed? I only have one 1.5TB disk and the first 800GB is NTFS partition with Windows 7. Does this work?

    Read the article

  • How can I fix the screen blurred while installing Ubuntu 12.10 Bate1

    - by Marslo
    I installed Ubuntu 12.10 Bate1 yesterday, but the screen blurred always shows after selecting Install Ubuntu on a Hard Disk option and before waiting for the installation interface. Click here to check the screenshot. The method of installation is by U-disk, the name of Ubuntu 12.10 is quantal-desktop-i386.iso (the download link is from Universal-USB-Installer), and Universal-USB-Installer was used to write the Ubuntu 12.10 into U-disk. PS. Ubuntu 12.04 could be installed successful on my computer!

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to create all primary partitions.?

    - by james
    I have a 320GB hard disk. I only use either ubuntu or kubuntu (12.04 for now). I don't want to use windows or any other dual boot os. And i need only 3 partitions on my hard disk. One for the OS and remaining two for data storage. I don't want to create swap also. Now can i create all primary partitions on the hard disk. Are there any disadvantages in doing so. If all the partitions are primary i think i can easily resize partitions in future. On second thought i have the idea of using seperate partition for /home. Is it good practice . If i have to do this, i will create 4 partitions all primary. In any case i don't want to create more than 4 partitions . And i know the limit will be 4. So is it safe to create all 3 or 4 primary partitions. Pls suggest me, What are the good practices . (previously i used win-xp and win-7 on dual boot with 2 primary partitions and that bugged me somehow i don't remember. Since then i felt there should be only one primary partition in a hard disk.) EDIT 1 : Now i will use four partitions in the sequence - / , /home , /for-data , /swap . I have another question. Does a partition need continuous blocks on the disk. I mean if i want to resize partitions later, can i add space from sda3 to sda1. Is it possible and is it safe to do ?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04 USB (HP)

    - by xShadoWolf
    I have put ubuntu 12.04 on a USB (Kingston 8GB) and I go to install and I can't it gives options for erase and something else I have 4 primary partitions win7 for my main partition and 3 created by HP HP_TOOLS, HP_RECOVERY and SYSTEM To get to my point how do I install ubuntu on HDD I have a HP probook 200 notebook PC. Can I remove any partitions? When I do sudo fdisk -l This Comes Up Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 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: 0x3ed7e7b0 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 409599 203776 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 409600 946591743 473091072 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 946591744 976560127 14984192 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda4 976560128 976771119 105496 c W95 FAT32 (LBA) Disk /dev/sdb: 7803 MB, 7803174912 bytes 122 heads, 58 sectors/track, 2153 cylinders, total 15240576 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: 0xc3072e18 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 8064 15240575 7616256 c W95 FAT32 (LBA)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108  | Next Page >