I'm doing a fresh install on my netbook and have purchased an 8GB SD card to expand storage space. I'm curious as to which directories can be mounted on the SD card without affecting performance as the write times and such are much lower on the card. I know that /home and /tmp can be mounted there.
View 5 RepliesUbuntu 10.10 is dual booted but it is my primary OS.
Unfortunately it's on the outer edges of the disk in an extended partition.
This has always bugged me, with regards to read/write performance.
Do my concerns of reduced performance have any foundation? Should i bite the bullet and format the drive installing ubuntu first?
I ran the disk read benchmark and my read speeds were 100MB/Sec at the beginning of the test to just 55MB/Sec at the end. I have no idea if the position of the test has any bearing on the position of the disk or whether the speed recorded is affected by other factors such as the tests function or simulation.
I used Ubuntu before, without problems but since the 10.04 version it won't recognize my partitions. I formated my laptop and partitioned it, installed Windows 7 64bit, which I need for my work, and wanted now to install Ubuntu 10.04/10. I then used GParted to check my Harddisk and it is having troubles to recognize my partitions, too while Windows finds them. GParted is giving me an error message saying my partitions are oversized. I am still in the beginning of my Linux experiences and so I don't know what to do. I have two 250GB harddisks (how Windows recognizes them),
[Code]....
Xubuntu 9.04 installation CD not detecting any of the current partitions. This all started when I reinstalled windows XP a few days ago.After, the computer wouldn't boot into GRUB and would boot directly into windows.Other threads have dealt with a similar issue, that of overlapping partitions causing libparted/parted/gparted to detect the whole drive as unallocated space. The problem in these threads seemed to be a corrupted partition table, in which the partitions overlapped with each other. So of course I checked the output of fdisk -l for overlapping partitions, but I don't see any obvious overlapping partitions. I've noticed that the partition that used to be linux swap isn't showing up in the partition table at all. I might just be missing something simple here and would like another set of eyes to help me figure this one out. Does the problem have anything to do with the partition table being out of order (ie. not in order of what regions they cover on the drive)? From the liveCD I've run
Code:
sudo fdisk -lu
sudo sfdisk -d
sudo parted /dev/sda print
and have received the following output:
Code:
ubuntu@ubuntu:/mnt$ sudo fdisk -lu
omitting empty partition (5)
Disk /dev/sda: 60.0 GB, 60011642880 bytes
[code]....
I am installing Ubuntu on the same hard drive as Windows 7. The partitions of Windows 7 have already occupied the left part of the hard drive. From left to right, the Windows partitions are one partition for Windows booting, one for Windows OS and software installation, and one for data which is planned to mount on Ubuntu. I was wondering how to arrange the order of partitions of root, home and swap, i.e. which is on the left just besides one Windows partition, which is in the middle and which is on the far right?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI just wanted to know if having my laptop set to ondemand, will this affect performance in any way? I realize it increases the clock speed to performance when the CPU is under load, but does the time it take to go from ondemand to performance affect speed? Will there be any noticeable difference between the two setups? I have a dual core intel at 2.2GHz when in performance. When ondemand is set with no load it downclocks to 800Mhz.
View 7 Replies View RelatedI am having a lot of performance problems since my upgrade my ATI board does not get properly supported (tried a lot but nothing really helps)my keyboard typing is horrable : i have to see at each click of it got accepted ; cannot type text properly screen performance is bad - often the screen greys out and back to color (probably because of driver)
[Code]...
I'm trying to do a partition alignment on my main SSD to improve SSD performance and then install Ubuntu on the SSD. I can do the alignment with no problem but when I install ubuntu the alignment is erased. Is there a way to install ubuntu without getting rid of the alignment?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI've just upgraded from a wonderfully working v.9.10 to v.10.04 so I can install Flash and allow video to work. Apparently I can't install Flash into this older version. The performance is now unusably slow and windows move around desktop in a very limited way and cascading menus lag. I did all updates before upgrading as suggested. (The machine is a Toshiba Tecra A4)
View 6 Replies View RelatedLately I have noted a decrease on the performance of my Ubuntu Karmic Koala 64 bits installation. It takes longer times to open applications and documents and sometimes the windows fade to grey and I have to wait. Can anyone give me some hint on where to start looking for a solution?
View 8 Replies View RelatedI upgraded my old Kubuntu installation to 10.10 Maverick Meercat and I am now experiencing a really annoying problem. I boot my computer and everything seems fine for a while, but eventually my disk performance drops to horrible levels. It's not gradual. It's fine one second and then abysmal the next.
If I do "cp file1 file2" and then kill the cp process after 10s, there are only a couple of MB copied.When I run dmesg after the performance degradation, I see this:
Code:
[12879.434115] irq 22: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
[12879.434121] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Tainted: P 2.6.35-22-generic #34-Ubuntu
[12879.434124] Call Trace:
[12879.434126] <IRQ> [<ffffffff810cba5b>] __report_bad_irq+0x2b/0xa0
[12879.434137] [<ffffffff810cbc5c>] note_interrupt+0x18c/0x1d0
[Code]...
I am running the newest linux (ubunbtu 11.04) on an old laptop (2.3 Ghz celeron, 760 mb ram, bios is the latest version). I don't expect it to perform well, it's not a fast processor.But.....it performs so poorly with linux...and I am beginning to wonder whether the machine is broken or malfunctioning. The processor utilization seems high at all times, but I am not sure what is normal/typical.Which of the many benchmark software packages should I use in order to quantify it's performance (or lack there of)? Are there web resources that will list benchmark values of various machines, so I can determine if my punch box is broken or whether it's just slightly slower than other similar machines?
View 3 Replies View RelatedJust installed Sqeeze and works almost flawlessly on my Clevo w870cu. My machine has a realtek wifi card so I installed the vendor specific driver (see below). Wired performance is super, wireless performance however is very bad on Linux. On "Windows 7" (dual-boot, which I never use, only in these cases to sort out problems...) wifi performance is slightly better. My smartphone's visual wifi-analyzer (I couldn't find a Linux equivalent...) showed good signal strength (aournd -50db a 4 m distance from router) an little-to-no interference from neighboring channels.
Here some hardware information:
1) Modem: Motorola SBV 5120 E
2) Router: Sitecom WL-350 (300N)
3) Wifi card: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8191SEvB Wireless LAN Controller
Compared to my laptop notebook with a HD of 5400rpm, the write performance of raid1 on an ubuntu lucid server is unacceptable. In the begining, I installed ubuntu 9.04 server(alternate) using raid1 with two WD 1TB HDs of 7200rpm(Green Power) and then performed dist upgrade to 9.10 and then to 10.04.
I guess the write performance initially was reasonable since the installation and data migration(copy from another computer over LAN) didn't take too much time. However, after upgrading the server to 9.10 or so, I found large file upload through samba or ftp tends to block and time out. It is of no use whether to change the daemon or the client program so that I tried to test the read/write performance on the server to figure out the situation.
To my surprise, using strace I found even a simple program like cp would easily get blocked eventually in a write() system call for decades of seconds. Hence, I perform another disk writing test using dd for data size ranging from 50MB to 1GB. Performance test commands are listed as follows:
Quote: dd if=/dev/zero of=test.img count=[5|10|15|20|100] bs=10M
if the data to write is equal or fewer than 150MB, the command returns immediately at very hight speed but the raid disks starts to sync and busy so that the terminal prompt seems to freeze. I think this behavior is normal under the raid1 configuration, isn't it?
But when the data size is equal to 200MB, the test command blocks for seconds and the write speed is measured at about 16.6MB/s. Of course, the raid disk still starts to sync and busy afterwards. Next, I test writing with data of size 1GB. The command blocks so long for about 770 seconds(<2MB/s) while the same test runs for only 17.49 seconds(60MB/s) on my laptop.
I also burn a Lucid LiveCD to boot the server and mount the raid device to run the test again but the results remain similar. Does that means even I re-install the system on the raid, the problem never disappears?
PS: the disks run under the mode of UDMA6 without change.
I have a dual boot on a netbook with windows and fedora13. When I am on my fedora boot and I try to watch streaming video it comes through in waves or not at all. I do not have the same problems on the alternate boot. There are other performance comparisons where the windows boot runs smoother and faster. Is there any work I can do in order to optimise my fedora boot in this capacity?
View 7 Replies View RelatedPlease bear with me as I'm incredibly new to Linux and shell scripting and all that good stuff. This will be a fairly lengthy post, as I don't really know which information is pertinent to the problem at hand and which is irrelevant. I installed Ubuntu on my Macbook following the instructions on this page: [URL].. At step 7, /dev/sda3 was not in the dropdown menu of options, so I picked...I can't remember. Either /dev/sda or /dev/sda2. I think this may be the beginning of the root of my problems. Step 8 is where it all falls apart. I get the following error message: "Status: MBR partition table is invalid, partitions overlap. Status: GPT partition of type 'Unknown' found, will not touch this disk."
Sooo since I can't sync the partitions, I can't get Linux to load unless I'm loading it from the LiveCD. I've tried steps 1-10 on this page:[URL].. However, under step 4, I could either "Save" the file randomly, without actually saving it to /mnt/root, or I could just open it and run the installer. I think I went into FF preferences and changed it to let me pick where each download would be saved, but when I actually clicked on the download link and then "Save", after finding the folder and clicking the final button (Which I think actually said "Open" instead of "Save"), nothing happened. I tried running the rest of the steps after just opening the installer on its own, but of course just got error messages. I hate not being able to troubleshoot this on my own!
The instaler doesnt find my partitions and the XP that is installed too! For some reasons i cannot delete the whole hdd... if i format the partition, where (i want to install ubuntu) with fat, the pc crashes during the installing process after the tastaturlayout question! if i try some other formats, the installer tells me, that there are no Operating Systems installed and the hdd is unpartitioned!
if i start ubuntu live from the cd, the system finds all partitions, but if i run cfdisk in a terminal, i get a fatal error (cannot open disk space)... My machine is a acer aspire 1694 WLMi (pretty old, but should be no problem), bios is up to date, Windows is XP home edition with SP3.
After a fresh install of 7.7.0 (amd64), I'm unable to boot into Debian. I get the following error constantly when booting in recovery mode:
(snip) [drm] nouveau (snip) PMC - unhandled INTR 0x44000000
A bit of Googling seems to indicate that this is due to my video card (Geforce GTX 750Ti). Unfortunately, my motherboard doesn't have any monitor ports, so I'm forced to use a video card in order to use a monitor. Something I didn't foresee being an issue, but what can you do. How should I resolve this? Is there an ISO that has the (presumably non-free) drivers included? A way I can add the drivers during boot (I am able to boot into my Windows partition by changing the boot order, don't know if I can do anything useful from here)? Or do I have to do something crazy like buy/borrow an older video card just so I can properly boot into Debian, and then install the drivers?
I've got a secondary problem: GRUB has my Debian install as the only option, even though I had Windows 8.1 installed first. I don't know if this is related to the problem above, or it's a known problem with newer versions of Debian and/or Windows (and I have to update the menu.lst or whatever myself), or if it's due to the way I set up partitions. My current setup is:
SSD:
- Windows boot partition
- Windows main partition
- Debian / partition
- Debian swap partition
HDD:
- Debian EFI partition
- Debian /home partition
- Unallocated space (will eventually be a NTFS partition for shared storage)
This is the first time I'm using a motherboard with EFI/UEFI. It's also the first time I have an OS taking up partitions on multiple physical devices. I don't know if either is the cause of GRUB not detecting Windows.
I have vista and opensuse 11.2 on my computer, the problem is i can't open ext3 partitions from vista but i can the other way. I tried Ext2fsd but the linux partition is always in a read only mood even when i change this option. Also, all folders are empty I downloaded the program as admin and compatable with XP SP2.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI've installed Arch Linux onto my Western Digital SATA drive.I love it, best ever, however, I need the fglrx proprietry driver for better 3-d performace, and decided to create a new partition. I decided to install Linux Mint.Sadly, in all my noobishness, I forgot about the 4 primary partition limit (oops!) and as I have /, /home, swap, and /boot partitions (all primary) already installed, I have run into a bit of a problem.I resized my /home partition (almost 500GB) to about 225, and was then told I have over 200GB unusable space. Is it possible for me to change at least 1 of my primary partitions to logical partitions AND keep all the data intact (AND edit the arch configuration so that it'll still work) so I can install a second linux? I sincerely doubt it
View 10 Replies View RelatedI made 2 partitions in windows xp (40gigs for xp, the other 200gigs or so for linx)I've tried installing linux numerous times, but can never get it to find the partition to install to. Is there a special way you have to set up a partition so you can install linux on it?
View 9 Replies View RelatedI have problem with XEN Citrix server I can not understand ; what is sda2 and sda3 partitions ?
Code:
root@cl-500 ~]# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 2000.4 GB, 2000407625728 bytes
64 heads, 32 sectors/track, 1907737 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 2048 * 512 = 1048576 bytes
[Code]...
I am having a 250 GB hard disk in my Acer Laptop.
C: - a 65 Gb partition with Win7.
D: - a 150 GB partition with general data.
and 2 partitions by default - a 13 GB and a 3.5 GB one( I guess backup and recovery by Acer or sumthn)
I shrank the D: partition to 135 GB and had made the 15 GB unallocated space to install Ubuntu. Everytime I checked I got the free space shows as 'unusable' in the Ubuntu partitioner. I tried shrinking again with EPM, Win Disk Management and also Ubuntu partitioner. Each time the free space which showed up said Unusable. A friend of mine advised me to defragment and use 'GParted' through the live cd. I did so and when click on the unallocated space to format it said "IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CREATE MORE THAN 4 PRIMARY PARTITIONS. If you want more partitions you should first create an extended partition. Such a partition can contain other partitions. Because an extended partition is also a primary partition it might be necessary to remove a primary partition first."
I didnt know all of my partitions were primary! And I dont even want D: to be primary. It just is there to hold some data.
I want to install ubuntu 9.10 on my HP nx9420. I left 48GB of unallocated space in between of windows and hp recovery partition. I attached screenshot of GParted. I need to make /dev/sda7 the home partition.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI am trying to install Ubuntu 10.04 on my Desktop and I am unable to see any partitions when trying to install I also checked to see if the partition manager would be able to see them and no luck there either.I already have windows xp and OpenSuse installed on the hard drive.
View 8 Replies View RelatedI have a machine (Asus P4PE + 120GB SATA HDD) which has been running Karmic very successfully for a long time. I recently made the decision to upgrade to Lucid via the Update Manager. The upgrade seemed to go OK - no obvious errors - but the resulting version of Lucid had some weird problems: desktop messed-up, printers wouldnt work any more, etc. So I concluded I had been unlucky - the upgrade had gone wrong and I tried to install Lucid afresh from a CD.
Every time I try this, the install gets to the page to specify partitions but this page is blank. No partitions are visible. The buttons to create a partition, etc. are all greyed-out. I have tried various boot options like removing quiet splash, setting noapic/nolapic, etc. but nothing seems to work. I can happily run Lucid from the CD, no problem. I have also checked I have not got RAID accidentally installed, as mentioned elsewhere on this forum.
I am able to reinstall Karmic so I know theres a filesystem there but the Lucid installer cannot see it. Any suggestions on how to proceed very welcome!
At the moment my only option seems to be to regress to Karmic.
I decided to go and install ubuntu 10.10 today. I have two partitions on my HDD. Ubuntu only sees one HDD, and not the two partitions. I get no option to dual boot vista and ubuntu at all. It is only format and use the entire disk, or install manually. I go into gparted and all ubuntu sees is one unformatted HDD. But vista sees two partitions. I have all of my media on one partition. I REALLY don't want to go and format the entire drive to lose my things. Is there a work around for this? I have no access to any other PC.
View 4 Replies View RelatedI'm trying to install Zorin OS to my computer, but I can't create a partition on my HD to get it to work. This is my first attempt at having multiple OSs on my computer, and my first delve into anything Linux, so I'm sorry in advance. My problem is that my computer (running Windows 7) already has 4 partitions, so creating another for Zorin won't work. I'm attaching a screenshot so you guys can see the partitions I have at the moment.I really hope to figure this out tonight so I can start to explore the OS asap!
View 2 Replies View RelatedThe thing is I want to install Ubuntu alongside my Win 7 32-bit OS on its own partition. I have four partitions:
System Reserved (made automatically by Win 7),
System (where Win 7 is installed),
Ubuntu (which is a partition I made during the installation of Win 7 that is empty) and
Data (where all my documents, music and such is at).
The problem is that when I get to the point in the installation of Ubuntu where you choose where to install it, Ubuntu doesn't recognize any partitions at all! So to install Ubuntu I would have to erase everything which I would very much like to avoid - moreover I read it was better to begin with installing Win 7. If I choose to 'Try Ubuntu' and thereafter open GParted this is what it looks like:
The weird thing is that when I open 'Computer' I can see the different partitions and even open the partitions and files on them. It seems to work the way it should. When I open a drive it creates a shortcut on the desktop. So when I've entered all of them it looks like this:
This is how the partitions look like in Win 7:
The reason why the Ubuntu drive is FAT32 is because I tried formatting the drive while in 'Try Ubuntu'-mode. It didn't work with NTFS either. The harddisk is a Samsung HM251JJ ATA. Why can't the Ubuntu installation read my partitions? There's even a partition ready for it. And as I wrote I have looked at a great deal of threads but can't find out what to do.
I try to install Ubuntu 10.10 on HP notebook G62 (Intel-i3, 64-bit). It have a 320GB hdd with my laptop which now consists of:
1) SYSTEM volume
2) (C: ) volume with windows 7
3) RECOVERY (D: ) volume
4) HP_TOOLS volume
1 to 4 are originally there. And now I shrink (C: ) by 50GB to get a unallocated space in which I decide to install ubuntu: First I try to shrink by Windows7 tools, but installer did not see unallocated space (but shows list of my volumes). Then I install Acronis disk director and made 50GB unallocated space by Acronis. After this Ubuntu installer does not see any volumes on my HDD Windows7 boots had works normally. I try to restore ALL from image by HP TOOLS but without result - installer doesn't see any volumes. I try boot from CD, remove dmraid and all raid package and try run installer - no result.