NMH305 second disk size

Hello. I have very simple question, and I can't find the anserw anywhere.
The second disk that i would like to install, does it have to be in the same size as the first one?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Hi there,
I think it would depend on the type of disk configuration that you’re going to establish on the NMH. If it’s Linear 2 (Increase Storage), then the 2nd drive is not necessarily larger than the first drive in terms of its storage size capacity. If you’re planning to configure the disks to RAID 1 (Increase Protection), then it’s required to have a larger storage size capacity for the 2nd drive.
Additionally, it would be best to get a 2nd hard disk that has been tested already by linksys.
Hope this will help.

Similar Messages

Disk size in Solaris 10

I have some confusion about disk subsystem in Solaris, i am trying to clarify from this forum.
I have recently installed Solaris 10 in one SPARC box. After i installed, the format gives the bellow output.
0 root wm 19491 - 29648 4.88GB (10158/0/0) 10239264
1 swap wu 0 - 4062 1.95GB (4063/0/0) 4095504
2 backup wm 0 - 29648 14.25GB (29649/0/0) 29886192
From the above output, is the size of my disk is 14 GB ?, or the size of my disk is 14+2+5=21 GB ?
I am trying to learn ZFS, so i want another partition in this disk so that i create ZFS on that partition.
I have gone to single user mode by using CD. I assumed that, from the above "format" command output, i thought i have 21GB of disk size and 14GB of free space. So i created another partition with 14GB. Now the format command gives bellow output.
0 root wm 19491 - 29648 4.88GB (10158/0/0) 10239264
1 swap wu 0 - 4062 1.95GB (4063/0/0) 4095504
2 backup wm 0 - 29648 14.25GB (29649/0/0) 29886192
3 reserved wm 0 - 29127 14.00GB (29128/0/0) 29361024
When i am creating ZFS, it given me a warning that the the partition i have specified is spanned into root partition (first partition), and it mentioned to use "-f" option.
With "-f", it created successfully.
If i assume now that the size of my disk is 14GB only then,
(1) how come two partitions are pointing to the same area in the disk ?
(2) How come two different filesystems are pointing to the same area ?
Please anyone clarify my doubts. Thank you.

Assuming a standard labeled disk it is standrad practice to have section/slice 2 being 'whole disk' for purposes of 'backup'. That would tend to indicate you have a 14GB disk. A prtvtoc /dev/dsk/c?t?d?s2 (change the ?s to the right values) will give a little more on the disk geometry.
In the display from format column 4 is the start cylinder of the partition and column 5 is the end cylinder. From the first set out output it looks like cyclinders 4063 to 19490 are not allocated
In the second set you have created a new slice (section 3) that overlaps both sections 0 and 1 - which is generally considered to be bad!

Time Machine backup disk size - total capacity of disk or just files used?

Hi folks,
After upgrading to Leopard, I'm trying to set up my Time Machine. My main HD is 175 Gig and all the OS and other files take up 37 Gig of that. The drive I want to use for Time Machine (a spare internal hard drive) is a 75 Gig drive with 74 Gig of space available. Time machine says this drive is too small to use.
According to the Time Machine documentation, Time Machine takes the _total size of the files_ to be backed up and multiplies that by 1.2. So in my case, since the total files on my 175 Gig drive take up 37 Gig, then I would need only 42 Gig for my Time Machine back up. So, in theory, my 75 Gig spare drive should work just fine.
The problem is that Time Machine is taking the total size of the entire HD and using that to calculate the size of the back up drive, which would be 210 Gig. Does anyone know why this problem is occurring? It seems like Time Machine is not calculating the needed back up disk size properly and is incorrectly including the unused disk space on my main HD.

Not sure exactly, but your drive really is too small. Yes, 37 gb plus workspace would do for your initial Full Backup, but subsequent incrementals could fill it up pretty fast. That would depend, of course, on how you use your Mac -- how often you add or update files of what sizes.
If you change your habits and, say, download a multi-gb video, then work on editing it for a few hours, you could eat up the remaining space very, very quickly.
Just to be sure, how are you determining space used? Via right-click (or control-click) and Get Info on your HD icon?
Also, do you have any other HDs connected? If so, exclude it/them, as TM will include them by default.
Three possible workarounds:
First, get a bigger drive. HDs have gotten ridiculously cheap -- 500 gb (or even some 1 tb) for not much over $100.
Second, use CarbonCopyCloner, SuperDuper, or a similar product instead of TM. CCC is donationware, SuperDuper about $30, I think. Either can make a full bootable "clone", and CCC has an option to either archive previous versions of changed files or delete them. CCC can be set to run automatically hourly, daily, etc. (I suspect SD can, too, but I don't know it's details). An advantage is, of course, if your HD fails you can boot and run from the "clone" until you get it replaced, then reverse the process and clone the external to the internal.
Note that these will take considerably longer, as unlike TM, they don't use the OSX internals to figure out what's been added or changed, but must look at every file and folder. In my case, even smaller than yours, TM's hourly backup rarely runs over 30 seconds; CCC's at least 15 minutes (so I have it run automatically at 3 am). And, if you don't keep previous versions, of course, you lose the ability to recover something that you deleted or changed in error, or got corrupted before the last backup.
Third (and NOT recommended), continue with TM but limit it to your home folder. This means if you lose your HD, you can't restore your whole system from the last TM backup. You'd have to reload from your Leopard disk, the apply all OS updates, and reload any 3rd party settings, then restore from TM. As a friend of mine used to say, "un-good"!

Silly question regarding sol 8 containers and disk sizes

I've got what is probably just about the silliest question, but I can't seem to find an answer whilst searching around for the past couple of hours. Say I have 2 boxen, one is a sol 8 server and the other is a brand new install of sol 10/8. They have the exact same hardware, including disk size. If I want to turn the first box into a solaris 8 container running under the second, how do I reconcile the fact that the disk sizes are the same? The sol 8 box is only using, say, 25-30GB of the 72GB on the disk. Do I have to resize the slice into something smaller to enable it fit into a container on the second server? It would seem that is the case, but I didn't know if there was some magic I was not aware of. I've not done a ufsdump or flash archive before so I don't know if the 'empty' space on the disc will be disregarded, possibly allowing me to squeeze it onto my sol 10 server and allow me to resize it smaller in zfs. This topic isn't touched in all the tutorials I've read, so I assume it's either a completely retarded/braindead concern, or everyone always migrates these boxen onto servers with much more in the way of resources.
Sorry if I offended anyone with my ignorance ; P

No. Solaris8/9 containers make use the "branded zones" technology. But it's still the same thing and there's no "disk image", at least not like you might think of for VMware or Xen.
Now if you want to call a ufsdump or flash archive an "image", then that's fine. But you can see in either case, the free space or minor changes is size are irrelevant. You're just copying files. It's a system image, not a "disk image".
                  Installer Options :
                        Option          Description
                        -a filepath     Location of archive from which to copy system image.
                                        Full flash archive and cpio, gzip compressed cpio,
                                        bzip compressed cpio, and level 0 ufsdump are
                                        supported. Refer to the gzip man page available in the
                                        SUNWsfman package.--
Darren

Hyper-V checkpoint disk size growth out of control

Hi,
i have hyper-v with exchange server installed on VM. i have used checkpoint in vm production. but i'v got trouble with my disk space. my vm is suddenly pause-critical because of out of disk space that used by checkpoint.
based on microsoft recommendation it's not worth to use point in production environment. if so you have to separate disk from vhd and checkpoint path.
now, im planning to delete all checkpoints. but the current condition of my local disk size is very low.
my vm size now is 300 GB then my free space only 50 GB. please tell me how much free space needed to merge while process merging the disk ? does it possible to perform delete check point with my current condition ?
please give me advice, im in very horrible situation right now.
thanks.

Hi,
Using checkpoints can result to unwanted beheviours like the one you are encoutering.
Aaik, the merge process will need a random free space depending on the avhd sizes and content.
But in your case, you VM is a production VM and the process may miss-behave.
So i highly recommand you do export your VM to another location before deleting checkooints.
Connect a disk to your hyper-v server
Shutdown your VM
Right click the VM then choose Export, and browse the place where you want to export
The exported VM will be a mix of your VHD and AVHDs (checkpoints
Now, try delete checkpoints one by one. Delete the first one, wait for merge, delete the second wait for merge... Do nkt forget, you are using windows server 2012 so kepp the VM stopped for the merge process to run.
Regards, Samir Farhat Infrastructure and Virtualization Consultant || Virtualization, Cloud, Azure ? Follow and Ask here https://buildwindows.wordpress.com

Mounting a slice on a second disk

Hi. We just got a new Solaris machine, which contains 2 disk drives. All the slices on the first disk is fully mounted. The second disk contains the following slices, which I got from the format command:
c1t0d0
Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks
0 root wm 0 - 25 129.19MB (26/0/0) 264576
1 swap wu 26 - 51 129.19MB (26/0/0) 264576
2 backup wu 0 - 14086 68.35GB (14087/0/0) 143349312
3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
6 usr wm 52 - 14086 68.10GB (14035/0/0) 142820160
7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
I tried to this command:
mount dev/dsk/c1t0d0s5 /files1
and got the following message: /dev/dsk/c1t0d0s0: bad magic number
Any Ideas?

c1t0d0
Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks
0 root wm 0 - 25 129.19MB B (26/0/0) 264576
1 swap wu 26 - 51 129.19MB B (26/0/0) 264576
2 backup wu 0 - 14086 68.35GB B (14087/0/0) 143349312
3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
6 usr wm 52 - 14086 68.10GB B (14035/0/0) 142820160
7 unassigned wm 0 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
I tried to this command:
mount dev/dsk/c1t0d0s5 /files1
and got the following message: /dev/dsk/c1t0d0s0: bad
magic number
Any Ideas?are you trying to inspect what's already on the disk, or put some of the "unused" component of that disk to use?
if #1 - then pick a slice that's potentially there (i.e. 0 or 6)
if #2 - (and if you don't care what's on the disk) - then go in and remove slices 0,1 and 6 and recreate one or more slices of the particular size you want.
if that's unclear to you, man -s 1m format and then man -s 1m newfs
hth

MS 6147 max memory and disk sizes

For the MS 6147 can anybody confirm the max Hard disk size and max memory.
It will not recognise the 40Gb HD I am trying to fit, and only recognises half of the 256Mb memeory simm I have fitted.
The BIOS version is 1.9 but I think that is a 'special' by Packard Bell. The MSI BIOS download site makes no mention of disk problems rectified right up to V1.8 which is the latest, with the exception of one for the ZX chipset only which addresses EDMA 66 problem.
Anybody got a definitive answer on this?

Supports a maximum memory size of 256MB (8M x 8) or
512MB (16M x 4) registered DIMM only
how many chips on dimm is what counts with older boards
go to drive makers web site get jumper settings to limit it to 32gb and try

Detect second disk on Windows Server 2012

Hi,
newly installed Windows Server 2012 R2 with two internal harddrives.
The two disks shows up in Disk Manager but only one in File Explorer.
How can i configure the server to expose the second disk in File Explorer?
/Roger

Hi Roger,
Has the problem been solved by online/initializing/assigning drive letter ?
Best Regards
Elton Ji
We
are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this
interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time.
Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.

Eject is not working when installer asks to insert second disk

I have a quite strange problem, when i'm installing world of warcraft on my laptop, everything goes allright for a first (of 5) dvd, it's running install till 20% and then asks to insert a second disk. When i'm trying to eject the first one it says, that a disk is in use and refuses to eject it (nor the eject button, nor dragging cd to bin works). But this is not the end, when i even closed the installer, it still is saying, that disk is in use, and doesn't want to eject it until reboot.
Maybe someone had this problem and solved it? Please, help, i don't want to download 4 gigs of installation.

Hello,
I just had my DVD drive replaced by Apple. This did not solve my issue. I am still unable to install WoW. Any help would be much much appreciated... This is SO frustrating...
Thanks!

Is there a max SATA disk size in OSX 10.4.11 and G4/1.25?

Hello,
I am trying to set up a G4/1.25 (2 gig in memory) as a fileserver with a SATA card and 2 x 3 TB seagate disks. This is the setup:
http://lowendmac.com/ppc/mdd-power-mac-g4-1.25-ghz.html
http://firmtek.com/seritek/seritek-1v4/
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Seagate/ST3000DM001/
The system is OSX 10.4.11. I am unable to initialize the disks in disk utility. The process starts but then halts and says that it can not continue.
My question is if there is a max disk size in OSX 10.4.11?
Any help greatly appriceated.
Best regards,
Ingolfur Bruun

Hello again,
I tried to work my way around armed with your input and succeeded
By using a FireWire dock I was able to see the disks in 10.4.11. What I did was to partition the disks with ONE partition in Disk Utility and then format with GUID partitioning scheme instead of the Apple Partition Mapping scheme which I had done before. And as I am using a ATA disk as a startup disk it dosen't matter if the 3 TB disks are not bootable. They will only be used for data, not as system disks.
You saved my day! Thanks again.
Best regards,
Ingolfur

MacBook in target disk mode shows incorrect disk size

My 80 GB hard drive in MacBook has gone bad (the filesystem is in inconsistent state). I connected it to an iMac in Target Disk Mode. It shows up (unmounted) but the capacity reported by Disk Utility is 20 GB. Does someone know why is that? Is it due to the corrupt filesystem?
I am afraid that given this situation, if I buy and run DiskWarrior, that too might not be able to see the full disk and fail to repair it. Note that if I boot my MacBook using the Apple CD, the Disk Utility shows the correct disk size.
Thanks.

If you have a disk that is in really, really bad shape to the point that Disk Utility looks at you like a 5 year old that just spilled a glass of apple juice on the kitchen floor, it's time to bring in the big guns.
DiskWarrior.
I love it, I love it. If someone has something bad to say about it, they are lying. If there is a chance that you can get everything back to normal without spending the huge dough to send your drive out to be dismantled in a clean room, DiskWarrior is that chance.
It's worth every single penny.
Let me know if you have other queries.

Re-read disk size in Solaris 10 x86 / VMware

Hi
Using
# uname -a
SunOS host1 5.10 Generic_142910-17 i86pc i386 i86pc
We have a 30G virtual disk, on top of which a UFS filesystem is living, mounted, and used.
The Virtual disk has been resized to 40G.
I know I need to change the fdisk partition size, after which i can change the "format" partition size, then use growfs.
But I don't know how to get S10 to recognise the new size for the disk.
fdisk tells me
Total disk size is 3916 cylinders
Cylinder size is 16065 (512 byte) blocks
Cylinders
Partition   Status
Type
Start   End   Length
=========   ======
============ =====   ===   ======   ===
1
Active
Solaris2
1 3915
3915
100
# prtvtoc -h /dev/dsk/c1t2d0s2
       0      0    00      16065 62846280 62862344   /xxx
       2      5    01          0 62862345 62862344
       8      1    01          0     16065     16064
# df -h /xxx
Filesystem             size   used avail capacity Mounted on
/dev/dsk/c1t2d0s0       30G    29G   498M    99%    /xxx
On Linux I might use partprobe or blockdev --rereadpt but on Solaris?
Cheers
KM

Hello
this document should help, but make a backkup before running it
How to expand a UFS Lun in Solaris 10 (Doc ID 1451858.1)
Regards
Eze

Disk size in ise

Hi
I have a strange problem after instaling licenses in ISE the following information is in a "show tech"
This info is for 1.3 clean install + license.
% WARNING: ISE DISK SIZE NOT LARGE ENOUGH FOR PRODUCTION USE
% RECOMMENDED DISK SIZE: 200 GB, CURRENT DISK SIZE: 0 GB
It is the same in the Eval version but in this server there is a 2500 license
The same is observed in both ISE 1.2.1 and 1.3 (running a POC on ISE)
When trying to upgrade ISE 1.2.1 > 1.3 the following output
Getting bundle to local machine...
md5: ad7d87d383661bce671804a9e125e42b
sha256: 2a7ebe5196e3d956ac42ec2e5acdf3815a3e0f80db954b58e2c68843bb3c42fd
% Please confirm above crypto hash matches what is posted on Cisco download site.
% Continue? Y/N [Y] ? Y
Unbundling Application Package...
Initiating Application Upgrade...
% Warning: Do not use Ctrl-C or close this terminal window until upgrade completes.
-Checking VM for minimum hardware requirements
% Error: At least 100GB sized hard disk required for upgrade.
the disk is
Hard Disk Count(*): 1
Disk 0: Device Name: /dev/sda
Disk 0: Capacity: 644.20 GB
Disk 0: Geometry: 255 heads 63 sectors/track 78325 cylinders
Thanks
Erik Loeth

Attached is the output from VMware, this is made with the OVA
ISE-1.3.0.876-virtual-SNS3495-2.ova
The disk output from show inventory
NAME: "ISE-VM-K9 chassis", DESCR: "ISE-VM-K9 chassis"
PID: ISE-VM-K9 , VID: V01 , SN: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Total RAM Memory: 16467264 kB
CPU Core Count: 4
CPU 0: Model Info: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 4870 @ 2.40GHz
CPU 1: Model Info: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 4870 @ 2.40GHz
CPU 2: Model Info: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 4870 @ 2.40GHz
CPU 3: Model Info: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 4870 @ 2.40GHz
Hard Disk Count(*): 1
Disk 0: Device Name: /dev/sda
Disk 0: Capacity: 644.20 GB
Disk 0: Geometry: 255 heads 63 sectors/track 78325 cylinders
NIC Count: 1
NIC 0: Device Name: eth0
NIC 0: HW Address: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
NIC 0: Driver Descr: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver
(*) Hard Disk Count may be Logical.
Reards
Erik Loeth

How to allocate disk size for each user in iMac?

Hi folks,
I have iMac (Mac OS X, version 10.7.5) for Family, and each of my family member has account on it.
Now, kids download many large files (several GB size files) and HD is getting full.
So, I'd like to set maximum disk size for each user.
Could you prvide instruction how to configure disk size for each user?
Regards,
Hiro

I don't know of any way to do that by user.
I used to partition my HD and that sets a hard limit by partition, but by user? I don't think it can be done.

DV9000 Maximum Hard Disk Size Supported?

I'm searching for a used HP Pavilion DV9000. I need to know the maximum hard disk size the DV9000 series laptops support. To be clear, could I put a 750G or 1TB disk in each bay?
HP's web site isn't helpful. It gives only the "official" numbers at time of release which state it supports up to 240G, 120 in each bay. Those kinds of numbers are almost never an accurate statement of the limitation as I have seen similar "official" numbers for other HP laptops (supposedly limited to 120G or 250G or whatever) that have no problem supporting 640G in the real world.
The size of hard disk a computer supports is usually a function of the main board's chipset and I don't know how to determine the exact chipset or find the chipset's hard disk support capability. Again, HP's web site isn't helpful here either. They may list it has an nVidia chipset; but, they don't mention which nVidia chipset.
To be clear, I don't own a DV9000 yet and I need to know how to find this information maybe with the exact model number. The model series may be DV9000; but, there are dozens of more exacting model numbers on the bottoms of the DV9000 series computers (example: DV9025ea). I don't want to purchase a DV9000 and then find that its limitation really is 120G per bay.

Hard drive size is a limitation of the Bios, not the chipset, this was overcome with the implementation of Large Block Addressing 48bit in modern bios's in 2003
Hp does not state which bios's on older laptops support this or not.
Looking at the production dates of the 9000 series, I would be willing to bet it supports any size hard drive (48bit LBA), since 48bit LBA was introduced in 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_block_addressing
That being said, there could be brand compatibility issues, so be sure to buy the hard drives from a source that has a friendly return policy.
Maybe some one can post that has actually installed a large hard drive in a 9000 series.

NMH305 second disk size

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for