RAID - wrong drive size displayed...

Hi
I am setting up RAID for the first time on a MacPro, and am confused about the way the available space on the drives is displayed. It seems to display too much available space.
I have two 500Gb drives in bays 2+3 of my MacPro, and in DiskUTILITY I have set them up as a striped RAID ) set called 'Work'
This is all fine + straightforward - but the available space that finder gives me for this drive is just under 1000Gb - surely this should be reading approx. 500Gb if I have two drives striped together?
This is probably a dumb question, and perhaps I should be expecting this - but it doesnt make sense at the moment and I am wondering if something is wrong.
thanks for your time
M
MacPro 2.66Ghz / 2Gb + G5 Dual 2Ghz + Powerbook 1.25Ghz / 1Gb Mac OS X (10.4.7)
MacPro 2.66Ghz / 2Gb + G5 Dual 2Ghz + Powerbook 1.25Ghz / 1Gb Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Stripe = A + B so you should get 2 x 500 (well, more like 960GB probably).
A mirror would be the size of a single drive.
You'll find a lot of help and threads on using the Mac Pro over in its own Discussion area.
I would download the manual and quickstart guide for SoftRAID, LLC or check out Apple's articles.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106594

Similar Messages

After upgrade of hard drives in RAID, XSAN Admin sees wrong lun sizes?

So I purchased new 750GB drives for our XS RAIDS and I upgraded firmware to 1.5.1 C on RAIDS, but XSAN Admin sees wrong lun sizes. I have tried running XSAN 1.4.2 and even uninstalled on MDC and reinstalled back to 1.4.1 still no luck. Weird thing is that when I uninstall XSAN and then reinstall XSAN the lun names are still there in XSAN Admin, it is like they are stored in a file that does not get uninstalled when I uninstall XSAN.
I even upgraded the Firmware on the RAIDS again after the install of the new drives, the only drives that did not get upgraded were the 2 x 250GB set for Metadata Info on the first Raid Controller. I am running this on XSERVE non intel with OS X Server 10.4.11. I did not uninstall XSAN off any of the clients only the backup MDC.
I hope this info helps cause I could really use some tips from all you masters.
Thanks in advance
Jesse

Ok so I am a dumb *. All I had to do to fix my issue was delete the actual names of the Luns in XSAN Admin and hit enter and it updated the Lun sizes. Thanks everyone.

Failed to create RAID logical drive WAE-7371-k9

hi all we have cisco wae-7371-k9 , we wanna recreate RAID device using cd recovery. we booting on cd, and when we done with option numbers 2,3,5 succes but when we came on option 7, we cannot recreate RAID, it failed, following the log: Installer Main Menu: 1. Configure Network 2. Manufacture flash (done) 3. Install flash cookie 4. Install flash image from network 5. Install flash image from cdrom 6. Install flash image from disk 7. Recreate RAID device (WAE-674/7341/7371 only) 8. Wipe out disks and install .bin image 9. Exit (Eject and reboot) Choice [0]: 7 Recreate RAID device option is selected All disk data will be lost. Are you sure you want to recreate RAID array? [n]: y Saving random seed... dd: opening `/state/random-seed': No such file or directory No volume groups found Controllers found: 1 All data in logical drive 1 will be lost. Deleting: logical drive 1 ("") Command completed successfully. Controllers found: 1 A selected physical drive is not available for use. Command aborted. Failed to create RAID Logical drive. (1,2) MODEL: OE7371 FLASH: found, directory validated COOKIE: valid IMAGE: 4.3.5.7 FLASHDEV: /dev/sda what's wrong with wae ?if we run command show disk detail, all hard disk detected NO-HOSTNAME# sh disk det RAID Physical disk information: disk00: Ready JTX1470L 286102 MB disk01: Ready JTX1B24L 286102 MB disk02: Ready JTX1B9SL 286102 MB disk04: Ready JTWSEBWL 286102 MB disk05: Ready JTX0VYRL 286102 MB RAID Logical drive information: Mounted file systems: MOUNT POINT TYPE DEVICE SIZE INUSE FREE USE% Disk encryption feature is disabled. can you help, what's the problem .?

Budi,
Please turn off the unit, make sure you reseat the disks and then try the CD-recovery in the following way:
2,3, 5,8,7,8, remove the disk and 9
Please log the session then we can see how it went
Hope this helps!
Jorge

Max Hard Drive size for Ultra 10s

Hi,
I'm kinda new to sun and I have a ultra 10s with a 9 Gig factory installed HD.
I was wondering what the maximum sized IDE hard drive that can be installed. I would like to mirror the system as well. I've seen another post about this but the max size was a 27 Gig drive and didn't explain how to mirror. I have Solaris 8 1/01 meda kit does that include the required software to mirror the drives. I think it's called Raid Manager?
Many thanks

I'm not sure what the max drive size supported on an Ultra-10, but most
new Sun products are shipping with 40 GByte EIDE drives and use the
same chipset. Caveat emptor: Solaris <7 may or may not support EIDE
larger than 8GBytes, but since you are on Solaris 8 you should be ok.
For SCSI drives (requires a PCI SCSI HBA for the Ultra-10) the size can
be quite large. The most common large size SCSI drives today is 180
GBytes, but SCSI is designed to scale much larger.
You don't want RAIDManager for mirroring. Look for Solstice DiskSuite (SDS)
in your media distribution. If I'm not mistaken, it is cleverly hidden in
the "EA" directory on CD 2of2 in the media kit. Also, look for docs on
mirroring root using SDS on http://docs.sun.com
-- richard

UCS C series maximum hard drive size

Looking for info on the maximum hard drive size support on teh UCS C series. I have a C200M2 that I added a 4TB drive, I have updated the server to the latest firmware and BIOS however the server shows the drive size is 2TB.

Hi! and welcome to the community mate!
Here is the table that shows the supported disk's PID for the C200 server:
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/servers-unified-computing/ucs-c-series-rack-servers/c200m2_sff_specsheet.pdf
If you successfully installed ONE HDD of 4GB and made it work, you were lucky cause I don't see any disk with that size, I have not even seen a disk of that size for UCS yet.
I am wondering if perhaps you installed 4 disks of 1TB and configured them in RAID 1 which would explain the reason for the size to go down to half of the capacity of the array as RAID 1 is a mirror.
Let me know if I misunderstood you.
Rate ALL helpful answers.
-Kenny

Import FLV-- get wrong movie size

Importing an FLV file from Media Encoder into Dreamweaver CS4 page. Always get the wrong media size unless I'm using FLV-- same as source in Media Encoder. The results are very low in quality with that option. Otherwise I get a black letter-box image with black bands above and below the move.
I've done this 3-4 times with other movies on the same equipment and it always worked before. What am I doing wrong?
Thanks

To upgrade or not??? that's a choice only you can make.
Final video file size is perhaps not as important as choosing the correct display dimensions and video bitrate for you target audiance and THEIR Internet download speeds.
As for "quality" as it relates to bitrate.... for your review:
Video bit rate
Video bitrate is the minimum amount of data that must continually flow into the video player in order for the player to display that particular video uninterrupted. If that supply of data is not high enough, the video player will stop…. Wait for more data to download, then resume. The video bitrate is set as a parameter when the video is encoded.
One of the principle of goal setting is to "Begin with the end in mind". In this case it'll be very hard to give good recommendations because the end is not defined. So I'll just make a few assumptions and you can correct me as needed.
First, I'll assume that since you are converting to Flash, you want to deliver this video over the Internet. If that's true, then we'll have to make some assumptions on the Internet connection download speeds of your potential viewers. Let's just say that most have at least a 1.5Mb connection or faster.
OK, that would mean that a video bitrate of half that should usually provide a video download that is not interupped by buffering (most of the time anyway). So assuming a video bitrate of 750kbps, what would the optimum display dimensions be?
Before we decide, here's a little info about bitrate. For highest quality playback, the video bitrate is tied directly to the display dimensions. That is, the larger the display, the more incoming data is required to properly display the video. Think of bitrate in terms of a can of paint. If you have 1 quart of paint, you might be able to do a very nice job on a 32 X 24 foot area. But if you try to stretch that same amount of paint out over a 64 X 48 foot area, the coverage will not be nearly as good and you get poor results.
In the same way, a video displayed at 640 X 480 pixels will require 4 times the bitrate as a video displayed at 320 X 240 pixels to produce the same quality. So for example a video with a bitrate of 100kbps, displayed at 160 X 120 will produce the same quality results as a video with a bitrate of 1600kbps if displayed at 640 X 480.
So to boil it all down, video bitrates of 750kbps, even up to 1000kbps can usually get delivered of the Internet on most high speed connections. Higher bit rates may work for really fast connections but will cause problems for viewers with slower connections. Video display size has a direct bearing on the final quality. In the 750 to 1000kbps range, display size should be kept around 450 or 500 width max (and whatever height the aspect ratio calls for). Yes it can be displayed larger, but the quality will suffer.
Sound like your audio settings are fine, especially for Internet delivery.
As for framerate, maintain the original raw video framerate for best results. So if the video was shot at 24fps, leave it.
As for video converters, do you have the Flash 8 Video Converter? It works just fine for video to be delivered over the Internet. Remember, you are taking a Cadillac version of video (h.264 HD) and stuffing it into a Chevy body to get it to work over the Internet.
Best wishes,
Adninjastrator

External Drive Size Limit

Hello,
I've been using Time Machine with a 300GB external hard drive. It filled up, so I bought a 750GB FireWire drive (Maxtor OneTouch 4 Plus).
The disappointment was that I cannot format it in Disk Utility (Mac OS Extended (Journaled) format). Disk Utility says something like: "Low Level Format Error" after pressing "Erase..." in the Erase tab.
I was able to create two partitions: 626GB and 71GB. But, the second partition isn't useful for Time Machine. Is this 626GB the limit of the Mac OS file structure? Is there any way to use more than 626GB for Time Machine?
Gerd

I'm looking for confirmation that someone has a non-RAID, single partition, Mac OS Extended (Journaled) file format drive that's 750GB or 1TB.
:: Waves hand :: Over here!
I have several, in fact. This drive size is absolutely not the limiting factor.
In general, disk erase problems are usually disk-level problems.
I'd like to know what the non-RAID, single partition size limit is for the Mac OS Extended (Journaled) file format.
Currently 1TB, but that's because that's the largest single drive available, not because the format itself is limited to 1TB.
Extended (Journaled) partitions can be as large as 8 exabytes (that's about 8 million terabytes), so 1TB is not going to stress the system at all.

RAID 5 Drive swap.

I have a RAID 5 setup with 4 1TB drives, one of them sounds like it's on it's last legs, heads zeroing repeatedly, so I went out and bought a replacement drive today, thought I had the dying drive pinpointed using smartctl, only one drive showed any SMART errros, so I figured that must be it. I manually failed that drive:
mdadm /dev/md0 -f /dev/sdf1
shutdown, swapped drives, turned the machine back on again, but I'm still hearing a head zero repeatedly. So I can only assume I've pulled out the wrong drive. Haven't started rebuilding the RAID yet or anything, is it possible to swap that drive back in without having to rebuild? I'm slightly worried that if I attempt to rebuild the array right now, with one dying drive in there it might not make it.

Well, I didn't overly answer my original question, but averted a crisis. Just went ahead and rebuild the RAID, didn't take as long as expected, seems like things will be just dandy.

Optimizing RAID: stripe/chunk size

I'm trying to figure out how to optimize the RAID chunk/stripe size for our Oracle 8i server. For example, let's say that we have:
- 4 drives in the RAID stripe set
- 16 KB Oracle block size
- MULTIBLOCK_READ_COUNT=16
Now the big question is what the optimal setting is for the chunk/stripe size. As far as I can see, we would have two alternatives:
- case 1: stripe size = 256 KB
- case 2: stripe size = 64 KB
In case 1, all i/o would be spread out over all 4 drives. In case 2, we'd be able to isolate a lot of i/o to separate drives, so that each drive serves different i/o calls. My guess is that case 1 would work better where there's a lot of random disk i/o.
Does anyone have any thoughts or experience to share on this topic?
Thanks,
Alex Algard
WhitePages.com
null

It does not matter. Do not mix soft-raid and hard-raid. One OS i/o operation can read from one disk and number of disk. Do not forget about track-to-track seek time.
Practice is the measure of truth :)
For example, http://www.fcenter.ru/fc-articles/Technical/20000918/hi-end.gif

LR 5 - Image Sizing Dimensions - wrong image size

Hi,
Image Sizing Dimensions produces wrong image sizes upon export for certain images.
Example, I have export set up for iPad resolution, 2048x1536px at 264ppi. If I now export an 3264x4928px image it should be resized to 1356x2048px. What I get is 1356x2047 instead, one pixel too short on the long side. This doesn't happen for all images source resolutions and ratios though. I haven't figured out the pattern yet.
Here a link to an image which exports at wrong size (export dimension set to 2048x1536px).
http://www.bobtronic.com/files/IMG_0289.JPG
I would appreciate a speedy fix for this problem. Thanks
cheers,
Matthias

The image has a resolution of 3264x4928. Exporting using Dimension resizing of 2048x1536 results in an 2047x1536 image.
The scaling factor 4928 down to 2048, is 0.4155844155844156...
Assuming that LR is working to only 3 decimal places here, which indications discussed in another thread would suggest, then there are several ways to achieve that:
truncate down to 0.415 by discarding the subsequent digits
"quick-rounding" of the third digit by inspecting the fourth-place digit only, and incrementing the third-place digit when the fourth-place digit is larger than 5, which it is not in this case, resulting in 0.415
"math-rounding" by inspecting all of the following digit pairs in turn, until you reach a pair that is lower than 50, and then working back again to simplify. This procedure rounds 0.41558 up to 0.4156, then after doing that, rounds 0,4156 up to 0.416
Speculation: the difference between 0.415 and 0.416, is the difference between a result with 2047, and one with 2048, when executed.
Most of the time the "quick-round" procedure will work out fine, also truncating will usually be good enough, assuming the above has anything to do with the reality (which it may not). Just occasionally, though, there'll be an error in the final digit, compared with what the theoretically accurate procedure would have given. So if I am right this is not strictly speaking a bug (something failing to execute as it has been designed to do), but the result of a software design choice. "Works as designed", iow .
It seems that LR, perhaps differently between versions, is working this through by simple calculation (from the front-end), without comparing the back-end outcome against what you have requested. How much this (intermittent) issue actually matters, is a question of judgement, and of particular requirement.
[ alternative method: I find the Print module, outputting to JPG, is completely reliable when it comes to making a standardised JPG as to the dimensions, as well as offering some different technical and design options, than what you get with Export. For one thing, you get the option of on-the-fly cropping to shape, which you can then adjust interactively where (as here) the image is a different aspect than the Retina display. So if you want it, you can fill the screen instead of getting letterbox, all without having altered your main (Develop) crop for that image. Alternatively, if you don't want the Zoom to Fill option (e.g. with landscape images to be shown in portrait orientation as part of a sequence) you can still make all your images to the same dimension, but controlling the appearance of the borders that are left (which become part of the image) ]
RP
ps: AFAICT one would expect simple truncation to produce the appropriate answer half of the time; one would expect simple rounding to just one further digit, to be wrong half of the times when the following digit happened to be 5 - or to put in another way, to be right in 95% of cases; and proper rounding, examinng as many places as it takes, to be right 100% (within precision limits).

Tecera A4 Wrong Image Size for Bios update....

using the site tools to id the machine to bios...it led me to a file named...sm45v20.exe, which i downloaded & attempted to update the bios...via floppy / usb drive method.
Done this with other machines (not this one) hundreds of times before...(fix a lot of friends machines...as this is). in the readme, it states this bios is for this string of machines...
Tecra A4
Tecra A4-S111TD
Tecra A4-S211
Tecra A4-S216
Tecra A4-S231
Tecra A4-S236
Satellite M40-S417TD
Satellite M45-S165
Satellite M45-S1651
Satellite M45-S265
Satellite M45-S2651
Satellite M45-S2652
Satellite M45-S2653
Satellite M45-S331
Satellite M45-S3311
Satellite M45-S351
Satellite M45-S3511
Satellite M45-S355
Satellite M45-S3551
where the tecera a4 is model I'm working on.
However, when booting into the update, it goes through the startup....reads the existing rom image...then attempts to look at the disk version...and gives the wrong image size message. Usually, this means ether you've got the wrong bios image (hmmm...toshiba led me to it...so maybe it's wrong...but readme says it's ok) OR the download was corrupt. Re-Downed the entire set up file again (file name as mentioned above) and tried again. All disk work on my master workstation which is almost always correct. (except when it's not?)
Any ideas? What the heck is the A4 anyway? Seems like a very rare model....
<edit>...the ENTIRE model number as shown on the bottom label is: PTA40U-1D701F </edit>
Message Edited by SetiRich on 04-16-2009 05:53 PM

This is a maybe...
Does the A4 in question have Intel video or ATI or nVidia?
Looks like there are different BIOS files depending on the video chipset.

Macbook pro late 2008 max hard drive size

I have a MacBook Pro Late 2008. I think the max RAM is 8GB but what is the max hard drive size. It is running Yosemite. It currently has a 1TB drive.

I solved the heat-issue in Windows Vist32 (tested and worked!)
This should also work in XP, XP64 and VISTA 64 although not tested.
Goto the Nvidia website and download the latest notebook drivers (http://www.nvidia.com/object/notebook_drivers.html).
Uninstall your old notebook drivers through device-manager and restart.
Now install the Nvidia notebook drivers you just downloaded and restart.
*NOW THE IMPORTANT PART!!!*
After numerous hours of testing i found out that installing new Nvdia display drivers overwrite some Nvidia chipset drivers. This causes your fans not spinning at all under heavy GPU load.
*THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE BECAUSE TEMPERATURES CAN EASILY PASS 100 degrees celsius.*
Now for the fix in four easy steps!
1. Under Windows insert your MacOS original install-disc (the one with the bootcamp drivers)
2. Choose to explore the Bootcamp folder.
3. Now open the drivers folder and browse to the Nvidia folder.
4. Now install the package called nvidiachipset. These come in all flavors (XP, XP64, VISTA, VISTA64) choose the correct version for your OS.
After installation a reboot is not even necessary. Start your favorite game and notice the extreme humming of your speeding fans! Should sound like music!
*So remember. Every time you update your graphics drivers A REINSTALL OF THE CHIPSET DRIVERS FOR YOUR UNIBODY MBP MUST BE DONE!! If you don't the fans won't come up under heavy load which will result in a BUSTED GPU!!!*
Message was edited by: geethreeforce

2010 Mac Pro with Apple RAID card - "Drive carrier 00:03 removed"

I've got a 2010 Mac Pro with the Apple RAID card and 4 internal identical Seagate ST32000641AS 2TB drives inside.
I've never had a problem with the RAID card (either battery or in operation) except for one thing:
Almost every time I shut the machine down (which I try to do as rarely as possible), it keeps losing Drive 3, the spare.
(See RAID Utility event log snippet below.)
[I wish I could understand why this Apple RAID card keeps losing the spare across power-cycles/reboots, but I digress.]
So I just adopted it as the spare and it spawns the rebuild and many hours later, everything's fine again.
... until the last time I rebooted (Jan. 2nd).
After the usual "I lost the spare" message upon login, it began the rebuild.
But this time, about 11 1/2 hours later the rebuild stopped and RAID Utility reported "Drive carrier 00:03 removed".
Bay 3 is now missing in the Controller view.
I powered off the system last night, and left it off overnight. Today I took all the drives out, blew the dust off and reseated them.
Same thing. Drive 3 is still missing, and now the rebuild task aborted.
The drive bay location shouldn't matter, right? Can I swap the Bay 3 drive with the Bay 4 drive?
I figure one of two things would happen:
(1) It will report Bay 3 as being there but Bay 4 as being missing, same situation as is now. Meaning the problem is in the Bay 3 spare drive.
(2) It will report Bay 3 as being missing (despite a 'good' drive being present) and Bay 4 will be the (unattached) spare, and the RAID set will be unviable. Meaning the problem is with the drive bay itself, not whatever drive is plugged into it.
If "Drive carrier removed" is trying to tell me the disk is bad, why do I not see any log messages about it? I suppose a spare that never gets used could go bad from lack of use, but ... no messages at all?
Hesitant to plunk down $160 on a new spare disk if the present one isn't actually dead ...
% sudo raidutil list raidsetinfo
                                     Total     Avail
Raidsets      Type       Drives       Size      Size Comments
RS1           RAID 5     1,2,4      5.23TB    0.00MB Rebuild: 0% complete
% sudo raidutil list driveinfo
Drives Raidset       Size      Flags
Bay #1 RS1             2.00TB   IsMemberOfRAIDSet:RS1 IsReliable
Bay #2 RS1             2.00TB   IsMemberOfRAIDSet:RS1 IsReliable
Bay #4 RS1             2.00TB   IsMemberOfRAIDSet:RS1 IsReliable
Event log snippet:
Saturday, January 11, 2014 8:15:19 AM PT
Background task aborted: Task=Rebuild,Scope=DRVGRP,Group=RS1
informational
Friday, January 3, 2014 3:50:28 AM PT
Drive carrier 00:03 removed
informational
Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:29:37 PM PT
Marked drive in bay 3 as a global spare
informational
Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:29:28 PM PT
Adopted drive in bay 3
informational
Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:28:34 PM PT
Degraded RAID set RS1 - No spare available for rebuild
critical
Saturday, December 7, 2013 5:35:17 PM PT
Marked drive in bay 3 as a global spare
informational
Saturday, December 7, 2013 5:35:08 PM PT
Adopted drive in bay 3
informational
Saturday, December 7, 2013 5:34:11 PM PT
The "RedundancyScrub" command could not be executed. (Invalid request or invalid parameter in the request.)
warning
Saturday, December 7, 2013 5:34:03 PM PT
Degraded RAID set RS1 - No spare available for rebuild
critical
Friday, December 6, 2013 4:56:47 AM PT
Battery finished conditioning
informational
Thursday, December 5, 2013 9:53:44 PM PT
Battery started scheduled conditioning cycle (write cache disabled)
informational
Friday, September 6, 2013 10:53:11 PM PT
Battery finished conditioning
informational
Friday, September 6, 2013 3:41:33 PM PT
Battery started scheduled conditioning cycle (write cache disabled)
informational
Saturday, June 8, 2013 3:41:35 PM PT
Battery finished conditioning
informational
Saturday, June 8, 2013 8:37:49 AM PT
Battery started scheduled conditioning cycle (write cache disabled)
informational
Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:09:51 PM PT
Marked drive in bay 3 as a global spare
informational
Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:09:42 PM PT
Adopted drive in bay 3
informational
Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:08:59 PM PT
Degraded RAID set RS1 - No spare available for rebuild
critical
Thursday, May 30, 2013 3:32:29 PM PT
Degraded RAID set RS1
warning

Power Pig wrote:
"Hesitant to plunk down $160 on a new spare disk if the present one isn't actually dead ...
% sudo raidutil list raidsetinfo
                                     Total     Avail
Raidsets      Type       Drives       Size      Size Comments
RS1           RAID 5     1,2,4      5.23TB    0.00MB Rebuild: 0% complete
I was talking about this.
This looks like a RAID 5 setup without the parity to me. I would said it basically a RAID 0.
Also you metioned "I guess that previous spare must really have gone 'bad', despite having never been used! "
I wiped everything out, I selected the 3 disks and clicked on "Create RAID Set" with RAID5 selected and the "Use unassigned drives as spares" option checked. The 3rd disk has always been marked as the spare ever since then. You do not have a choice to create a "RAID5 setup without the parity". If I wanted a RAID0 I would have chosen a RAID0! raidutil now says
% sudo raidutil list raidsetinfo
                                     Total     Avail
Raidsets      Type       Drives       Size      Size Comments
RS1           RAID 5     1,2,3,4    5.23TB    0.00MB No tasks running
Every time the system would 'lose' Drive 3 on boot, I would just keep rebooting until it was 'found', and then manually re-assign the now-'floating' drive as the spare - and the RAID would rebuild.
There was never a problem until the day that prompted this post - when it would not find Drive 3 no matter what I did. I turned the Mac Pro off for several hours until the drives had all cooled down and it still did not find the drive. I left the machine on but unmounted the degraded volume until I got the new replacement drive.
I really don't understand what you are getting at. It's like you are trying to tell me I set it up as a 4-drive RAID5 with no parity(!) and that I was in grave danger because one of the disks was gone. The actual RAID contents (spread across Drives 1, 2 and 4) were never in danger, unless a 2nd disk had failed while the spare was not seen by the Apple RAID card. I wasn't too worried about that happening.

Wrong album art displaying for songs on my iPod Classic.

I am having a problem with my 160GB classic iPod. (6th gen. I believe, it's the first 160GB iPod to be released.)
It doesn't happen a lot, but I noticed wrong album art displaying for my songs on my iPod. Then when I check in itunes, the album art is correct. Also, I manually manage my music and videos. So when I check the album art from my ipod's hard-drive through itunes, the album art is correct as well.
I believe the problem happens when the iPod itself tries to find the album art images for the current song being played. It somehow gets jumbled and puts up a random album art image instead of the one it is supposed to.
One thing i noticed is this. Lets say I shuffle all my songs. Once I get up to a song with wrong album art, I skip pass it lets say about 5-10 songs, then I go back to it. The album art often corrects itself, and the right album art is displayed.
I looked around the forums here and see that other people are having similar problems with different kinds of iPods. Maybe it's a firmware issue?

I'm having the exact same issue on my iPod Classic. Haven't used this forum before - do experts provide feedback, or do we just hope that another user can suggest a cure? I haven't reformatted my iPod yet - huge pain, as I also manually manage my music - but will do that if no other solutions present themselves.

How to change the default window size display font size on Lync 2013 main window?

Hi champs,
Just a simple non-technical question: How to change the default window size display font size on Lync 2013 main window on Windows 7 desktop?
Thanks,

Hi,
Did you mean change the Lync: Change the Default Font and Color of Instant Messages just as Edwin said above?
If not, as I know, there is no natural way to change it.
If yes, on the latest version of Lync 2013 client, there is a new option “IM” on Lync client “Options” list. And you need to change the default Font and Color of IM in the interface of “IM”.
Best Regards,
Eason Huang
Eason Huang
TechNet Community Support

RAID - wrong drive size displayed...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for