search for: 0gb

greetings. centos 6.7 [current] 'disk utility' has started showing message; WARNING: The partition is misaligned by 2560 bytes. This may result in very poor performance. Repartitioning is suggested. for sdc5 - /home partition. /dev/sdc5 302243312 156348604 130534968 55% /home /dev/sdc7 80854912 57088 76683952 1% /hdd/c/07 other than time involved to backup

...ere, unless you were *SURE* there was nothing in that area. For future reference, when I partition a disk, I start parted with -a opt, to make sure it knows in advance that I want optimal alignment, then, as an example, if I'm partitioning a large drive, I do this: mklabel gpt mkpart pri xfs 0.0GB 100% and it's aligned properly. I discovered some time back that using the x.0GB syntax got parted to align it correctly, and it doesn't complain. mark "parted: user surly"

...#39;'ve got a problem. I''m trying to expand my main zpool (rpool), but don''t know how to do that. (i''m 100% newbie in non-windows world) I use Osol under Vmware on Windows. I had a pretty small vhdd -> only 12gb. Yesterday i decided to expand my virtual drive to 20gb. (After several tries to upgrade the OS to a newest dev-releases and installing some software, I had only ~ 4.8 GB free space with only one boot-environment) So, the expansion of the vhdd was done with vmwarevdiskmanager in a minute. My vhdd is now about 20gb, but osol didn''t see , that...

Hi All, Slightly OT as this is on a Centos 6 system I'm getting the fdisk message "partition does not start on a physical sector boundary" on a 4096 sector disk. I understand why this has happened. I just want to be sure of my parted syntax before I really mess things up. (before anyone says it - I know - do a backup) parted says that the offending partition 5 begins at 512 byte

Greetings UseRs, Pls advise if there is a way to write a func that can be supplied to aggregate to compute weighted MeanAbsolute Dev (MAD). I am having trouble passing the correct weights from each group level and cannot see the code behind aggregate. But maybe 'aggregate' is not the best way to do that. > m1 <-

...0D0000000 mask FF0000000 uncachable 5 base 0E0000000 mask FE0000000 uncachable 6 base 42FE00000 mask FFFE00000 uncachable 7 base 430000000 mask FF0000000 uncachable 8 disabled 9 disabled x86 PAT enabled: cpu 0, old 0x7040600070406, new 0x7010600070106 original variable MTRRs reg 0, base: 0GB, range: 16GB, type WB reg 1, base: 16GB, range: 1GB, type WB reg 2, base: 3256MB, range: 8MB, type UC reg 3, base: 3264MB, range: 64MB, type UC reg 4, base: 3328MB, range: 256MB, type UC reg 5, base: 3584MB, range: 512MB, type UC reg 6, base: 17150MB, range: 2MB, type UC reg 7, base: 17152MB, range...

Hi, I followed Boris'' tutorial to the letter about installing Xen 4 on Ubuntu Lucid. Dom0 starts ok, and xm works, but virt manager can''t connect to xen:///. I''m pretty sure that the problem is with virt-manager''s configuration file. I run xen-4.0.1-rc3-pre with Kernel 2.6.31.13. Here''s xm list''s output: $ sudo xm list Name

...0B0000000 mask FF0000000 uncachable 5 base 0AC000000 mask FFC000000 uncachable 6 base 0AB000000 mask FFF000000 uncachable 7 base 44F800000 mask FFF800000 uncachable 8 disabled 9 disabled x86 PAT enabled: cpu 0, old 0x7040600070406, new 0x7010600070106 original variable MTRRs reg 0, base: 0GB, range: 16GB, type WB reg 1, base: 16GB, range: 1GB, type WB reg 2, base: 17GB, range: 256MB, type WB reg 3, base: 3GB, range: 1GB, type UC reg 4, base: 2816MB, range: 256MB, type UC reg 5, base: 2752MB, range: 64MB, type UC reg 6, base: 2736MB, range: 16MB, type UC reg 7, base: 17656MB, range: 8MB...

...uncachable 3 base 0BC000000 mask FFC000000 uncachable 4 base 0C0000000 mask FC0000000 uncachable 5 base 43FE00000 mask FFFE00000 uncachable 6 disabled 7 disabled 8 disabled 9 disabled x86 PAT enabled: cpu 0, old 0x7040600070406, new 0x7010600070106 original variable MTRRs reg 0, base: 0GB, range: 16GB, type WB reg 1, base: 16GB, range: 1GB, type WB reg 2, base: 3000MB, range: 8MB, type UC reg 3, base: 3008MB, range: 64MB, type UC reg 4, base: 3GB, range: 1GB, type UC reg 5, base: 17406MB, range: 2MB, type UC total RAM covered: 16310M Found optimal setting for mtrr clean up gran_siz...

...0 base 000000000 mask C00000000 write-back 1 base 400000000 mask FC0000000 write-back 2 base 0C0000000 mask FC0000000 uncachable 3 disabled 4 disabled 5 disabled 6 disabled 7 disabled x86 PAT enabled: cpu 0, old 0x7040600070406, new 0x7010600070106 original variable MTRRs reg 0, base: 0GB, range: 16GB, type WB reg 1, base: 16GB, range: 1GB, type WB reg 2, base: 3GB, range: 1GB, type UC total RAM covered: 16384M Found optimal setting for mtrr clean up gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 64K num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G New variable MTRRs reg 0, base: 0GB, range: 2GB, type WB reg 1, base...

...uncachable 3 base 0BC000000 mask FFC000000 uncachable 4 base 0C0000000 mask FC0000000 uncachable 5 base 83FE00000 mask FFFE00000 uncachable 6 disabled 7 disabled 8 disabled 9 disabled x86 PAT enabled: cpu 0, old 0x7040600070406, new 0x7010600070106 original variable MTRRs reg 0, base: 0GB, range: 32GB, type WB reg 1, base: 32GB, range: 1GB, type WB reg 2, base: 3000MB, range: 8MB, type UC reg 3, base: 3008MB, range: 64MB, type UC reg 4, base: 3GB, range: 1GB, type UC reg 5, base: 33790MB, range: 2MB, type UC total RAM covered: 32694M Found optimal setting for mtrr clean up gran_siz...

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz at gmail.com> wrote: > [ 326.168487] ====================================================== > [ 326.168491] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > [ 326.168496] 3.13.6 #1270 Not tainted > [ 326.168500] ------------------------------------------------------- > [ 326.168504] ldconfig/22297 is

...ase 0BFF00000 mask FFFF00000 uncachable [ 0.000000] 4 disabled [ 0.000000] 5 disabled [ 0.000000] 6 disabled [ 0.000000] 7 disabled [ 0.000000] x86 PAT enabled: cpu 0, old 0x7040600070406, new 0x7010600070106 [ 0.000000] original variable MTRRs [ 0.000000] reg 0, base: 0GB, range: 2GB, type WB [ 0.000000] reg 1, base: 2GB, range: 1GB, type WB [ 0.000000] reg 2, base: 4GB, range: 1GB, type WB [ 0.000000] reg 3, base: 3071MB, range: 1MB, type UC [ 0.000000] total RAM covered: 4095M [ 0.000000] Found optimal setting for mtrr clean up [ 0.000000] gran_...

...cachable [ 0.000000] 6 base 21F600000 mask FFFE00000 uncachable [ 0.000000] 7 disabled [ 0.000000] 8 disabled [ 0.000000] 9 disabled [ 0.000000] x86 PAT enabled: cpu 0, old 0x7040600070406, new 0x7010600070106 [ 0.000000] original variable MTRRs [ 0.000000] reg 0, base: 0GB, range: 8GB, type WB [ 0.000000] reg 1, base: 8GB, range: 512MB, type WB [ 0.000000] reg 2, base: 3584MB, range: 512MB, type UC [ 0.000000] reg 3, base: 3328MB, range: 256MB, type UC [ 0.000000] reg 4, base: 3320MB, range: 8MB, type UC [ 0.000000] reg 5, base: 8696MB, range: 8MB, typ...

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

On Sun, Nov 07 2010 at 6:05pm -0500, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 10:39:23PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote: > > On 11/07/2010 08:45 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > > >> I read about barrier-problems and data getting to the partition when > > >> using dm-crypt and several layers so I don''t know if that could be > >

Hello, I tried out kernel 3.1.0-rc2 on my i386 Laptop with Xen 4.1.1. Booting hangs after these messages on the VGA console: pci 0000:02:09.0: address space collision: [mem 0x000da000-0x000dafff] conflicts with reserved [mem 0x0009f800-0x000fffff] reserve RAM buffer: 00000000 0009f000 - 00000000 0009ffff reserve RAM buffer: 00000000 38400000 - 00000000 3bffffff reserve RAM buffer: 00000001

Hello, I tried out kernel 3.1.0-rc2 on my i386 Laptop with Xen 4.1.1. Booting hangs after these messages on the VGA console: pci 0000:02:09.0: address space collision: [mem 0x000da000-0x000dafff] conflicts with reserved [mem 0x0009f800-0x000fffff] reserve RAM buffer: 00000000 0009f000 - 00000000 0009ffff reserve RAM buffer: 00000000 38400000 - 00000000 3bffffff reserve RAM buffer: 00000001