The moment I mount my Google Drive into Google Colab most of the disk memory gets used up.
I mount by running the following cell
# Mount Google Drive (Run this in Google Colab environment)
from google.colab import drive
drive.mount('/content/drive')
Once mounted, without saving any model, there is only 29 GB left out of the the 68.4 GB provided. What would be taking up so much memory? Or, how do I check what is taking up the memory?
Thanks!!
This should not happen. mine started at 69.46 GB and remained the same.
Maybe GPU resource is being allocated which does reduce the disk size. Mine was reduced to 29.83 GB.
In this case, gpu can be disabled by going to Edit -> notebook settings -> under hardware acceleration which should be on none, to disable GPU.
And to check for disk usage
enter command !du /path/to/your/folder -h
you can search for the entire machine with this command !du / -h which scans the entire virtual machine.
I'm trying to write a OS for my own use, I want to show a blank (black) screen with VGA output but I have some problems(questions):
Under FAT32, I have MBR bootloader to read the first sector of the virtual disk image generated by bximage from Bochs. Where (which sector) should I put the second compiled code that shows the black screen? How to do it with dd utility? My second compiled code file is 9 Bytes only.
Is VBR necessary?
How do I know where the data region (FAT32) starts and ends?
I rewrote the bootloader provided from this link.
My disk file specifications is:
20M,
CHS 40/16/63
In chronological order...
Originally there were no hard disks and (if you weren't using "BASIC in ROM") computers booted from a floppy disk. In this case the first sector of the volume (the floppy disk) contains the operating system's boot loader.
Not long after hard disks got added, and worked using a similar scheme (where the first sector of the volume/hard disk contains the operating system's boot loader).
However, people soon realised that using a whole "large" hard disk for a single volume is silly/inflexible; so a partitioning scheme was invented to split the hard disk into multiple volumes. In this case the first sector of the disk (the MBR) contains a partition table where one is marked as the "active" partition, and some code to "chain load" the first sector of the active partition (the boot loader). This became "extremely standard", then people extended it to support multiple different operating systems, and most boot managers support multiple operating systems using this method.
Note 1: I define "boot manager" as something you use to choose which OS to boot, and "boot loader" as something designed to boot the specific OS that was chosen. Ideally these have nothing to do with each other, the boot manager should have nothing to do with any OS, and the end user should be able to change the boot manager with anything they like without upsetting or effecting any OS or any boot loader. Sadly, (for Windows) Microsoft are hostile towards allowing multiple different operating systems to boot using simple, sane and well supported methods (including allowing multiple instances of the same version of Windows to be installed at the same time, which could be useful - e.g. one OS for your work stuff and a separate OS for your kids both installed on the same computer) and try to smother sanity with their own "boot.ini" idiocy that mostly just makes everything horrid for no benefit (other than giving Microsoft more control over what you do with your computer). Of course when the user is only installing one OS on the computer it's nice for the OS installer to (optionally, if and only if the user wants it - e.g. because they don't already have their own boot manager) provide and install a minimal MBR that doesn't nothing more than chain load the operating system's boot loader.
As time passed more devices got added. The first was network cards and the ability to boot from network. This is nothing like "boot from disk". Instead, the network card's ROM (after some negotiation with a DHCP server) downloads an entire "boot file" (which is not limited to 1 sector and can be 500 KiB if you like) from a server, then provides an API (which became known as the "PXE API") that the boot loader can use to access networking (e.g. send/receive packets, download more files using the TFTP protocol, etc).
The other type of device that got added was CD-ROM. For these, a new specification ("El Torito bootable CD-ROM specification") was created, partly so that you could have a boot catalogue with multiple entries for multiple architectures (e.g. one for "80x86 PC", one for "PowerPC", etc) and let the firmware choose the most appropriate boot loader for the computer being booted. For this there are 3 methods for PCs - emulate a floppy disk, emulate a hard disk, or "no emulation". The emulation options work the same as original "boot from disk" method (and use 512-byte sectors, etc), but are limited and slow and probably shouldn't be used for anything other than compatibility with legacy operating systems. For "no emulation" it's completely different to the original "boot from disk" method, firmware is supposed to load an entire "boot file" (which is not limited to 1 sector and can be 500 KiB if you like), and sectors will be 2048 bytes (and not 512 bytes).
Even later; UEFI got invented. For 80x86 PCs this comes in 2 flavours - 32-bit 80x86 and 64-bit 80x86. In theory you can have a 64-bit UEFI boot loader that switches to protected mode/32-bit and starts a 32-bit OS; and you can have a 32-bit UEFI boot loader that switches to long mode/64-bit and starts a 64-bit OS. However, 32-bit UEFI is very rare (a few old Apple Mac's and almost nothing else) and these computers are likely to also support "BIOS compatible boot"; and isn't worth supporting 32-bit UEFI for that reason. For UEFI in general, it loads and executes an entire file (from whatever the boot device was) and provides an API that the boot loader can use (e.g. to setup a video mode, get a memory map, load other file/s, etc).
Note 2: UEFI tries to make it so that boot works the same regardless of which type of device you're booting from. In practice this doesn't work very well and you'll probably want a different boot loader for CD (that accesses file/s on the CD itself and isn't restricted to a weeny FAT file system image) and a different boot loader for network (even if it's only to allow you to pass IP addresses to the OS and avoid repeating the slow DHCP stuff after the OS boots).
With UEFI a new partitioning scheme was also introduced (GPT or "GUID Partition Table"). This has multiple advantages and (for new operating systems being installed as the only OS on a computer) should probably be considered the default (and the old "MBR partitions" should probably be considered obsolete for compatibility with old operating systems only).
Mostly; for 80x86 you'll probably need 4 or more different boot loaders:
one for BIOS and un-partitioned disk devices (floppy)
one for BIOS and disk devices that were partitioned with "MBR partitions"
one for BIOS and disk devices that were partitioned with "GPT partitions"
one for BIOS and network boot/PXE
one for BIOS and "no emulation" CD boot
one for 64-bit UEFI disk
one for 64-bit UEFI CD-ROM
one for 64-bit UEFI network
Of course all of these cases are "different enough" that it's silly to try to have a generic boot loader that covers multiple different cases (and in cases where there are similarities things like "512-bytes only" restrictions are so limiting that you'll be doomed if you try).
I'd also "strongly recommend" having some kind of abstraction between boot loader and the rest of the OS (e.g. a "boot protocol" defined for the OS that describes how a boot loader sets things up, passes information to the OS and transfers control to the OS); such that none of the code in the entire OS needs to know or care what the firmware was (if it was BIOS or UEFI or something else, like maybe kexec()). This means that anyone can create more boot loaders (to support other cases and other devices); and (as long as everything complies with your abstraction's specification) the entire OS will work with the new boot loader/s without any changes.
Under FAT32, I have MBR bootloader to read the first sector of the virtual disk image generated by bximage from Bochs. Where (which sector) should I put the second compiled code that shows the black screen? How to do it with dd utility? My second compiled code file is 9 Bytes only.
This is mostly wrong. For "BIOS hard disk" you should have an MBR (that has nothing to do with the OS at all) and partitions, and your operating system's boot loader should begin in the first sector of the partition (and should be designed to use DS:SI to find the partition table entry that describes its partition, and dl to determine which device the partition is on).
Is VBR necessary?
For some cases (booting from UEFI, network, CD-ROM) a VBR doesn't make sense. For some cases (booting from BIOS hard disk or BIOS USB flash) it's "theoretically optional" but extremely recommended; because some BIOSes may not recognise it (especially for the USB flash case), and other operating systems will assume that the disk isn't formatted (and will tell their users that the disk needs to be initialised/partitioned, convincing the user that your OS is garbage and leading to the user accidentally or intentionally wiping your OS off the disk).
How do I know where the data region (FAT32) starts and ends?
For FAT; there's fields in the BPB ("BIOS Parameter Block", which is misnamed as it's mostly not used by the BIOS at all) in the first sector of the volume/partition that tell you things like how many reserved sectors there are, how many sectors are in each cluster, etc. Really, if you're going to use one of the world's worst file systems for inappropriate things (e.g. for an operating system's main partition where things like effective permissions/security and fault tolerance are sorely needed) then you'll need to learn everything about FAT32 so that you can write code to allow the OS to support it after boot.
I have three node CouchDB cluster. It is running on windows. Each node has 16vcpu and 64GB RAM. I am fairly new to CouchDB and to nonrelational databases in general.
The cluster is running on windows. What I am struggling with is one of the nodes (which I am assuming is the coordinator) is using the page file about 120GB disk space while it has about 48GB free RAM available to it.
We increased the RAM from 32Gb to 64GB to help with the paging. Only to find out that, it is now using more of the page file since the page file is being currently managed by the Windows OS.
I would assume it would be paging once it used all the available RAM, but what we have is 120GB paging file while it has about 50GB free RAM.
Why is it using the page file which has less response time while it has free RAM available to it?
Wasn't it supposed to use unreserved RAM for disk caching of frequently accessed DB file blocks to speed up access? Why is it behaving this way?
Is there a CouchDB or Erlang Beam configuration setting that I should be looking at?
I'd like to use a neo4j database in a docker container with Odroid XU4. The database is not big, approximately 20.000 nodes will be in it. The Odroid has only 2G memory, and I'd like to have a samba server, some nodejs applications and at least one PgSQL database too, so the system is short on memory. I read in the neo4j manual that 2G memory is the minimum, but I read by docker examples that it is used with 512M, so I am a little confused about this. What is the minimum memory I can use the neo4j docker image with?
I have similar troubles with the disk space. The system is on a 32GB SD card. I'd like to save database data there and backup on an external hard drive, so I could spend max 16GB for the neo4j. The data certainly does not require that kind of space, I am not sure why neo4j needs it (according to the manual again).
First you can use http://neo4j.com/hardware-sizing-calculator/ to get rough estimate for memory and disk usage.
Second option is to do some math. You can use information on page 12 in http://graphaware.com/assets/bachman-msc-thesis.pdf
You should keep in mind it's good to have all data in the memory for the performance reasons.
From my point of view you shouldn't have problem with the memory, but you can't expect great performance.
It's better to try it by yourself before you ask here ;)
How do I find out the storage capacity of my harddisk without using the OS functions like dir or ls?
On windows:
Win32: GetDiskFreeSpaceEx
.NET: DriveInfo
If, for whatever reason, you still don't want to use those, you can send an IOCTL message direct to the disk driver.
statfs() unix system call is your friend (link points to BSD man page as used in Mac OS X).