Windows update KB3172985 causes Orange Screen on BitLocker drive

Was able to get rid of the screen by doing the following:

- enter your bitlocker (or user) password on the orange screen blind which temporarily bypasses the problem

- uninstall the security update (KB3172985). It will ask to restart, let it restart. It will still have the orange screen but the update will be uninstalled. Access your account again.

- suspend bitlocker first, then reinstall the update (if you check for updates it will automatically find and reinstall it)

- restart your computer and the bitlocker password screen should now appear (if you chose that option when installing bitlocker)

- you may have to do this process twice



http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/w...88178e6?page=3





I gotchu fam

 

Actually try this first

Steps that worked for me:

1. Suspend Bitlocker

2. open CMD with evalated rights (administrator)

3. run the commend: "bfsvc.exe %windir%\boot /v"

4. Reboot the Computer

5. In the case you are not prompted for password, witht this reboot, just reboot again :-)

6. Done



It's easier, and from someone at Microsoft (not official fix though)

 

@stogie1020 I found this today

https://sourceforge.net/projects/arrangebypenis/

 

^nice!


Wait, what exactly were you searching for when you found that? :gheywave:

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/com...ill_so/d5w2di0

 

Anyone been playing around with Server 2016 preview releases yet?

 

Anyone running fiber?

I am eagerly awaiting the update to the Synology DS1815 to see if it has SFP ports... Considering running fiber from the NAS to the switch, then down to two desktops for better throughput than 1Gbps with LACP/LAG. Would using 5900RPM NAS drives defeat this entirely?

 

Do you have evidence that fiber would be faster? How fast are your ping tests? But yeah seems like a waste to me

 

You have a decent idea what I do for work. I regularly am analyzing images that are between 200 and 5000 GB, and since I plan to move from desktop attached storage RAID arrays (currently eSATA) to a single NAS array (synology), I am wondering of it makes sense to use fiber (it's not crazy expensive) from the storage array to the switch and then to the few workstations that access these data sets so they can work at 10Gbps.

If it adds an extra $1k to the entire network setup (switch, cabling, SFCs, NICs) but made a big improvement, I would probably go for it. All the other wired devices can stay on Cat5e, 1Gbps is fine for most stuff.

Ping tests are all fine and dandy, but the real test is the large sequential reads from the storage array, currently directly connected to a single workstation and shared with a few others via 1Gbps connection. This connection shows (task manager) as about 50%-75% saturated during the large sequential reads, but since I know 1Gbps is a theoretical max, I just don't know if it's truly maxed out or not.

 

I thought you were going from 1gbps ethernet to 1gbps fiber. 10Gbps might be faster, I couldn't say with certainty. I'd try and stick with ethernet though, it's just easier to work with and I'd assume cheaper. Though 10G ethernet is gonna be super shielded and not be easy to work with but fiber if something goes wrong you need an expert to fix the cable or you replace, then you got to be sure you don't bend it too much. It's more delicate and requires much more sophisticated tools and expertise that you couldn't do on your own.

I've yet to work with any 10G stuff yet, what speed in MB/s are you getting over your 1G network. I'd expect 5900RPMs to be able to do about 100MB/s sequential but when you put them in a NAS and send it over the network there's got to be a bunch of overhead there.

How about Jumbo Frames? Have you looked into upping the network MTU to 9000 bytes instead of the default of 1500-ish bytes? I'd guess that could provide a good increase with your current hardware if they all support it, which they should.

Wikipedia says you can get about 5% improvement with Jumbo frames
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumbo_frame

 

So the max speed you can get on 100mbps is roughly 12-13MB/s so gigabit is probably 120-130MB/s so 50-75% of that is 60-100/MB/s, that's probably pretty close to what your drives max at sustained. I'd fuck with Jumbo Frames and see what that does. Or you can go 10G so you're ready for the day your get an array full of SSDs

 

Well truthfully, since it's RAID5, the max output is much higher for the array despite the individual drives being 5900rpm, but I would love to discuss this with a storage network expert if anyone knows one...

 

I'd be shocked if that mythical unicorn had 10Gbps capability.

 

I feel like I had a reply in this thread that is now gone....

I have jumbo frames enabled across the network already.

Doopstr, the 2015 has two 10GB ports and two 1Gb LAN ports and only costs a few hundred more (but has an ARM processor and does not support BTRFS), so it's not outside the realm of possible.

 

Real world throughput of copper is usually conservatively estimated at 25-30% of theoretical max, so 1GB lan with Cat5e should easily support 250-300 MB/s, probably more. Looks like the 1815+ will give real world read throughput of ~85Mb/s and sequential read throughput of ~450 mb/s (remember, parity raids take a hit in write performance).

So, going up to a 10GB network with either copper (Cat6a patch cords) or fiber would theoretically improve performance if the majority of your reads are indeed sequential and really reach the ~450 mb/s figures that Synology lists. Will a 1GB network really bottleneck performance? Hard to know. Synology did those tests on a 1GB network, so I'd assume you'd probably be OK with 1GB?

https://www.synology.com/en-us/produ...rmance#5_10bay

 

NFN, thanks for tha link, very interesting... 1,700mb/s throughput (read) on the 10G network for the XS series...

 

Except Gigabit Ethernet is measured in bits per second not bytes per second. You have to divide by 8 to get a byte per second which for Gigabit Ethernet is 125MB/s (1000 / 8 = 125) max speed not 250-300MB/s. Stogie's NAS supports link aggregation so you could combine the speed of multiple Ethernet ports to double your bandwidth. but that would be wasted if the PC you're sending it to doesn't have link aggregation as well since they'll be limited to 125MB/s.

With 100Mbps Ethernet I often got 12.x MB/s transfer speed, no problem but with Gigabit I can't recall getting 120MB/s plus transfer speeds very often if at all, does that mean my bottleneck is with the network or something else, IDK. But before going fiber 10G I'd try link aggregation and see if you get a speed increase, that will tell you if your bottleneck is your drives or your network.

 

Hmmm, wonder how Synology pushed 430 MB/s over a non-aggregated 1Gb lan?

Even the non-sequential reads exceeded 80 MB/s on the 1Gb lan.

Something's not adding up....

 

Because they are using link aggregation

4 aggegated GbE ports give you a theoretical max of 500MB/s

And note that's not 450MB/s to one PC that's 450MB/s spread across 4 PCs. If you want that kindof speed to one PC you could try to directly connect them with crossover cables and an OS that support link aggregation, Windows Server has that feature, it's called NIC Teaming. But would that work directly connected to a NAS. I could see it working but wouldn't assume it would.

If you want to send 112MB/s of data to four PCs at the same time then link aggregation should get you there. Other than that then you'll need to go 10G to get over 120MB/s on one cable.

I notice they're not using Jumbo Frames I guess it doesn't make as much of a difference in this situation. If they could bump up performance by 5% with Jumbo Frames you'd think they would've done it.

 

Ah, I was looking at the wrong specs. All of those 5-12 bay units do indeed have quad nics....

So they're getting 88% of max theoretical on each Gb lan (110/125)... pretty impressive. That's way higher than I would have expected.

I'm a bit confused about the number of PCs used, because they used both single nic and multinic machines....

 

^^^^ e.g. the sequential read test I assume was done to a quad-nic PC?? How would you do a sequential read multiple PCs?

 

So are they reading one 8GB off a RAID array at 112MB/s sending it simultaneously to 4 PCs via link aggregation and saying that the total data transferred is ~450MB/s. Technically that would be true there's 450MB/s coming out of the network but there's only 112MB/s coming off of the RAID array not 450MB/s.

It doesn't seem that it's 4 PCs accessing separate 8GB files each receiving data at 112MB/s. If that were true then not only would the data coming measured at the network level be 450MB/s but the data being read from the RAID array would also be 450MB/s (4 separate files being read simultaneously at 112 MB/s).

The fact that they specify that it's a single 8GB files and not separate files tells me it's the former and not the later.

 

Link aggregation does not increase the throughput to ONE computer from 1GB to 4GB (assuming 4 teamed NICS on 1GB connection), but allows four computers (or however many linked NICS there are on the source device) to utilize the entire 1GB connection EACH. It makes a one lane road into a four lane road, but only one car can be in any one lane at a time.

As a result, if you really want to increase throughput to any single device that is already maxed on it's "channel", you need to make that channel larger, hence the question about 10G fiber from data source to switch to workstation.

 

If you're sure that your RAID array in that NAS can pump out a lot more than 125MB/s then it seems worth it. But if as you said are only getting 60% network utilization then the bottleneck probably isn't your network. Your NAS can supposedly put out that performance so the issue could be with the disks that you're using, they were using some WD 7200RPM datacenter drives in their test, or possibly an issue with the PC itself. Try throwing some 7200RPMs in there and see what happens

 

2 years later is this still the best way? My house is one story. I just want to have better Wifi for my phone on the side farthest from the router. PS I have UVerse and supposedly they'll hook it up with an extender. I have only PC stuff. Does it have to be Airport Express? Anything cheaper that works ok?

 

I haven't really used a wifi extender but I don't like the idea of them. Seems terrible latency and bandwidth

 

I don't like wifi extenders either.. I'll use a second router and power line over that.


Or more realistically, just place my router in a central location

 

Need the Wifi on that end for the PS3, PS4 and DirecTV to be wired connections so moving the router isn't possible. So I can use another router instead of an airport express?

 

Bruh, no one wants to play against you on PS4 when you're going through a wifi extender. Don't be that guy with the laggy as fuck connection. Run an ethernet cable or do the powerline stuff.

 

Bruh, I've already given up on an extender. Read my post again.

 

Yes you can.

 

True. You can get a 2nd router and turn off DHCP in it and give it a static IP outside of your original router's DHCP range, then make sure you plug the cable from your original router in one of the four ports on the back that AREN'T the "internet" port on your 2nd router. That will make the 2nd router act basically like a switch with Wi-Fi capability

 

so for some damn odd reason the wifi in my room has always been ridiculously slow.
So a few years back I added a wifi extender (old apple airport express i had laying around), while it helped improved the speed for basic web browsing, i couldnt/barely stream anything from netflix/amazon/pornhub/youtube
It also rendered my Apple TV and FireTV Stick useless.

finally got fed up with it and picked up a TP-Link AV500 powerline adapter and extended my wireless network off that (same SSID and password, apple calls it a Roaming Network)

OMG why didnt i do this a long time ago. While not THAT fast, about 1.2MB/sec, its much faster than the 28-90KB/sec i was getting.


now i just need resolve the interference my subwoofer is getting now. probably a simple surge protector or something will fix that.

 

ohh, i just realized that my post is probably what Doom878 wants to do.

 

Noise filter or power line conditioner fo your subwoofer?

 

DO you guys have access to your attic? If yes, it might be easy to buy bulk CAT5 Wire and the crimper and just make a custom cable from the back of the modem/Router to another cheap router near where you need the wireless signal. As stated above you can use the 1-4 ports (not internet port) on the 2nd router to extend the network. Much more reliable, don't have to worry about power spikes damaging your Ethernet port and you don't have to worry about interference. Plus you'll have the stuff to make any ethernet or phone cable whenever you need it.

I took the opportunity of poor wifi in my house to add about 30 Cat5 wall jacks (buy the stupid wall tool, it's worth it) that leads to a network closet with a cisco switch and router downstairs and another router upstairs connected to the first router (not the switch).

 

Hah thanks dude

I'm renting this house but when I buy my house, I am def considering laying some cat5 down.

 

Ask your landlord, the first thing I did to my house when i moved in was to run Ethernet from every bedroom in the house to a he living room. fuck that wifi shit, homie dint play that.

 

I'm sure they don't mind as it helps them out, but fuck that shit. Time, energy, etc. I want to move in 6 mos anyways

 

fixed price is negligble between the two at this point, might as well get some good shit.

remodeled parent's house and made sure every bedroom had two Ethernet drops for future proofing.. It all goes into my room where there's a little 4U enclosure for all the networking goodies.