Disk Size reported incorrectly

I have a new Solaris 10 installation on a Dell 2450 using 4 73GB SCSI disks. The OS reports the disks as being 17.8GB in the format command. How do I correct this problem. I don't know enough about the detailed workings of Solaris to even start looking for a solution. Anybody out there that can help point me in the right direction? Or better still, tell me exactly how to fix this problem? Thanks in advance.

This is probably an issue with the disk reporting more than
65535 cylinders; the SunOS disk label limits the number of
cylinders, the number of heads, and the number of sector per
track to values less than 65536.
I guess that Patch 119375-01 / 119376-01 contains a workaround
for this issue:
http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-21-119376-01-1
http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-21-119375-01-1
For a new S10 installation, use the extra driver floppy included in
patch 119376-01. When the system starts the boot process from
CD, interrupt the autoboot by pressing the ESC key, and use
"F4_Add Drivers" from the first DCA screen.

Similar Messages

Disk Quota reporting incorrectly

I have a user with a 500Mb disk quota who is currently only using 54Mb of this space. She is using the Messenger Express client and keeps getting a message saying she is over her quota when she clearly isn't. She has been over quota previously but isn't anymore.
Any ideas?

1. How are you determining quota in use?
I have used the Messenger Express web client - scroll to the bottom of the page and read the bottom line
13 Messages (1 unread) - 54MB (500MB limit) - 536 total messages (no limit)
I have also used the mboxutil -u <username> comand and can see the same information there
diskquota size(K) %use msgquota msgs %use user
512000 54074 10% no quota 536 username
2. How have you set the quota? In LDAP?
Using the iPlanet console in LDAP I have populated the mailquota attribute with the value 524287778
3. Have you run any reconstructs recently?
The only reconstruct command I have used is
reconstruct -o
to find orphaned accounts
4. Does the user have a different quota from the majority of your users?
Yes, most of our users have a 90Mb mailbox disk quota, but there are several other users with a 500Mb quota or greater
5. Exactly what version of Messaging Server do you have?
imsimta version reports
iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)
libimta.so 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built 12:32:17, May 14 2003)
SunOS messaging 5.8 Generic_108528-16 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-280R

Image size reported incorrectly

We have a studio where we shoot 1080p (1920x1080 resolution). When we upload these files into Final Cut Server the Image Size column usually (but not always) reports that the Image Size is 1440x1080. This was really concerning me, but when I export the video back to my computer the original media is still 1920x1080. The poster frame image is also still 1920x1080.
Any ideas why FCS is reporting the incorrect Image Size most of the time?

Philip Hodgetts wrote:
I've been under the impression that DVCPRO HD in 60 Hz countries is 1280x 1080 for nominal "1080" files. In 50 Hz countries it's 1440 x 1080.
Philip
That is indeed correct. Good point. Are you working in 50i, bradleylamar?

"raidctl -l c0t0d0" in T1000 shows incorrect disk size

We are using hardware raid1, set up with raidctl command on our T1000. When I issue "raidctl -l c0t0d0" in our T1000 it shows incorrect disk size of 689.9M, instead of 136G. This seems to have started with 12/1/09 Recommended Patch Cluster for Solaris 10. Is anyone else seeing this and/or know of a fix?

Hello
We've been told to install patch 144017-01 although we've yet to perform this to see if it fixes the problem.
After installing mpt patch 141743-02 or later drive capacity is incorrectly reported
SunOS 5.10: mpt.so.1 patch
Status: RELEASED
Patch Id: 144017-01
READ THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") IN THE LEGAL_LICENSE.TXT
FILE CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS SOFTWARE. BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU
AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE
TERMS, PROMPTLY DESTROY THE UNUSED SOFTWARE.
For further information on patching best practices and resources, please
see the Big Admin Patching Center, http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/patches/
Summary: SunOS 5.10: mpt.so.1 patch
Date: Mar/17/2010
Installation Requirements:
NA
Solaris Release: 10
Sun OS Release: 5.10
Unbundled Product:
Unbundled Release:
Xref: This patch available for x86 as patch 144018
Topic:
SunOS 5.10: mpt.so.1 patch
Relevant Architecture: sparc
BugId's fixed with this patch:
6881276
Changes incorporated in this version:
Patches accumulated and obsoleted by this patch:
Patches which conflict with this patch:
Required Patches:
127127-11 137137-09 139555-08 141444-09 (or greater)
Obsoleted by:
Files Included in this Patch:
/usr/lib/raidcfg/mpt.so.1
/usr/lib/raidcfg/sparcv9/mpt.so.1
Problem Description:
6881276 after installing mpt patch 141743-02 or later drive capacity is incorrectly reported
Revision History:
Patch Installation Instructions:
Please refer to the man pages for instructions on using 'patchadd'
and 'patchrm' commands provided with Solaris.
The following example installs a patch to a standalone machine:
example# patchadd /var/spool/patch/123456-07
The following example removes a patch from a standalone system:
example# patchrm 123456-07
For additional examples please see the appropriate man pages. Any
other special or non-generic installation instructions should be
described below as special instructions.
Special Install Instructions:
None.
README -- Last modified date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010

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.

Disk Utility: Reporting wrong size for disk after a restore

First up, hardware is G4(PPC) running OS 10.4.11
I've just purchased and installed a new 500G drive for this old workhorse as an upgrade for the previous secondary drive. Set it up with a single partition, JHFS+. No problems so far. Went to copy the files from the old drive to this new one and thought, "Why don't I try that handly looking Restore button?". +Yeah, apparently a bad idea+. The old drive is 120GB. I set its (only) volume to be the source and my newly created partition to be the target; set it going and left it alone. All appeared to be well when I came back, until I checked the available space on the new drive.
Disk Utility now reports that this new, 500G drive has a Total Capacity of 128G (137,438,952,960 bytes).
*Remedies tried so far:*
- I've tried reformatting/partitioning, but wasn't able to convince it otherwise. Also tried it booting from an install DVD just in case that made a difference.
- I downloaded a utility from the drive manufacturer which I managed to get on to an ancient, dusty w2k box. Reformatted the drive with 2 NTFS partitions. This seemed to do the trick as they both mounted when I rebooted the Mac. However, when I went to reformat the volumes to JHFS I noticed that the total disk size was still being reported as 128G. Still, they reformatted fine and I transfered my data to them. On a reboot, though, the Mac decided that it didn't want to see the second partition and only shows me disk1s10, ignoring the second partition I set up.
- I have an identical, empty drive to the 500G. I thought I might be able to use the Restore "feature" to trick it back. Set up the second 500G in a firewire box, ran the restore from the empty volume to the screwed up one. No dice.
I thought that OS X ignored any sort of BIOS info on a drive and merely looked at the physical media. Is this correct? Does it store this gathered info in a file somewhere that I can delete?
*This is a call for help.*
I have no problems playing with the command line as root, if that's the sort of suggestions you've got. I just thought I'd ask here before I fdisk/dd etc from new500 to old500. Geometry of the new500 is 60801/255/63.

Thanks! That sounds like a good short term solution for a backup.
EDIT: Cross reference link for anyone who happens to google this thread with a similar problem:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7230072&tstart=0
Message was edited by: mr_lunch

Disk utility reports smaller hard drive size than actual

I have been using a 3tb external drive (Formatted mac osx journaled) without any problems on my mac mini. Suddenly, it no longer allows me to write to the drive and more often it does not even recognize the drive when it is in the caddy. The caddy supports USB3 and is fairly new. The hard drive is a 7200rpm seagate.
When looking at the drive in disk utility, it states that the drive is 2.2 TB while the size is 3TB.
Does anyone have similar problems? Any recommendations?
Currently on OS X version 10.8.5.
Thanks!
When I insert the drive in the caddy I get the error message that it is not readable. Disk utility reports it as 2.2tb. The drive is a 3TB Seagate.

Hi Eric,
Can't really hook it up directly to a mac mini as the mini is pretty sealed. I did connect it to a PC as I wanted to run SpinRite on it and SpinRite gave me an error message that the Drive Size reported was less than the actual physical drive size.
SpinRite recommended not to perform any actions on the drive due to this discrepancy.
Not sure where to go at this point.
I could try to re-format the 3TB with OS X Journal and see if I get the 3tb back...

Osx lion get info reporting incorrect file size

Hi all,
I am trying to troubleshoot a strange problem I am having with Adobe Revel. Adobe have been helping me to resolve it but my mac is displaying some odd behaviour which I need to explain and which may be affecting the adobe app.
The adobe app creates a library file of pictures and the file should be growing as I download more pictures. If I right click on the folder and "Get info" the folder size shown is smaller than I would expect at 25MB given that it should contain a good number of Jpeg files.
I have downloaded an app called "Grand Perspective" to help me manage disk space and for this particular file it reports a completely different (much Larger) file size than "Get Info" did (155 MB) which is much closer to what I would expect to find and it is growing as more pictures are downloaded.
Any idea what could cause "Get Info" to report the wrong file size.
I have another osx Lion mac with the same software loaded and although a completely different machine, it reports the same file size for this library folder as grand perspective does.
Any help gratefully accepted.
Slarti

I'm finding the same behaviour running Lion 10.7.2 and the file with the exact same problem as yours is a Sente (bibliography software) library containing references and pdfs. 'Get Info' reports it as 130KB but I know the file is much much larger than that! Even the Size reported on Get Info shows 874.4MB which is still too small. If I 'Show Package Contents' on the file and 'Get Info' on the 'Contents' folder which it then shows, I get the correct size of 1.14GB
Apple Tech Support over the phone wasn't able to explain this behaviour.

SQL Server 2008 R2 Disk Usage report showing incorrect data file

When I go to ANY database (System, AdventureWorks*, user) in Managemant Studio, I right-click on the db, select Reports, select Standard Reports, and select Disk Usage. The disk usage report shows the correct db on top, but always only shows AdventureWorks_Data.mdf
when I expand Disk Space Used by Data Files section. This happens to any db I try. When I look at Database Properties/Files for that database, the logical and physical file names are correct.
Since the correct files appear in Database Properties/Files, I'm hoping it's just a bug in the report. Same thing happens if I run a Disk Usage by Table report for ANY database, The tables for AdventureWorks always only appear,
Thanks, Mike

Thanks Tibor!
I looked at the Properties for my login under Security/Logins and it shows my default db to be master. Not sure if this is correct, but it sounds plausible. I'll see if I can report the problem.
The only issue I can think of that was out of the ordinary for the install of 2008 R2 EE was this:
I originally installed 2005 DE, since it wouldn't expire. After the install of 2005 DE, I decided to uninstall it and install 2008 R2 EE. In between the installs of 2005 DE and 2008 R2 EE, I installed/uninstalled stupid stuff like 2008
Express, 2008 Express with Advanced Services (?), and 2008 EE. After each uninstall I also did a system restore to be safe.
Now each time I open Management Studio, i get a pop-up stating that there are SQL Server 2005 registered servers on my sytem and asks me if I want to add them into Management Studio. I always say no.
The AdventureWorks db is from 2005 and was installed automatically with 2005. I installed the 2005, 2008, and 2008 R2 AdventureWorks databases to my R2 for class. I'm not sure now if the Disk Usage report is showing me AdventureWorks_Data.mdf
because of my install into 2008 R2 EE or my previous install of 2005 DE.
Hope this kind of makes sense...
-Mike

FRSM Randomly Reports Incorrect Quota Usage

We are using Server 2008 with FSRM 6.1 and are randomly seeing some quotas reporting incorrectly that they are at 100%. If the folder is checked they are well under the quota but FRSM still reports it as 100% even after a refresh.
The only way that I have seen the quotas reporting as normal is when we delete them and recreate them but it returns a few weeks later.
This is only happening on one file server (we have several that FRSM manages the quota allocations for) and disk compression has not been turned on for that volume. This also is not happening to every quota on that volume, only some.
Any ideas?

Hi,
Firstly, please refer to the thread to check if the disk usage of the folder is reported correctly:
Server 2008R2 reports disk size/free space incorrectly in explorer and disk manager
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/bf5445d5-e796-4cbb-9571-8639b900cfd4/server-2008r2-reports-disk-sizefree-space-incorrectly-in-explorer-and-disk-manager?forum=winserverfiles
Then check if your current account have permissions to access subfolders. If the user does not have permission to access all subfolder. The size of some folders will not be counted with right click on a folder.
FSRM usage quota incorrect after deletion of 'RECYCLER' folder
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/4a076bd3-6e84-4392-9d1a-d93e67a9c319/fsrm-usage-quota-incorrect-after-deletion-of-recycler-folder?forum=winserver8gen
Regards,
Mandy
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.

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"!

Disk size and backups

Hello
I wander what is required disk size on hana when migrating from e.g Oracle to Hana?
E.g under oracle I have 1Tb database (and something more if I backup also at OS level)
What will I have under Hana ? How much to backup?
Thank you a lot
Jan

Dear Jan,
The first thing we need to perform before migrating from AnyDb to HANA is memory sizing. SAP provides specific notes for memory sizing of different SAP Applications as mentioned bel ow
1793345 - Sizing for SAP Suite on HANA
1637145 - SAP BW on HANA: Sizing SAP In-Memory Database
1872170 - Suite on HANA memory sizing
1736976 - Sizing Report for BW on HANA
The objective if the the above is to get the footprint of uncompressed DATA in AnyDB.
That forms one of the parameter for sizing the HANA DB.
Based on this sizing information one would use the suitable T-Shirt sized HANA Appliance from the hardware vendor. We then have to apply the
Traditional the RAM should be atleast 2x(uncompressed_DB / Compression factor) and the Disk space would be at least 3-4xRAM for persisitance layer and 1xRAM for logs.
The compression factor might be around 4-7 times depending on the type SAP application.
Regards
Arshad

How to increase Disk usage reported in Resource Monitor

Hi,
I wonder how I can increase Disk usage reported in the Resource Monitor. When I use the 7200 Hard drive or SSD, the max usage is 1Gb/sec.
Thank you for your help.
HN

Hi,
As I understand, you want to increase the size of the root partition (where you installed Solaris) which resides in c1t0d0s0. I think it can be done using Concatenations from Solaris Volume Manager (SVM).
I have tried it in non root partition like /export/home and it is very easy.
metainit -f d0 2 1 c1t0d0s7 1 c2t0d0s7 //this will create volume d0 as a concatenation
growfs -M /export/home /dev/md/rdsk/d0 //this will grow the /export/home partition
Regards,
Rei

File size reported reported differently

Can someone help me explain why this file size is reported differently depending whether you list file or folder properties:
This is an Azure Basic_A1 VM. Drive E: is standard VHD attached to the VM (Page Block Storage).
This is an active/open file that is currently being written to, and is growing in size.
How is it that file size is reported as 8 GB if you query the folder, and 24 GB if you query the file?
Sam Boutros, Senior Consultant, Software Logic, KOP, PA http://superwidgets.wordpress.com (Please take a moment to Vote as Helpful and/or Mark as Answer, where applicable) _________________________________________________________________________________
Powershell: Learn it before it's an emergency http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/scriptcenter/powershell.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/scriptcenter/dd793612.aspx

I ran this script for the last 8 or so hours out of this 19 hour upload:
$Folder = "e:\Backups\Sam Client\To Azure Page Block Repository"
$Log = "c:\Sandbox\Upload4.csv"
Write-Output '"FileQuery","FolderQuery","Time"' | Out-File $Log
Do {
$a = (dir "$Folder\To Azure Page Block Repository2014-09-23T051450.vbk").length/1GB
$b = (dir $Folder)[1].length/1GB
cls
Write-Host "File size reported from file list: $('{0:N2}' -f $a) GB" -ForegroundColor Green
Write-Host "File size reported from folder list: $('{0:N2}' -f $b) GB" -ForegroundColor Yellow
dir $Folder | FT -AutoSize
Write-Output """$a"",""$b"",""$(Get-Date -Format 'hh:mm:ss tt')""" | Out-File $Log -Append
Start-Sleep -Seconds 10
} while ($a -ne $b)
That collected over 3,000 sampling points that are 10 seconds apart. I then graphed that data:
The vertical axis is file size in GB, the horizontal axis is time (not directly - it's sampling points)
And you can see file size as reported by folder query lags behind file size as reported by file query. The amount of lag was upwards of 90GB at its highest point. And it took anywhere from roughly 5 minutes to 3 hours for 1 indicator to catch up with the
other.
The question is why these two sets of numbers are different? Is there caching going on somewhere? Is one indicator accounting for all file blocks while the other is accounting for committed blocks only? Can someone from Microsoft shed some light on this?
This is important to know to be able to plan disk space requirements when attempting to use Azure as backup target with large data sets regardless of the software used.
Sam Boutros, Senior Consultant, Software Logic, KOP, PA http://superwidgets.wordpress.com (Please take a moment to Vote as Helpful and/or Mark as Answer, where applicable) _________________________________________________________________________________
Powershell: Learn it before it's an emergency http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/scriptcenter/powershell.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/scriptcenter/dd793612.aspx

A200 Disk Space Report Problem

I have a problem with my A200. The disk size is 40GB and currently it has 15GB in use.
Occasionally the machine will suddenly start to report that the disk has only 40MB free space remaining - confirmed by checking properties for the disk under my computuer. After a reboot all goes back to normal with the correct free space reported.
Is this a known issue for this machine? I've seen there is a BIOS update available but can't see any details of the issues that it is meant to address.

Hi,
in my opinion you should make a BIOS update.
Did you scan your HDD with a current antivirus software?
You can also run Scandisk and Defrag which are checking your HDD.
Chris

Disk Size reported incorrectly

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for