Usage showing more memory than is accounted for

how do i get rid of 'other' storage bloating?

Other is email, text messages, and the stuff that apps use in the background, like when you save your place in a game. You can try deleting old email and text messages. Specifically if people send you pictures in text messages and as attachments.
Other than that, yes you need to restore your phone as new and do not restore from a backup, the backup will put the "Other" stuff right back on your phone.

Similar Messages

Creating more than one account for a single user

I was wondering, if I creat more than one account for me (the only person that uses my powerbook) is that going overboard? I mean, lets say I am logged into the standard account and I want to learn more about the bash shell and using terminal which I am new to, if I **** something up will the whole system be toast or will only things in that account be messed up? Like could I then just log into my admin account and delete the other messed up one? Or no? My theory was that this was a way of keeping my comp safe from myself, being that I am new to macs and moreso that I am new to the unix side of things and want to start learning the command line without worrying about screwing up my whole system. I would just use the standard account for everyday use (like what I do now) or experiment with terminal, and when I need to download something or change some settings that requires me to be logged in as admin then I would log in and download what I need then log out and use it in the standard account...am I just wasting my time? Is what I am doing any "safer" than just having one admin account and thats it?
Thanks for all the help! It feels good to be a part of the goodguys team =)
Thanks again!

Ghost,
First, I don't subscribe to the "one should not use an admin account" philosophy. For someone who is the owner and main user of any given machine, I see the use of anything but an admin account a bit anal, totally unecessary, and needlessly complicating.
On the other hand, I don't see the need for more than one admin account on any given machine. Yes, I see exceptions to this, and many people favor having a second admin account as a "backup," but I have never had more than one admin account on any of my machines, and have never encountered a situation where one would have helped.
In short, I like the idea of having a "main" admin account that is used most of the time, and then having "secondary" accounts (all non-admin) for any additional users that might log in.
Now, any limitations that apply to you as a GUI user of an account, admin or not, will apply to you at the command line as well. In other words, you can't get yourself into any more trouble at the command line than you can within the GUI. In fact, you might even be better protected at the command line than you are in the GUI. I say this because any action that would ordinarily "elevate" you above the standard capabilities of a non-admin user require the use of "sudo." Avoid the use of sudo, and you can avoid any problems.
That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to do something stupid that might wreck an account that contains "all of your stuff," and on which you depend. It is not likely that you would damage your System, but it is entirely conceivable that you might, for example, accidently delete or overwrite your entire HOME folder. Oops!
If you simply don't trust yourself with the command line, a second account might be a good place to experiment. Maybe create it as a non-admin account at first, with the option to change it to an admin account at a later time, when you want to learn how to use "sudo" to do more powerful things. By then, you will understand what not to do. Eventually, you will have the confidence to use the command line in your own account, which will have been an admin account all this while.
Scott

Exchange 2013 - The Microsoft Exchange Transport service is rejecting message submissions because the service continues to consume more memory than the configured threshold

Noticed at about noon that no emails had been received all day. Began to investigate and found that the MS Exchange Transport service had been set to deny email submission because it was using too much memory on the server (91%).
The error message makes me think that we may have been getting used by malware or something similar.“The Microsoft Exchange Transport service is rejecting message submissions because the service continues to consume more memory than the
configured threshold.”
There are also several warning messages that list particular IP addresses and say that a connection from that IP was denied because there were already the maximum number of connections (20).
From what I can tell, all of the IP addresses are from Taiwan.
The time period for which some emails may be missing is from close of business yesterday ( 4/3/2014) through about 12:45 today (4/4/2014).
From the time I spent reading and trying to figure out the error, I think we may need to readjust our throttling policies to prevent this from happening.
The exchange server is currently running at 90%+ CPU and 50%+ memory usage the majority of the time, and I’m not sure how to fix it.
Also, I cannot get into EMS I get a access denied message from the destination computer. (Exchange server) I want to get into there to change the throttling policy back to default, since we disabled it.
The Error reads:
The WinRM client cannot process the request. The WinRM client tried to use Kerberos authentication mechanism, but the destination computer <Exchange> returned an 'access denied' error. Change the configuration to allow Kerberos authentication
mechanism to be used or specify one of the authentication mechanism supported by the server. (How do I do this?) To use Kerberos, specify the local computer name as the remote destination. (I'm trying to use EMS while logged into the local Exchange server)
Also verify that the client computer and the destination computer are joined to a domain. (Exchange is on our domain, and the computer trying to connect is the same computer) To use basic, specify the local computer name as the remote destination, specify
Basic authentication and provide user mane and password. Possible authentication mechanisms reported by server.
At line:1 char:1
+ New-PSSession -ConnectionURI "$connectionUri" -ConfigurationName Microsoft.Excha ...
+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ CategoryInfo : OpenError: (System.Manageme....RemoteRunspace:RemoteRunspace) [New-PSSession], PSRemotingTransportException + FullyQualifiedErrorId : AccessDenied,PSSessionOpenFailed
I assumed control of this exchange system already in place and I do not have much experience with exchange 2013 or server 2012. I do know 2008, but that doesn't help very much in this situation.
Recent changes to the system:
About three days ago we switch our sessions policy to allow many more connections, and I believe this caused the issue. This is what I changed it to:
Made the registry DWORD (32-bit) "Maximum Allowed Sessions Per User" and modified the value to 1000. Location of registry change @ HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeIS\ParametersSystem
I just changed it to 10 from the 1000. I'm hoping this solves this. So far no.
Also, I am not the best in the shell or command line interfaces. Any help would be wonderful!

Hi,
Yes, could be hardware performance issue. Try recycle the Transport process and see if the issue persists.
Thanks,
Simon Wu
TechNet Community Support

Why does my exported swf show more content than actually on frame?

Why does my exported .swf show more content than actually on frame?
My problem is relatively simple, though, I had some trouble finding a solution to it:
When I play my exported animation using flash player in Google Chrome, if the window is bigger than the resolution flash document/frame, it shows content not meant to show up on the frame -- like parts of a huge background that aren't supposed to show up yet.
In other words, how do I constraint the .swf to the white background/document resolution?

Anyone? I'd appreciate it if someone replied soon -- I am done with my project once this issue is resolved, and I am excited to publish it.
Please respond if you have any useful knowledge on the matter!
Thanks!

Web Process + Safari now hogging 50-75% more memory than Safari 5.0.5 did

Now that Apple has split Safari into two processes — Web Process (handles page loads and other traffic) and Safari (handles interface, bookmarks, history, etc) — these two processes together are using 50% to 75% more memory than Safari did before the upgrade to 5.1.
Three days ago, the most RAM I'd ever seen Safari hog (after several hours of surfing multiple tabs) was 1.1GB (still way more than it needed, once back down to 3 or 4 tabs).
Today, after surfing only an hour:
WebProcess 1.3GB
Safari 552MB
Anyone else seeing this? And anyone have ideas about limiting this memory hogging?

Well, to add a little more frustraton to this thread, a few weeks ago, when I first saw all the bugginess with this "update", I called Apple, was handed up to a higher-level tech person. He told me they were aware of all these problems, and promised me a fix would be released "ASAP". Well, a few weeks later, & of course, no fix. About a week ago, I called again, & was handed to a different higher-level guy, but this time he gave the same tired, "you should disable all your extensions & plug-ins" blah, blah, blah... And worse, he told me that he's heard nothing from users about issues with Safari!!!
Well, I then asked him if the problem really was one or some of the add-ons, why couldn't Apple just give us a list of at least some of the more popular ones that don't work. Why should ever single user have to go thru a one by one, trial & error, add one, then restart, then another, etc, since Apple could just do it, & let us know. Of course, that's never happened, so everyone has been trying anything they can, &/or resorting to using other browsers, & posting here & other places. I sure hope Apple quits stonewalling everyone, you would think they would address this, either by fixing it quickly, or at least letting everyone know they are aware of it, and that a fix will be coming, but pretending they no see, no hear nothing, and it's all in our heads, well, ...... it shucks.

When using iPhoto can I remove some of the default options such as faces or flagged etc. There are more bits than I need for my basic use.

When using iPhoto can I remove some of the default options such as faces or flagged etc. from the left bar. There are more bits than I need for my basic use.

Hello Susan,
Not sure if I have fully understood your question but have you tried ...
iPhoto > iPhoto help > browse help > view and organise. Perhaps this touches on some of your needs.
Usually, best results for questions come from posting to the forum directly related to the question, in this case iPhoto. That tends to find the gurus
Would you like me to ask the hosts to relocate your question?

Firefox 7.0.1 consumes more memory than just FF 7.0!

You have got to be kidding me, Mozilla! You claimed that Firefox 7.0 would consume less memory than its predecessors. Well, FF7.0 does consume less memory, but when I upgraded to Firefox 7.0.1 and used the browser, it now consumes MORE memory than FF7.0 did before, and it is now at nearly 300,000 KB to nearly 500,000 KB! And that was on my first use! The second or other times I used it, Firefox 7.0.1 only consumes less memory, than the first time I used the browser! Mozilla, when will you wise up and fix the memory leaks again?

That is nothing, my Firefox 7.0.1 consumes 2.47GB (2 473 805 KB to be exact) ram with just 2 open tabs...
My system is with 8GB ram and I'm running out of memory...
Most of the time when I browse, the pages load slowly, firefox freezes during scrolling (and assortment of other problems)

WHy does Plug-in -contianter use 1-1/ times more memory than FF itself

So rather than help me fix my problems with 3.6 which was working fine except for a little thing I moved ups to 11.2 because it was suppose to be so much better. Well now Plug-in -container is using nearly 1/2 gig of memory and climbing. FF is using300K. I'm not a gamer. Best i do is YouTube.
So can i disable the plug in and somebody remind me how i did that in 3.6. You go into :about:config" right. Then What :)

Basically "plugin-container" is nothing more than a place for plugins such as Flash, quicktime, etc. to sit. That way if they crash, instead of bringing down the Firefox window, just the plugin crashes. So, if you get high memory usage in the plugin-container, it is the fault of those plugins. You could disable the process, but that would just make the Firefox.exe process use that much more RAM.
What you can try doing is this:
Alot of things nowadays are hardware accelerated, which means they try to use your graphics card to help speed things up. Try updating your graphics driver (Firefox uses your graphics card for some rendering, and an out of date graphics card driver can cause problems. [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-upgrade-my-graphics-drivers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-upgrade-my-graphics-drivers].
Also, some extensions can cause problems with memory usage as well. Type "About:addons" (without the quotes) in the address bar. Disable your extensions one by one, restarting Firefox between each one, until you find the trouble maker. Once you do, you can disable that add-on.

HT201210 My Music library is showing more songs than I actually have? How do I fix this?

My actual music library on my phone is showing 100+ more songs than I actually have. But on my computer it's showing a completely different (less) number? Should I restore?

Try:
- Reset the iOS device. Nothing will be lost
Reset iOS device: Hold down the On/Off button and the Home button at the same time for at
least ten seconds, until the Apple logo appears.
- Unsync all music and resync
- Reset all settings
Go to Settings > General > Reset and tap Reset All Settings.
All your preferences and settings are reset. Information (such as contacts and calendars) and media (such as songs and videos) aren’t affected.
- Restore from backup. See:
iOS: How to back up
- Restore to factory settings/new iOS device.

Solaris is using more memory than other node

Hi, experts
I running Oracle RAC , with 6 instances per node in Oracle RAC 10.2.0.3.0 Solaris 5.10 x86-64 32 Gb RAM and 4 processors core 2 dual
Each instance is configured with
dbprd1 = 2.5 gb
dbprd2 = 2.5 gb
dbprd3 = 2.5 gb
dbprd4 = 1.5 gb
dbprep1 = 500
dbprep2 = 500
TOTAL = 10G
But, when I use the top command, I get the follow
[oracle@oraoltppub01:backup]$ top | grep "Memory"
Memory: 32G phys mem, 14G free mem, 68G swap, 68G free swap
[oracle@oraoltppub02:dbprd4]$ top | grep "Memory"
Memory: 32G phys mem, 1334M free mem, 68G total swap, 68G free swap
On server oraoltppub01 I have 14Gb free of memory, but on server oraoltppu02 I have 1334Mb free of memory
Why is happening ?
The follow parameters is setting for both servers.
* Parmetros para o banco de dados ORACLE ###
* IPC shared memory
set noexec_user_stack=1
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmin=1
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmax=25769803776
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmni=256
set shmsys:shminfo_shmseg=2000
* IPC semaphores
set semsys:seminfo_semmap=256
set semsys:seminfo_semmni=4096
set semsys:seminfo_semmns=4096
set semsys:seminfo_semmnu=4096
set semsys:seminfo_semume=64
set semsys:seminfo_semmsl=256
set semsys:seminfo_semopm=100
set semsys:seminfo_semvmx=32767
set semsys:seminfo_semaem=16384
* IPC message
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmap=2048
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmax=8192
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmnb=16384
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmni=50
set msgsys:msginfo_msgssz=32
set msgsys:msginfo_msgtql=2048
set msgsys:msginfo_msgseg=32767
#set noexec_user_stack=1
#set udp:xmit_hiwat=65536
#set udp:udp_recv_hiwat=65536
#set udp:xmit_hiwat=65536
#set udp:udp_recv_hiwat=65536
Do I need to do some kernel configuration?

Memory is not fixed for Oracle. You do not assign x GB of RAM to Oracle and the database will only use that much and no more.
The Oracle database engine consists of a number of processes. Each of these need a data segment. Each data segment (private process memory) can grow and shrink. And these data segments do not form part of the x GB of RAM that was assigned to Oracle's SGA (shared memory).
The number of these processes differ from instance to instance. There are management processes that Oracle will run from time to time. There is a job processing pool, a shared server processing pool and a parallel query processing pool. These can also grow and shrink. And on an instance running several jobs (and one that uses PQ processing), there will be more running processes than on another instances. Thus more private process memory will be used and less free server memory will be available on that server.
A single dedicated server process (created by the Listener to service a client connection) can also consume all available server memory - by running poorly designed and written PL/SQL bulk processing code that results in the private process memory of that dedicated process to continually grow. Hopefully this is not the case - but the fact is that a single server process can consume all available free server memory and more.
As the number of processes differ from RAC instance to RAC instance, it is the norm to see different amounts of memory utilisation on RAC nodes. Memory utilisation depends on the processing that RAC instance is currently doing.

CallsAnsweredToHalf shows more calls than CallsHandledToHalf + ReserveCallsToHalf columns

We're running UCCE 8.5 with CVP 8.0 and UCM 7.5
When I look at the Agent_Skill_Group_Half_Hour table I see that the
CallsAnsweredToHalf column equals the sum of the CallsHandledToHalf and the ReserveCallsToHalf columns but only 95% of the time.
What I mean is that out of the 300+ agents we have for 10 of them it doesn't match. The CallsAnsweredToHalf column shows 1 more call than in the
CallsHandledToHalf and ReserveCallsToHalf columns.
I have looked and compared at the other columns to see if maybe there's a third column in the mix but it doesn't look like it.
Does anybody know why of this discrepancy? a bug maybe?
thanks

Hi,
It wont be same always the CallsAnsweredToHalf and CallsHandledToHalf because with in half hour which are call is answered by the agent is updated in the CallsAnsweredToHalf column but only the calls that have been answered and have completed wrap-up by agents in the skill group during the half-hour interval will be updated in the CallsHandledToHalf column.
Regards,
Gnaneswaran.

BW Query showing more Material than R/3 Query, Why..??

Hi All,
I am facing problem when running the query on Inventory cube 0IC_C03.
I have loaded data from 3 Data Sources 2LIS_03_BX, 2LIS_03_BF and 2LIS_03_UM as mentioned in below link and strictly followed by applying Marker updates after the load
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/f83be790-0201-0010-4fb0-98bd7c01e328
Now the problem is,
End User trying to compare BW Inventory Query (Plant Analysis: Stock) values with MC.1 (Plant Analysis: Stock: Selection)
In R/3 (MC.1) showing the total number of materials are 3755 for the period 01.2008
In BW Query for the same period (01.2008) total number of materials are 3960
I am doubting why BW showing more materials?, this resulting the differance value for Valueated Stock value and Valuated Stock Quantity when we compare with R/3.
When i am comparing material wise in BW query with MC.1, whatever the missing Materials are showing in BW Query as 0 Quantity but some value
Ex: Values is = -£ 51.46 and Quantity is = 0 EA
Please provide me some inputs, your help will be appreciated.
Regards,
Rajesh

Hi Rajesh,
Please check the Material numbers which are coming extra in BW not in R/3 whether they are under any material group. If they are all in under the "#" material group then u can restrict the query by filtering the material group "#".
Just filter Excluding the "#" material group in the query.
Then you will get the right values.
Hope this may help you.
The difference between the BW and R/3 material numbers is because. Some extra materials may get from the UM datasource, so you are getting only values and not the quantities.
Try the above idea. I hope it works.
With Regards,
Ravi Kanth.

More ram than specs call for

Specs for my emac specify support for 1GB of ram. In searching for additional ram (I presently have 512MB) I have found some suppliers that claim you can install 2GB (1GB in each of the two slots). I called and they said they have tested this and it works fine. I consider the company I called to be reputable. Has anyone heard of this? What would be the downside of trying it out - other than the extra cost? Is there some kind of power limitations or something that might harm my computer?
Thanks for any insight,
Doug

Ya if you do a search of this group, you will find this has come up a LOT of times and yes your Mac can use more RAM than 1GB if you want.
JIMacG5 I think is being a bit paranoid since, A) your eMac is probably long out of warranty anyway and B) Apple only tests up to whatever RAM was available at the time the model was in production. They do not test RAM for old models so many old models have outdates RAM specs and can use a lot more than they "officially" state they do.
Patrick

Control array's scrollbar shows more rows than dimensions

When an array's dimension and Number of Rows property are set to the same value, its vertical scrollbar is shown and implies there is one more row available in the array than the actual array size.
This happen only if the array is a control, not when it is an indicator. As an indicator, no scrollbar is shown at run time. In edit mode, a scrollbar is shown when as an indicator.
Is there a way to not have the scollbar appear if the number of rows equals the array size yet have it appear when the number of rows is less than the array size ?
Example vi attached.
Attachments:
Array scroll bar dimension.vi ‏18 KB

Jennifer,
In practice, the number of displayed array rows is restricted so that only enough rows are shown to remain within the bounds of the front panel. Otherwise as the array size is increased, the array will extend off the bottom of the screen. My modified version shows this restriction. But notice that as a control, the array shows one more dimension than it had been allocated to (and is shown as a disabled row). In fact, clicking on the bottom arrow of the scollbar will continue to add more rows to the array control.
Steve
Attachments:
Array scroll bar dimension.vi ‏22 KB

IPad mail icon shows more emails than there actually is?

My iPad shows more unread emails than there actually is - How do I fix this?

I figured it out! Clicked on EDIT then clicked on "mark as unread," on the bottom of the page; then clicked "mark as read," and it was fixed.

Usage showing more memory than is accounted for

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for