Archive Size discrepancy

Hi Everyone,
I have an issue that I don't seem to be able to find any solutions to from my searches.
We have our users mail set to auto archive and I recieved notice today that the archive volume is full. I found this shocking as only 2 days ago there was alot of space remaining.
Upon investigation I found that some of our users have exceptionally large archives (17, 15 and 14GB ect...). When I log into their accounts and check their archive size (using the 'check mailbox size' under tools) I find there is a huge discrepancy. The user with 17GB is only showing 2.49GB.
I'm sorry I'm fairly new at this and might need a bit of coaching.
Has anyone run into this?
Is there any type of 'defrag' (for lack of a better term) that will clear this up?
Thank you in advance.

You will want to keep an eye on the archives once an archive gets around 4GB you will have issues with it. Best to start a 2nd archive for that/those users. This means they will likely have to look to both archives for email.
A better solution is a 3rd party enterprise archiving solution that is run from the administration level, using email policies. More flexibility and very helpful if there are legal requests.
Good Luck!
Take Care.
Gregg A. Hinchman
Consultant
[email protected]
www.HinchmanConsulting.com
A Novell Consulting Partner
317.329.0288 Office
413.254.2819 eFax
"Courage is doing what is right."
"Do not be bound to any doctrine, theory or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding means, not absolute truth." Thich Nhat Hanh, Vietnamese monk.
Book Travel @: www.booknewtravelnow.com
>>>
From: transera<[email protected]>
To:novell.support.groupwise.7x.agents
Date: 8/5/2009 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Archive Size discrepancy
Hi everyone, I found a solution. Running GWCheck from the client when
the archive is open resolved this issue.
transera
transera's Profile: http://forums.novell.com/member.php?userid=60574
View this thread: http://forums.novell.com/showthread.php?t=381856

Similar Messages

  • Incredibly strange file size discrepancy only appears in image files (jpg, gif, png)!

    I'm creating a bunch of banners for google ads, yahoo ads, ...etc in Photoshop on my Mac OS!
    The .gif files of these banners appear to TRIPLE in size when on the MAC (>150KB), but when transferred to windows; the real file size shows correctly! (<50KB)
    It is not a result of the base2 vs base10 discrepancy since the difference in size is simply too big, and it only happens with files created on Photoshop on my Mac.
    The reason I know that windows is showing the correct size while my Mac OS is displaying the wrong size, is that the file gets approved by google and yahoo ads, even though Mac OS shows that it surpasses the size limit (50KB) three times over!
    This isn't an isolated incident either, all image files created in Photoshop on the MAC continue this weird behaviour! However, files downloaded from the net appear to be consistent on both operating systems!
    One example is the attached screenshot:
    Explanation, please??

    Geez, sorry I offended you Mr. Jobs (incarnate)!
    You came in here with a three ton chip on your shoulders. Did you really expect sunshine and puppies in return?
    No, I expected useful help, and I got it from Jeffrey Jones. Thanks again Jeffrey!
    I mean, when you move or upload it, it loses this data association anyways!
    To a drive which doesn't support Apple's AB tree structure (NTFS, FAT, FAT32, exFAT), yes. To another HFS+ drive, no.
    What about uploading the file to the cloud?? Does it lose this association or not?? And does anyone really care about the data in the Resource fork?
    This "Resource Fork" means nothing to the file owner, only to the OS and the Drive. Therefore, it shouldn't be added to the total. Period. Because its not part of the file, its part of Apple's tree structure! This is really a simple concept, not sure why you are bending over backwords to defend a clearly stupid oversight from apple!
    There's no reason to force me to use the command line to get the real file size of a GIF! There's just no excuse for that!
    If an OS is saying it is fetching file size information for a single file, it should do exactly that! Not add hidden Resource Forks that are part of the OS's internal workings
    OS X is fetching the file size. It's file size, not the way a different OS would report it.
    There is no such thing as it's file size. A file size is a file size, accross all platforms, on the cloud, wherever!
    A GIF file should have the same file size whether its on windows, linux, unix, darwin, freeBSD, or anything else. The only time its weight should vary is in outer space!
    That is why I'm surprised that they are breaking simple UI Design rules.
    The User Interface has nothing to do with the file structure of a drive.
    I don't care about the structure of the drive!! Neither should you, neither should the average user!
    A good UI should NOT concern the user with this! The average user doesn't care about these Resource Forks, and will never try to view them, therefore, there is no logical reason to add up their file sizes to the total size of each file, and then to make things worse, hide that fact! That only creates confusion, and it makes it so much harder for a designer like myself to view the REAL file sizes of my image files! Now, whenever I'm on my MAC, I will have to run command line scripts to be able to see if my GIF files (that I work on EVERYDAY) meet the file size quota, because Mac OS adds up hidden files that I have no use for and gives me the WRONG file size!
    Let's say this again: when you select a file and click get info, you should get the info for the file you selcted. Nothing more, nothing less! I don't care if the file structure creates an entire colony of hidden files, they should be completely hidden to me, and if not, the Get Info dialog box should at least give me two sizes, one is the REAL file size, and the other is the added up file size for the Resource Fork as well (although I can't think of any good reason why it should add up the Resource Fork size anyways)!
    do you think it is at all logical, that when you select 300 or so files, and click Get Info, that it open 300 windows at once each showing separate information for each file? Or does it make a lot more sense, intuitively, to get the total tally of all the files selected added up, without having to hold down shortcut keys when clicking them to do so?
    Yes, it is logical because that's what you, the user, told the OS to do. You wanted the Get Info data on 300 individual items. I don't know about you, but I avoid the menu bar as much as possible (your reference to avoiding shortcut keys). Command+I will always give you singular Get Info dialogue boxes.
    No, that's not what I told the OS to do. I selected 300 files cumulatively, therefore, I should get the cumulative info for all the selected files. That's just common sense. Every other OS seems to get this!
    And I'm hard pressed to find anyone who has found a use for having 300 get info boxes open at the same time. Therefore, that shouldn't be the default.
    Will you start defending apple's decision to stick with the one button mouse for all these years depriving us from the all important context menu as well?? There was absolutely no good reason to do that, just as there is absolutely no good reason to do this!

  • File Size Discrepancy Between Photoshop & the Finder

    I'm trying to be as brief as I can, so here goes. The specific application (PS) is irrelevant, I think. This is about why an app shows one file size & the Finder shows a different file size. In this case, it's a huge difference, due to the file being an image.
    I imported into PS CS, from a CD, an original image, which the Finder shows as 269.4 MB. The file format is TIFF, and the bit-depth is 16, not 8. The Finder shows it as a "TIFF Document." Now. I did a Save As and edited that as a master image file. So, I have two files: the original and the master.
    I substantially cropped (deleted) pixels in the master file. So, at the same 16-bit depth, the master file should be smaller in size than the original. Right? However, the Finder shows the file to be 433.6 MB in size! Photoshop shows the file to be a more realistic 185.8 MB in size. Why is the Finder showing such a huge file size? Why is the Finder storing 247.8 MB more than I need? The Finder shows this file as an "Adobe Photoshop TIFF file," so there has been a change in format. The file is flattened; no layers, etc., are involved.
    One clue could be that the Finder is storing the larger file size to accommodate Photoshop. If one multiplies 185.8 MB by 3, the result is close to the 433.6 MB figure. The 3 stands for the three color channels (red, green, blue) of each pixel (data element) in the image.
    The original image, however, is stored correctly by the Finder. Photoshop and the Finder agree on the 269.4 MB file size. If the above scenario were true, the Finder would be storing the original file at three times the size as shown in Photoshop. In other words, there would be consistency in what the Finder is doing.
    I suppose I could just ignore the discrepancy, but I have hundreds of images to process, and I don't want to have to go into PS every time to get a true reading of file sizes. The Finder should be accurate in doing that.
    I may be in the wrong forum re: Photoshop, but here I think I can find some expertise re: the Finder, since the Finder's storing procedures are in question, to my mind. It's definitely an app/OS interface problem, as I see it. Simply, I edit a file downward in data, save it, yet the Finder saves it at a larger size.

    ...do you think a lot of cloning & healing brush might have added to the file size, even though I cropped the image?
    Yes, depending on your History settings. The more you work on an image, the more history it accumulates. The more different states and sanpshots you save in the History palette, the bigger the file gets as you work on it, because you're storing (within the file) complete information about the file's state before and after every individual change you make to it. What I don't recall is whether that all gets saved to the file in a Save As, or whether the history is flushed each time the file is Saved.
    I should warn you that I am by NO stretch of the imagination a PS expert. I was still using PS 5.0.2 until last February, when I upgraded to CS2 (knowing it will be years before I have enough hardware horsepower to run CS3). I'm a rank beginner with CS2, and if someone else wants to jump in here and point out that I'm all wrong, it will be no surprise to me. And because I never used CS, I don't know whether what I'm describing in CS2 is even relevant here.

  • Archive Size

    Hi All,
    I don't understand ,why my offline Archive logs are in Big size.
    My Environment
    OS - --------------
    SunOS usa0300ux636 5.10 Generic_138888-03 sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-T6320
    Oracle Version
    BANNER
    Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.2.0 - 64bi
    PL/SQL Release 10.2.0.2.0 - Production
    CORE 10.2.0.2.0 Production
    TNS for Solaris: Version 10.2.0.2.0 - Production
    NLSRTL Version 10.2.0.2.0 - Production
    Oracle Parameters
    log_archive_dest string /bmccde/Datastore/ora10g/arch
    log_archive_format string log%t_%s_%r.arc
    log_archive_local_first boolean TRUE
    db_block_checking string FALSE
    db_block_checksum string typical
    log_checkpoint_interval integer 0
    log_checkpoint_timeout integer 1800
    log_checkpoints_to_alert boolean FALSE
    Destination Files
    SecondaryDB>ls -lrt
    total 15117560
    -rw-r----- 1 oracle dba 1766199296 Aug 23 05:22 log1_108_684777454.arc
    -rw-r----- 1 oracle dba 2971755520 Aug 25 18:21 log1_109_684777454.arc
    -rw-r----- 1 oracle dba 21249536 Aug 25 21:18 log1_110_684777454.arc
    -rw-r----- 1 oracle dba 5224448 Aug 26 02:01 log1_111_684777454.arc
    -rw-r--r-- 1 oracle dba 1399 Aug 26 07:33 tab.sh
    -rw-r--r-- 1 oracle dba 893 Aug 26 07:39 afiedt.buf
    -rw-r--r-- 1 oracle dba 893 Aug 26 10:02 tb.sql
    -rw-r----- 1 oracle dba 2971900928 Aug 28 23:58 log1_112_684777454.arc
    SecondaryDB>du -sh *
    1K afiedt.buf
    1.6G log1_108_684777454.arc
    2.8G log1_109_684777454.arc
    20M log1_110_684777454.arc
    5.0M log1_111_684777454.arc
    2.8G log1_112_684777454.arc
    2K tab.sh
    1K tb.sql
    SQL> select from v$log;*
    GROUP# THREAD# SEQUENCE# BYTES MEMBERS ARC STATUS
    FIRST_CHANGE# FIRST_TIM
    1 1 113 3000000000 1 NO CURRENT
    163978649 28-AUG-11
    2 1 111 3000000000 1 YES INACTIVE
    161666145 25-AUG-11
    3 1 112 3000000000 1 YES INACTIVE
    161698453 26-AUG-11
    Please Help me & i am not aware with the Checkpoint Issue .
    Thanks
    Karan

    you have 3GB redo logs, so it is obvious that your archive logs will be = or < 3G.
    Thanks,
    -Vijay

  • File Size Discrepancy

    I hope somebody can help me! I have a Quicktime self-contained movie which in the "Get Info" option says that it's 2.26 GB, but in the Quicktime "Show Movie Info" option it says it's data size is 55MB. Why the discrepancy?
    Power Mac G5 Dual 2.3 GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.7)  

    I don't understand. Do you mean the higher figure is it's actual file size?
    If I assume both of the above readings were in fact taken using the same file as the source (i.e., you did not use the original source file for the first measurement and a final converted file for the second), then yes, that is exactly what I mean. I don't know how you measure the size of a file, but I take it to be the amount of space required to store the file on a hard drive. Now it is possible that a file can be corrupted and contain many "empty" or "unused" data blocks. So I cannot rule out this possibility here. If you have reason to doubt the "file size," simply try copying it from one hard drive to another and see if both copies require the same amount of space for storage.

  • Screen Capture File Size Discrepancy

    Can someone please explain to me why the screen capture (cmd-shift-4) generates such huge files?
    I made a screen capture which was saved to my desktop as picture-1.png. Examining the file's properties showed that the file size was 1.03MB.
    Next I opened the file in Photoshop, used Save For Web, and set the file type to PNG-24. This file, which in every way is identical to the original except for file size is only 11kb.
    Why is the OSX screen capture larger by a factor of nearly 100?

    Just by way of illustration, when I take a PNG screenshot of my 23 inch LCD I get a 4.4 MB file. But only if the desktop picture is all that is showing.
    By contrast, a PNG screenshot of the same screen with OSX windows covering the desktop is only 360KB. Why the discrepancy?
    PNG compresses using a raster notation that works at its best when continuous identical pixels cover some horizontal stretch. Just like Mac OSX windows. Noncontinuous colored pixels are very hard for PNG to compress, since there are very few identical colors. This is why photographs should be compressed with JPG (which uses a color averaging scheme) and web animations with PNG.
    The OSX screenshot format uses 32 bit PNG, which is 16.7 million colors. So if you are reducing the bit depth to 24 bits, that is a huge reduction in filesize. Especially if the 24 bit format converts colors to identical runs, which compress better in PNG. I am talking about color variation you can't even see. That would explain the "factor of nearly 100" you noticed.

  • Vault (external) file size Versus Aperture Library (internal) file size discrepancy?

    Using Aperture 3.3.1 (all my images are Referenced). I created my first vault on an external hard drive. The Vault.apvault file size is 32.8 GB. My Aperture Library.aplibrary file size on my iMac hard drive is 81.6 GB. So I am wondering if I have a full back-up in Vault or not. Seems like a large discrepency in file size. Any thoughts or help would be appreciated.

    Do any Images that you don't expect show up when you filter "Photos" using the Rule "File Status" with the argument "Managed"?
    If not, then close Aperture and repair your database.  Instructions are on the Apple Aperture trouble-shooting page.
    Does that make any difference?

  • Time Machine backup size discrepancy

    Apologies if this has already been answered, but I just did my first Time Machine backup to a new external HD and when I compared the amount of data on the Time Machine drive to the internal HD I backed up, it's about 7 GB smaller (149 GB vs. 156 GB). Is it normal to have a discrepancy in the initial backup file like this? I didn't exclude anything on the internal drive from the backup. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

    Frank O'Connell wrote:
    Oops! You're right, I meant Spotlight (you use a Mac for 25 years and you get confused sometimes!). Anyway, I checked the entire log folder and it's less than 100 MB. Could the other things you mentioned (temporary files, swap files etc.)
    yes, they could although it's somewhat uncommon. swap files are in /var/vm. DO NOT delete those by hand. restarting the computer will reset them to the default size. sleepimage is in the same directory too. you can delete that one but if you have safe sleep enabled then it will be recreated next time you sleep the computer. also check your Trash size.
    account for that big a difference, and if not, should I be worried that my TM backup is incomplete?
    no, I wouldn't worry about that. check your TM exclusion list in TM system preferences->options. if nothing is on it and nothing is obviously missing you should be fine. but i would be worried about having a lot of stuff that's abnormally large and takes away space. for example, if it's the swap files that take so much space it means that you need more RAM.

  • Data size discrepancy

    I've been doing some compression tests for a clip destined for the web. I noticed when looking at the finished versions that the file sizes shown in the Movie Info box in QT Pro are different from those shown in the finder. For one file QT Pro shows 2.9MB as opposed to the finder's 2.2MB, for another 2.9 as opposed to 2.1, and for a third QT shows 1.76 as opposed to the finder's 1.8 (not a lot but it's curious). Anybody know why I'm seeing these discrepancies?
    thanks-

    I've been doing some compression tests for a clip destined for the web. I noticed when looking at the finished versions that the file sizes shown in the Movie Info box in QT Pro are different from those shown in the finder.
    Never gave it serious thought before, but since no one else wants to take a shot here, I'll give it a try. There are a number of aspects at work here. Not sure if all file types are the same, but it seemed that some of your numbers may have been reversed in your examples.
    Finder File Size:
    The finder file size represents the files total potential for storage and includes the actual audio/video data stored, allocated but unused storage, and file overhead which includes header, file type, creator, metadata/tags, etc. In addition, this information is given in both binary uint and binary power (2^10) equivalents where: total bytes = file size in KBs x 1024^1, total bytes = file size in MB x 1024^2, total bytes = file size in GBs x 1024^3, etc. So here we have our first discrepancy.
    QT Movie Info File Size:
    This entry represents the actual amount of audio/video data contained/stored in the media file. (I.e., the amount of "sequential" data contained as if it were stored in a single dimension or "linear" array.) It does not include file overhead or allocated space not used by the particular packing algorithm empoyed by a spacific codec. File overhead is probably the most "consistent" discrepancy and can probably be considered as a constant with respect to most, if not all, common QT multimedia file types. Storage allocation or packing algorithms, on the other hand, vary widely with the least efficient being the most linear in nature and the most efficient probably best described as multidimensional arrays whose block/superblock allocation may vary as a constant or vary linearily (i.e., in direct proportion to) or as a power of the current file size. Thus, the discrepancy between Finder and QT file size can vary greatly here dependent on the data density of the most recent storage block allocation.
    It is likely that there are other considerations which have been overlooked here. However, these are probably the most significant. Hope this helps.

  • Dramatic decrease in AB Export Archive size?

    I do a backup (manually) of several key folders. Between 10.6 and 10.6.1 update, doing an Export>address book archive I am seeing a dramatic decrease in file size between the two backups.
    Under 10.6.1 the file size is 9.4 mb, whereas 10.6 is 37.8 mb — Nothing else changes with the AB.
    I have deleted today's 9.4. Several times and re-saved. It is consistent.
    Ideas as to the huge difference???
    Cletus/
    MBP 2.16 GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, 160HD

    Well, a couple of things:
    1) The default compilation is to include debug code. So be
    sure you are selecting Export Release Build when you build in Flex
    Builder, or disabling debug on the command line. That should reduce
    it a little.
    2) Use RSLs (runtime shared libraries). Specifically, RSLs
    are designed to reduce the app size, especially if the user has
    already downloaded the signed framework RSL. More info:
    http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/help.html?content=rsl_09.html
    3) Every app has a lot of built in framework code -- even the
    simplest app has alot of framework classes that it must include
    (such as managers and layouts). If you add components, though, the
    increase in file size will be minimal. So an app by itself might be
    150K, but if you add 10 buttons and 10 labels, the app might only
    increase a few K, if that much.
    There's some doc that mentions additional techniques on
    reducing SWF file size here:
    http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/performance_06.html#208825
    hth,
    matt horn
    flex docs

  • Image Size Discrepancy

    When I try to paste an 8 x 10" photo into a new blank document, it becomes a different size. And the new size seems to be arbitrary. Sometimes it's 6 x 8, sometimes it's 8.25 x 10.5 inches. Why is this happening? It's really frustrating because it should be so simple! Here's exactly what I'm doing:
    1) open 8 x 10 inch image
    2) select all> ctrl c
    3) create new document, set to 8.5 x 11 inches
    4) ctrl v
    5) my 8 x10 image is now some random size, anything besides what it should be.
    Any ideas?

    loloyo wrote:
    When I try to paste an 8 x 10" photo into a new blank document, it becomes a different size. And the new size seems to be arbitrary. Sometimes it's 6 x 8, sometimes it's 8.25 x 10.5 inches. Why is this happening? It's really frustrating because it should be so simple! Here's exactly what I'm doing:
    Its highly unlikely that its arbitrary its more likely that Photoshop is doing it properly. Your more likely using two different resolution images.

  • Photoshop file size Discrepancy

    Hey Guys.
    I have a photoshop file which while editing states what I believe is the flat/layered file sizes down the bottom left of the screen of 116.7M/255.4M.
    But when I save the file Finder shows the file size as being 1.53GB.
    Is this normal? What am I missing? See below screen grab

    The size in Photoshop is pretty accurate.
    But it has nothing to do with file size.
    Please read the documentation again.
    Files are compressed, and different file formats will compress differently, and the amount of compression is very much related to the image content.
    That's why Photoshop never displays file sizes except for estimates in the JPEG and the Save For Web dialogs.
    The sizes displayed in Photoshop's status bar and info palette are the size of the document in memory, or the flattened size of the image (uncompressed).

  • Time Machine size discrepancy / backup fail

    Hi! For a few weeks now my Time Machine backups have ceased to work, with an error that they are too big for the drive. While I only have a 500GB drive, my total size of the backup has always been well within that (thanks to the exclusions I have set up, mostly for my video projects).
    I've finally had a chance to look through my files and determine that the only truly gargantuan folder was indeed my Videos folder, but it is excluded.
    Here's the nub of my problem / question:
    My Time Machine panel under Options says the estimated size of the full backup is 274 GB. But backups fail with a message that the backup requires 849GB! That's way more than the 20% overhead I know TM requires in addition to the backup size.
    This seems to be the key to why my backups are failing.
    Can anyone suggest a course of action?
    Thanks!
    Adam

    ARGH! Would you believe that - only days after I fixed it with the combo update - it happened again?
    Well, it did. "The backup requires 847.90 GB but only 93.79 GB are available."
    847 GB? The "Estimated size of full backup" in the exceptions window is 276.88 GB.
    Just like before.
    I did run a Repair Permissions after the combo update as suggested... just to rule that out...
    Just in case it's at all helpful, I'm including the info from the Dashboard widget that reveals Time Machine log info - first for the last successful backup, then for the first one to fail.
    Sigh...
    Last successful backup:
    Starting standard backup
    Network destination already mounted at: /Volumes/Data
    QUICKCHECK ONLY; FILESYSTEM CLEAN
    Disk image /Volumes/Data/Adam’s iMac.sparsebundle mounted at: /Volumes/Time Machine Backups
    Backing up to: /Volumes/Time Machine Backups/Backups.backupdb
    Starting pre-backup thinning: 789.60 GB requested (including padding), 83.52 GB available
    No expired backups exist - deleting oldest backups to make room
    Deleted backup /Volumes/Time Machine Backups/Backups.backupdb/Adam’s iMac/2011-07-02-021404: 83.52 GB now available
    Deleted 1 backups: oldest backup is now Jul 3, 2011
    Stopping backup.
    Backup canceled.
    Ejected Time Machine disk image.
    Compacting backup disk image to recover free space
    Compl
    (and yes, the incomplete last line is just as it appeared in the log.)
    Failed backup:
    Starting standard backup
    Network destination already mounted at: /Volumes/Data
    QUICKCHECK ONLY; FILESYSTEM CLEAN
    Disk image /Volumes/Data/Adam’s iMac.sparsebundle mounted at: /Volumes/Time Machine Backups
    Backing up to: /Volumes/Time Machine Backups/Backups.backupdb
    Starting pre-backup thinning: 789.67 GB requested (including padding), 87.35 GB available
    No expired backups exist - deleting oldest backups to make room
    Error: backup disk is full - all 0 possible backups were removed, but space is still needed.
    Backup Failed: unable to free 789.67 GB needed space
    Backup failed with error: Not enough available disk space on the target volume.
    Ejected Time Machine disk image.
    Ejected Time Machine network volume.

  • Huge Folder size discrepancy between 10.1 Managed and 10.0.9

    I sure do Hope that someone can help me out with this.
    I don't want to make any mistakes that would result in Data loss.
    I have all my media for a large project I am working on on a Drobo 5D.
    The Drobo has a total Max usable space of 16TB.
    When FCPX 10.1 came out I upgraded and "saved" my old library. (Just in case)
    Once the "upgrade" was complete there were two different directories on my DROBO there was:
    "DROBO Old Final Cut Projects and Events" (which has a "normal" folder structure) &
    "DROBO Final Cut Projects and Events" (which had the "contained / managed structure)
    Shortly after I "upgraded" something happened and all my subtitles (all of the footage was subtitled... all 300 hrs) disappeared...
    After about 3 hrs of freaking out I quickly discovered that the subs and all my old project files were still ok in the old (just in case) directory and all I needed to do to keep working was go back to use 10.0.9 which is what I have been doing.
    However Now I have very little space on my DROBO and I want to get rid of the "newer" and unused "DROBO Final Cut Projects and Events" folder (which now shows up as a normal folder / directory as I no longer have 10.1 installed)
    And here comes the QUESTION:
    The numbers don't add up.... the new Folder (the one I want to DELETE for 10.1) claims a size of 8.06TB (on "10.1 FCP P&E")
    and the old folder that I want to SAVE claims a Size of 10.79TB (on "old FCP P&E").
    In addition to those folders I have an additional 3.5TB of other files outside of those directories...
    OK so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the "used" space on my Drobo according to my finder is 22.35TB which is already impossibly large as I simply do not have that space on the drive... So when I look into the new directory (the one I want to delete) all the files appear to be "real" and not aliases which was the first thing I thought may be the issue (something funny where it was counting the file twice...)
    Anyway I just really want to DELETE that "new 10.1" directory however not at the cost of messing up my perfectly good 10.0.9 workflow.
    Please advise.
    thanks!

    When updating from FCP X 10.0.x to 10.1.x The process uses what is termed "Hard Links" as opposed to Alias or shortcuts.
    This means your Mac sees files of the old FCP X and the new version of FCP X as real files and hence what appears to be doubling up of space.
    You have two different versions of FCP X pointing to the same hard files.
    At some stage of the updating one set of FCP X files will be deleted making the numbers balance regarding space.
    See here for updating details:
    FCP X Library Updating
    Watch all three sections, even twice, if you did not get it the first time to avoid simple pitfalls.
    Backup you stuff before proceeding as the new FCP X will be 10.1.4.
    The new version does NOT use the Projects and Events structure any longer, it has changed. See link above.
    Al

  • Tiff file image size discrepancy

    Hi All, I've created a mono, bitmapped image approx 400px square.
    Then saved the file.
    If I go to 'get info' (I'm on an Apple Mac), it says the file size is 97k.
    If I open the file in P'shop (CS5.5) and go to 'Image Size', it says the file is 19.2k.
    Anyone know why I get two different files sizes?
    Many thanks, RP

    I'm sure that the TIFF file and Photoshop "Image Size" are both 19 KB by coincidence. The "Image Size" is the number of bytes consumed by the uncompressed pixel data. A TIFF file has to contain a header, so the image data in the file will be compressed then the file header will be bringing the file's total size to 19 KB.
    Photoshop embeds metadata in TIFF that your client most likely does not need. Use your Mac's Preview app to reduce the size of TIFF:
    In Photoshop, copy the image to the clipboard.
    In Preview, do "File > New from Clipboard" followed by Save with format TIFF and compression enabled.
    (Do not open Photoshop-saved TIFF with Preview and then re-save, because the unnecessary info will be maintained. Use the clipboard.)

Maybe you are looking for