Enterprise Features: Reduced Disk Size Requirements (Provisioning)

Hello,
as an Enterprise-Admin, I am really glad to hear that MS wants to do more for their Enterprise Customers.
One thing that drives admins into madness, is the fact, that since Vista/W7, the HDD blows up like stupid.
Even a fresh installation, after all the patches are installed, has around 30GB of (actual) Size.
If you use provisioned machines, thats a real pain and makes my network cry
With XP (RIP) that was like 5 GB.
I do understand that WINSXS is required to prevent the DLL-Hell, but is it really required to store all the DLLs from all those Patches that MS provides? I mean, we're talking of a freshly installed OS, that already doesn't know how to handle its own files.
Is MS doing somthing, so an admin can reduce the size of the MasterImage?

Hi Benjamin.G,
From Windows 8, we have considered this situation. Generally, a valid installation source would include all resource for installation.
"Features on Demand (FoD)" is a new concept in Windows 8 that allows administrators and image builders to reduce the amount of space used by the component store by adding only the payload for optional components they need to
a system image. "Payload" refers to the binaries and other files associated with a feature.
The major benefit of this feature is to conserve disk space. Once removed, these binaries will need to be added back from a valid installation source before the feature can be used again. Unlike the stage and un-stage process used by the component store,
Features on Demand removal results in a permanent removal of those binaries.
For example, I would do some customization on my Windows 10 Technical Preview.
I mount this image first:
DISM /mount-image /imagefile:c:\recoveryimage\install.wim /index:3 /mountdir:c:\image
Get the feature list to check which I want to preserve:
Dism /Image:C:\image /Get-Features
Choose one or some to remove:
DISM /image:c:\image /disable-feature /featurename:feautername /remove
Verify the state of the feature is removed:
DISM /image:c:\image /get-featureinfo /featurename:feautername
Commit the changes to the WIM:
DISM /unmounts-image /mountdir:c:\image /commit
Alex Zhao
TechNet Community Support

Similar Messages

Disk size requirement

Hello,
I'm planning the installation of an SDS. I don't find any reference to the disk size requirements in the documentation. Is the any recommendation ?
We will be managing Solaris Sparc 8,9, 10 as well as Soalris X64 and Linux RHES 3 and 4. Around 100 servers for the whole farm.
Could someone point me to some recommendation ?
Best regards

For installing an SDS, here is the recommendation:
Disk Space Requirements:
Installation: 512 MB minimum free in the file system that serves /usr/local
Software Components: 500 MB minimum
SWAP: 500 MB minimum
For more information, see:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/1561.1

Qfs minimum partition/disk size requirement

I just want to know the minimal requirement of the disk/partition size to create qfs file system?
As qfs separates metadata devices from data devices, what is the minimum size for both to create qfs?
There could be some determination way like creating shortest partitions (in KB’s?) and use them to create qfs.
Please revert with some pointers.
-r_p_w

It sounds like people are having different experiences with this issue, here's mine:
When trying to resize partitions without reformatting first, dragging the partition corners worked but didn't allow me to make the second partition smaller than 1/10th the size of the drive. If I used the "size" field to change the second partition, it would reduce, but the first (main) partition would not fill up the rest of the space. If I subsequently tried to change the size of the main partition using either the "size" field or the drag method, it would automatically revert to its previous size.
I decided to go ahead and reformat the drive, after which I was able to create two partitions and resize them freely. I still found that when reducing the size of the second volume, the first did not resize to fill the drive automatically. However, this time I was able to drag the corner of the first volume, increasing its size to fill the drive. Thanks again for your help.

Tempdb- Disk size Requirement for Tempdb Database?

Working on new project that have fresh windows and SQl Server Install on physical machine.
Like to know what should be the disk size to keep for tempdb Intially? like 10Gb or 20GB? It will be on separate Drive .
Also like to know what should be ideal drive size to keep for Data and Log drive? They both will be on separate drive also.
any other configuration best practices ?
Thank you
Please Mark As Answer if it is helpful. \\Aim To Inspire Rather to Teach A.Shah

Hi,
Size of the tempdb depends on various factors.
Bulkload operation
general query expressions
dbcc checks
indexes
LOB Variables and parameters and many more.
As others suggested,monitoring is the best way.Try the below in test environments.
Set autogrow on for tempdb.
Execute individual queries or workload trace files and monitor tempdb space use.
Execute index maintenance operations, such as rebuilding indexes and monitor tempdb space.
Use the space-use values from the previous steps to predict your total workload usage; adjust this value for projected concurrent activity, and then set the size oftempdb accordingly.
Refer the below link for optimization.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175527(v=sql.105).aspx
Best Regards, Arun http://whynotsql.blogspot.com/

Q: Oracle Linux 5 Hardisk Size Required?

What is the hard disk size required to install Oracle Linux 5 in Dell Intel Server? Any information provided will be very much appreciated.

The answer will depend on your installed RAM. It could be the the size of your installed RAM plus 5 GB for the OS.
Since Oracle Linux is actually a clone of Red Hat, you can check the Red Hat documentation online. The following link should answer your questions:
http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html/Installation_Guide/s2-diskpartrecommend-x86.html
or check the installation guide at: https://linux.oracle.com/documentation/
For other limits and min. requirements:
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/
A lot of info is also at http://linux.oracle.com
Since you are using DELL you might want to check for hardware compatibility at http://content.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/d/operating-systems/redhatalliance.aspx and verify your current firmware and install required drivers for RHEL/Oracle Linux if necessary.

Can we reduce the size of the disk having the Log files for a Dag Database

There is an issue with disk space filling up for 4 databases part of the same DAG, each having 1 non lagged passive copy.
The Disks containing the log files are from the VSphere Storage. The Disk size was temporarily expanded to avoid any outages.
There is a full backup running currently, which is expected to clear the transaction logs on completion and that should be reducing the disk space utilized.
The storage guys want to know whether they can reclaim the temporarily expanded disk size. i.e reduce the disk space from the storage containing Log Files without affecting anything.
I couldn't find any documentation on this specific requirement, and want to confirm

There is an issue with disk space filling up for 4 databases part of the same DAG, each having 1 non lagged passive copy.
The Disks containing the log files are from the VSphere Storage. The Disk size was temporarily expanded to avoid any outages.
There is a full backup running currently, which is expected to clear the transaction logs on completion and that should be reducing the disk space utilized.
The storage guys want to know whether they can reclaim the temporarily expanded disk size. i.e reduce the disk space from the storage containing Log Files without affecting anything.
I couldn't find any documentation on this specific requirement, and want to confirm
I dont see why not. Once the logs are cleared, Exchange doesnt care.
Twitter!: Please Note: My Posts are provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied.

Disk size is drastically reducing after the Dense restructure

After Clearing empty blocks the number of blocks are coming down by 10% showing that empty blocks were existing in the database. At this point in time total size of .PAG file remains constant (Before and after clearing empty blocks).
We did a restructure of database the number of blocks remained constant but the .PAG file has drastically reduced to less than 50%.
We are trying to understand why would the 10% block reduction is casuing the disk size reduction by 50%.
Thanks for your inputs!
Edited by: user3942062 on Mar 14, 2013 3:31 AM

The .pag file contains free space, not just that left behind by CLEARBLOCK EMPTY but also where blocks have been modified and no longer fit back into their original slot (so Essbase has to expand the .pag file to fit them back somewhere else). For example, if a block is taking up 2K on disk but you then load additional data, the block's footprint on disk may increase to 3K. Essbase can't fit it back into its original 2K location, so it leaves that 2K chunk of the .pag file empty (at least for the time being) and finds 3K elsewhere.
Only restructuring the database physically releases this space.

How to reduce image size on account of disk space shortage?

I import images from my camera to iPhoto on my MacBook. I want to reduce their size on import because hard disk space on MacBook is limited.
Is there any smart way how to perform it? I have not found any presets on Import dialog to reduce size.

If the photos are important then get an external FW hard drive and move the library to it and operate from there. Delete the library from your MacBook.
Next create a new library on the MB and copy only the photos that you have an immediate need for from the external library with the paid version of iPhoto Library Manager. It will copy the metadata, keywords, faces, places, and edited versions between libraries. You will a lean, mean travelin' library for the MB.
You you add photos to the library on the MB while you're on the road you can copy them to the main library in the same manner with iPLM when you get back home.

When i use pogo, on the risk game for instance, when i click on a game room, a window pops up and immdediately reduces in size, this size only shows part of the battle screen; i have tried resetting the zoom feature, no luck.

i have seen this before on my home PC (on a lap top now) it is impossible for me to correct so i have to use IE to play pogo (i dont like IE it is slower) i click on a game, i go to a game room, and a window normally pops up showing the tables. normally i click on a seat and it takes me to a new window and the game board. NOW, when this first window pops up, it is aboout 1/4 size of my screen, but immediately reduces in size to about 1/6 of my screen. wnen the game loads, i cannot view the whole screen only part of the screen, as if it is zoomed in. I tried your suggestion and reset the zoom, no help.... i changed the zoom level manally.... no help.
this also happens in scrabble and most other games. it is related to the java i am sure, but it only happens on firefox. How do i correct this. I have uninstalled, and reinstalled firefox. i have had this happen on the older version of firefox. it happens on multiple computers so it isnt just one computer.
HELP!!!!!
please

I should have explained further. The game opens in a new window over to the upper left of my screen, leaving the original page underneath. I tried minimizing it so that I could get to my toolbar and did the View > Zoom > Reset. This has no effect. The lower portion of the game is still not showing. Using other browsers the window or frame of the game is much larger, therefore everything shows.

How to reduce the size of winsxs in windows 7 ultimate x64

Ok so first off there are some caveats to responding to this question
1.) Im on windows 7, so DONT refer to some "winsxs is important" vista link...
2.) i am well aware of what windows side by side is for, and appreciate dll ____ must be bad for some... but lets be honest, professional people like me know how to keep a system in shape and not remove DLL files willy nilly and should have some kind of
"i know what im doing" option
3.) i know its important system files blah blah blah
4.) i know it MUST be possible to trim this... vsp1cln.exe and compcln.exe from vista sp1 and sp2 respectively shows it CAN be done
so in light of that, as there is no vsp1cln.exe or compcln.exe included on windows 7 i need to know if they are compatible with windows 7 if i just pull down a version from vista.
if not, there must be some kind of method to reduce winsxs size... mine is currently at 6.2GB and that... frankly... is too big, i can understand a few GB worth, but 6! thats a whole windows xp installation!
now, if a utility could be written that would be detrimental to compatibility but acceptable in terms of limited damage then that would be good, perhaps removing the ability to uninstall updates if for example, your system has been stable since february
i know i wont have problems and have the retail disk if it gets fubar.
I cant see what all that folder is for... i mean if you dont want such compatibility or the ability to install extra components without finding the disk then you should be able to remove that... i dont use a lot of the server side components, so why cant
i remove those.
also winsxs uses a lot of hardlinks and junctions that are reporting hard drive usage that isnt actually used as explorer counts these files repeatedly, there must be a way to tell explorer not to count those files... it might be all well and good to say
theres 2gb not actually being used, but if windows is throwing a fit because it thinks im out of space then those 2gb might as well be 2 TB for all the use they are to me.
lets take for example the winsxs/backup folder, there are about 60% of that taken up with FONT BACKUPS... i mean SERIOUSLY! ... you backed up the FONTS!?
WHY!?!?
There must be more things like those that could go
perhaps someone could get back in touch and explain why microsoft windows is the ONLY operating system that seems to think that if it doesnt have 80 hundred million backups and spares it wont work... linux does not have this side by side thing, nor does
macosx

Okay maybe some background on the root of the problem would help.
Windows XP (and Windows 2000) used a fast and great mechanism called Hotfix Installer (Update.exe) to install updates. Updates installed in very little time. If you wanted to further reduce update times on Windows XP, you could just temporarily stop the
System Restore service and updates would install at crazy speeds. Note that this is not recommended for novice users who don't know advanced recovery methods, as some updates can sometimes cause your system to stop booting so you cannot even uninstall them.
The method the Hotfix Installer used was simple, it just installed a new version of files to be updated at %windir%\system32 and %windir%\system32\dllcache (the Windows File Protection cache). For files that were in use, a restart copied them from dllcache
to the system32 folder. This is simple file-based servicing. The hotfix installer (Update.exe) also supported various command line switches like /nobackup which means not to backup files it patches. Again, this is not recommended for novice users as some updates
can screw your system even after the comprehensive testing Microsoft does before releasing them. But if you won't be uninstalling any updates (usually one only requires uninstalling updates if they cause problems), you could save a ton of disk space by not
backing up the files it patched. The Hotfix Installer backed up files to C:\Windows\$Uninstall$KBxxxxxx folders so even if you did back up the files at install time, they could be safely deleted after a few days if no stability issues were found after using
Windows with the newest updates applied. Update.exe also supported the very important and convenient ability to slipstream a service pack or update into the original Windows setup files using the /s switch.
When Microsoft was developing Windows Vista, they realized that components had gotten too many interdepencies on each other and to service each file reliably without breaking another component that relied on it, Microsoft introduced what they called as Component
Based Servicing (CBS). You can read all about it in a much more technical way at The Servicing Guy's blog. What CBS does basically is it installs all files of the entire operating system, including all languages into C:\Windows\WinSxS and then it hard-links
files from there to C:\Windows\system32. This has the benefit of not having to insert the OS disc to add or remove any components, and some other advantages as well like offline servicing of a Windows Vista or Windows 7 image. But the design introduces a major
disadvantage of taking up a lot of hard disk space. Whenever an update is installed, it no longer installs it to C:\Windows\system32 and C:\Windows\system32\dllcache like Windows XP's hotfix installer (Update.exe) did. Instead, it updates the files in C:\Windows\WinSxS.
Now, Windows keeps multiple copies of the same file but with different version in WinSxS if it is used by more than one Windows component. The higher the number of components, that many number of times the file exists in C:\Windows\WinSxS. When a Windows Vista
update (.MSU) is installed, the components get updated, each and every one, instead of the files and the worst part is it still maintains the older superseded previous versions of components in WinSxS so the user would be able to uninstall updates. Microsoft
does say that some sort of "scavenging" or deleting older copies of components takes place but is scarce on the details. The scavenging seems to take place automatically at certain intervals in Windows 7 but not in Windows Vista. In Windows Vista, you have
to add or remove any Windows component for the scavenging to take place. And Microsoft says the scavenging will free up some disk space but in practice, on my system, I see my free disk space only decreasing on Vista as I remove or add any component. Windows
does not give the user an option to not backup the earlier versions of components like Windows XP's /nobackup switch in Hotfix Installer did. As as you install more and more updates on your system, they will take more and more disk space. This is one of the
primary reasons Windows Vista and Windows 7 are so bloated. Another reason for them being so bloated is the DriverStore that these OSes store. All drivers that are shipped with the OS and the OEM ones which you download and which are installed for a particular
system are staged in C:\Windows\System32\DriverStore. But let's not go there for now.
Now, an important thing to note is that the size of the WinSxS folder is not what Explorer or the dir command report, it is far less but is misreported by Explorer because it counts the hard links more than once when calculating size. That does not mean,
the size of WinSxS is not causing real-world disk space problems on numerous Windows Vista/7 systems in use today. Microsoft's ingenious recommendation to this problem of ever growing disk consumption is to install fewer updates to keep the size of the servicing
store under control. Of course, users cannot deny installing security updates and leave their system open to security holes. What they can do is install less optional updates, the ones that Microsoft releases on the fourth Tuesday of every month and also install
less of the hotfixes that are available by request from a Knowledge Base article. In short, you have to trade the number of bugs fixed in the OS by installing hotfixes at the cost of enormous amounts of disk space. The whole servicing stack is a total downgrade
to Windows XP's update.exe method. It causes heavy disk thrashing and slow logoffs/logons while Windows configures these updates at the Welcome Screen. Many systems are unable to boot because of failed updates. Another disadvantage of the "new" servicing stack
(and the redesigned Setup mechanism of Windows Vista) is the inability to do a true slipstream of service packs and hotfixes.
The time it takes to actually install these hotfixes online compared to Windows XP is also completely unacceptable. When you start installing an MSU update, it spends a lot of time determining whether the update applies to your system. Then, the update itself
takes much longer to install compared to Windows XP's Update.exe (hours instead of minutes if you are installing dozens of updates through a script). Finally, that post-installation process ("Configuring updates... Do not turn off your computer") takes several
minutes before shut down followed by a second post-installation process (configuration) upon restart before logon that also takes also several minutes and thrashes the disk.
I can install the entire SP3 for Windows XP in about 10 minutes after downloading the full installer. I can also install a slipstreamed-with-SP3 copy of Windows XP is about 45 minutes on a modern fast PC. In contrast, Windows Vista or Windows 7 do install
relatively quickly (in just about 15-20 minutes) on a modern PC but installing the service packs and updates takes more time than anything on XP did. Not only can service packs not be slipstreamed, but Vista Service Packs are not even cumulative, which means
if you clean install Windows Vista today, you have to install SP1 first which takes about 90 minutes, then SP2 which takes less time, then all the post-SP2 updates which do take hours to install. If you really HAVE to use Windows 7 or Windows Vista, you are
stuck with this slow update non-sense as Microsoft does not even acknowledge that there is any slowdown or loss of functionality in the new servicing mechanism. The fact remains: MSU updates are slow as **** and take too much time and as Windows 7/Vista get
older and Microsoft stops producing service packs, a clean install is going to take longer and longer to bring it up-to-date with all patches installed. Is is worth wasting your time on an OS whose servicing mechanism Microsoft completely screwed up? I once
again recommend you read more about the servicing stack and how it operates at The Servicing Guy's blog:http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/. To fix this messed up servicing stack, Microsoft also offers a tool
called CheckSUR for your system if it finds “inconsistencies in the servicing store”.
Microsoft's Windows Vista and Windows 7 products are not engineered with disk space in mind. It causes a problem, especially for SSDs which are still low capacity and very expensive. The only hope is that Microsoft again completely redesigns this servicing
mechanism in a future Windows release so it would not cause this growing disk space consumption issue, speed up installation of updates by an order of magnitude, not slow down logon and logoff, not prevent systems becoming unusable because of failed updates
being stuck at a particular stage and allow true slipstreaming.
Microsoft's response to this is vague - they simply state "Windows 7's servicing is more reliable than Windows XP" but they cannot acknowledge it is a million times slower and still unreliable...slow to the point of being unusable and sometimes leaving systems
in an unbootable damaged state. Of course they know all this too but can't admit it since it makes their latest OSes look poor. Moving from a very simple and fast update mechanism that worked to a complex one that requires endless “configuring” and repair
through CheckSUR is a product engineering defect.
Take a look at servicing-related complaints in Microsoft's own forums:
1.
Very slow install of updates to Windows 7
2.
Windows 7 - Updates are very slow
3.
Windows 7 Ultimate, it takes long time configuring updates
4.
"Preparing To Configure Windows. Please Do Not Turn Off Your Computer"
5.
Very slow update install at shutdown (Windows 7 Home Premium)
6.
Why does my computer run so slow when installing updates?
7.
Every time the computer is shut down, it always says installing update do not turn off your computer
8.
Computer is working slow and wants to do windows updates all the time
9.
Windows 7 Update install time taking a very long time
10.
Windows wants to install 6 updates every time I log off or put the computer in sleep mode
11.
Problem In Configuring Windows Updates at the time of Startup
12.
Computer really slow after latest updates
13.
Windows hangs up in "configuring updates"
14.
Why can't windows 7 install updates?
15.
Every time computer is shut down, receive Installing updates, do not shut off....
16.
How long does it take for the Windows 7 Home Premium updates take?
17.
Windows 7 "Installing Update 2 of 2" for 12 hours now
18.
Updates causes endless reboots
19.
Updates stuck installing for over 24 hrs. Computer does not boot
20.
Cannot load Windows 7 after installing 2 critical updates
A proper solution to this problem would be to completely re-engineer and rewrite the servicing mechanism so it operates with the speed, reliability and pain-free operation of the XP servicing mechanism.
I don't see this situation improving in Windows 8 either. Good luck with your Windows tablet taking hours to install service packs and updates. Now, do iPads take that long to install updates?
So fact is Microsoft understates or conveniently hides the real system requirements to keep a Windows 7/Vista system running. System requirements are install time may be 15 GB of free disk space but over time, this number increasing is unacceptable, especially
for people's SSDs which are running out of disk space!

Reduce file size with action wizard

(German version below)
Hey,
I got two questions for action wizard in Acrobat XI Pro.
I try to reduze file size of many PDFs using acion wizard. My tests worked fine but now I got some problems I try to explain now:
1. I add a directory with many subdirectorys to my process list. Adobe now adds not only PDFs to my list, it also adds JPGs, DOCs etc. That means I have to delete every single file I not want to convert to PDF cause I only want to reduce file size of excisting PDFs. Is there any possibility to only add PDFs in my processing list?
2. If a PDF is opend by any other user I get a information about it. This info I need to acknowledge every time it pops up cause my process interrups. Is there any possibility to ignore this info?
I´m happy for any help i can get here. Thx.
Regards
(Sorry for bad english, it´s not my favorite language )
Hallo Leute,
ich benötige Hilfe beim Benutzen des Aktionsassistenten im Acrobat XI Pro.
Ich versuche bei sehr vielen PDFs die Dateigröße zu verringern. Dazu habe ich mir eine Stapelverarbeitung per Aktionsassistent erstellt die bei meiner Testumgebung auch super funktioniert. Leider habe ich noch einige Probleme für die ich Hilfe benötige:
1. Wenn ich einen Ordner mit sehr vielen Unterordnern und verschiedenen Inhalten einfüge möchte ich eigentlich nur die PDFs verarbeiten. Leider fügt Acrobat auch alle JPGs DOCs etc. hinzu. Ich muss also alle unerwünschten Dokumente herausfiltern, da auch keine sortierung vorhanden ist. Bei mehreren Tausend Dokumenten nicht leistbar. Gibt es hier eine Möglichkeit nur PDFs in die Stapelverabeitung aufzunehmen?
2. Sollte die Verarbeitung mal laufen kommt es hin und wieder vor das die PDFs durch einen Benutzer geöffnet sind. Ich bekommen hier eine Meldung von Acrobat die ich erst bestätigen muss bevor es weiter geht. Da das Programm eigentlich über mehrer Tage/Wochen im Hintergrund laufen soll passt mir das gar nicht wenn ich alle Stunde überprüfen muss ob die Stapelverabeitung noch läuft.
Ich hoffe es gibt jemanden der mir helfen kann. Ich bin über jede hilfreiche Antwort glücklich.
Gruß

For starters, let's refer to your original post: "this is indeed a serious problem and step back in functionality..." This statement is a quite ridiculous assertion, unnecessarily dramatic, wholly inaccurate, and unhelpful. Your statement "is this a joke" and "I know Acrobat tends to choke...etc..." is just pure gibberish and polemical. It is quite easy to feed any application enough data to cause a performance failure, but one would really need to question one's motive and prudent use of one's time at this point - unless you are tasked with stress and load testing the software to determine minimum working requirements.
'Batch Processing' is, since Acrobat 9.x, dead and gone, Acrobat 11's approach is to aggregate many hitherto unavailable tools and commands and allow the user to create custom workflows. More interactivity has been built into the process, which may or may not be desirable in each case depending on the workflow context and requirements. But we have obviously moved away from the concept of processing a large number of files and towards a more targeted and effective processing of smaller sets of files. The default Actions we deliver with Acrobat 11 reflect this intention.
The feature "Batch Processing", which was an Acrobat feature from A5 (I believe) up to A9, previously had been hidden in Menu/Advanced/Document Processing/Batch Processing has been wholly replaced by a completely overhauled framework called Actions, now part of the Tools panel, and will be immediately accessible when Tools is called in the UI.
Thus the obscured Batch Processing may have been a tool considered and used by an extremely small set of users to do exactly that, i.e., batch process a large number of files, but had been fairly inflexible, generally speaking, and buggy. We were very well aware that if we were to overhaul the feature, add a considerably larger number of available tools and commands in Acrobat, provide wide possibilities for customization built towards specific workflows, and bring it to the forefront, we were going to sacrifice some of the aspects of batch processing a large number of files. Not calling it "Batch Processing" anymore - because it isn't - may be an indication of this intention.
Personally I have used and tested Batch Processing periodically during various Acrobat projects, but I don't remember encountering the "Reduce File Size" command - which is a subset of Save and file optimization - to use within a batch sequence. I may be wrong, and your screen shots would be welcome here. In fact go ahead and construct a batch sequence that (1) uses 'Reduce File Size and (2) applies file type filters to it, and post it either here or to me privately. I would be happy to be wrong. But regardless, we are grateful for positive input that points out defects, allows us to improve the functionality of the product, providing the intended changes are reasonable, and that the communication of said issues remain respectful of this process and of the individuals we depend upon to implement these changes. The tone of your response comes very close to rendering a proper consideration of this issue irrelevant.

Once combine file, it is too large to email. Is there a way to reduce the size of the file?

Combined files and now it is too large to send. Is there a way to reduce the size of the converted file in Adobe?

Hi yodonna,
Adobe Reader doesn't allow you to reduce the size of a PDF file, as Acrobat does. But, you could upload that file to your Acrobat.com account, and create an anonymous link to it using Adobe Send. Then, you could send that link via email. You can access Adobe Send at https://cloud.acrobat.com/send. The Create an Anonymous Link feature doesn't require that you have an Adobe Send subscription.
Best,
Sara

ORA-19510: failed to set size with ORA-27059: could not reduce file size

Hi,
I have RMAN backup implemented and getting below error.
RMAN-00571: ===========================================================
RMAN-00569: =============== ERROR MESSAGE STACK FOLLOWS ===============
RMAN-00571: ===========================================================
RMAN-03009: failure of backup command on c1 channel at 01/12/2014 04:28:37
ORA-19510: failed to set size of 12839996 blocks for file "/home/oracle/DBBACKUP/Oracle10g1/Full_Backup/DB_Backup_201401128366598241" (blocksize=16384)
ORA-27059: could not reduce file size
Linux Error: 28: no space left on device
Additional information: 2
I have checked with following scenarios:
1. taking backup by setting the MAXSETSIZE parameter value greater than the maximum size of tablespace.
2. taking compressed incremental backup with maxsetsize as unlimited.
3. taking compressed incremental backup with maxpiecesize value as 20G/40G/80G/120G and maxsetsize as unlimited.
Following is the RMAN backup script:
RMAN> run
2> {
3> allocate channel c1 device type disk maxpiecesize 120G
4> format '/home/oracle/DBBACKUP/Oracle10g1/Full_Backup/DB_Backup_%Y%M%D%t%p';
5> backup incremental level 0 as compressed backupset database plus archivelog delete input;
6> crosscheck backup of database;
7> crosscheck backup of controlfile;
8> crosscheck archivelog all;
9> delete noprompt expired backup of database;
10> delete noprompt expired backup of controlfile;
11> delete noprompt obsolete recovery window of 15 days;
12> release channel c1;
13> }
14> exit;
Oracle database version is 10.2.0.1.
The database is on Linux system and we are taking the RMAN backup on mounted Windows NTFS disk.
The remaining space on NTFS system 1.7TB and the total database size 850GB. Used size by database is 500GB.
Regards,
Yogesh.

Hi,
First get the backup piece size its trying to allocate for file "/home/oracle/DBBACKUP/Oracle10g1/Full_Backup/DB_Backup_201401128366598241"
= 12839996*16384
= 210370494464/1024/1024/1024
=195.9GB
Its trying to allocate ~196GB for the file.
1. Make sure the RMAN backup piece won’t exceed the O/S permitted filesize limit.
2. But we can restrict the RMAN backup piece using the MAXPIECESIZE option.
You restricted it to 120GB but actual requirement to allocate backup piece file is ~196GB.
I think you need to change the MAXPIECESIZE and give it a try.
Please update if it succeeded or failed.
Thanks & Regards,
Gayu

PLEASE HELP! How can I reduce the size of my print jobs??

I have created a report which requires graphics. It prints out a header and a JTable below it. Each report is sent to printer as seperate job, and I profiled it as 1 MB each! How to reduce this please?
Andres-Louis Jorneaux

You can't reduce the size that I know of but you can reduce the number by grouping them. Moving one icon on top of the other will create a folder. Also notice the horizontal scroll dots or swipe feature.

How do I reduce the size of an AI CS6 file when saving as a pdf?

I'm trying to save an ai file to a PDF to send to the printer but the file is huge. How can I reduce the size without losing quality? I have already rasterized my images and flattened the artwork. Thanks!

How huge is huge? Are all of the images Placed at 100% or have they been scaled? What are the printer's requirements? What are the physical dimensions of the file? And, how are you creating the PDF? There are a few ways to minimize size, starting with the file itself and the printer's requirements. I find, sometimes, Exporting > TIFF > Open in Ps > Save As Photoshop PDF is helpful. I also use Distiller which trims files nicely and is customizable.

Enterprise Features: Reduced Disk Size Requirements (Provisioning)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for