FAST_START_MTTR_TARGET - Optimal File Size

I have set Fast_Start_MTTR_Target to 3600 (1 hour)...when I query v$instance_recovery view it says that 17929 MB is my suggested log file size. They are now sized at 300MB. This can't be correct, can it? I can't have a 17GB log file. This is Oracle JD Edwards though....but what else should I look at? I know 300MB is too small.

kirkladb wrote:
I have set Fast_Start_MTTR_Target to 3600 (1 hour)...when I query v$instance_recovery view it says that 17929 MB is my suggested log file size. They are now sized at 300MB. This can't be correct, can it? I can't have a 17GB log file. This is Oracle JD Edwards though....but what else should I look at? I know 300MB is too small. I Beleieve you have to FSMT to too high value i.e 1hr. I dont think you will wait your database to startup after instance crash for 1hr?????? This is i believe is not a gud settings. I would rather go with default value initially
Now you have set FSMT to 1hr and oracle would think that it has to do incremental checkpoint after 1hr (to flush dirty block from buffer cache to disk) . So due to this configuration you are seeing too high value in v$instance_recovery i.e 17929.
Please be notes that value of Optimal_logfile_size is very dynamic in nature and changes its value depending upon the load on system. So you cannot basically rely on this value if your system experience dynamic load.
Looking upon Load in database and amount of redolog file switches per sec/min, If they happen to be too frequent for example 2-3logfile switches per 20 mins, then its considered to be overswitching. Oracle recommends for optimal performance every logfile switch should not happen before 15-20 mins.
So good approach is to first see your alert.log and find out that how many log switches are happening then take a decision to increase the logfile size.
Please check with your organization what they suggest how much time they need to wait while instance do its recovery and then change value from default to higher.
Edited by: 909592 on Mar 29, 2012 11:45 AM

Similar Messages

Optimizing file size for project (Splitting)

Hi,
I have recently taught myself Captivate 4 and have nearly pieced together all the requirements of a training video. There is no user interactions or quizzes. I am still not sure what is the best method to present the video. I want to publish to our intranet using Flash.
I captured a video using the inbuilt Automatic Recording Mode (so most of the slides are stills with a couple of FMR sldes) This produced a project with 140 slides. I understand after reading topics about file size reduction, you should try and keep projects around 60 slides. Therefore my question is do I cut this project up into three smaller projects (VideoPt1.cp VideoPt2.cp etc) then in the first project set the last slide to open Videopt2.cp and then repeat this for each project. Then publish the first project to flash. (Which is a very tedious task and I am sure there must be a better way to do this)
When I do this and review the output when it gets to the end of the first section, it errors and says cannot find next file.
I checked the adobe help file but does not seem to offer much explanation on the topic. Just two flavours (open file/URL or Project)
Are there better ways of doing this, the Aggregator seems to offer a sort of solution but I dont want a user seeing multiple chapters for what is in effect one chapter.
Cheers exup

Hi there
Please submit a Wish Form to ask for some future version of Captivate to offer such a feature! (Link is in my sig)
Cheers... Rick
Helpful and Handy Links
Captivate Wish Form/Bug Reporting Form
Adobe Certified Captivate Training
SorcerStone Blog
Captivate eBooks

Removing unused items / optimizing file size

I have a large swf that is embedded in Director as a sprite. I now want to put it onto a web page, so file size is critical. Is there a way to remove unused library items when publishing so that file size is reduced? Is there another way to compress the swf so it is much smaller? The current size is about 25 Mb. What about streaming the swf? I'm not talking about streaming video or audio, just any Flash content. Any tricks for speeding the process up so that the user doesn't have a long wait before the swf starts?
In Director, there is a way to right-click on a cast member and choose "find in score". If something isn't found it means that it either is not used in the movie or is implemented through code. Is there a similar way in Flash of detecting unused items or automatically eliminating them when publishing?
Thanks,
Brian

all used assets would have to be downloaded eventually but it's a much nicer user experience to promptly see something useful on-stage, sooner rather than later. background sound, for example, need not be downloaded when a page first loads and should download after items more useful to the user have already downloaded.
under file/publish settings/flash/tick generate size report you can see what's bloating your swf.

Impact of data file size on DB performance

Hi,
I have a general query regarding size of data files.
Considering DB performance, which of the below 2 options are better?
1. Bigger data file size but less number of files (ex. 2 files with size 8G each)
2. Smaller data file size but more number of files (ex. 8 files with size 2G each)
I am working on a DB where I have noticed where very high I/O.
I understand there might be many reasons for this.
However, I am checking for possibility to improve DB performance though optimizing data file sizes. (Including TEMP/UNDO table spaces)
Kindly share your experiences with determining optimal file size.
Please let me know in case you need any DB statistics.
Few details are as follows:
OS: Solaris 10
Oracle: 10gR2
DB Size: 80G (Approx)
Data Files: UserData - 6 (15G each), UNDO - 2 (8G each), TEMP - 2 (4G each)
Thanks,
Ullhas

Ullhas wrote:
I have a general query regarding size of data files.
Considering DB performance, which of the below 2 options are better?Size or number really does not matter assuming other variables constant. More files results in more open file handles, but in your size db, it matters not.
I am working on a DB where I have noticed where very high I/O.
I understand there might be many reasons for this.
However, I am checking for possibility to improve DB performance though optimizing data file sizes. (Including TEMP/UNDO table spaces)Remember this when tuning I/O: The fastest I/O is the one that never takes place! High I/O may very well be a symptom of unnecessary FTS or poor execution plans. Validate this first before tuning I/O and you will be much better off.
Regards,
Greg Rahn
http://structureddata.org

Optimal online redo log file size

hello to all,
I have installed just now 11gr2 patching 2.
I found
The Redo Logfile Size Advisor can be used to determine the least optimal online redo log file size based on the current FAST_START_MTTR_TARGET setting and MTTR statistics.
Which means that Redo Logfile Size Advisor is enabled only if FAST_START_MTTR_TARGET is set.
for now this installation is not a production instance (only for my testing) I am still on 10g
my question is:
is't important to set FAST_START_MTTR_TARGET, in 11g or that all old infos?, because from my query I see OPTIMAL_LOGFILE_SIZE isn't set.
SELECT TARGET_MTTR,ESTIMATED_MTTR,WRITES_MTTR,WRITES_LOGFILE_SIZE, OPTIMAL_LOGFILE_SIZE FROM V$INSTANCE_RECOVERY;TARGET_MTTR     ESTIMATED_MTTR     WRITES_MTTR     WRITES_LOGFILE_SIZE     OPTIMAL_LOGFILE_SIZE
0     20     0     0
and
SELECT a.group#, b.member, a.status, a.bytes
FROM v$log a, v$logfile b
WHERE a.group#=b.group#
GROUP#     MEMBER     STATUS     BYTES
6     /u03/oradata/TEST/redo06.log     CURRENT     1048576000
5     /u03/oradata/TEST/redo05.log     INACTIVE     1048576000
4     /u03/oradata/TEST/redo04.log     INACTIVE     1048576000
3     /u03/oradata/TEST/redo03.log     INACTIVE     1048576000
2     /u03/oradata/TEST/redo02.log     INACTIVE     1048576000
1     /u03/oradata/TEST/redo01.log     INACTIVE     1048576000
thanks for any doc or info you will pointing me

for now this installation is not a production instance (only for my testing) I am still on 10g
my question is:
is't important to set FAST_START_MTTR_TARGET, in 11g or that all old infos?,There is no difference for FAST_START_MTTR_TARGET in 10g and 11g.
For 10g
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14237/initparams068.htm#i1127412
For 11g
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28320/initparams079.htm
Both documentation have exact text, means it will work exactly in 11g as 10g.
But do'nt see this like (because its not a official documentation link... as it is different from official doc's text though)
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/itss/docs/oracle/10g/server.101/b10755/initparams069.htm
Regards
Girish Sharma

Acrobat 7.0.9: Optimizing PDF increases file size?

Audit Space Usage in the Optimize dialog shows "Color Spaces" ballooning from 0.8 MB to 22 MB when a PDF is optimized (goes from 3% of the file size to 58%). File size increases from 23.8 MB to 35.6 MB.
What exactly is happening, and how can I fix it?
Thanks for any info.

Hey, Jon
Interesting...
Original file (300 dpi CMYK images) 23.8 MB
Images 19 MB
Color Spaces 0.8 MB
Optimize with flattening (72 dpi images, low quality) 68.7 MB
Images 49 MB
Color Spaces 18 MB
Optimize without flattening (72 dpi images, low quality) 68.2 MB
Images 48 MB
Color Spaces 18 MB
Not sure why color spaces are down to 18 MB from 22 MB, I used a preset that I THOUGHT was the same one I used yesterday. Regardless, it's bizarre that both images and color spaces are getting huge when optimized.
I used Create PDF from Multiple Files to bring in a bunch of pages, but I'm reasonably sure that all those files were already flattened before I brought them in.
I'll file that transparency tip for next time though, you never know when it might come up.
Thanks.

PDF gaining file size when "optimizing"

I have a PDF that I'm trying to reduce the size of, the original size is around 6 MB, when I have "optimized" the size actually increased anywhere from 9MB to 15MB. There were a few attempts that I do get it to a lower size, but along with that there are missing letters and font issues. I've attempted numerous processes, but can't seem to find one that works. Any suggestions on a fail-safe way to do this? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
j o s e f

Getting rid of fonts is a bad idea if you are making it a web document. However, you could subset the fonts. You might also try FILE>Reduce File Size. There are a lot of options in optimize and you may need to play with those a bit. Bill

Save as Reduced Size PDF and Save as Optimized PDF do not reduce the file size. What gives?

Save as Reduced Size PDF and Save as Optimized PDF do not reduce the file size. What gives? I used Acrobat 9 to do this for a long time. I recently received new laptop loaded with with Acrobat 10 and it does not work the same. I typically scan 8-10 pages of receipts, combine the files in Acrobat, and then optimize to reduce the size so I can upload with my expense report. Typically, my files were reduced to 200-400 KB. I have a 2 MB file that will not reduce at all.

Bernd, thank you for your attempt to help but the option dialog windows do not contain the same options. There are numerous other posts on this forum about this issue and there is no answer. Clearly, there is an issue. I have submitted this issue to our internal help desk.

What file size is used for "optimized" upload/download?

When I upload my photo files from Aperture (and previously from iPhoto) I routinely use the upload setting named "dowloading of optimized" files. I know that this downsizes the files for faster upload/download, but still gives a file size acceptable for great onscreen presentation and for a resulting small print of someone downloads. Can anyone tell what downsizing Aperture/iPhoto does in this case? For example, 50% jpeg, email sized jpeg, etc. Since Apple will kill the MobileMe galleries in June I have to switch to another photo presentation host. For upload to such a host Aperture/iPhoto gives choices like 100% jpeg, 50% jpeg, etc. What I want to do is end up with something similar to what I now get with the "optimized" setting. Thank you.

You will note that I referenced both programs (iPhoto & Aperture) in my original message above, and I have posted in both forums. Since both programs offer the same (at least on the surface) option of "optimized" to MobileMe galleries, one might assume that both use the same or a similar system. Lengthly testing of my own is the "best" solution only if I can not find anyone who is knowledgeable about what these programs do in the upload. It has been my sincere joy over many many years that I often find people on these forums who possess knowledge much greater than I. As to the programs changing the algorithum at any time, I doubt that since this MobileMe function will disappear in June. Seems like a strange time to make changes.

Choosing an optimal size ( file size, MB's,tiff or jpg) for iphoto

I apologize to Old toad and others who have responded. OT seems to be the only one who answers so much. He deserves a standing ovation which i am giving him now.
But:
Lets start at the beginning. I am a semi-pro (i do not make my living on my photography) who never used Iphoto but must now because i wish to create a 100 page book.
I have files mostly tiffs that range from 17.2 to 60 MBs in size ( 3008-5000 /2000-3000 dpi ). I see that Iphoto ad nauseum creates a thumbnail, and a copy of the original photo for each photo. This is not HD friendly.
How big in pixel size/file size in MB's should the files be so that i do not use so much HD space? Should i just go ahead and drag the files that i have and allow for 5-10 GB of photos to accumulate on my HD? I realize i do not need
my files so big and that is why i ask here in the forums.
I realize most of my files are non compressed tiffs,i.e. big in file size.
What say you? Please be specific. Mention a specific file
size in MB's please
thanks

Glen:
I've created several books. They were with cameras that produced 1600 x 1200 pixel image files which will give a maximum 300 dpi size of 5.3 x 4 inches. All of my books have been the Storybook theme so the one photo per page is not a full page and I've never run into the warning for low resolution. Possiblly a full 8.5 x 11 photo page would have given me a warning. For the intended use of the books I found them to be very good. My Canon camera's color profile is very close to the Apple recommended sRGB so I've calibrated my monitor with the sRGB profile. Any edits I do with Photoshop CS3 embed the sRGB profile in the resulting file.
My current camera gives me 2272 x 2704 images. Haven't ordered a book since I've started using it but am in the process of creating one right now.
It's not the MB size of the file that's important but the number of pixels in the image. For a full page photos, an image size of 3300 x 2250 would meet the optimal 300 dpi of the printing by Apple's suppliers. However, I have no doubt that my current camera's files would produce a good print at that size. That is if I got a good sharp image to start with.
So a 3300 x 2250 pixel jpg would provide just as good a print as the same sized tiff. Just keep as many pixels in the image as you can. For those good photographers that can do their cropping when they take the image that will maximize the files pixels for printing. I don't have the eye for that. But then my photos are of rapidly changing family situations and I don't have time top compose the picture.
I asked Apple about the printing and quality of materials used in the books and here's their replay:
I contacted Apple and asked for information that I could pass on. Here's the reply I received from Apple:
"Thank you for contacting the Apple Print Products Customer Service.
I understand that you would like to know the printing process that is used and the color mode the files should be in, so you can better advise users in the iPhoto forum.
iPhoto version 4 or later, allows you to import and print files through the Apple Print Product service as RGB, grayscale, or CMYK color space. JPEG files with RGB color space are recommended for best results.
While iPhoto 2 can import files of various formats, including RGB color, grayscale, and CMYK, this version requires JPEG files with RGB color space when printing photos and books.
For more information regarding iPhoto 2, please visit the following article:
iPhoto: Color, Black and White Prints Appear Garbled or Distorted
For more information regarding iPhoto 5, please visit the following article:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=165501
Here are some of the technical specifications for the books, cards, and calendars. I hope this gives you an idea about their quality and form.
BOOKS
All iPhoto books are printed using acid-free paper for long-lasting image quality. The photos are printed at a high resolution (300DPI if you use iPhoto 6). There is no external modification--such as sharpening or contrast adjustment--of the photos; what you see in the application is what is printed in the book.
Hardcovers Books
The cover is hard-bound and covered in linen. You select the linen color during the book-ordering process. The hardcover books have a solid, stiff binding that is glued and crimped. The internal pages, measuring 8.5 x 11 inches, are printed on McCoy 100# Text Gloss paper stock.
Softcover Books
The softcover books come in three sizes:
- Large 8.5 x 11 inches
- Medium 6 x 8 inches
- Small 2.6 x 3.5 inches
All of the softcover books have internal pages that are printed on McCoy 100# Text Gloss paper stock. The large softcover book has a white cover (Kromekoteplus Folding Cover, 16 point) with a cutout on the front that reveals the cover-page photo in the book. The covers for the medium and small softcover books have the cover image and title printed directly on the cover. All of the softcover books have a glued binding and feature a thick cover of McCoy 100# Cover Gloss paper stock.
CARDS
All cards are printed on McCoy 120# Silk Cover paper stock. The postcards measure 4 x 6 inches, and the greeting cards measure 5 x 7inches.
CALENDARS
All calendars measure 8 x 10 inches and are printed on McCoy 100# Silk Cover paper stock.
To ensure the best print quality, we have chosen to use Kodak NexPress technology. The press uses a dry toner, which is fused to the surface of the paper. Please see NexPress' site for more information:
KODAK NEXPRESS 2500 Digital Production Color Press
I hope you find this information helpful in answering questions on the iPhoto forum."
As Apple stated, I hope this information is helpful.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.
MBP 2.16Ghz; G5 Dual Core 2GHz, 2G RAM ea, 250G HD; G4 Dual 1Ghz, 1.5G RAM; Mac OS X (10.4.10) 22" LCD, 710G FW HDs, Canon: SD700IS/i850/LIDE 50, Epson R200, 30G iPod, 2G Nano

A simple and free way of reducing PDF file size using Preview

Note: this is a copy and update of a 5 year old discussion in the Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard discussions which you can find here: https://discussions.apple.com/message/6109398#6109398
This is a simple and free solution I found to reduce the file size of PDFs in OS X, without the high cost and awful UI of Acrobat Pro, and with acceptable quality. I still use it every day, although I have Acrobat Pro as part of Adove Creative Cloud subscription.
Since quite a few people have found it useful and keep asking questions about the download location and destination of the filters, which have changed since 2007, I decided to write this update, and put it in this more current forum.
Here is how to install it:
Download the filters here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41548940/PDF%20compression%20filters%20%28Un zip%20and%20put%20in%20your%20Library%20folder%29.zip
Unzip the downloaded file and copy the filters in the appropriate location (see below).
Here is the appropriate location for the filters:
This assumes that your startup disk's name is "Macintosh HD". If it is different, just replace "Macintosh HD" with the name of your startup disk.
If you are running Lion or Mountain Lion (OS X 10.7.x or 10.8.x) then you should put the downloaded filters in "Macintosh HD/Library/PDF Services". This folder should already exist and contain files. Once you put the downloaded filters there, you should have for example one file with the following path:
"Macintosh HD/Library/PDF Services/Reduce to 150 dpi average quality - STANDARD COMPRESSION.qfilter"
If you are running an earlier vesion of OS X (10.6.x or earlier), then you should put the downloaded filters in "Macintosh HD/Library/Filters" and you should have for example one file with the following path:
"Macintosh HD/Library/Filters/Reduce to 150 dpi average quality - STANDARD COMPRESSION.qfilter"
Here is how to use it:
Open a PDF file using Apple's Preview app,
Choose Export (or Save As if you have on older version of Mac OS X) in the File menu,
Choose PDF as a format
In the "Quartz Filter" drop-down menu, choose a filter "Reduce to xxx dpi yyy quality"; "Reduce to 150 dpi average quality - STANDARD COMPRESSION" is a good trade-off between quality and file size
Here is how it works:
These are Quartz filters made with Apple Colorsinc Utility.
They do two things:
downsample images contained in a PDF to a target density such as 150 dpi,
enable JPEG compression for those images with a low or medium setting.
Which files does it work with?
It works with most PDF files. However:
It will generally work very well on unoptimized files such as scans made with the OS X scanning utility or PDFs produced via OS X printing dialog.
It will not further compress well-optimized (comrpessed) files and might create bigger files than the originals,
For some files it will create larger files than the originals. This can happen in particular when a PDF file contains other optomizations than image compression. There also seems to be a bug (reported to Apple) where in certain circumstances images in the target PDF are not JPEG compressed.
What to do if it does not work for a file (target PDF is too big or even larger than the original PDF)?
First,a good news: since you used a Save As or Export command, the original PDF is untouched.
You can try another filter for a smaller size at the expense of quality.
The year being 2013, it is now quite easy to send large files through the internet using Dropbox, yousendit.com, wetransfer.com etc. and you can use these services to send your original PDF file.
There are other ways of reducing the size of a PDF file, such as apps in the Mac App store, or online services such as the free and simple http://smallpdf.com
What else?
Feel free to use/distribute/package in any way you like.

Thanks ioscar.
The original link should be back online soon.
I believe this is a Dropbox error about the traffic generated by my Dropbox shared links.
I use Dropbox mainly for my business and I am pretty upset by this situation.
Since the filters themsemves are about 5KB, I doubt they are the cause for this Dropbox misbehavior!
Anyway, I submitted a support ticket to Dropbox, and hope everything will be back to normal very soon.
In the meantime, if you get the same error as ioscar when trying to download them, you can use the link in the blog posting he mentions.
This is out of topic, but for those interested, here is my understanding of what happened with Dropbox.
I did a few tests yesterday with large (up to 4GB) files and Dropbox shared links, trying to find the best way to send a 3 hour recording from French TV - French version of The Voice- to a friend's 5 year old son currently on vacation in Florida, and without access to French live or catch up TV services. One nice thing I found is that you can directly send the Dropbox download URL (the one from the Download button on the shared link page) to an AppleTV using AirFlick and it works well even for files with a large bitrate (except of course for the Dropbox maximum bandwidth per day limit!). Sadly, my Dropbox shared links were disabled before I could send anything to my friend.
I may have used a significant amount of bandwidth but nowhere near the 200GB/day limit of my Dropbox Pro account.
I see 2 possible reasons to Dropbox freaking out:
- My Dropbox Pro account is wronngly identified as a free account by Dropbox. Free Dropbox accounts have a 20GB/day limit, and it is possible that I reached this limit with my testing, I have a fast 200Mb/s internet access.
- Or Dropbox miscalculates used bandwidth, counting the total size of the file for every download begun, and I started a lot of downloads, and skipped to the end of the video a lot of times on my Apple TV.

I publish a 41mb newsletter monthly into interactive pdf. It always becomes a file size of 4mb, 10% of original, when I save to pdf. This month my newsletter is 41mb and it drops to 11mb, 25% of original. I have re-sized all pictures, deleted pages separa

I publish a 41mb InDesign newsletter monthly into interactive pdf. It always becomes a file size of 4mb, 10% of original, when I save to pdf. This month my newsletter is 41mb and it drops to 11mb, 25% of original. I have re-sized all pictures, deleted pages separately, have gotten the file size down to 16mb and it drops to 7mb, 45% of original.
I have gone back and saved Feb and March and it saves to 10% of original, as it did before, and I use the same mechanism to save now.
I have gone to Acrobat Pro and optimized down to 8.8mb, but the quality is not acceptable.
What other variable is there that I haven't discovered?

My daughter has had her Razr for about 9 months now. About two weeks ago she picked up her phone in the morning on her way to school when she noticed two cracks, both starting at the camera lens. One goes completely to the bottom and the other goes sharply to the side. She has never dropped it and me and my husband went over it with a fine tooth comb. We looked under a magnifying glass and could no find any reason for the glass to crack. Not one ding, scratch or bang. Our daughter really takes good care of her stuff, but we still wanted to make sure before we sent it in for repairs. Well we did and we got a reply from Motorola with a picture of the cracks saying this was customer abuse and that it is not covered under warranty. Even though they did not find any physical damage to back it up. Well I e-mailed them back and told them I did a little research and found pages of people having the same problems. Well I did not hear from them until I received a notice from Fed Ex that they were sending the phone back. NOT FIXED!!! I went to look up why and guess what there is no case open any more for the phone. It has been wiped clean. I put in the RMA # it comes back not found, I put in the ID #, the SN# and all comes back not found. Yet a day earlier all the info was there. I know there is a lot more people like me and all of you, but they just don't want to be bothered so they pay to have it fix, just to have it do it again. Unless they have found the problem and only fixing it on a customer pay only set up. I am furious and will not be recommending this phone to anyone. And to think I was considering this phone for my next up grade! NOT!!!!

How can I reduce the file size when PDF Optimizer does not do much?

I have a PDF form that exists of 48 pages. 44 pages are forms / have form fields, the other 4 are just informative. Each form-page has approx. 80 fields (checkboxes, text fields).
When I started setting up the PDF form the file size was 12 MB and I had placed fields on 21 pages. Then with 34 pages the file size was 19 MB. And with 40 pages it was 35 MB big! Finally with 44 pages the file size is 34 MB.
So I searched with Google and found some tips. Using the "PDF Optimizer" option inside Acrobat for example. So I did, and the file was reduced only with 3 MB... 31 MB was the file. Also used the option "Save as.... Optimized".... no difference. I also found a suggestion about removing embedded fonts. Using the "Audit Space Usage" option I noticed the fonts taking many MegaBytes:
* Content Streams: 5.287.000     15,09 %
* Fonts:                24.556.810     70,08 % !!
* Acrobat forms:      3.349.164    12,05 %
In the older PDF version (I saved and kept this one too) with just 21 pages with form-fields, the "Audit Space Usage" shows:
* Content Streams: 5.292.000     40,14 %
* Fonts:                 1.290.224     9,79 %
* Acrobat forms:      1.588.758    12,05 %
So I could save many many MegaBytes by -UnEmbedding- fonts. But if I do this (unembed ALL fonts), the file size stays almost the same!?!?!? Why? What can I do to reduce the file size? I would like it to be 8 MB if possible (32 MB - 24 MB = 8 MB)?
Thank you for your help!

If you have authored the form, reduce the number of different fonts for the content and form fields.
Any font used in a form field will cause that font to be embedded into the PDF.
If you are going to Optimize the PDF be very careful with forms. Optimization does a lot of removal of items and rearranging of items which can really mess up forms.

PDF file size increases several folds after OCR

Hello,
I've been using Acrobat Pro 9. Whenever I receive a scanned PDF from someone, I always try to OCR it. I thought this would reduce the file size because it's saved as text characters instead of images. However, the file size actually increases several folds. For example I just had a scanned PDF with original size of 3M, but after OCR (settings: searchable image, downsample to 300dpi), the file size is > 19M. This is a legal document with no pictures or diagrams. Even ClearScan gives a result of 15M file. Could you help explain why and how I can change this? Thank you.
Hung

I just did an OCR with Searchable Image (exact); and here are all results
Original: 3,046 KB
Searchable Image (300dpi): 19,408 KB
Searchable Image (Exact) (600dpi): 3,377 KB
ClearScan (300dpi): 14,813 KB
So in this example, Searchable Image (exact) only causes about 10% increase in size. I used Save As "PDF" (not "Reduced Size PDF" or "Optimized PDF"...). Does this make sense? Thank you.
Hung

Reducing file size #2...Preview, Quartz Filter vs Adobe Pro Optimize

Questions on reducing a pages to pdf file…I will post each question seperatly.
2) I read that you can reduce file size of a pdf in preview with a quartz filter. I created my own filer and it worked as expected. But, I also have Adobe Acrobat Pro, with save as PDF Optimized. The pro seems to have much more capability than the quartz filters.
Is one better that the other to use? The adobe optimize (standard settings) took it from 20 to 6 megs.
THanks, Bob

The Adobe Acrobat settings you chose are probably using .jpeg to reduce the file size.
.jpegs are lossy. ie You lose detail and sharpness the more you compress the image.
The Quartz filters are usually of very high quality, but they are a black box and you need to understand what the settings are in each one. Quartz filters are extremely powerful, fast and as I said usually high quality but I suggest you experiment and see if they meet your needs.
Peter

FAST_START_MTTR_TARGET - Optimal File Size

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for