File size reported reported differently

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

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

Similar Messages

  • Discrepancies in total file size report between v$asm_file and dba_data_files

    Hi Friends,
    I have an issue, where there are differences of around (70 GB - 90 GB) between what v$asm_file is reporting and what dba_data_files reports. (I have taken TEMP files into account as dba_data_files does not report TEMP files), but still there are differences. Does any one know why is that ? I have checked two RAC installations and its the same in both of them.
    Regarsd,
    Rose

    Can you give the output of :
    select * from dba_data_files;
    select * from v$asm_file;

  • Fat32 reports different file sizes???

    I tried to copy files from one Firewire drive to another. The source files were on a drive formated fat32 for use on a windows boot camp disk. When I copied to the Mac OS Estended disk the file sizes were much different. What's up with this -- were the files copied correctly?
    Thanks for your help!!!

    FAT32 uses a different block size than Mac OS. If you check the actual size of the file rather than the space occupied on the drive they should be the same. However, if you copy a Mac file to a DOS disk some of the Mac file may disappear into another file which is the resource fork. Now you cannot copy just the file back to the Mac, you must also include the resource fork or you won't have a complete file. This is because Mac files and DOS files are not "assembled" the same way.

  • Different photo file sizes when copied back from external HD

    I backed up some photos to an external HD (80GB, same size as in my iMac at the time), with Mac OS Standard format, under Tiger. The internal HD crashed, taking much unbacked-up data with it to the digital beyond.
    Now with my new Leopard iMac (and wisdom acquired by experience), I have noticed a different file size on the different drives after copying the photos back.
    Other posts have pointed out differences in memory allocation / block size as the culprits, however, can that make the large difference seen in my case?
    Example 1 is a Tiff file of 8.2 MB on the external HD, which shrinks to 6,8 MB when copied to the 500 GB iMac drive (taken from the Get Info window)
    Example 2 is a JPEG which shrinks from 1.2 MB to 552 KB when copied over.
    Examples 1 & 2 also shrank to 6.8 MB and 576 KB respectively when copied from the 80GB external drive to another, 320GB external FAT32 drive.
    So my question is: Am I somehow losing something with the shrinking files? Does memory allocation/block size difference make that big a difference?
    Thanks for your help.

    I think I ought to mention that I also have a new laptop and have experienced file sharing permission issues with some applications. Might this be part of the problem? (Although everything seems to be properly owned!)

  • Getting large file sizes in AppleScript...

    For starters I am new to AppleScript. Please excuse my lack of knowledge.
    I am trying to get file sizes for large files and kicking that out to a text file. Problem is that all these files are a gigabyte and up. When I use:
    set fileSIZE to size of (info for chosenFile) as string
    --result is 1.709683486E+9
    I also tried using:
    tell application "Finder"
    set theSize to physical size of chosenFile
    end tell
    --result is 1.724383232E+9
    So, my question is there another way that shows me the bytes in this format "1,709,683,486" bytes.
    The "size of (info for chosenFile)" shows the right numbers "1.709683486". I don't really need the commas. I had a larger file of 44GB and the result was 4.4380597717E+10.
    How do I remove the ".", the "E+9" or "E+10"?

    looks like hubionmac has found a winner.
    perhaps not:
    page 89 applescript language guide:
    the largest integer value is 536,870,911. Larger integers are convert to real numbers.
    Notice the different request for size report different values.
    Notice that ls -l return the data fork size in Tiger.
    Notice the clever way of working with the resource fork in unix ( /rsrc ). I found this in juliejuliejulie's code in another post.
    set theFile to (choose file)
    set fileSIZE to size of (info for theFile) as miles as string
    log "fileSIZE = " & fileSIZE
    tell application "Finder"
       set pSize to physical size of theFile
    end tell
    log "pSize = " & pSize
    set stringSize to pSize as miles as string
    log "stringSize = " & stringSize
    set theItem to quoted form of POSIX path of (theFile)
    log "theItem = " & theItem
    -- unix ls -l command will give size. 
    -- Looks like ls -l gives the data fork size.
    set theDataSize to (do shell script "ls -l " & theItem & " | awk '{print $5}'")
    log "theDataSize = " & theDataSize
    set theRsrc to (POSIX path of theFile) & "/rsrc"
    log "theRsrc = " & theRsrc
    set theRsrc to quoted form of theRsrc
    log "theRsrc = " & theRsrc
    set theRsrcSize to (do shell script "ls -l " & theRsrc & " | awk '{print $5}'")
    log "theRsrcSize = " & theRsrcSize
    set output to do shell script "echo \"" & theDataSize & "+" & theRsrcSize & "\" | bc "
    log "combined data and resource size = " & output
    Here is what I get when I run the above script.
    tell current application
       choose file
          alias "Macintosh-HD:System Folder:Finder"
       info for alias "Macintosh-HD:System Folder:Finder"
          {name:"Finder", creation date:date "Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:00:00 PM", modification date:date "Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:00:00 PM", icon position:{1, 128}, size:2.439365E+6, folder:false, alias:false, package folder:false, visible:true, extension hidden:false, name extension:missing value, displayed name:"Finder", default application:alias "Macintosh-HD:Applications (Mac OS 9):Utilities:Assistants:Setup Assistant:Setup Assistant", kind:"Finder", file type:"FNDR", file creator:"MACS", type identifier:"dyn.agk8yqxwenk", locked:false, busy status:false, short version:"9.2", long version:"9.2, Copyright Apple Computer, Inc. 1983-2001"}
       (*fileSIZE = 2439365*)
    end tell
    tell application "Finder"
       get physical size of alias "Macintosh-HD:System Folder:Finder"
          2.445312E+6
       (*pSize = 2.445312E+6*)
       (*stringSize = 2445312*)
       (*theItem = '/System Folder/Finder'*)
    end tell
    tell current application
       do shell script "ls -l '/System Folder/Finder' | awk '{print $5}'"
          "1914636"
       (*theDataSize = 1914636*)
       (*theRsrc = /System Folder/Finder/rsrc*)
       (*theRsrc = '/System Folder/Finder/rsrc'*)
       do shell script "ls -l '/System Folder/Finder/rsrc' | awk '{print $5}'"
          "524729"
       (*theRsrcSize = 524729*)
       do shell script "echo \"1914636+524729\" | bc "
          "2439365"
       (*combined data and resource size = 2439365*)
    end tell
    Message was edited by: rccharles

  • File Size Question: Browser vs. MediaManager vs. Finder

    Not an earth-shattering issue, but am just curious as to why the Browser, MM, and the Finder each offer different opinions as to the size of a given media file (or group of files).
    I've just finished capturing a couple of hours of HDV footage from a friend's Sony cam (model HDR-HC7). Used Capture Now with the pref to create new media files at any TC break. (Will later do selective shot-by-shot logging and transcoding into ProRes422, so this B-cam material can be easily combined with AVCHD-originated footage which is being ProRes'd on ingest. For now just had to get it all on disk, since my friend needs his camera back!)
    Anyway, everything went smoothly, but to use one file as an example, I happened to notice that in FCP7's "Size" Browser column, it's 78.2 MB; whereas MediaManager sees it as 77.1 MB; yet the Finder shows it as 82 MB.
    All the other captured files show a similar variation. Everything's in the same ballpark, of course -- and these days what's a few MBs between friends? -- but the differences total a couple of GBs by the end of day; still not a big deal in the grand scheme, just more of a variation than I would have predicted.
    So -- does anyone happen to know why this is the case? Do the Browser, MM, and the Finder each have different ways of evaluating how much space a particular media file is actually occupying, or are they each measuring subtly different things?
    Like I said -- just curious.
    Thanks,
    John B.
    Toronto

    +Is there a particular reason why it makes sense for the Browser to use one way, and the Finder to use the other?+
    Most likely it is down to which particular call is used by the programer to ascertain file size and therefore the way that file size data is returned to the app. Don't forget that the FCP's basic code is pretty darn old now and predates current best practices for file size reporting.
    +And why, staying with the above example, does the Media Manager come up with its own unique measurement altogether, different from BOTH of the others (or is that just part of its charm)?+
    Weird huh? And here's the bit you won't like ... I don't see the same discrepancy. On my system Media Manager and the Browser seem to report file sizes consistently.
    +Also -- am I correct in noticing that under Snow Leopard, Disk Utility has switched from one measurement scheme to the other? (DU suddenly seems to be seeing my 500GB drives as having a single-volume partition of -- gasp -- 500GB! Who would've thought?)+
    Yup, its a brave new world.

  • File size... event files vs. project files... finalizing... help!

    Hi,
    I'm trying to create some room on my hard drive, and I see that I have 80GB of files sitting in my events folder of iMovie. If I finalize my projects, will they take up less room than that original footage? Can I finalize everything and then trash all of the event footage? (I won't need to go back and reuse the originals... it's mostly individual band songs that each are their own project.) But... are those finalized projects re-editable if I want to add something later?
    Thanks for your help - I just want to make sure I'm optimizing my hard drive space. It's confusing to me where these different files are kept!
    I'm in Lion running iMovie 11.

    +Is there a particular reason why it makes sense for the Browser to use one way, and the Finder to use the other?+
    Most likely it is down to which particular call is used by the programer to ascertain file size and therefore the way that file size data is returned to the app. Don't forget that the FCP's basic code is pretty darn old now and predates current best practices for file size reporting.
    +And why, staying with the above example, does the Media Manager come up with its own unique measurement altogether, different from BOTH of the others (or is that just part of its charm)?+
    Weird huh? And here's the bit you won't like ... I don't see the same discrepancy. On my system Media Manager and the Browser seem to report file sizes consistently.
    +Also -- am I correct in noticing that under Snow Leopard, Disk Utility has switched from one measurement scheme to the other? (DU suddenly seems to be seeing my 500GB drives as having a single-volume partition of -- gasp -- 500GB! Who would've thought?)+
    Yup, its a brave new world.

  • Save of edited file does not change file size correctly

    I have QT pro 7.6 and have all the latest DirectX and drivers for my PC. I have a problem with file size reporting correctly for edited files.
    For example, I have three files: A.MOV (10mb), B.MOV (15mb), and C.MOV (25mb). If I load A and then copy B and C to the end of it, I can do a File Save As to create D.MOV as a self contained movie which shows estimated size as 50mb. And the saved file IS 50mb.
    However, If (after appending B and C to the end of A) I just do a "Save" command, A.MOV file size is not changed and still shows 10mb. The whole movie A-B-C plays correctly, but the file size is incorrect. Where is the rest of the data? I know the new A.MOV is self contained because I can delete B and C and it still plays all three segments. I'm concerned that if the file size is reported incorrectly there is the chance that the data will get lost in a future copy or move operation. Does anyone else experience this bug or is it just something in my PC?

    I stopped following this issue a few years ago, but as I recall, this is a known bug in the way PSE handles the writing of the tags to the photo files.
    I stopped following this issue because I switched to Lightroom which does not have this issue. Yes, you could do this with Exiftool and re-save the metadata from PSE, seems kind of cumbersome.
    Also, please note that if you Export the file from the PSE Organizer, as far as I know the proper tags should appear, so if you want the proper tags in your files, you could use this feature.

  • File size changes after color adjustments

    Anytime I adjust/edit a photo in iPhoto it results in a saved image that's half the size of my original. I wanted to bump the contrast and print a photo, but the image goes from 4MB to 2MB after a simple color adjustment. Does anyone know how to stop this?

    Is there anyway to save the copy without a loss in file size
    No. Like I said, it's in the nature of jpegs. Jpeg is a lossy format.
    It seems to be an iphoto issue rather then a jpeg issue.
    Don't think so.
    When I make adjustments to a jpeg in photoshop and save it, the file size is not effected.
    Where are you seeing that reported? I just auto-coloured a jpeg with CS4 and saved it at 9 on Photoshops scale of 12 and the file size reported in the FInder went from 4.5MB to 1.1.
    Regards
    TD

  • Save For Web vs. Resizing vs. File Size vs. PNG

    In playing around with some settings while saving a .png file, I noticed some weird results. For this example, the original image is 300 x 300, but I want the final size to be 200 x 200. I get different results depending on the order I perform the following operations (I never thought the order mattered until now).
    1. start with 300 x 300 image, choose save for web, select png-24, with transparency, white matte, convert to sRGB, change image size to 200 x 200, then save - the file size is 37kb
    2. start with 300 x 300 image, use Photoshop's "image size" to change to 200 x 200, then save for web, etc - the file size is 111kb
    So depending on which step I resize the image, the file size is significantly different - if I resize BEFORE using save for web, the file size is much larger. This is just weird to me, but I always resize AFTER choosing save for web, so that's why I've never caught this until now. In case you ask, while using Photoshop's "image size", all three options are checked at the bottom of that window, so nothing is getting re-sampled or anything like that.
    The only thing I can think of is each of those methods treat pixel data differently when reducing the dimensions. When I overlay both exported .png files on top of each other, I see no difference in pixel quality and/or color shift - so why the big difference in file size? Unsurprisingly, if I just save the file straight to .png, the sharpness is much better, and the file size is 46kb. I did notice when saving for web, the colors become a little more saturated.
    Are all these results typical? I've never really paid much attention to the results when exporting .png's. I always thought the results were lossless (in general).

    Too many variables
    What? There are 2 variables here (variables = scenarios = steps). Only two different operations.
    1. resize the image, THEN use "save for web" = 91kb
    2."save for web", THEN change image size = 157kb
    Hopefully my logic translates here:
    All other settings are the same. I even made sure the .psd was sRGB this time. The specific question was "why does the different workflow order produce such a big difference in file size"?
    In creating a new test file (http://www.shan-dysigns.com/userForums/photoshop/savePNG.zip), I did notice an interesting thing: (I'm including my files in case you want to follow along or test for yourself)
    If I merge all layers BEFORE performing the steps above, the file sizes were relatively closer to one another - 168kb and 157kb (respectively from the 1, 2 list above)
    One thing to note is all the .psd layers are either shapes or text - this whole scenario may be totally different if each layer had rasterized content (actually, it does, by about -20kb).
    The file size in step 1 above didn't jump until it had to consider rastered text/shapes into the calculation. So all this tells me the difference in file size has to do with how each process handles vector data. Maybe when you allow PS to resize the image first, the overall file size is smaller because the vector data gets recalculated???
    I don't know how to properly interpret all these differences, but I do know there is something about PS's operation of resizing the canvas with vector data versus resizing the canvas with rasterized data - this has to be where the difference in file size lies.
    Maybe I've just wasted a bunch of time on the obvious, but I think I learned something here. Now my head hurts and my eyes have popped out of my head.
    So, Chris, I guess there ARE more variables in this situation. My curse is being nosey and wanting to know more technically about PS than most casual designers probably would care about.

  • Large PDF file sizes when exporting from InDesign

    Hi,
    I was wondering if anyone knew why some PDF file sizes are so large when exporting from ID.
    I create black and white user manuals with ID CS3. We post these online, so I try to get the file size down as much as possible.
    There is only one .psd image in each manual. The content does not have any photographs, just Illustrator .eps diagrams and line drawings. I am trying to figure out why some PDF file sizes are so large.
    Also, why the file sizes are so different.
    For example, I have one ID document that is 3MB.
    Exporting it at the smallest file size, the PDF file comes out at 2MB.
    Then I have another ID document that is 10MB.
    Exporting to PDF is 2MB (the same size as the smaller ID document)... this one has many more .eps's in it and a lot more pages.
    Then I have another one that the ID size is 8MB and the PDF is 6MBwhy is this one so much larger than the 10MB ID document?
    Any ideas on why this is happening and/or how I can reduce the file size.
    I've tried adjusting the export compression and other settings but that didn't work.
    I also tried to reduce them after the fact in Acrobat to see what would happen, but it doesn't reduce it all that much.
    Thanks for any help,
    Cathy

    > Though, the sizes of the .eps's are only about 100K to 200K in size and they are linked, not embedded.
    But they're embedded in the PDF.
    > It's just strange though because our marketing department as an 80 page full color catalog that, when exported it is only 5MB. Their ID document uses many very large .tif files. So, I am leaning toward it being an .eps/.ai issue??
    Issue implies there's something wrong, but I think this is just the way
    it's supposed to work.
    Line drawings, while usually fairly compact, cannot be lossy compressed.
    The marketing department, though, may compress their very large TIFF
    files as much as they like (with a corresponding loss of quality). It's
    entirely possible to compress bitmaps to a smaller size than the
    drawings those bitmaps were made from. You could test this yourself.
    Just open a few of your EPS drawings in Photoshop, save as TIFF, place
    in ID, and try various downsampling schemes. If you downsample enough,
    you'll get the size of the PDF below a PDF that uses the same graphics
    as line drawing EPS files. But you may have to downsample them beyond
    recognition...
    Kenneth Benson
    Pegasus Type, Inc.
    www.pegtype.com

  • File size on export

    I need to know the file size that will be generated when exporting jpegs for web use, as certain sites have restrictions. This is a fairly basic function and is available in Elements.
    I currently have to guess a quality setting, export the jpeg, check the file size in Explorer, re-export from LR (reducing quality/pixel limits if the file size is too big) and continue the iterations until I achieve an acceptable size.
    This facility should be available for all export file-type options.

    I agree, but I think this has to go beyond the file size.
    The problem is that if you are exporting more than one jpeg, even with the same number of pixels and quality, the file sizes will be different due to compression.
    To make this work, it'd be nice to be able to set a Maximum File Size to Export. Then perhaps a Radio Button to choose between adjusting the size in pixels or adjusting the quality to fit as needed.
    Paul Wasserman

  • Crystal Report File Size Limitation

    Post Author: lashworth
    CA Forum: General
    I am running into a file size issue with Crystal Reports. If the report file approaches 80MB then they do not run or display well or at all. Can anyone tell me how best to investigate this problem?

    Hello,
    What version of Cr and .NET?
    Does your printer have limited memory?
    Is it local printer?
    Have you tried installing the latest Drivers for it?
    What Browser are you using and have you tried any other?
    40 pages not much local memory so it shouldn't be a problem.
    Create a new Printer and select File rather than port or LPT as the destination to see if it's a physical printer or network issue.
    Try a different printer altogether also.
    Also refer to Rule of Engagement posting before submitting your question so you provide as much info first.
    Thank you
    Don

  • Financial Reports PDF File Size

    We recently patched from 11.1.2 to 11.1.2.2 and we have noticed that the PDFs generated from Financial reporting have a file size significantly larger (4x) then when they were done with the previous release. Nothing has changed on the reports. Is there some configuration that can be done to get the PDF file size back to where it was previously ? From Financial reports Help-> About we are on version 11.1.2.362.

    11.1.2.2 come with a new print engine, which does your PDF looks different in size. You may have change the settings by selecting the "Auto Size" option in the Grid Poperties and test
    Rgds

  • SSRS report Excel Export file size is huge

    Hello everyone,
    I am facing an issue with SSRS report exporting  to Excel.
    Issue : Exported file size is too big.
    I have a matrix report ( parametrized report ) it fetches data from multiple table.
    initially when
    1) I select all parameters all values
    2) load the report after that
    3) exporting to excel
    so exported file size was about 10 Mb to 12MB
    Now, suddenly from this month exported file size is too big around 62 MB for same data,
    I checked on different forums and tried the solutions but it didn't worked,
    can anyone please suggest me on this.
    My environment is
    Visual studio (BIDS) 2008
    SQL Server 2008 R2
    Excel 2007
    Thanks

    Hi UdayKGR,
    According to your description, when you export a report into an excel file, the exported file size is too huge. Now you want to reduce the file size. Right?
    In this scenario, do you export the report into excel 2003 file? When reports are first exported and saved to Excel 2003, they do not benefit from the file optimization that Excel automatically applies to its *.xls workbook files. The larger file size can
    cause problems for e-mail subscriptions and attachments. To reduce the size of the *.xls files for exported reports, open the *.xls files and then resave the workbooks. Resaving the workbooks typically reduces their file sizes by 40 to 50 percent. Also please
    try to install the Reporting Services 2008 R2 Service Pack 2 and reduce the merged columns in exported excel file. For more information, please see the links below:
    Exporting to Microsoft Excel (Report Builder and SSRS)
    problem
    regarding the size of exported report from reporting services to excel format
    SSRS Export to Excel - Performance
    If you have any question, please feel free to ask.
    Best Regards,
    Simon Hou

Maybe you are looking for

  • Printer Setup Utility will not allow new driver to be added

    I just bought a Canon Pixma MP960, installed the drivers and then downloaded the driver from their website. When I go to add a new driver in Printer Setup Utility--i highlight the MP960 connected thru USB, but the 'add' feature is not lit up. When i

  • Can't load photos for developing

    Help appreciated. All my dng's (with development changes) are visible in the lightroom library but they will not load when I want to develop further.  This started after I tidied up my backup files.  Any suggestions? Thanks Adam

  • How to default "release date" as today in ME59N

    Hi Experts, Could you please advise how to default "release date" as today in ME59N ?

  • BinScope 2014 not accepting target path in command line.

    I entered the following in an administrator command prompt: C:\Program Files\Microsoft BinScope 2014>binscope.exe /target "\Release" Microsoft BinScope 2014 BinScope: The path "\Release" did not exist or was a directory. BinScope accepts only paths t

  • How to define perform with table statement in ECC6.0

    Hi all, I am working on ECC6.0 version. I m using a perform to populate an internal table like this:-     PERFORM explode TABLES li_zmpsdtl                             USING gs_matnr. & its forms is defined as: - FORM treat_one_item  TABLES   li_zmps