Finder reports wrong sizes

The size column in finder frequently reports sizes of folders wrongly as does get info. I have a whole series of folders showing 208K when there are 10-80 37Mb files inside. I can open the folder and see that all the files are there and have the right sizes, but the folder still reports 208K. If I alter the label colour, it will update the sizes, but this is very tedious!
Any way to persuade finder to calculate sizes properly?

all sorted now

Similar Messages

Finder reporting wrong file size

I have a folder I wish to burn, it is 620 meg and has many small files in it, but when I go to burn it through the finder, I get an error that it is 900 meg and will not burn onto 1 disk. Backup tells me I need 3 disks for this folder, why?

I think the issue has to do with the fact that some programs have not adopted the new method yet. Unfortunately programs like iTunes can be used on on operating systems as far back as Tiger which used the old system. I noticed this several months ago and find it very irritating, especially when trying to do things like burn DVDs/CDs and trying to fill them up as much as possible. The only thing you can do about it is provide feedback to Apple at http://www.apple.com/feedback/ and hope they fix it in upcoming releases of their software.

Finder reports wrong amount of free space

Finder is reporting the wrong amount of free space on all my drives. It's not from time machine local backups, because I've disabled those. In fact, it's reporting MORE free space than there should be! In all cases, Disk Utility shows the correct amount. (So does the Terminal command df.)
eg:
external 120GB hard drive (USB) - finder says 137.83GB free (more than the drive can hold, nice) - disk util says 70 used 49.9 free... better
external 1TB (firewire) - finder says 276.66GB free - disk util says 783.72 used 216.15 free
internal 120GB SSD - finder says 108.32GB - disk util says 78.6GB used, 40.5 free
Anyway to fix Finder?

I noticed the same problem. I assumed it was from Time Machine's local backups (which exactly account for the space discrepancy between Finder and Disk Utility on my machine). But, as you say, you've disabled Time Machine local "snapshots." I can only assume you deleted the local backups (to free up the space they were using), emptied your Trash and are still showing the discrepancy.

Finder reports wrong disk usage

Get Info reports that I am using 127GB of disk space while Finder shows 199GB in use. I've tried permissions repair, emptying trash, restarting, etc. The change occured after I removed a virtual machine from Parallels and emptied the trash.
Any ideas how to get Finder to report the correct size?
Thanks

Have a look at how space is being used:
OmniDiskSweeper (free) - http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnidisksweeper/download/
OS X Lion: About Time Machine's "local snapshots" on portable Macs - http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4878 - “You may notice a difference in available space statistics between Disk Utility, Finder, and Get Info inspectors. This is expected and can be safely ignored. The Finder displays the available space on the disk without accounting for the local snapshots, because local snapshots will surrender their disk space if needed."
Hidden local backups with Mac OS X Lion filling up your MacBook hard disk! - http://blog.valerio.de/post/19238158977/hidden-local-backups-with-mac-os-x-lion- filling-up-your - Time Machine using local drive to store backups when external drive is not available.

Disk Utility: Reporting wrong size for disk after a restore

First up, hardware is G4(PPC) running OS 10.4.11
I've just purchased and installed a new 500G drive for this old workhorse as an upgrade for the previous secondary drive. Set it up with a single partition, JHFS+. No problems so far. Went to copy the files from the old drive to this new one and thought, "Why don't I try that handly looking Restore button?". +Yeah, apparently a bad idea+. The old drive is 120GB. I set its (only) volume to be the source and my newly created partition to be the target; set it going and left it alone. All appeared to be well when I came back, until I checked the available space on the new drive.
Disk Utility now reports that this new, 500G drive has a Total Capacity of 128G (137,438,952,960 bytes).
*Remedies tried so far:*
- I've tried reformatting/partitioning, but wasn't able to convince it otherwise. Also tried it booting from an install DVD just in case that made a difference.
- I downloaded a utility from the drive manufacturer which I managed to get on to an ancient, dusty w2k box. Reformatted the drive with 2 NTFS partitions. This seemed to do the trick as they both mounted when I rebooted the Mac. However, when I went to reformat the volumes to JHFS I noticed that the total disk size was still being reported as 128G. Still, they reformatted fine and I transfered my data to them. On a reboot, though, the Mac decided that it didn't want to see the second partition and only shows me disk1s10, ignoring the second partition I set up.
- I have an identical, empty drive to the 500G. I thought I might be able to use the Restore "feature" to trick it back. Set up the second 500G in a firewire box, ran the restore from the empty volume to the screwed up one. No dice.
I thought that OS X ignored any sort of BIOS info on a drive and merely looked at the physical media. Is this correct? Does it store this gathered info in a file somewhere that I can delete?
*This is a call for help.*
I have no problems playing with the command line as root, if that's the sort of suggestions you've got. I just thought I'd ask here before I fdisk/dd etc from new500 to old500. Geometry of the new500 is 60801/255/63.

Thanks! That sounds like a good short term solution for a backup.
EDIT: Cross reference link for anyone who happens to google this thread with a similar problem:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7230072&tstart=0
Message was edited by: mr_lunch

Time Machine always reporting wrong size after several full resets

Good afternoon,
I have been using Time Machine on a Macbook Pro 2012 backing up to a QNAP NAS TS-419 P II
After a year of using Time Machine without any issues I've now ran into a situation i do not seem able to resolve.
For several reasons I wanted to do a full Time Machine reset and do a new full back.
For that, after trying various solutions with no succes, I've deleted the sparse bundle, switched off Time Machine support, restarted the NAS, switched on Time Machine support again. Furthermore i did full reset on the Macbook following as per http://pondini.org/TM/A4.html
However every time I start a new backup Time Machine seems to limit the sparse bundle to 1.07 TB, while I have not set any file size restrictions. Next to that it's also reporting only 657 GB of the 1.07 TB is actually free. As if the old sparse bundle with the backups were still there.
Anyone who has been facing the same issue?
Thanks,
Gijs

Actually, I can shorten this down to just:
Mount TimeMachineBackup disk, it reports ~95GB free.
Repair it, it reports 800+GB free
Unmount it
Remount it, it again reports ~95GB free.
Rinse. Repeat.

Disk utility reporting wrong size drive

I have a Macbook 4,1 with an 120GB Hard drive. The hard drive has 3 partitions:
12GB Linux Partition
100GB OSX Partition
1GB Linux Swap Partition
It also has 7GB of Free Space at the end of the drive
Now I want to shrink the OSX Partition down to around 80GB (It has 30GB available space) so I have 27GB of Free space to create a Windows Partition. The problem is when I go into disk utility it reports the above partition structure but it also reports I have "100.3GB Free space" at the start of the drive. This is obviously incorrect. It seems harmless enough but the problem is it causes a "The chosen size is not valid for the chosen filesystem" error when I try to resize the OSX partition because the system adds up the size of all of the partitions, realises it's 220GB and so throws the error because it's above the 120GB Drive size. I can't seem to get it to realise that there is no free space at the start of the drive. I've tried using a couple of Linux partitioning programs like GParted and they recognise the correct partition structure but they had a couple of unrelated problems.
Does anyone have any ideas how I can get Disk Utility to sort itself out?

I do not think you can use DU for resizing if you used a linux disk utility before. I never could do that, but am ready to learn how to do that.

Time Capsule as Ethernet or USB HD and reporting wrong sizes

I have three questions related to these issues.
I'm using my 500GB Time Capsule (2007 model) as a backup drive. BUT, every time I disconnect the computer, it just won't back up any more. It says it needs twice the room that it really needs, and more than is left on the drive. So now I'm trying to back up via ethernet cable by just dragging files and skipping the Time Machine backup. Apple tech told me TC can be used like any other hard drive, but it comes up as a shared drive, not a device (on left panel of open window.)
I've been dragging files to the TC to copy but this is extremely slow (15 hours to copy 5G. Some files can't copy at all, and just end the copying process, completely. This unit has been exchanged once by Apple, is no longer on warranty, and is just doing the same as the first unit. So, I guess it's something I'm doing here.
QUESTIONS:
1. Can someone tell me how I can use this drive as a reliable backup by directly copying files via ethernet and if this length of time is normal?
2. Can anyone tell me if I can connect the TC to the computer using the USB connector. I tried connecting a firewire drive to the computer, then daisy-chaining the TC via the USB, but neither mounted after that?
3. Finally, can anyone tell me how to reliably use Time Machine to avoid the problems I'm having, such as doubling the amount of bytes I need to copy data? What went wrong there?
Thanks
Michele

MickiB wrote:
Hi Pondini,
Thank you for those links. I managed to get the Time Capsule erased and just manually copied my drive to the Time Capsule. After rebooting it copied faster and with the right sizes, so, for the fast fix, that worked.
There's little point to copying the entire contents of your HD that way; that won't make a usable backup; you can recover things by drag and drop, but you can't use it to restore your whole system. In a pinch, you might copy just your home folder that way.
I guess I can't expect it to behave as if it were any other drive. It still comes up under "Shared", but otherwise, it works like any external drive, so that's good.
Yes, a few things are different, being on a network rather than directly-connected via USB or FireWire.
BUT, for some reason, I never got an email telling me you posted, and just checked today to see what's new, if anything. Being subscribed to my own question doesn't seem to be enough this time!! Weird, but, oh well.
Check the email address associated with your profile. If it's correct, also check with your ISP; their spam filter might have intercepted it.
Thanks so much for taking your time to answer me. One day soon I'll need to back up again, so will try what you suggested.
It sounds to me like you need a larger internal HD, and/or an external HD, so you have room for all your stuff, and can use the TC for proper backups. Especially if your stuff is important to you, a good backup plan will be sure you have at least two copies of everything important in at least two separate places. Actually, many folks recommend a minimum of two full backups, one of which is off-site (so you're also protected against fire, flood, theft, and direct lightning strike on your power lines). See #27 in [Time Machine - Frequently Asked Questions|http://web.me.com/pondini/Time_Machine/FAQ.html] (or use the link in *User Tips* at the top of the +Time Machine+ forum), for some suggestions.

BootCamp partition reporting wrong size?

I just installed Windows 7 on my iMac.
I just wanted to play a few games... still I cranked the slider up from 20gb to 55gb before I made the initial partition to ensure that I have plenty of space.
Yet, as soon as I tried to download a game off Steam, it said I needed 2.8gb of space & only had 2.4gb left...
Wha........???!
So, I opened "My Computer ". Sure enough, there appears to be only about two gigs left... I right clicked the Windows and Program Files folders to check properties. They are all normal sized... Indeed, if I select all folders on C and check the size... it's about 16gb.
What gives? Where's the other 35+ gb??

Get WinDirStat and see what is hoging up the space.
http://windirstat.info/

ITunes 6 Reports wrong size IPOD

I recently installed version 6 and now my 20 gig 4G shows up as a 60 Gig. It goes through the process of d'loading all of my music to the player, but the player is no showing any songs.

Do you have any mapped network drives? Try unmapping them. It's possible that Windows gave the iPod the same drive letter as one of your mapped drives, so when you sync, it's copying all the files to the network drive instead of the iPod.
You can change the iPod's drive letter using the Disk Management tool.

AirPort disk 'needs repair', Disk Utility finds nothing wrong...

I have a 640GB hard disk that was just formatted for use as an AirPort disk. I zeroed the disk on my PC and then formatted it in Disk Utility while it was attached to my USB hard disk dock. Because the original partition scheme I tried to do would not format as specified (i.e., Disk Utility decided that since I put free space as the first partition with four partitions, that what I really wanted was just the three partitions), I repartitioned the disk as follows: 64.00GB for HFS+, 32.00GB for FAT32, 512.00GB for HFS+, 32.00GB for FAT32 (using Master Boot Record). After this completed, I ran Windows XP on my PC and diskmgmt.msc with the intention of deleting the first partition 64.00GB HFS+ and replacing that with 64.00GB NTFS. This seemed to work fine on Windows XP, but I could not do it on Windows 7 because Windows 7 automatically makes the last partition on MBR an Extended Partition without asking if you want it to be a Primary/Extended Partition. Next, as I only intended to boot this on my old PC, which I rarely use, I installed Windows XP on to the first partition (now 64.00GB for NTFS). The installation went fine, as well as the software I installed in Windows that will allow me to see the HFS+ partition from a Windows boot. This software recognized the partition and mounted it in Windows. Next, I shut down the PC and put the disk back into the USB dock to see if all was well from the Mac side. Disk Utility did not report any issue with the disk and was able to see and mount all of the partitions correctly; however, when I attached this disk to my AirPort Extreme, the light started blinking amber and, upon further inspection, was told that the "AirPort disk needs to be repaired". I went back to Disk Utility and verified the disk without issue, but no problems were found. To be complete, I also repaired the disk in Disk Utility, but still it seemed to find nothing wrong and the repair had no effect on the AirPort error message. When I attach the disk to my AirPort Extreme, it will only mount the two partitions that are FAT32. The HFS+ partition does not show at all. I understand that the NTFS partition will not show over AirPort, which is why I chose a small size for it. My main reason for creating the NTFS partition is so that if I ever have a problem with my AirPort Extreme or need to work with a large file, I will have faster access if it is on a SATA connection inside my older PC than over WiFi or connected to my USB hard disk dock. Windows XP does not recognize the default OS X partition type, so that was not an option. Any assistance on how to address this issue would be greatly appreciated. The applicable operating systems are: Snow Leopard (my Mac mini), Windows XP Pro SP3 (on the old PC) and Windows 7 (on the newer PC that is attached to the AirPort Extreme).

Hi, i had experienced the same issue. After resetting tc to factory settings and reconfiguration everythings works as before.

Finding appropriate block size?

Hi All,
I believe this might be basic question, How to find appropriate block size for building an database to an specific application?
I had seen always default 8K block size is used every where(Around 300-350 databases i have seen till now)....but why and how do they estimate this block size blindly before creating production database.
Also in the same way how memory settings are finalized before creating database?
-Yasser

Yasser,
I have been very fortunate to buy and read several very high quality Oracle books which not only correctly state the way something works, but also manage to provide a logical, reasoned explanation for why things happen as they do, when it is appropriate, and when it is not. While not the first book I read on the topic of Oracle, the book “Oracle Performance Tuning 101” by Gaja Vaidyanatha marked the start of logical reasoning in performance tuning exercises for me. A couple years later I learned that Gaja was a member of the Oaktable Network. I read the book “Expert Oracle One on One” by Tom Kyte and was impressed with the test cases presented in the book which help readers understand the logic of why Oracle behaves as it does, and I also enjoyed the performance tuning stories in the book. A couple years later I found Tom Kyte’s “Expert Oracle Database Architecture” book at a book store and bought it without a second thought; some repetition from his previous book, fewer performance tuning storing, but a lot of great, logically reasoned information. A couple years later I learned that Tom was a member of the Oaktable Network. I read the book “Optimizing Oracle Performance” by Cary Millsap, a book that once again marked a distinct turning point in the method I used for performance tuning – the logic made all of the book easy to understand. A couple years later I learned that Cary was a member of the Oaktable Network. I read the book “Cost-Based Oracle Fundamentals” by Jonathan Lewis, a book by its title seemed to be too much of a beginner’s book until I read the review by Tom Kyte. Needless to say, the book also marked a turning point in the way I approach problem solving through logical reasoning, asking and answering the question – “What is Oracle thinking”. Jonathan is a member of the Oaktable Network, a pattern is starting to develop here. At this point I started looking for anything written in book or blog form by members of the Oaktable Network. I found Richard Foote’s blog, which some how managed to make Oracle indexes interesting for me - probably through the use of logic and test cases which allowed me to reproduce what I reading about. I found Jonathan Lewis’ blog, which covers so many interesting topics about Oracle, all of which leverage logical approaches to help understanding. I also found the blogs of Kevin Closson, Greg Rahn, Tanel Poder, and a number of other members of the Oaktable Network. The draw to the performance tuning side of Oracle administration was primarily for a search for the elusive condition known as Compulsive Tuning Disorder, which was coined in the book written by Gaja. There were, of course, many other books which contributed to my knowledge – I reviewed at least 8 of the Oracle related books on the amazon.com website.
Motivation… it is interesting to read what people write about Oracle. Sometimes what is written directly contradicts what one knows about Oracle. In such cases, it may be a fun exercise to determine if what was written is correct (and why it is logically correct), or why it is wrong (and why it is logically incorrect). Take, for example, the “Top 5 Timed Events” seen in this book (no, I have not read this book, I bumped into it a couple times when performing Google searches):
http://books.google.com/books?id=bxHDtttb0ZAC&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The text of the book states that the “Top 5 Timed Events” shown indicates a CPU Constrained Database (side note: if a database is a series of files stored physically on a disk, can it ever be CPU constrained?). From the “Top 5 Timed Events”, we see that there were 4,851 waits on the CPU for a total time of 4,042 seconds, and this represented 55.76% of the wait time. Someone reading the book might be left thinking one of:
* “That obviously means that the CPU is overwhelmed!”
* “Wow 4,851 wait events on the CPU, that sure is a lot!”
* “Wow wait events on the CPU, I didn’t know that was possible?”
* “Hey, something is wrong with this ‘Top 5 Timed Events’ output as Oracle never reports the number of waits on CPU.”
* “Something is really wrong with this ‘Top 5 Timed Events’ output as we do not know the number of CPUs in the server (what if there are 32 CPUs), the time range of the statics, and why the average time for a single block read is more than a second!”
A Google search then might take place to determine if anyone else reports the number of waits for the CPU in an Oracle instance:
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=Event+Waits+Time+CPU+time+4%2C851+4%2C042
So, it must be correct… or is it? What does the documentation show?
Another page from the same book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bxHDtttb0ZAC&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Shows the command:
alter system set optimizer_index_cost_adj=20 scope = pfile;Someone reading the book might be left thinking one of:
* That looks like an easy to implement solution.
* I thought that it was only possible to alter parameters in the spfile with an ALTER SYSTEM command, neat.
* That command will never execute, and should return an “ORA-00922: missing or invalid option” error.
* Why would the author suggest a value of 20 for OPTIMIZER_INDEX_COST_ADJ and not 1, 5, 10, 12, 50, or 100? Are there any side effects? Why isn’t the author recommending the use of system (CPU) statistics to correct the cost of full table scans?
A Google search finds this book (I have not read this book either, just bumped into it during a search) by a different author which also shows that it is possible to alter the pfile through an ALTER SYSTEM command:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ufz5-hXw2_UC&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q=&f=false
So, it must be correct… or is it? What does the documentation show?
Regarding the question of updating my knowledge, I read a lot of books on a wide range of subjects including Oracle, programming, Windows and Linux administration, ERP systems, Microsoft Exchange, telephone systems, etc. I also try to follow Oracle blogs and answer questions in this and other forums (there are a lot of very smart people out there contributing to forums, and I feel fortunate to learn from those people). As long as the book or blog offers logical reasoning, it is fairly easy to tie new material into one’s pre-existing knowledge.
Charles Hooper
IT Manager/Oracle DBA
K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.

Unable to generate report for size of KM folder

hi all,
i want to generate report for size of folder in KM.I am havingthe following roles content admin,content management,system admin,home, are these roles sufficent to generate report or any roles are needed?
And other issue is after going into Content management role I am clicking reports workset but I am unable to see "Folder Size Calculation" option, any full access are needed to see it.
I am following help.sap link plz don't send it ,give me any other Material.
After starting the Km report in Resource Statistics its showing size as zero.
help me in sloving this issue.
thanks in advance,
Aravind

You could find all KM reports to the given navigation
try all these paths...I am unable to findout your issue definitely permission related
System Administration -> System Configuration -> Knowledge Management -> Content Management -> Related Topics -> CM Repository Reports
Content Administration -> KM Content -> Toolbox -> Reports
Content Management -> Reports
Regards
Koti

PDF Format Oracle Reports font size is not consistent.

My process is generating the batch oracle Reports.
Their key map is:
Key1: %* server=server1 userid=xxxs/xxx@xxxx report=D:\sample.rdf destype=file desformat=PDF
My process is calling IAS server to generate report. IAS server is generating and saving the report in the specified location. The problem is sometimes the report font size is very tiny (especially headers & footers), it is happening for few reports. What could be the reason is there anyway to make sure that always the generated reports font size is good.

it is happening for few reportsSo is the problem that the same reports-module sometimes has the right font and sometimes not, or is there one report which has always the wrong font?

How to find out the size of a database?

I'm not an oracle dba but a report developer. I'd like to find out the size of my database.
Is this possible using simple query?

An oracle database consists of data files, redo log files, control files, temporary files. Whenever you say the size of the database this actually means the summation of these files.
select a.data_size+b.temp_size+c.redo_size+d.controlfile_size "total_size in MB"
from
( select sum(bytes)/1024/1024 data_size from dba_data_files ) a,
( select nvl(sum(bytes),0)/1024/1024 temp_size from dba_temp_files ) b,
( select sum(bytes)/1024/1024 redo_size from sys.v_$log ) c,
( select sum(BLOCK_SIZE*FILE_SIZE_BLKS)/1024/1024 controlfile_size from v$controlfile) d;
here
a is megabytes allocated to ALL datafiles
b is megabytes allocated to ALL TEMP files
c is megabytes allocated to ALL redo-logs
d is megabytes allocated to ALL control files
Nimish Garg
Software Developer
*(Oracle & ASP.NET)*
Indiamart Intermesh Limited, Noida
To Get Free Oracle & ASP.NET Code Snippets
Follow: http://nimishgarg.blogspot.com

Finder reports wrong sizes

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for