Huge Folder size discrepancy between 10.1 Managed and 10.0.9

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

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

Similar Messages

  • Huge cube size difference between version 7.1 and 11.1

    Hello All,
    We are migrating from version 7.1 to 11.1. We did a full data export of each cube on 7.1 and did a server load on 11.1. We found that all the cubes on the new 11.1 server are almost 50% in size compare to same cube on 7.1 server. We did a detailed drill through and found that the there isn't any data loss on the cubes on the latest server. Please let us know if this smaller cube size is normal or did we miss something somewhere? I appreciate your comments!!!
    Thanks!

    Your cube was probably really fragmented and reloading all the data will have reduced the fragmentationYup. You can prove this by taking those export files and recreating the database on your 7.1.x server. I'll bet you find the same thing.
    Take a gander at this post re fragmentation.
    I'd add to that posting that MaxL's force restructure is another way to defrag a database; I personally like the flat file export as I can be reasonably sure backup software won't choke on a flat file.
    Regards,
    Cameron Lackpour

  • Difference between nio-file-manager  and nio-memory-manager

    Hi,
    what's the difference between nio-file-manager and nio-memory-manager? The documentation doesn't really discuss the differences as far as I know. They both use nio to store memory-mapped files don't they? What are the advantages/disadvantages of both?
    When to choose the first one and when the second when storing a large amount of data? Can both be used to query data with the Filter API? Are there size limits on both?
    Best regards
    Jan

    Hi Jan,
    The difference is that one uses a memory mapped file and one uses direct nio memory (as part of the memory allocated by the JVM process) to store the data. Both allow storing cache data off heap making it possible to store more data with a single cache node (JVM) without long GC pauses.
    If you are using a 32 bit JVM, the JVM process will be limited to a total of ~3GB on Windows and 4GB on Linux/Solaris. This includes heap and off heap memory allocation.
    Regarding the size limitations for the nio-file manager Please see the following doc for more information.
    With the release of 3.5 there is now the idea of a Partitioned backing map which helps create larger (up to 8GB of capacity) for nio storage. Please refer to the following doc.
    Both can be used to query data but it should be noted that the indexes will be stored in heap.
    hth,
    -Dave

  • What is the difference between trade promotion management and campaign?

    Hello all,
    I want a clear clarification shows the difference between trade promotion management and campaign management
    Regards
    Jacopo Francois

    Hi,
    1)Campaign Management, Here Market do the  Mass camapaign in  the specific sales area regarding theire Products and Brands (Aware ness of new Products or rebuilding the Brand image )  by spending some Budget.
    2) In Trade Promotion, Market makes the Trade agreement ( To sell the Particular Products ) with the Particular BP ( Like Distributor/Whole saler ) by giving the Trade promotional discounts, if he sells will get the TPM discount with in the planned period .
    Basically Campaign is using Mass advertise and TPM is to be targetting to the Particular BP to sell theire prodcuts by offering promotional discount.
    Regards
    Naren..

  • File Size Discrepancy Between Photoshop & the Finder

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

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

  • Huge HDD size discrepancy in Finder

    I've got a 250 GB HD (232GB capacity)
    Disk Utility and Finder say I'm using 191 GB with only 41 Gigs available but
    if I total up folder sizes using Get Info, I only get 75 GB being used!?!
    What happened to the other 100GB ?
    There can't be that many hidden files can there?
    I used Maintenance application to empty logs, Font and Application caches and Temporary Items but extra gigs are not to be found.
    Anyone know what's going on here?

    Mac OS X uses a number of invisible files and folders, which may be taking up the extra space; a program such as WhatSize or Disk Inventory X will show where the space is being used.
    (32828)

  • The tracking tables between Oracle Trade management and General Ledger

    Hello,
    I need some help about the Oracle Trade management(R12), I have a requirement to find the records which exist in the Claim tables but not in the GL table, I found OZF_AE_HEADERS and OZF_AE_LINES tables, but did not find the relationship between these two tables and GL import reference table. Is there any subledger table between Trade management and GL modules? Please kindly provide some information about this, thanks a lot.
    Best Regards
    Spark

    Check whether OZF has uptaken XLA in your R12 release.
    http://www.orafaq.com/node/2242
    By
    Vamsi

  • DIscrepancy between Flash Playback Speed and SWF

    I'm experiencing a fairly signifigant DIscrepancy between rate of apparant motion in the flash files Im working on, and "speed" of the "finished" SWFs.
    Put another way, what appears to be a reasonable speed for a tween in Flash, is a tad too fast when I view the work as a swf preview.
    I would rather find a solid method of working with the images Im creating to determine the proper lengths ..and speed of these tweens prior to publishing a preview and then needing to go back and hand alter the length of the tweens I've created.
    A "real time" environment would greatly increase the immediacy of creating such " files"
    What can you suggest to synchronize these "playback speeds"?
    Thank you.

    How are you creating these tweens?  If you are using coded tweens, what are you using for code?

  • I have a discrepancy between my LR Cat and my HDD contents

    I have a discrepancy between my LR Cat (54,000+ images) and my HDD content (60,000+ images).
    Sync'ed, searched for missing photos and I still have no idea about the discrepancy.
    OS X 10.9.4 and LR 5.

    Thanks Geoff. do you have '"Do not import suspected duplicates" checked in the Import Menu????' - Yes, I do.

  • Plse...help me on the communicating between CLEAN ACCESS MANAGER and Switch 3560E-24Ps by snmp

    Dear All,
    I try to configure in both Clean Access Manager and Switch 3560E-24Ps on SNMP Version 2 protocol but I can't make it working together (For CAM and Switch 3560G-48Ps I can do that). Plse give me any suggestion to solve that problem. All configuration is as below:

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/nac/appliance/configuration_guide/412/cam/412_cam_book.html

  • SOA Integration between FS-Account Management and Bank Analyzer under BS 8.0

    Hello all, we have set up the soamanager i.o. to integrate account manager and FS-business partner with the Bank Analyzer under Release 8.0 For the business partner this works fine. For master data of the current accounts we encounter the following problem:
    We have configured the soamanager  on the consumer side installing the consumer: BankAccountContractProcessingCurrentAccountContractEventOut On this side we would like to use message type: CurrentAccountContractFSCreatedBulkInformation_V3.
    However the consumer (account management) provides CurrentAccountContractFSCreatedBulkInformation_V2 only, which is the xml-formate for Release BS 7.0.
    Can anybody tell me, how to configure AM (consumer side), such that it provides the correct xml-formate for Release 8.0. For more information please refer to the document:  IOA_technical_configuration_19. For further info on soamanager-config refer to the appendix.
    Thanks, Sebastian Sachse

    hi Sebastian
    please refer to Katja Bornschein ([email protected]) as the owner ot the IOA-Scenarios. She will give you the information needed. As far as I know '_V3' is used only in FSAPPL500 (Release 9.0, GA in November 2014)
    BR, Ernst

  • I have a perplexing issue regarding a huge discrepancy between perceived storage usage and what shows up in system profiler?

    I am currently thinking about what my next laptop is going to be after my MacBook Pro from about 2009 finally gives out (still going strong!), and I am in between the 128GB and the 256GB MacBook Air models so I wanted to get an idea of how much space I was using right now. When I use the system profiler I get this result:
    Yet when I use MacKeeper's Disk Usage Utility I get this result:
    The biggest issue being, why is there almost 50GB of difference in Music alone? This computer has been through every OS since the one it came out with (think it was Snow Leopard), I have always used MacKeeper to keep everything in order and it's been running great ever since. But can somebody please explain where these discrepancies come from and how I can fix them?

    For information about the Other category in the Storage display, see this support article. If the Storage display seems to be inaccurate, try rebuilding the Spotlight index.
    Empty the Trash if you haven't already done so. If you use iPhoto, empty its internal Trash first:
    iPhoto ▹ Empty Trash
    Do the same in other applications, such as Aperture, that have an internal Trash feature. Then restart the computer. That will temporarily free up some space.
    According to Apple documentation, you need at least 9 GB of available space on the startup volume (as shown in the Finder Info window) for normal operation. You also need enough space left over to allow for growth of the data. There is little or no performance advantage to having more available space than the minimum Apple recommends. Available storage space that you'll never use is wasted space.
    When Time Machine backs up a portable Mac, some of the free space will be used to make local snapshots, which are backup copies of recently deleted files. The space occupied by local snapshots is reported as available by the Finder, and should be considered as such. In the Storage display of System Information, local snapshots are shown as  Backups. The snapshots are automatically deleted when they expire or when free space falls below a certain level. You ordinarily don't need to, and should not, delete local snapshots yourself. If you followed bad advice to disable local snapshots by running a shell command, you may have ended up with a lot of data in the Other category. Ask for instructions in that case.
    See this support article for some simple ways to free up storage space.
    You can more effectively use a tool such as OmniDiskSweeper (ODS) or GrandPerspective (GP) to explore the volume and find out what's taking up the space. You can also delete files with it, but don't do that unless you're sure that you know what you're deleting and that all data is safely backed up. That means you have multiple backups, not just one. Note that ODS only works with OS X 10.8 or later. If you're running an older OS version, use GP.
    Deleting files inside an iPhoto or Aperture library will corrupt the library. Any changes to a photo library must be made from within the application that created it. The same goes for Mail files.
    Proceed further only if the problem isn't solved by the above steps.
    ODS or GP can't see the whole filesystem when you run it just by double-clicking; it only sees files that you have permission to read. To see everything, you have to run it as root.
    Back up all data now.
    If you have more than one user account, make sure you're logged in as an administrator. The administrator account is the one that was created automatically when you first set up the computer.
    Install the app you downloaded in the Applications folder as usual. Quit it if it's running.
    Triple-click anywhere in the corresponding line of text below on this page to select it, then copy the selected text to the Clipboard by pressing the key combination command-C:
    sudo /Applications/OmniDiskSweeper.app/Contents/MacOS/OmniDiskSweeper
    sudo /Applications/GrandPerspective.app/Contents/MacOS/GrandPerspective
    Launch the built-in Terminal application in any of the following ways:
    ☞ Enter the first few letters of its name into a Spotlight search. Select it in the results (it should be at the top.)
    ☞ In the Finder, select Go ▹ Utilities from the menu bar, or press the key combination shift-command-U. The application is in the folder that opens.
    ☞ Open LaunchPad. Click Utilities, then Terminal in the icon grid.
    Paste into the Terminal window by pressing command-V. You'll be prompted for your login password, which won't be displayed when you type it. You may get a one-time warning to be careful. If you see a message that your username "is not in the sudoers file," then you're not logged in as an administrator.
    The application window will open, eventually showing all files in all folders, sorted by size. It may take a few minutes for the app to finish scanning.
    I don't recommend that you make a habit of doing this. Don't delete anything as root. If something needs to be deleted, make sure you know what it is and how it got there, and then delete it by other, safer, means. When in doubt, leave it alone or ask for guidance.
    When you're done with the app, quit it and also quit Terminal.

  • How to move huge HD video files between external hard drives and defrag ext drive?

    I have huge high definition video files on a 2TB external hard drive (and its clone).  The external hard drive is maxed out.  I would like to move many of the video files to a new 3TB external hard drive (G-drive, and a clone) and leave a sub-group of video files (1+ TB) on the original external hard drive (and its clone).  
    I am copying files from original external drive ("ext drive A") to new external drive ("ext drive B") via Carbon Copy Cloner (selecting iMovie event by event that I want to transfer). Just a note: I do not know how to partition or make bootable drives, I see suggestions with these steps in them.
    My questions:
    1.)  I assume this transfer of files will create extreme fragmentation on drive A.  Should I reformat/re-initialize ext drive A after moving the files I want?  If so, how best to do this?  Do I use "Erase" within Disk Utilities?  Do I need to do anything else before transfering files back onto ext drive A from its clone?
    2.) Do I also need to defrag if I reformat ext drive A? Do I defrag instead of or in addition to reformating?  If so, how to do this? I've read on these forums so many warnings and heard too many stories of this going awry.  Which 3rd party software to use? 
    Thank you in advance for any suggestions, tips, advice.  This whole process makes me SO nervous.

    Here is a very good writeup on de-fragging in the OS environment that I borrowed
    From Klaus1:
    Defragmentation in OS X:
    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1375  which states:
    You probably won't need to optimize at all if you use Mac OS X. Here's why:
    Hard disk capacity is generally much greater now than a few years ago. With more free space available, the file system doesn't need to fill up every "nook and cranny." Mac OS Extended formatting (HFS Plus) avoids reusing space from deleted files as much as possible, to avoid prematurely filling small areas of recently-freed space.
    Mac OS X 10.2 and later includes delayed allocation for Mac OS X Extended-formatted volumes. This allows a number of small allocations to be combined into a single large allocation in one area of the disk.
    Fragmentation was often caused by continually appending data to existing files, especially with resource forks. With faster hard drives and better caching, as well as the new application packaging format, many applications simply rewrite the entire file each time. Mac OS X 10.3 onwards can also automatically defragment such slow-growing files. This process is sometimes known as "Hot-File-Adaptive-Clustering."
    Aggressive read-ahead and write-behind caching means that minor fragmentation has less effect on perceived system performance.
    Whilst 'defragging' OS X is rarely necessary, Rod Hagen has produced this excellent analysis of the situation which is worth reading:
    Most users, as long as they leave plenty of free space available , and don't work regularly in situations where very large files are written and rewritten, are unlikely to notice the effects of fragmentation on either their files or on the drives free space much.
    As the drive fills the situations becomes progressively more significant, however.
    Some people will tell you that "OSX defrags your files anyway". This is only partly true. It defrags files that are less than 20 MB in size. It doesn't defrag larger files and it doesn't defrag the free space on the drive. In fact the method it uses to defrag the smaller files actually increases the extent of free space fragmentation. Eventually, in fact, once the largest free space fragments are down to less than 20 MB (not uncommon on a drive that has , say only 10% free space left) it begins to give up trying to defrag altogether. Despite this, the system copes very well without defragging as long as you have plenty of room.
    Again, this doesn't matter much when the drive is half empty or better, but it does when it gets fullish, and it does especially when it gets fullish if you are regularly dealing with large files , like video or serious audio stuff.
    If you look through this discussion board you will see quite a few complaints from people who find that their drive gets "slow". Often you will see that say that "still have 10 or 20 gigs free" or the like. On modern large drives by this stage they are usually in fact down to the point where the internal defragmentation routines can no longer operate , where their drives are working like navvies to keep up with finding space for any larger files, together with room for "scratch files", virtual memory, directories etc etc etc. Such users are operating in a zone where they put a lot more stress on their drives as a result, often start complaining of increased "heat", etc etc. Most obviously, though, the computer slows down to a speed not much better than that of molasses. Eventually the directories and other related files may collapse altogether and they find themselves with a next to unrecoverable disk problems.
    By this time, of course, defragging itself has already become just about impossible. The amount of work required to shift the data into contiguous blocks is immense, puts additional stress on the drive, takes forever, etc etc. The extent of fragmentation of free space at this stage can be simply staggering, and any large files you subsequently write are likely to be divided into many , many tens of thousands of fragments scattered across the drive. Not only this, but things like the "extents files", which record where all the bits are located, will begin to grow astronomically as a result, putting even more pressure on your already stressed drive, and increasing the risk of major failures.
    Ultimately this adds up to a situation where you can identify maybe three "phases" of mac life when it comes to the need for defragmentation.
    In the "first phase" (with your drive less than half full), it doesn't matter much at all - probably not enough to even make it worth doing.
    In the "second phase" (between , say 50% free space and 20% free space remaining) it becomes progressively more useful, but , depending on the use you put your computer to you won't see much difference at the higher levels of free space unless you are serious video buff who needs to keep their drives operating as efficiently and fast as possible - chances are they will be using fast external drives over FW800 or eSata to compliment their internal HD anyway.
    At the lower end though (when boot drives get down around the 20% mark on , say, a 250 or 500 Gig drive) I certainly begin to see an impact on performance and stability when working with large image files, mapping software, and the like, especially those which rely on the use of their own "scratch" files, and especially in situations where I am using multiple applications simultaneously, if I haven't defragmented the drive for a while. For me, defragmenting (I use iDefrag too - it is the only third party app I trust for this after seeing people with problems using TechToolPro and Drive Genius for such things) gives a substantial performance boost in this sort of situation and improves operational stability. I usually try to get in first these days and defrag more regularly (about once a month) when the drive is down to 30% free space or lower.
    Between 20% and 10% free space is a bit of a "doubtful region". Most people will still be able to defrag successfully in this sort of area, though the time taken and the risks associated increase as the free space declines. My own advice to people in this sort of area is that they start choosing their new , bigger HD, because they obviously are going to need one very soon, and try to "clear the decks" so that they maintain that 20% free buffer until they do. Defragging regularly (perhaps even once a fortnight) will actually benefit them substantially during this "phase", but maybe doing so will lull them into a false sense of security and keep them from seriously recognising that they need to be moving to a bigger HD!
    Once they are down to that last ten per cent of free space, though, they are treading on glass. Free space fragmentation at least will already be a serious issue on their computers but if they try to defrag with a utility without first making substantially more space available then they may find it runs into problems or is so slow that they give up half way through and do the damage themselves, especially if they are using one of the less "forgiving" utilities!
    In this case I think the best way to proceed is to clone the internal drive to a larger external with SuperDuper, replace the internal drive with a larger one and then clone back to it. No-one down to the last ten percent of their drive really has enough room to move. Defragging it will certainly speed it up, and may even save them from major problems briefly, but we all know that before too long they are going to be in the same situation again. Better to deal with the matter properly and replace the drive with something more akin to their real needs once this point is reached. Heck, big HDs are as cheap as chips these days! It is mad to struggle on with sluggish performance, instability, and the possible risk of losing the lot, in such a situation.

  • Difference between Analytic workspace manager and AWB

    Hi could anyone tell me the difference between AWM and AWB , . I finished designing my cube using AWB and i was planing to use OBIEE to browse and view my cube for reporting etc but it turns out that OWB cubes arent diretly compatible with OBIEE workspace we have to use AWM to make it compatible or something.. So why use OWB in the first place ???

    Hi Jan,
    The difference is that one uses a memory mapped file and one uses direct nio memory (as part of the memory allocated by the JVM process) to store the data. Both allow storing cache data off heap making it possible to store more data with a single cache node (JVM) without long GC pauses.
    If you are using a 32 bit JVM, the JVM process will be limited to a total of ~3GB on Windows and 4GB on Linux/Solaris. This includes heap and off heap memory allocation.
    Regarding the size limitations for the nio-file manager Please see the following doc for more information.
    With the release of 3.5 there is now the idea of a Partitioned backing map which helps create larger (up to 8GB of capacity) for nio storage. Please refer to the following doc.
    Both can be used to query data but it should be noted that the indexes will be stored in heap.
    hth,
    -Dave

  • Find the folder of an url in bookmark management and try to modify it

    In bookmark section, how can i manage the folder of an URL (view , change, del) ?

    Your plugins list shows outdated plugin(s) with known security and stability risks.
    * Next Generation Java Plug-in 1.6.0_14 for Mozilla browsers
    Update the [[Java]] plugin to the latest version.
    *http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index.jsp#jdk (you need JRE)
    I'm not sure what you are trying to do.<br />
    Can you explain that better?
    See http://kb.mozillazine.org/Sorting_and_rearranging_bookmarks_-_Firefox

Maybe you are looking for