Multiple Storage Volumes For 1 Library

Hi folks.
I have filled my first drive. Any way I can use space on another drive to put further music, while keeping one single library?
Cheers

it is not possible without WM.
As workaround :
You either create for each storage bin a storage location,
or
you active batch management and let the batch work as bin.

Similar Messages

Multiple storage locations for single material - ECC 6.0

Hi
Can anyone let me know, how one can map multiple storage loctions for single material?
regards
Sanjay

hello,
Go to SPRO --> IMG --> Materials Management --> Inventory Management and Physical Inventory --> Plant Parameters.
Tick Create storage locations automatically. System will extend the material to the storage location maintained in the transaction.
Nikhil

Multiple storage bin for single material

Hi,
We wanted to assign multiple storage bins in the material master as the material is stored in mutilple storage bin in the same storage location. We are not using WM.
We want to resolve the issue without implementing WM.
Please advice where and how do we maintain the same.
In plant data / stor 1 view there is a provision for maintaining only one storage bin.
Thanks,
Reddy

it is not possible without WM.
As workaround :
You either create for each storage bin a storage location,
or
you active batch management and let the batch work as bin.

New storage solution for library

hi, i need some advice on external storage. i have just moved my entire library to an external fw800 lacie drive but it is taking so much longer to come up with the thumbnails than when the library was in my g5. why would this be? i thought that fw800 was super quick but it's nowhere near the speed i was used to. any ideas as to why please?
thanks,aidan

Hey Aidan,
You didn't mention how big your library is now and how big you might think it will grow to. Definitely you could upgrade the drives in your computer if your library is small. There are now 750 gb sata drives available and inexpensive SATA pci cards to attach them too if you need more drives. You can read on the net about ways to clone your existing drives to a newer drive without too much trouble.
Then there are a ton of different solutions for adding more drives internal and external. I had been using two external housings with about 10 removable trays each holding a 250gb sata drive for a while and that worked really well. I started with just one drive enclosure and two trays and just expanded from there as I needed more storage for my images. Having two made it really easy to create backups of my images because I would just insert an empty drive to the second enclosure and copy the whole drive over and I suspect two of these would also work really well as a libray + vault for Aperture. I had these drives connected to SATA pci cards in both my G4 dual and G5 computers.I got my enclosures, trays and cards from granitedigital.com but you could get them from a lot of places.
Aperture doesn't support more than one volume (which in my opinion is very poor idea for working photographers who will no doubt generate more images than can be effectively stored on a single volume in perhaps just a week) so I had to get something bigger. I now have a Highpoint Raid 2322 card and their X4 housing that holds 4 - 400gb sata drives that make up a RAID array (Rendundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) all connected via one cable to the computer. This is kind of expensive but has really fast performance, 1.1 Tb of storage, and some safety if a drive goes bad. You can actually create a RAID array with any two or more drives with the Apple disk utility software which is nice, but the hardware solution using the pci-x card is faster. Again lots of vendors can offer solutions to add more sata drives internal or external and the SATA drives have come way down in price.
I use an Infrant Ready NAS NV as my backup vault which I connect to over the internet. The backup doesn't need to be so fast and its nice to have it in a different location than my computer for added security. All this cost a fair bit of money I guess, but it all works, and works well and I have double security on my files (1st with the RAID, and 2nd with the backup).
I just hope that the Aperture team continues to fix some of the problems with this promising software so that all the effort to create the storage and backup vaults and then migrate all my images becomes worth it in the end.
Eric

Unix layout question single vs. multiple logical volumes

Hello friends,
I have a question which I have seen various points of view. I'm hoping you might be able to give me a better insight so I can either confirm my own sanity, or accept a new paradigm shift in laying out the file system for best performance.
Here are the givens:
Unix systems (AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, and/or Linux).
Hardware RAID system on large SAN (in this case, RAID-05 striped over more than 100 physical disks).
(We are using AIX 6.1 with CIO turned on for the database files).
Each Physical Volume is literally striped over at least physical 100 disks (spindles).
Each Logical Volume is also striped over at least 100 spindles (all the same spindles for each lvol).
Oracle software binaries are on their own separate physical volume.
Oracle backups, exports, flash-back-query, etc., are on their own separate physical volume.
Oracle database files, including all tablespaces, redo logs, undo ts, temp ts, and control files are in their own separate physical volume (that is made up of logical volumes that are each striped over at least 100 physical disks (spindles).
The question is if it makes any sense (and WHY) to break up the physical volume that is used for the Oracle database files themselves, into multiple logical volumes? At what point does it make sense to create individual logical volumes for each datafile, or type, or put them all in a single logical volume?
Does this do anything at all for performance? If the volumes are logical, then what difference would it to put them into individual logical volumes that are striped across the same one-hundred (+) disks?
Basically ALL database files are in a single physical volume (LUN), but does it help (and WHY) to break up the physical volume into several logical volumes for placing each of the individual data files (e.g., separating system ts, from sysaux, from temp, from undo, from data, from indexes, etc.) if the physical volume is created on a RAID-5 (or RAID-10) disk array on a SAN that literally spans across hundreds of high-speed disks?
If this does makes sense, why?
From a physical standpoint, there are only 4 hardware paths for each LUN, so what difference does it make to create multiple 'logical' volumes for each datafile, or for separating types of data files?
From an I/O standpoint, the multi-threading of the operating system should only be able to use the number of pathways that are capable based on the various operating system options (e.g., multicore CPUs using SMT (simultaneous multipath threading). But I believe they are still based on physical paths, not based on logical volumes.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Thanks.
ji li

Thanks for your reply damorgan.
We have dual HBAs in our servers as standard equipment, along with dual controllers.
I totally agree with the idea of getting rid of RAID-5, but that is not my choice.
We have a very large (massive) data center and the decision to use RAID-5 was at the discretion of our unix team some time ago. Their idea is one-size-fits-all. When I questioned it, I was balked at. After all, what do I know? I've only been a sys admin for 10 years (but on HP-UX and Solaris, not on AIX), and I've only been an Oracle DBA for nearly 20 years.
For whatever it is worth, they also mirror their RAID-5, so in essence, it is a RAID 5-1-0 (RAID-50).
Anyway, as for the hardware paths, from my understanding, there are only 4 physical hardware paths going from the servers to the switches, to the SAN and back. Their claim (the unix team's) is that by using multiple logical volumes within a single physical volume, that it increases the number of 'threads' to pull data from the stripe. This is the part I don't understand and may be specific to AIX.
So if each logical volume is a stripe within a physical volume, and each physical volume is striped across more than one hundred disks, I still don't understand how multiple logical volumes can increase I/O through-put. From my understanding, if we only have four paths, and there are 100+ spindles, even if it did increase I/O somehow by the way AIX uses multipathing (SMT) with its CPUs, how can it have any affect on the I/O. And if it did, it would still have to be negligible.
Two years ago, I've personally set up three LUNs on a pair of Sun V480s (RAC'd) connected to a Sun Storage 3510 SAN. One LUN for Oracle binaries, one for database datafiles, and one for backups and archivelogs), and then put all my datafiles in a single logical volume on one LUN, and had fantastic performance for a very intense database that literally had 12,000 to 16,000 simultaneous active* connections using Webshere connection pools. While that was a Sun system, and now I'm dealing with an AIX P6 570 system, I can't imagine the concepts being that much different, especially when the servers are basically comparable.
Any comments or feedback appreciated.
ji li
Edited by: ji li on Jan 28, 2013 7:51 AM

Can you have one icloud storage plan for multiple devices

hi,
i'm wondering if there is a way of consolidation various icloud storage plans into one.
i only use my free 5gb for my 5s as i back up photos to my mac, however my wife has already upgraded her storage plan for her 5c to the £1/month.
with the new release of backing up your entire photo library on you mac (which im keen to do) im going to need to upgrade my own account as the mac is set up for my apple id.
i currently also pay for itunes match.
im keen to know if there is a way we can use one large back up facility for: my 5s, the mrs's 5c, the mac, with out paying for multiple storage plans.
im guessing the itunes match is stand alone but if i can have one payment for large storage and put everything there that would be ideal, and seem a reasonable request for most families.
any help greatly appreciated
thanks
Scott

Accounts can't be merged.

Storage Type Search for Multiple Storage Types

Hello experts.
I have an issue that I cannot seem to resolve.
Background
- We are using kanban strategy 0006 in order to move materials from Plant A to Plant B. Plant A is warehouse-managed but Plant B is not.
- Within Plant A we have one wm-managed Storage Location with many Storage Types.
- Within Plant B we have two Storage Locations ( each one representing a separate, physical building ).
- A majority of the kanban materials in use only have one Supply Area assigned to them. However we have approximately 15 materials that have multiple Supply Areas assigned to them. This is because these materials are common parts across two different Storage Locations in Plant B. As a result, they also have two different Storage Types assigned to them in Plant A ( the source of the material ).
Problem
Because we have common materials in two different Storage Types, the Storage Type Search (defined in OMLY) does not always return the correct Storage Type for the Stock Removal Strategy.
I understand that this occurs because the Storage Type Search is defined based upon the Warehouse Number, Removal/Putaway Indicator and the Storage Strategy. Therefore both Storage Types will use the same Storage Type Search when determining the Destination Storage Type for the transfer order.
FYI, here's an example :
- Material 123ABC is defined in Plant A, Storage Location SL00, Warehouse WH1 with Storage Types ST1 and ST2.
- Material 123ABC is defined in Plant B, Storage Locations SL01 and SL02.
- Material 123ABC has Supply Area SA1 for Storage Location SL01 and Supply Area SA2 for Storage Location SL02 defined for kanban.
- Material 123ABC has Stock Removal Strategy 003 assigned in the WM1 view for Plant A, Storage Location SL00 and Warehouse WH1.
- The Storage Type Search sequence defined for Stock Removal Strategy 003 is Storage Location SL01 then Storage Location SL02.
- When I execute kanban for Material 123ABC for Supply Area SA2, the Destination Storage Type for the transfer order should be ST2. However because the Storage Type Search is based upon the Warehouse (and not the Storage Type level), the Destination Storage Type for the transfer order is ST1 because it is the first item in the Storage Type Search sequence.
So my question : does anybody know how I can resolve this issue? We don't want to adjust our master data for these materials or supply areas. Is there a USER_EXIT that we can implement that will account for this condition?

Hi Mathew,
Based on the storage location indicator you can maintan different storage types for picking and putaway. I think your scnario willl be addressed using this indicator.Please explore this option before going for User exits.

Adjusting volume for multiple QT clips

If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it! I have about 100 5 or so minute QT clips at various volumes. They are a series of mini-tutorials for language learning. Most are about the same volume, but when some were recorded, the volume was much too high. I'd like to standardize the volume for all of them. None need volume boosting. Can QT batch adjust volume for multiple clips? Or is there some standard process so that the viewer isn't constantly adjusting the volume (apart from re-recording!).
Thanks,
Tony

Highlight all the clips you want to adjust, then press Apple "+" or Apple "-" to raise and lower the levels in increments of 1, and Apple "[" and Apple "]" to raise and lower the levels in increments of 3.
One of my favorite keyboard commands.
Shane

Why do we not receive 5 gb of free cloud storage space for the multiple Apple devices my wife and I have purchased?

Why do we not receive 5 gb of free cloud storage space for the multiple Apple devices my wife and I have purchased? Seems only fair.

logical. fair. I can understand the confusion in policy as another fine cloud service - DropBox - has a different model for increases in free storage amounts for one account = evangelism. As many policies as there are services probably.
cya 'round o' kilted one
CCC

One Shipping Point for Multiple Storage Location

Hi
How to ship a sales order from Multiple storage location.The system is not accepting .Can any one tell us the missing portion ?
Thanks

We want to assign Shipping Point to Multiple Storage Location.It is all batch Managed ..The Material will available in two or three location.We don't want the stock to move to shipping location.We want to confirm at the time of creating sales order with the available location to one shipping point

Multiple storage bin location for single material in material master

HI experts
1) we have a senario for our cliant , for which it is required to enter a 6 or 7 storage bin locations for a single part which is created in materials master without having a WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT .
2) User can enter a quantity while doing GR in to that all locations.
3) reports based on stock avialble in all storage locations ( like MMBE)
Kaustubh

Storage bin used in IM is stored in table MARD. Key fields in table MARD are: client/plant/storage location. So you can have only one storage bin for a plant/storage location combination - even if you want to have more.
If you want more than one storage bin per storage location you have to use warehiuse management.
That's all.
Edited by: Csaba Szommer on Jul 26, 2009 12:35 PM

Multiple users on multiple macs sharing iPhoto Library

How can different family members (using personal logins) all access the same iPhoto library, regardless of which of our two iMacs they happen to be logged into?
I thought the solution would be as simple as:
Plug an external hard drive into the Airport Time Capsule.
Copy our iPhoto library onto the external hard drive.
Log in as each user, open iPhoto and point to the iPhoto library on the external hard drive.
I've searched the support forums and can't find a successful example of this. Does it work? If not, is there another elegant solution?
I'd also be interested in how to back up the 'networked' iPhoto library. I plan to use iPhoto's "publish to Flickr" capability for this as it also solves how to share photos with our family's many iOS devices.
Ps. I'm new to the Mac environment so am still learning my way with OSX (be gentle please).
Equipment
x2 iMacs (<12 months old) running the latest OSX and iPhoto software versions
2TB Airport Time Capsule (brand new) with a 1TB USB external hard drive plugged-in (not sure of the formatting).

How can different family members (using personal logins) all access the same iPhoto library, regardless of which of our two iMacs they happen to be logged into?
I thought the solution would be as simple as:
Plug an external hard drive into the Airport Time Capsule.
Copy our iPhoto library onto the external hard drive.
Log in as each user, open iPhoto and point to the iPhoto library on the external hard drive.
This cannot work, unfortunately, for several reasons:
iPhoto is strictly a single user database. Only one user at a time can open it.
An iPhoto library needs to be on a locally mounted volume. It cannot be on a network share.
The file system of the drive needs to be MacOS Extended (Journaled).
Apple's only recommendation to share an iPhoto library is this: iPhoto: Sharing libraries among multiple users
If you want to share photos and not the library, see this: iCloud: iCloud Photo Sharing FAQ
Trying to put the iPhoto or Aperture library on a network volume, will result in library corruption or data loss:
Use locally mounted Mac OS X Extended volumes for your Aperture library

Can multiple users share Aperture Library over network

I'm considering moving over to Aperture because iPhoto is starting to show the strain under the number of RAW pictures I'm uploading. My current iPhoto library is stored on my NAS and is shared between my RMBP and MacMini. If I make the transition over to Aperture will I be able to have the same set-up?
Thanks
VP

iPhoto is starting to show the strain under the number of RAW pictures I'm uploading.
What do you consider to be a "strain"?
Poor response time? I suspect, that will be more due to the network access on a NAS than to the library size.
You might try to put your Aperture 3 library on a NAS, but it is not recommended by Apple, see:
Use locally mounted Mac OS X Extended volumes for your Aperture library
You will have to ensure,
that you do not open the Library from both your Macs at the same time,
and you will have to ensure, that the library is only on a disk formatted "Mac OS X Extended". SInce your NAS has a different formatting, put the Aperture library onto a disk image on the NAS. You will have to mount this disk image, before you access the library, like recommended here for iPhoto, see: iPhoto: Sharing libraries among multiple users http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1198
But as I said, if poor performance should be your main reason for switching from iPhoto to Aperture, you will not gain much, if you keep the library on a network attached volume, unless you have a very fast network connection.
The best performance you get in Aperture with the library on the fasted drive you have. I keep my Aperture library on the internal SSD and the original master image files (the bulk of the data) on a second internal drive.
Regards
Léonie

What's the best storage solution for a large iLife? RAID? NAS?

I'm looking for an affordable RAID storage solution for my Time Machine, iTunes Library, iMovie videos, and iPhoto Library. To this point I've been doing a hodgepodge of external hard drives without the saftey of redundancy and I've finaly been bitten with HD failures. So I'm trying to determine what would be the best recommendation for my scenario. Small Home Office for my wife's business (just her), and me with all our media. I currentlty have a mid-2010 Mac Mini (no Thunderbolt), she has an aging 2007 iMac and 2006 MacBook Pro (funny that they're all about the same benchmark speed). We have an AppleTV (original), iPad2 and two iPhone 4S's.
1st Question: Is it better to get a RAID and connect it to my Airport Extreme Base Station USB port as a shared disk? OR to connect it directly to my Mac Mini and share through Home Sharing? OR Should I go with a NAS RAID?
2nd Question: Simple is Better. Should I go with a Mac Mini Server and connect drives to it? (convert my Mac Mini into a server) or Should I just get one of those nice all-in-one 4-bay RAID drive solutions that I can expand with?
Requirements:
1. Expandable and Upgradeable. I don't want something limited to 2TB drives, but as drives get bigger and cheaper I want to easily throw one in w/o concerns.
2. Simple integration with Time Machine and my iLife: iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto. If iTune's Home Sharing feature is currently the best way of using my media across multiple devices then why mess with it? I see "DLNA certified" storage on some devices and wonder if that would just add another layer of complexity I don't need. One more piece to make compatible.
3. Inexpensive. I totally believe in the "You Get What You Pay For" concept. But I also realize sometimes I'm buying marketing, not product. I imagine that to start, I'm going to want a diskless system (because of $$$) to throw all my drives into, and then upgrade bigger drives as my data and funds grow.
4. Security. I don't know if its practical, but I like the idea of being able to pop two drives out and put them in my safe and then pop them back in once a week for the backup/mirroring. I like this idea because I'm concerned that onsite backup is not always the safest. Unfortunately those cloud based services aren't designed for Terabytes of raw family video, or an entire media library that isn't wholey from the iTunes Store. I can't be the only one facing this challenge. Surely there's an affordable way to keep a safe backup for the average Joe. But what is it?
5. Not WD. I've had bad experiences with Western Digital drives, and I loathe their consumer packaged backup software that comes preloaded on their external drives. They are what I meant when I say you get what you pay for. Prettily packed garbage.
6. Relatively Fast. I have put all my media on an external drive before (back when it fit on one drive) and there's noticeable spool-up hang time. Thunderbolt's nice and all, but so new that its not easily available across devices, nor is it cheap. eSata is not really an option. I love Firewire but I'm getting the feeling that Apple has made it the red-headed step-child of connections. USB 3.0 looks decent, but like eSata, Apple doesn't recognize it exists. Where does that leave us? Considering this dilemma I really liked Seagate's GoFlex external drives because it meant I could always buy a new base and still be compatible. But that only works with single drives. And as impressive as Seagate is, we can't expect them to consistently double drive sizes every two years like they have been -cool as that may be.
So help me out without getting too technical. What's the best setup? Is it Drobo? Thecus? ReadyNAS? Seagate's BlackArmor? Or something else entirely?
All comments are appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I am currently using WD 2TB Thunderbolt hard drive for my iTunes, which i love and is works great. i am connected directly to my Mac Book Pro. I am running low on Memory and thinking of buying a bigger Hard drive. My question is should I buy 6TB thunderbolt HD or 6TB NAS drive to work solely for iTunes. I have home sharing enabled for my Apple TV
I also have my time capsule connected just as back up only.

ASO and storing data to multiple disk volume

Hi,I use Essbase Administration Services 7.1 on Win2000.I use ASO type of OLAP application. I would like to set storage to disk D: (the default is C:). How to to set storage disk volume for ASO type of applications?For block storage type OLAP application is in the database Properties tag in Storage tab. What about ASO type of applications?Is it posible to store data two multiple disk volumes?Thanks,Grofaty

It is a bit different for ASO models - you need to modify the tablespaces, which are found in the properties of the APPLICATION, not the database.In EAS right-click the app and choose Properties. Go to the Tablespaces tab and that should be what you are looking for.Regards,Jade---------------------------------Jade ColeSenior BI ConsultantClarity [email protected]

Multiple Storage Volumes For 1 Library

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for