Pages file sizes in Lion

Anyone have any idea how big files will get using AutoSave/Versions in Lion or if there are any safeguards to prevent the file size from spiraling out of control?
For example, I write short stories and novels with Pages (I used to use Word 2004 pre-Lion, but that's a Rosetta app), and the files I deal with are just text and formatting. I have one .DOC file from before my Pages adoption that is only 120K, and I have a .pages file that is much shorter in word count than the 120K .DOC file, but as I've been working on it for the past two weeks, that .pages file has grown to 236K, nearly twice the size of its longer .DOC counterpart.
What worries me is when I end up working on the same file for a couple of years (think 150,000 words or more), how big is it going to be then? Does AutoSave/Versions act like Time Machine and only keep the most recent X months' worth of edits to keep the file at a reasonable size? Or am I going to end up with a text file that has ballooned up to 20 or 30 MB in size because of the several years' worth of versions it has kept that whole time?

Hi Matt,
the problem is that a pages 'file' isn't a file at all: it's a folder full of smaller files. Your finder is probably set up NOT to display folder sizes (I believe this is the default since it uses up system resources/CPU calculating them all).
Go to Finder>View>Show View Options then check the box at the bottom: 'calculate all sizes'. If your pages docs are all in one folder, then you can limit this preference to 'this window only' and save the system calculating folder sizes everywhere. The finder will now display your pages 'file' sizes (you may need to close the finder window and reopen it).
Hope this makes your yinyang feel better.

Similar Messages

  • Index file increase with no corresponding increase in block numbers or Pag file size

    Hi All,
    Just wondering if anyone else has experienced this issue and/or can help explain why it is happening....
    I have a BSO cube fronted by a Hyperion Planning app, in version 11.1.2.1.000
    The cube is in it's infancy, but already contains 24M blocks, with a PAG file size of 12GB.  We expect this to grow fairly rapidly over the next 12 months or so.
    After performing a simple Agg of aggregating sparse dimensions, the Index file sits at 1.6GB.
    When I then perform a dense restructure, the index file reduces to 0.6GB.  The PAG file remains around 12GB (a minor reduction of 0.4GB occurs).  The number of blocks remains exactly the same.
    If I then run the Agg script again, the number of blocks again remains exactly the same, the PAG file increases by about 0.4GB, but the index file size leaps back to 1.6GB.
    If I then immediately re-run the Agg script, the # blocks still remains the same, the PAG file increases marginally (less than 0.1GB) and the Index remains exactly the same at 1.6GB.
    Subsequent passes of the Agg script have the same effect - a slight increase in the PAG file only.
    Performing another dense restructure reverts the Index file to 0.6GB (exactly the same number of bytes as before).
    I have tried running the Aggs using parallel calcs, and also as in series (ie single thread) and get exactly the same results.
    I figured there must be some kind of fragmentation happening on the Index, but can't think of a way to prove it.  At all stages of the above test, the Average Clustering Ratio remains at 1.00, but I believe this just relates to the data, rather than the Index.
    After a bit of research, it seems older versions of Essbase used to suffer from this Index 'leakage', but that it was fixed way before 11.1.2.1. 
    I also found the following thread which indicates that the Index tags may be duplicated during a calc to allow a read of the data during the calc;
    http://www.network54.com/Forum/58296/thread/1038502076/1038565646/index+file+size+grows+with+same+data+-
    However, even if all the Index tags are duplicated, I would expect the maximum growth of the Index file to be 100%, right?  But I am getting more than 160% growth (1.6GB / 0.6GB).
    And what I haven't mentioned is that I am only aggregating a subset of the database, as my Agg script fixes on only certain members of my non-aggregating sparse dimensions (ie only 1 Scenario & Version)
    The Index file growth in itself is not a problem.  But the knock-on effect is that calc times increase - if I run back-to-back Aggs as above, the 2nd Agg calc takes 20% longer than the 1st.  And with the expected growth of the model, this will likely get much worse.
    Anyone have any explanation as to what is occurring, and how to prevent it...?
    Happy to add any other details that might help with troubleshooting, but thought I'd see if I get any bites first.
    The only other thing I think worth pointing out at this stage is that we have made the cube Direct I/O for performance reasons. I don't have much prior exposure to Direct I/O so don't know whether this could be contributing to the problem.
    Thanks for reading.

    alan.d wrote:
    The only other thing I think worth pointing out at this stage is that we have made the cube Direct I/O for performance reasons. I don't have much prior exposure to Direct I/O so don't know whether this could be contributing to the problem.
    Thanks for reading.
    I haven't tried Direct I/O for quite a while, but I never got it to work properly. Not exactly the same issue that you have, but it would spawn tons of .pag files in the past. You might try duplicating your cube, changing it to buffered I/O, and run the same processes and see if it does the same thing.
    Sabrina

  • Essbase cube/pag file size reduction-bitmap compression

    We are seeing some huge pag files in our essbase cube, and Oracle had suggested changing to bitmap compression to see if that will help.(currently, we have 'no compression')
    That said, what is the difference between using RLE versus bitmap encoding for BSO cubes?
    Would like to hear other's experiences.

    (currently, we have 'no compression')^^^You are going to be very happy. Very, very happy.
    You can read the Database Administrator's Guide -- just search for "comrpession".
    Here it is: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17236_01/epm.1112/esb_dbag/dstalloc.html
    There are a bunch of caveats and rules re the "better" compression method -- having said that, I almost always use RLE as the method it seems the most efficient wrt disk space. This makes sense as this method examines each block and applies the most efficient method: RLE, bitmap, or Index Value pair. I can't see a calculation difference between bitmap and RLE.
    How on earth did you get into the position of no compression in the first place?
    Regards,
    Cameron Lackpour
    Edited by: CL on Jul 18, 2011 10:48 AM
    Whoops, a couple of things:
    1) After you apply the change in compression in EAS or via MaxL, you must stop and then restart the database for the setting to take affect.
    2) You must export the database, clear it out, and reload it using the new compression method -- the change in #1 only affects new blocks so you could have a mix of compressed and uncompressed bliocks in your db which won't do anything for storage space.
    3) The only way to really and truly know which method is more efficient is to benchmark the calculation (think writing to disk which could be a bit slower than it is now) and compression methods is to do it. Try it as bitmap and write down sample calc times and IND and PAG file size, then try it as RLE and do the same.

  • Reduce pages file size while maintain picture resolution

    How do you have a small pages file size - <10mb - and still have a high resolution of my pictures in the doc

    The two are rather mutually exclusive.
    Quality, Number , Size - pick 2.
    You have not told us how many images, how large in dimensions and whether you are going to commercial print or convert it to pdf and email/post it.
    So it is hard to know the target.
    You can trim away the unmasked portions of the images in Preview and bring them back into Pages.
    You can ensure there is exactly the resolution you need in final size in the document, 150dpi for HG pdf for screen, or 300 dpi for print. Preview can adjust resolution.
    If this is meant for screen and not print you can resave the images as jpegs as lower quality in Preview. Be aware that this is a compromise, smaller size is lower quality and ultimately noticeable. The process is lossy.
    Vector (drawn) objects remain sharp and are very small compared to bitmap images, so use pdf or font graphics where possible.
    Peter

  • Slow Snow Leopard - esp. Parallels or VMWare - 140-500gb VM Page File Size!

    I know that the VM page file size is only the hypothetical maximum VM size that could be used, but immediately after startup on my recently installed (not upgraded) Snow Leopard my VM Size is 140gb. It is not running anything at that point, other than Vuze which starts up at login.
    Before restart, when I was trying to install Windows XP under VMWare, it was over 500gb!
    My MBP 2.4 unibody has been feeling sluggish generally with plenty of beachballs, grinding to a halt under VMWare or Parallels in particular, and I wonder if the VM Size is an indicator of some problem? Examples of Parallels and VMWare problems were that it would take hours to install Windows XP or Windows 7, and eventually just ground to a halt with the install almost finished.
    I have used Disk Utility to check the disk and repair permissions, but maybe bigger guns are needed? I took a quick look at my Xbench results, and the hard drive results were about 40% of the baseline... I have a feeling the hard drive might be churning away on something, slowing everything else down.
    For example, surely it shouldn't take a few seconds to actually show all the applications in the applications folder when you open the folder (when no other programs are running)...
    B
    Message was edited by: Bingggo

    Sorry, 2gb RAM. When I restarted, the VM Page File Size was 140gb, the free memory was over 1gb, and there were no page in/outs from memory.

  • Reducing pages file size

    Hi,
    I've googled around on the question of pages having large file sizes, but the discussion centres around documents that have images. I'm wondering if anyone knows why an identical text only document saved in Pages is so much larger than say one saved in MS Word or Neoffice.
    e.g. on an identical 2 page document :-
    1. Just save as Pages document = 225kb
    2. Untick the "Include preview page" box in save menu & it is reduced to 131kb
    3. Save copy as Word document & it is the more familiar 41kb size.
    Are there any other settings to reduce the size of a simple text document down to something comparable to Word. I realise I'm talking about small size examples, but if I start saving 100's of files that are 20 or 30 pages in size, it all starts to add up.
    thanks,
    Terry

    An other explanation may be the way Pages store characters.
    Most of the characters available in the old ASCII set are stored as is using a single byte.
    Some of them "&" for instance are stored as a descriptive string requiring several bytes.
    & is stored as &amp;
    Every other characters require six to eight bytes.
    é is stored as &#xE9;
    œ is stored as &#x153;
    ᴂ is stored as &#x1D02;
    Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) dimanche 21 août 2011 12:35:22
    iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 4 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.0
    My iDisk is : <http://public.me.com/koenigyvan>
    Please : Search for questions similar to your own before submitting them to the community
    To be the AW6 successor, iWork MUST integrate a TRUE DB, not a list organizer !

  • Reducing Pages file size on iPad

    I produce a 12 page newsletter comprising text/photo mix for a charity.  Unfortunately the file size saved as PDF was almost 20mb which seemed enormous for the content involved.  I put the photos through a file size reducer and reimported them but this saved only 4mb.  I can't email the document to the majority of subscribers as its so big.  How can I urgently and drastically  reduce the file size on an iPad so I can send it.?

    An other explanation may be the way Pages store characters.
    Most of the characters available in the old ASCII set are stored as is using a single byte.
    Some of them "&" for instance are stored as a descriptive string requiring several bytes.
    & is stored as &amp;
    Every other characters require six to eight bytes.
    é is stored as &#xE9;
    œ is stored as &#x153;
    ᴂ is stored as &#x1D02;
    Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) dimanche 21 août 2011 12:35:22
    iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 4 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.0
    My iDisk is : <http://public.me.com/koenigyvan>
    Please : Search for questions similar to your own before submitting them to the community
    To be the AW6 successor, iWork MUST integrate a TRUE DB, not a list organizer !

  • Delete Pages, file size, PDF Optimizer Clean Up

    Using Acrobat 9 Pro (for Windows, if that makes any difference).
    I have a 148 page PDF of a magazine, about 58 MB in size.
    I Deleted 40 pages of ads, leaving just the useful content.
    The file size is still about 58 MB.
    When I run Advanced -> PDF Optimizer,
    the file size goes down to about 47 MB.
    The Optimizer settings don't seem to matter.
    Even with just "Clean Up" checked, all its options UNchecked,
    and Compression set to "Leave Compression Unchanged"
    the file size is still reduced.
    I have tried several other PDF editors and tools,
    and none of them reduce the file size after deleting the 40 pages,
    even using their "optimize" or "compress" functions.
    Can someone explain why deleting pages does not reduce the file size,
    and what the Optimizer is doing (that the other tools don't do)
    to reduce the file size ?
    Thanks,
    -- Glenn

    this may be helpful
    http://forums.adobe.com/message/4568414#4568414
    in Adobe 9 Pro Windows, I found the best was:
    Document -> Optimize Scanned PDF (defaults)... tho you could play w the slider bar for even smaller.

  • Photo Both video (.mov) file size in Lion

    Photo Both in Lion saves videos (.mov) with double the file size of previous versions.  I have verified by looking at a 30 second video created pre-Lion (2.1mb) and a new 30 second video created post-Lion (4.1mb) on the same MacBook Air.  I have seen even more drastic file size increses on a newer MacBook Pro; more that 20mb for a video that used to be under 2mb. 
    There are no settings available in Photo Booth.  And as stated in other threads there is no method in Mail to resize a video, this option is only available for images.  The only functioning workaroud is to open the .mov file in Quicktime and then export for the web.  This is OK, but the beauty of Photobooth and the Mail button within was the ability to just quickly fire off a video.  Opening another app, exporting and then attaching to an email is no longer simple or beautiful.
    Does anyone know why the filesizes have jumped up so drastically?  More importantly, does anyone know how to get the file size of videos created in Photo Booth back under control so they can be emailed more easily?

    UPDATE:  Using any of the effects in photo booth videos greatly reduces the file size.  This seems a bit contrary to what I would expect.  Adding birds flying around my head cuts the video size in half.  Sepia cuts down to 1/3.  Black and white, the one that isnt a suprise, is less that 1/4 the file size of just plain old color.
    Why can't I just have the nice small video files that Photo Booth used to save??

  • How do I reduce a Pages file size so I can create a pdf for e-mailing?

    I recently upgraded from Tiger to OS X Leopard. In Tiger, I was able to reduce file size and create a 700 to 800kb file by going to print/color sync/quartz filter/reduce file size/save as pdf. But in Leopard those options can't be accessed from my pages print menu. Any suggestions? Thanks TH

    Hi t.h.leeds,
    Welcome to Pages discussions.
    Another way to reduce the PDF files size is: Print > PDF, Compress PDF. As I create a PDF for e-mailing that's what I do, works well. 99.99% of folks don't print PDF's, they either file in a folder or delete. Viewing on their monitor that Compress PDF appears as it should.
    A side note; by using this discussions Search feature in the box that reads "Search Discussions more Options" you could have found the answer to your question. Doing that would be faster than awaiting for an enduser as yourself to respond.
    These Discussions are user helping user, not Apple employees answering the question. Questions will be answered when a user such as yourself finds time, desires to, knows the answer along with the time to respond.
    Again, welcome to Pages Discussions, have fun here.
    Sincerely,
    RicD

  • Pages file size

    Hi there,
    I'm absolutely new to Mac (just bought my first product a week ago) and I'm quite shocked seeing the file size of my Pages documents.
    A simple 800 word document with no images, graphics, charts (just plain text) is around 300-400 kb. In Windows, with MS Office 2010, it used to be around 20-25 kb.
    Am I doing something wrong or is it just the way it is with Pages? I also created another document with just 16 words in it, and even that turned out to be around 75 kb.
    P.S: I am not saving my documents to any Cloud service.
    I'll have to change to some other software if it stays this way; I create a lot of documents. Any help would be really appreciated.
    Thanks.

    The only way you can reduce these blimp-size Word exports is to open them in LibreOffice Writer, Word in Office for Mac 2011, or MS Office Word — and resave under a different name.
    I just exported a 500KB Word .docx document. Opening and saving it from LibreOffice Writer reduced it to 12KB.

  • Essbase pag file size had a sudden increase

    We have a BSO cube who used to have 1.8g of exported data and about 2.5 gigs of pag files. However, they both suddenly increased to 5 gigs each (in just one day). I checked our logs and there were only a few data uploads/changes and the outline member additions that we had that day were all dynamic calcs members. We do export - clear - reload data everynight, but the exported files and page files are still on th 5 gigs.
    Does anyone know what could have caused this issue?
    Thank you.

    Same type of thing happened here. Overnight, 3 hour agg calc now taking upwards of 8 hours. They had implemented hierarchy additions, nothing drastic.
    By chance, were any of these Dynamic Calc members created in sparse dimensions? Do they roll up to stored members? It's bad ju-ju to have that situation.
    This was the biggest design offender I found, and am redesigning cube for them right now.
    I have taken the 8-10 hour agg (and 41 pag files) down to 36 minutes (and 15 pag files) simply by changing the dense and sparse settings of their cube. One of the dimensions they had dynamic members rolling up to stored members, I made this one dense and made all upper levels dynamic. (of course I had to change some of their other dense dimensions to sparse to accomodate this) But the end results on time and page files tells me that having dynamic calc members roll to stored members is really bad.
    Robert
    Edited by: RobertR3 on Apr 18, 2011 10:02 AM

  • Page file concepts and  how to define its size ?

    Hello Experts ,
    Wt is the concept and use of defining page files in standard oracle and SAP installations ? why do we need to define it ?
    how much size is defined for page file size and on wt factors does it depend ? and where is it defined ?
    Requested to revert to the queries at earliest . Points guaranteed .
    If any supportive document is sent for the same , it sahll be appreciated .My Email id is [removed by moderator]  .
    Thanks and Regards,
    Saumya

    The distribution, participation in distributing or otherwise sending of this material is against the law. The material you are requesting is copyrighted material and available ONLY to customers of SAP. If you need such documents from the SAP Service Marketplace then you must have "S" user ID and login yourself to retrieve this material. If you do not have a "S" user ID then you should contact your own internal company groups responsible and request one or request them to retrieve the document for you.
    By participating and sending such documents you are at risk for legal action and a removal of your account here on SDN and BPX.
    DO NOT send material via email such as this! Further actions will result in officials within your company and your SAP Sales Account being notified and could result in legal action against you as an individual.

  • What is a page file/scratch/render disk drive?

    I understand that computers using Premiere Pro usually have more than one hard drive; one for the operating system and programs. One or more for media. And one for page file/scratch/rendering?  Can someone tell me how a page file/scratch/rendering drive is set up? I'm using Windows 7 (as 64-bit) with Pre. Pro CS5.

    Though there is probably a performance increase with the separation of the Scratch Disks onto a separate HDD, I keep them with with the Project files, so that housekeeping is much easier.
    For a separate HDD for the Scratch Disks, I would go with a fast SATA HDD.
    The starting configuration is:
    C:\ OS, programs and maybe Page File (Windows Virtual Memory)
    D:\ Projects (and Scratch Disks in my case)
    E:\ Media
    Beyond that, one could probably get performance increases with a separate very fast HDD for Page File (size can be small), separate HDD for Export and a separate HDD for Scratch Disks. Some separate the Media disks with one physical HDD for Video and one for Audio.
    I would anticipate that in a perfect world, one would have a RAID for Video, one for Audio, one for Scratch Disks and one for Export. These would be on a physical controller card with on-board memory cache. You might want to look for the full specs. on "Harm's Beast," as he goes into great detail on his system. Now, he had to place his machine in a commercial walk-in freezer, and keeps the temp around 0 F, to keep it from bursting into flames...
    Good luck,
    Hunt

  • What's the best practice to manage the page file?

           
    We have one Hyper-v Server running windows 2012 R2 with 128 GB RAM and 2 drives (C and D). It setup Automatically manage page file size for all drives. What's the best practice to manage the page file?
    Bob Lin, MCSE & CNE Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN Troubleshooting on http://www.ChicagoTech.net How to Install and Configure Windows, VMware, Virtualization and Cisco on http://www.HowToNetworking.com

    For Hyper-V systems, my general recommendation is to set the page file to 1-4 GB. This allows for a mini-dump should something happen. 99.99% of the time, Microsoft will be able to figure out the cause of the problem from the mini-dump. It does not make
    sense on a Hyper-V system to set aside enough space to capture all the memory on the system because only a very small portion of that memory is used by the parent partition. Most of the memory is under control of the individual VMs.
    Yes, I had one of the Hyper-V product group tell me that I should let Windows manage it.  A couple of times I saw space on my system disk disappear because the algorithm decided it wanted all the space for the page file.  Made it so I couldn't
    patch my systems.  Went back in and set the page file to 1-4 GB and have not had any issues since.
    . : | : . : | : . tim

Maybe you are looking for