Sga_target space allocation

Hi All,
I have 6 databases all of them running on a server(Eupdsdbb06).Their sga_target values are as follows.
gen0646p 1024M
gen0637p 1024M
gen0669p 512M
gen0674p 512M
gen0621p 512M
gen0619p 512M
Here shmmax size = 2GB on this server.
I want to know how the sum of sga_target for all the above databases i.e 4Gb is allocated from 2GB shmmax allocated as all of them are running?
Thanks a lot

tvenkatesh07 wrote:
Linux 2.6.9
Here kernel.shmmax=2147483648 (2G) on this server
So i have 6 databases whose sga_target's value totaling to 4G.
Whereas Total available shared memory segment size on the server is 2G.
I want to know how this 2G is sufficient for those 6 Databses ?The question becomes, how much real physical memory do you have? How much memory is actually being used by the total of the 6 databases? How much memory is being used by user processes? File buffers? Are huge pages enabled?
Oracle can use multiple segments for shared memory, that's not so much a problem (though there have been bugs with this). The problem occurs when you start swapping processes that want to run, and especially if you start swapping shared memory. You probably want to start with the total target value at something like half the physical memory (unless you have dozens of gigabytes), and run all your apps under load, and see what is using up memory. You don't want to get too close to using up all the memory, as then adding a bit more load will make it all go downhill, though be sure you understand how to check what memory is being used, as the OS will likely give over any unused memory to file system buffers. Depending on your configuration, you may not need much in the way of file system buffers.
Oracle docs assume you have one database per server, so you do have to show some caution in following recommendations with multiple databases, assuming you are using the proper oracle definition of database.

Similar Messages

How to monitor space allocation for each table......????

Hi ,
using the user_segment and especially the blocks column , i get the following results (in scott schema):
SQL> select segment_name , blocks from user_segments where segment_name in ('DEPT','EMP');
SEGMENT_NAME                                                                         BLOCKS
DEPT                                                                                      8
EMP                                                                                       8Using the user_tables and the blocks column , i get the following results :
SQL> SELECT TABLE_NAME , BLOCKS FROM USER_TABLES WHERE TABLE_NAME IN ('DEPT','EMP');
TABLE_NAME                         BLOCKS
DEPT                                    5
EMP                                     5So , is it correct to say that the space allocation for each of these tables is 5/8 =62,5% ...?????
Thanks , a lot
Simon

The difference of those is empty_blocks, isn't it ?That is not the case :
SQL> select segment_name , blocks from user_segments where segment_name in ('DEPT','EMP');
SEGMENT_NAME                                                                          BLOCKS
DEPT                                                                                       8
EMP                                                                                        8
SQL> SELECT TABLE_NAME , BLOCKS , EMPTY_BLOCKS FROM USER_TABLES WHERE TABLE_NAME IN ('DEPT','EMP');
TABLE_NAME                         BLOCKS EMPTY_BLOCKS
DEPT                                    5            0
EMP                                     5            0
SQL> Nicolas.

(V9I) ORACLE 9I NEW FEATURE : RESUMABLE SPACE ALLOCATION

제품 : ORACLE SERVER
작성날짜 : 2002-11-01
(V9I) ORACLE 9I New Feature : Resumable Space Allocation
=====================================================
PURPOSE
Oracle9i New Feature 인 Resumable Space Allocation 에 대해
알아보도록 한다.
Explanation
Resumable Space Allocation 은 다음과 같은 새로운 Space allocation
이 발생되어야 할 시점에 에러를 바로 발생하지 않고 어느정도의 Time 을 준뒤
Admin에게 이를 알림으로써 수행중인 Transaction rollback 되지 않고 계속적으로
진행할 수 있도록 하는 기능이다.
Query 수행시 다음과 같은 원인으로 에러가 발생하면서 query 수행이 중지된다.
1) Out of space condition
2) Maximum number of extents reached condision
3) Space quota exceeded condition
그러나 9I 에서 Resumable Space Allocation Operations을 설정하게 되면
alertSID.ora file에 suspend 되는 메세지와 함께 설정한 timeout 까지 hang 상태가
발생된다. 만약 timeout 초과시엔 에러가 발생하면서 transaction은 rollback 된다.
alertSID.ora 메세지예)
Wed Mar 14 11:14:17 2001
statement in resumable session 'User SCOTT(54), Session 9, Instance 1' was
suspended due to
ORA-01631: max # extents (5) reached in table SCOTT.TEST_RESUMABLE
Example
다음은 Resumable Space Allocation Operations 을 설정하기 위해서는 RESUMABLE 을
ENABLE 시키고 또는 DBMS_RESUMABLE package를 이용한다.
1) RESUMABLE system privilege 부여
SQL> connect system/manager
Connected.
SQL> grant resumable to scott;
Grant succeeded.
2) session level에서 RESUMABLE enable 시키기
SQL> alter session enable resumable;
Session altered.
This can be set automatically through an AFTER LOGON trigger.
SQL> create or replace trigger logon_set_resumable
2 after logon
3 on scott.schema
4 begin
5 execute immediate 'alter session enable resumable timeout 1200';
6 end;
7 /
Trigger created.
3) 생성한 TEST_RESUMABLE table 에 insert 작업
-> insert 시에 hang 현상 발생(transaction rollback은 이루어지지 않는다.)
-> alert.log에 suspend message 확인
-> 만약 설정한 timeout 초과시 에러 발생되면서 transaction rollback
a. Displaying the DBA_RESUMABLE view(DBA_RESUMABLE view에서 suspend 확인)
SQL> select user_id,SESSION_ID, STATUS, START_TIME, SUSPEND_TIME,
2 SQL_TEXT, ERROR_NUMBER, ERROR_MSG
3 from dba_resumable;
USER_ID SESSION_ID STATUS START_TIME SUSPEND_TIME
SQL_TEXT
ERROR_NUMBER
ERROR_MSG
54 9 SUSPENDED 03/14/01 10:49:25 03/14/01 11:14:17
insert into test_resumable select * from test_resumable
1631
ORA-01631: max # extents (5) reached in table SCOTT.TEST_RESUMABLE
b. In alert.log file(alert.log에서 message 확인)
Wed Mar 14 11:14:17 2001
statement in resumable session 'User SCOTT(54), Session 9, Instance 1' was
suspended due to
ORA-01631: max # extents (5) reached in table SCOTT.TEST_RESUMABLE
c. The statement may issue the following error when the timeout set for the
session has expired(timeout 초과시 transaction rollback 되면서 에러 발생)
SQL> insert into test_resumable values (1);
insert into test_resumable values (1)
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-30032: the suspended (resumable) statement has timed out
ORA-01536: space quota exceeded for tablespace 'EXAMPLE'
4) The DBA now knows why the session hangs, and needs to find which action to
take to alleviate the ora-1631 error(DBA는 timeout 이 발생하기 전에 에러 발생)
SQL> connect system/manager
Connected.
SQL> alter table scott.test_resumable storage (maxextents 8);
Table altered.
SQL> select user_id,SESSION_ID, STATUS, START_TIME, RESUME_TIME,
2 SQL_TEXT, ERROR_NUMBER, ERROR_MSG
3 from dba_resumable;
USER_ID SESSION_ID STATUS START_TIME RESUME_TIME
SQL_TEXT
ERROR_NUMBER
ERROR_MSG
54 9 NORMAL 03/14/01 10:49:25 03/14/01 11:24:02
insert into test_resumable select * from test_resumable
0
5) If the session does not need to be in resumable state, the session can
disable the resumable state(더이상 resumable 기능 사용하지 않을 경우 disable 시키기)
SQL> alter session disable resumable;
Session altered.
SQL> select user_id,SESSION_ID, STATUS, START_TIME, RESUME_TIME,
2 SQL_TEXT, ERROR_NUMBER, ERROR_MSG
3 from dba_resumable;
no rows selected
Reference Document
Note. 136941.1 Using RESUMABLE Session to Avoid Transaction Abort Due to Space Errors

제품 : ORACLE SERVER
작성날짜 : 2002-11-01
(V9I) ORACLE 9I New Feature : Resumable Space Allocation
=====================================================
PURPOSE
Oracle9i New Feature 인 Resumable Space Allocation 에 대해
알아보도록 한다.
Explanation
Resumable Space Allocation 은 다음과 같은 새로운 Space allocation
이 발생되어야 할 시점에 에러를 바로 발생하지 않고 어느정도의 Time 을 준뒤
Admin에게 이를 알림으로써 수행중인 Transaction rollback 되지 않고 계속적으로
진행할 수 있도록 하는 기능이다.
Query 수행시 다음과 같은 원인으로 에러가 발생하면서 query 수행이 중지된다.
1) Out of space condition
2) Maximum number of extents reached condision
3) Space quota exceeded condition
그러나 9I 에서 Resumable Space Allocation Operations을 설정하게 되면
alertSID.ora file에 suspend 되는 메세지와 함께 설정한 timeout 까지 hang 상태가
발생된다. 만약 timeout 초과시엔 에러가 발생하면서 transaction은 rollback 된다.
alertSID.ora 메세지예)
Wed Mar 14 11:14:17 2001
statement in resumable session 'User SCOTT(54), Session 9, Instance 1' was
suspended due to
ORA-01631: max # extents (5) reached in table SCOTT.TEST_RESUMABLE
Example
다음은 Resumable Space Allocation Operations 을 설정하기 위해서는 RESUMABLE 을
ENABLE 시키고 또는 DBMS_RESUMABLE package를 이용한다.
1) RESUMABLE system privilege 부여
SQL> connect system/manager
Connected.
SQL> grant resumable to scott;
Grant succeeded.
2) session level에서 RESUMABLE enable 시키기
SQL> alter session enable resumable;
Session altered.
This can be set automatically through an AFTER LOGON trigger.
SQL> create or replace trigger logon_set_resumable
2 after logon
3 on scott.schema
4 begin
5 execute immediate 'alter session enable resumable timeout 1200';
6 end;
7 /
Trigger created.
3) 생성한 TEST_RESUMABLE table 에 insert 작업
-> insert 시에 hang 현상 발생(transaction rollback은 이루어지지 않는다.)
-> alert.log에 suspend message 확인
-> 만약 설정한 timeout 초과시 에러 발생되면서 transaction rollback
a. Displaying the DBA_RESUMABLE view(DBA_RESUMABLE view에서 suspend 확인)
SQL> select user_id,SESSION_ID, STATUS, START_TIME, SUSPEND_TIME,
2 SQL_TEXT, ERROR_NUMBER, ERROR_MSG
3 from dba_resumable;
USER_ID SESSION_ID STATUS START_TIME SUSPEND_TIME
SQL_TEXT
ERROR_NUMBER
ERROR_MSG
54 9 SUSPENDED 03/14/01 10:49:25 03/14/01 11:14:17
insert into test_resumable select * from test_resumable
1631
ORA-01631: max # extents (5) reached in table SCOTT.TEST_RESUMABLE
b. In alert.log file(alert.log에서 message 확인)
Wed Mar 14 11:14:17 2001
statement in resumable session 'User SCOTT(54), Session 9, Instance 1' was
suspended due to
ORA-01631: max # extents (5) reached in table SCOTT.TEST_RESUMABLE
c. The statement may issue the following error when the timeout set for the
session has expired(timeout 초과시 transaction rollback 되면서 에러 발생)
SQL> insert into test_resumable values (1);
insert into test_resumable values (1)
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-30032: the suspended (resumable) statement has timed out
ORA-01536: space quota exceeded for tablespace 'EXAMPLE'
4) The DBA now knows why the session hangs, and needs to find which action to
take to alleviate the ora-1631 error(DBA는 timeout 이 발생하기 전에 에러 발생)
SQL> connect system/manager
Connected.
SQL> alter table scott.test_resumable storage (maxextents 8);
Table altered.
SQL> select user_id,SESSION_ID, STATUS, START_TIME, RESUME_TIME,
2 SQL_TEXT, ERROR_NUMBER, ERROR_MSG
3 from dba_resumable;
USER_ID SESSION_ID STATUS START_TIME RESUME_TIME
SQL_TEXT
ERROR_NUMBER
ERROR_MSG
54 9 NORMAL 03/14/01 10:49:25 03/14/01 11:24:02
insert into test_resumable select * from test_resumable
0
5) If the session does not need to be in resumable state, the session can
disable the resumable state(더이상 resumable 기능 사용하지 않을 경우 disable 시키기)
SQL> alter session disable resumable;
Session altered.
SQL> select user_id,SESSION_ID, STATUS, START_TIME, RESUME_TIME,
2 SQL_TEXT, ERROR_NUMBER, ERROR_MSG
3 from dba_resumable;
no rows selected
Reference Document
Note. 136941.1 Using RESUMABLE Session to Avoid Transaction Abort Due to Space Errors

What is bad # for 'Space Allocated/Used" and 'ITL Waits' in V$SEGMENT_STATS

I ran a query against the V$SEGMENT_STATISTICS view today and got some possibly disturbing numbers. Can some one let me know if they are bad or if I just reading to much into them.
DB has been up since 1/10/2011 so they represent the stats since then. DB size is 3TB
OBJECT_NAME     OBJECT_TYPE     STATISTIC_NAME     VALUE
XXPK0EMIANCE     INDEX     space allocated     27,246,198,784
ITEMINTANCE     TABLE     space allocated     22,228,762,624
LITEMINSTANCE     TABLE     space used     19,497,901,889
XXPK0TEMINSTANCE     INDEX     space used     17,431,957,592
TTINGCORE     TABLE     space allocated     8,724,152,320
XXPK0IANCE     INDEX     space allocated     6,912,212,992
SKISTANCE     TABLE     space allocated     4,697,620,480
IIXCNSTANCE     TABLE     space allocated     4,697,620,480
on the XXPK0EMIANCE index the inital extent is 64k
XXPK0MINSTANCE     INDEX     ITL waits     1,123
XXIEKILSTANCE     INDEX     ITL waits     467
XXPKLINSTANCE     INDEX     ITL waits     463
XXPKCE     INDEX     ITL waits     338
XXIE3ENT     INDEX     ITL waits     237
If these are bad do they impact performance? My understanding is that being wait states, things stop until they are resolved. Is that true.
Also these looked high, are they?
LATION_PK     INDEX     logical reads     242,212,503,104
XXAK1STSCORE     INDEX     logical reads     117,542,351,984
XXPK0TSTANCE     INDEX     logical reads     113,532,240,160
TCORE     TABLE     db block changes 1,913,902,176
SDENT     TABLE     physical reads     72,161,312
XXPK0PDUCT     INDEX     segment scans     35,268,027
ESTSORE     TABLE     buffer busy waits     2,604,947
XXPK0SUCORE     INDEX     buffer busy waits     119,007
XXPK0INSTANCE     INDEX     row lock waits     63,810
XXPK0EMINSTANCE     INDEX row lock waits     58,129
XXPK0NSTANCE     INDEX     row lock waits     57,776
XXIE2DDSTANCE     INDEX     row lock waits     54,788
XXPK0DDDSTSCORE     INDEX row lock waits     49,167
Am i just reading too much into this? I am not a DBA, our DBA is too busy doing data changes and such to spent time looking at these stuff. I was tasked to try to find out why our DB is so slow.

Statistics on waits and reads are cumulative since the last database instance startup --- which was more than 4 months ago.
So :
XXPK0MINSTANCE INDEX ITL waits 1,1231,123 waits in 4+ months isn't bad.
Reading such statistics without reference to the duration is utterly meaningless.
Those 1,123 waits could have been 10 waits a day @1 every 2 hours.
OR those 1,123 waits could have occurred between 01:00 and 01:30 on 03-May-2011.
We have no way of knowing which is the case.
Hemant K Chitale

Space allocation on 11g R2 on multiple data files in one tablespace

hello
if the following is explained in Oracle 11g R2 documentation please send a pointer. I cant find it myself right now.
my question is about space allocation (during inserts and during table data load) in one table space containing multiple data files.
suppose i have Oracle 11g R2 database and I am using OMF and Oracle ASM on Oracle Linux 64-bit.
I have one ASM disk group called ASMDATA with 50 ASM disks in it.
I have one tablespace called APPL_DATA with 50 data files on it, each file = 20 GB (equal size), to contain one 1 TB table calll MY_FACT_TABLE.
During Import Data Pump or during application doing SQL Inserts how will Oracle allocate space for the table?
Will it fill up one data file completely and then start allocating from second file and so on, sequentially moving from file to file?
And when all files are full, which file will it try to autoextend (if they all allow autoextend) ?
Or will Oracle use some sort of proportional fill like MS SQL Server does i.e. allocate one extent from data file 1, next extent from data file 2,.... and then wrap around again? In other words it will keep all files equally allocated as much as possible so at any point in time they will have approximately the same amount of data in them (assuming same initial size ?
Or some other way?
thanks.

On 10.2.0.4, regular data files, autoallocate, 8K blocks, I've noticed some unexpected things. I have an old, probably obsolete habit of making my datafiles 2G fixed, except for the last, which I make 200M autoextend max 2G. So what I see happening in normal operations is, the other files fill up in a round-robin fashion, then the last file starts to grow. So it is obvious to me at that time to extend the file to 2G, make it noautoexented, and add another file. My schemata tend to be in the 50G range, with 1 or 2 thousand tables. When I impdp, I notice it sorts them by size, importing the largest first. I never paid too much attention to the smaller tables, since LMT algorithms seem good enough to simply not worry about it.
I just looked (with dbconsole tablespace map) at a much smaller schema I imported not long ago, where the biggest table was 20M in 36 extents, second was 8M in 23 extents, and so on, total around 200M. I had made 2 data files, the first 2G and the second 200M autoextend. Looking at the impdp log, I see it isn't real strong about sorting by size, especially under 5M. So where did the 20M table it imported first end up? At the end of the auotextend file, with lots of free space below a few tables there. The 2G file seems to have a couple thousand blocks used, then 8K blocks free, 5K blocks used, 56K blocks free, 19K blocks used, 148K free (with a few tables scattered in the middle of there), 4K blocks used, the rest free. Looking at an 8G similar schema, looks like the largest files got spread across the middle of the files, then the second largest next to it, and so forth, which is more what I expected.
I'm still not going to worry about it. Data distribution within the tables is something that might be important, where blocks on the disk are, not so much. I think that's why the docs are kind of ambiguous about the algorithm, it can change, and isn't all that important, unless you run into bugs.

ITunes not allowing use of all free space allocated to music - 1Gen shuffle

I'm wondering why my iTunes won't allow me to completely fill the space on my 1st generation iPod shuffle that's been allocated to music. About 1.5 mb is reserved for other data, and the rest is for music, which is how I want it. But I can only ever fill about half of the storage space allocated to music, and there doesn't seem to be any way for me to alter this, as there's no slider on the storage bar - not that I should need it. I know I've been able to adjust this in the past on another computer, but I can't do it anymore; at least not on my current computer. The syncing will stop when it's half full, and if I try to manually drag songs to the iPod it'll just tell me there's no more room.

maybe half of your disk on your ipod shuffle is corrupt (meaning broken) or itunes is reserving more roomfor data than you think, but those are just guesses meaning I might not be right at all.

Unicode conversion - space allocation

Hi All -
We are starting to look at converting our system to Unicode this summer, and I'm worried that we have enough space allocated on UNIX box to allow for successful conversion!
I have read the Unicode conversion guide for allocating additional space to tablespaces on the database, but does anyone have any words of caution / wisdsom for non-tablespace related space needs during a Unicode conversion? For example, I think I have all our /oracle/[sid]/sapdata directories accounted for - I am just trying to determine if I'm missing anything else.
Input is appreciated. Thanks!
Abby

Hi Abby,
additional Hardware requirements due to Unicode are described in SAP note 1139642.
There are no general rules for the additional hardware components needed for a Unicode conversion.
This highly depends on your planned scenario (One Server inplace / new Unicode server) and your downtime requirements. But even knowing the details no one will be able to give exact figures.
If you are lucky, you might find someone who did a similar scenario on comparable hardware.
However we highly recommend to plan for a Sandbox conversion (with a copy of your PRD system), which will be the best approach to find out reliable downtime figures and possible hardware bottlenecks.
Please also have a look at SAP note 857081.
Best regards,
Nils Buerckel
SAP AG

Space Allocated and Space used for Table.

Hi,
Is there any way, we can find Space Allocated and Space used for Table wise.
I know USER_TABLESPACES help use to find table space wise. But I would like to know, the space utilized by each table in the specific table space.

Check this link from Tom Kyte about it.
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:2092735390859556::::P11_QUESTION_ID:231414051079

Erroneous drive space allocations on '09 MacBook Pro

I have a mid 2009 MacBook Pro that is having some serious, and erroneous, drive space issues. My MacBook has the same size hard-drive as my mini, and has an identical install of software--it's basically a portable version of my desktop. However, Disk Utility on my MacBook indicates the following:
Available: 191.17 GB
Used: 308.08 GB
Number of Folders: 195,276
Number of Files: 758,438
and my mini indicates the following:
Available: 359.6 GB
Used: 139.65 GB
Number of Folders: 196,604
Number of Files: 910,017
The MacBook has fewer folders and files than the mini (I have music and video files on the mini but not on the MacBook), but a lot less available space. Again, to be clear, they both have an identical install of software.
Until last night, when I deleted 2 VirtualBox VMs on both machines, all was well. However, on the MacBook, it wouldn't let me empty my trash for some reason. I ended up going to the command-prompt as SUDO to rm the one file that was stuck in the trash. But now I have these erroneous drive space allocations.
Does anyone know how I can clear this up on my MacBook?
Thanks!

What Kurt Shutte said, plus the fact that a "160GB" hard drive is actually only 149GB because (see the asterisk where Apple advertises the size of the drives) most hard drive manufacturers these days unfortunately define 1GB as 10003=1,000,000,000 bytes, not the mathematically correct and larger 230=1,0243 bytes. Which means that a hard drive that is advertised as 160GB is really only 149GB. Before formatting, operating system and application installation.

Unit of Space Allocation

Hi,
I would like to request for clarification. Sam Alapati, in his book "Expert Oracle9i Database Administration" states the following:
"Data blocks are defined in terms of operating system bytes, and they are the smallest unit of space allocation in an Oracle database."
Based on the relatively little knowledge I have of Oracle database administration, I recall that space is allocated in units of extents, not data blocks. In my limited knowledge, the extent is the only unit of allocation in an Oracle database. But based on Sam's comment, it seems that I am mistaken. Please enlighten me.
Thanks,
Karim

It is true that space for segments are allocated in units of extents. But an extent consists of data blocks. You cannot have an extent smaller than a database block. So, it is true that a data block is the smallest unit of space allocation. If you have 8K as your data block size your extent sizes will be multiples of 8K.

Schema space allocation

Hi,
In the hosted environment of APEX, is it possible to increase the schema space allocation to a value greater than 10MB?
If yes, how?
Thanks.

http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B32472_01/doc/appdev.300/b32471/wrkspc.htm#CHDBBADG

Zpool space allocation

Hi,
We have a storage pool that is almost full, and we can't find where the space is going! Would anyone here possibly know of any hints in this respect?
root@stor04:/export/home/jan# zpool list customer
NAME       SIZE ALLOC   FREE CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT
customer 17.4T 16.2T 1.13T 93% 1.00x ONLINE -
root@stor04:/export/home/jan# zfs get all customer
NAME      PROPERTY                   VALUE                                                                            SOURCE
customer available                  655G                                                                             -
customer referenced                 11.9T                                                                            -
customer used                       12.2T                                                                            -
customer usedbychildren             255G                                                                             -
customer usedbydataset              11.9T                                                                            -
customer usedbysnapshots            2.33G                                                                            -
To our limited understanding, the above numbers don't add up - does anyone have a hint as to where those last 4TB are allocated?
Thank you very much in advance for your kind attention.
Best regards
Jan

Correct.
This is why I asked what the pool configuration is because RAIDZ pools report inflated space in zpool list and mirrored pools reported deflated space. ZFS pool and file system space reporting is described here:
Resolving ZFS Space Issues - Managing ZFS File Systems in Oracle® Solaris11.2
Thanks, Cindy

Disk space allocation and FileVault

I recently had an issue with disk space in my home folder which I would like to share because it might be applicable to quite a few private (non corporate) users.
The matter has been resolved, just wanted to let you know that you should be VERY CAREFUL about using FileVault on your home folder, that's what got me into trouble. My HD said there was 233GB free, my home folder, encrypted with FileVault, said there was 43MB (yes MB) free - so obviously downloading podcasts or CD's was out of the question. I thought, 'what am I going to do with the other 140GB of space on my iPod Classic if I can't use iTunes?? After much stuffing about copying things to the root level, I was able to unlock FileVault (which was asking for 30 odd GB free space to decrypt) and copy my music etc. back into my home folder which had been somehow corrupted. Now, when I open my home folder it tells me I have as much free space as my HD, problem solved!! I will never use FileVault again. The AppleCare guy said my files were still safe as long as I didn't leave the computer logged-in and unattended, even from the internet, with Firewall up.

you don't say how many tracks and bit rate etc.
you could certainly fill that drive w/ 7 sessions. I know I could.
You should have a 250 GB data drive but certainly you should not have less than 10% free space ever if possible.
I don't know about lacie disk allocation but changing it while data was on it does not sound like a safe idea.
I'd suggest you reformat the drive to it's defaults. Pro tools can be a bit picky and you may be asking it to do something it does not like especially since you can't bounce to disk. That is telling me it can't read the drive correctly. I'd also do a block test on the drive.
I hope that helps. I use MOTU and have in the past use a 30 GB drive for data but that was 16 bit 48 K.
Now i do everything at least 24 bit 88.1k on 250 GB drives. I have 3 backups.

Missing space allocation

When users choose get info. It shows that they are only using a portion of the allocated space. However, when looking at the admin quota screen it shows that nearly all of their space is used up. My question is this; Is there an easy way to delete the items from trash and other locations that are mysteriously using this space. Also other than trash where is this space being used?

Do you know that the users have a bunch of stuff in their trash folders? If so, why not ask them to empty the trash?
If you're not certain that this is the case, you may want to run du to find out what's going on. For example:
pmg5:/ root# du -kd1 Users/
3913028 Users//blloyd
1632 Users//gern
5368 Users//joe
7364 Users//Shared
3927400 Users/
This shows how many KB are in use in each of the folders... so it should give an accurate idea of exactly how much disk space is in use (it may be more accurate than "Get Info," and certainly it's all grouped in one place). If the info returned by this is significantly different than what quotas are reporting, then something else is afoot, and it may be time to get down with your command-line bad self to muck around and see what's going on. For example, here's a partial on 'repquota' on my root file system:
pmg5:/ root# repquota /
1K Block limits File limits
User used soft hard grace used soft hard grace
1026 -- 16476 0 0 316 0 0
gern -- 12712 0 0 107 0 0
blloyd -- 3994748 0 0 3510 0 0
It does a pretty good job agreeing with what "my" user on the server is using.
See if these are in agreement.
I wouldn't really suggest manually futzing with someone's trash folder (it's in ~/.Trashes), because if you delete it, their trash will quit working. You could descend into there via the command line and delete stuff... but really, force them to empty their own trash... use the quota to block them from doing anything else once they use too much disk space. Users need to learn to empty the trash... just like 4 year old kids do

Bookmark Toolbar entries not showing up in blank space allocated for them under Navigation Toolbar.

Using Firefox 3.6.13 and 4.0b8. Both are not showing up my Bookmark Toolbar entries. The item does exist. I've used Firefox for years and that toolbar has always showed up. Confirmed that it still exists and was not inadvertently trashed by viewing item and listing when opting to Manage Bookmarks. The item is checked off for display in the menu drop-down (View-Toolbars-Bookmark Toolbar), the space where it would normally display my entries shows up directly under the Navigation Toolbar, but it is blank with no entries displayed.

In the View menu select Toolbars, and then Customize to open the customize toolbar dialog. With the customize toolbar dialog displayed, there should be an icon with the label "Bookmarks Toolbar Items" on the bookmarks toolbar. If it is not there, drag and drop the icon called Bookmarks from the customize toolbar dialog onto the bookmarks toolbar. There will be 2 icons called Bookmarks, the one you want will have an icon that looks like a sheet of paper (it does on Windows, I believe it is the same on the Mac).

Sga_target space allocation

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for