Space & HD limits

Question: How much free space to render 15-20gb footage?
Alright, now even though I've played a supporting role under F.F. Coppala and G. Lucas I've got no idea how I'm going to render 2 hours of archived B&W movie footage given the space left on my 150gb HD[possibly removing some 25 gigs of music...But that's my real love.]
I'm wondering since I'm really only doing archiving for movies, how much of the whole FCS program can I take out or move to a 500gb external Micronet drive[like the massive media files for Livetype.]
Thanks

Hey Jim,
thanks for the response; that's just it, I've got only 1.6gb rendered for a project on the internal, is that too much?
I figured that's probable, so I wanted to find out just how much more to should put externally and still be able to go through motion graphics and text, to DVD[before I let the Mac do this render again overnight]. So I'll take your advice and keep all media externally; but is Live Type just media or is it a necessary app.
Finally then without the rendered clips, is say 50gb free HD space going to be sufficient. I'm not trying this on the laptop, and have got Micronet Platinum fw 800-500gb.
It's odd how many people complain on the STP forum how slow a G5 2.0 with 2+gb ram is, personally I find it's o.k. My thinking is that this kind; video should really be done on a 2.7 processor, 8gb ram, isn't that what you're finding is best...[maybe someday].
Alrightcha'll thanks again,
muZAK
Power Mac G5 2GHz iBook g4 1.42GHz Mac OS X (10.4.7) 2.5GB ram

Similar Messages

How to split a large file when disk space is limited

I have a long (200 minutes) DV clip which uses up most [40 GB] of my external hard drive. The last 90 minutes of the clip is blank, and I need to delete the corresponding [18 GB] filespace to free-up space on my hard drive for editing.
How do I delete a portion of the file without having the 22 GB of free space Quicktime seems to need to temporarily store the new (smaller file).
Thanks,
David

I modified the program as follow:
ZipEntry entry = new ZipEntry(file.getName());
entry.setTime(file.lastModified());
zip.putNextEntry(entry);
byte[] bytes=new byte[1024];
int len;
while ((len=in.read(bytes))>0) {
zip.write(bytes,0,len);
And now it is working. I can zip a file with 125MB size.
Thank you for your help.
Michelle

Negotiating the space/port limitations

First off, please note that this is not a complaint about the size of the MBAir's SSD drive nor about its one USB port; I've had the machine for a week today, and took it on a business trip with me this week, and had this amazing moment upon leaving security of having to double-check my bag to make sure I had really put my laptop back in it. It's an absolute joy to travel with, and for the majority of what I do (which is sit and write), it's more than enough machine.
But here's the thing: I have a fairly big iTunes library. And I knew I was going to get a portable external hard drive to go with the MBAir (I got a 320GB WD Passport), and so I figured -- hey, genius! -- I'll put my iTunes library on the external drive. And it works like a charm, of course.
Except for the one detail I forgot: The MBAir is now my primary home machine (I have a new iMac in the office). And I've been using my home machine as my iPhone syncing station, and would like to keep it that way. But if I have to have the external drive connected in order to run iPhone -- well, there goes my USB port.
I can imagine several possibilities:
1. Using a USB hub, like perhaps the USB Squid, so that I can connect both the external drive and the iPhone at the same time. However, the (admittedly semi-ancient) USB hub I currently have passes enough power to the external drive to run it, but not to the iPhone (or, for that matter, to the USB-ethernet adapter). So I'm guessing that the Squid won't solve the problem, either.
2. Splitting my iTunes library so that the stuff I'm syncing to the iPhone is actually on the SSD, and everything else on the external drive. This obviously isn't the forum in which to ask if that would work, but if you've had experience with that, let me know.
3. Rearranging stuff so that the iTunes library is on the SSD and other stuff is on the external drive. Could be done, I guess, but I'd really rather not unless I absolutely have to. This was a nice, clean solution, that doesn't require me to hook up the external drive for most of my work.
4. Moving my primary iPhone syncing station to the office. Which I'd also rather not, as I'd prefer to be able to charge at home, and as the iPhone causes pretty bad interference in the external speakers I use in the office.
Are there other possibilities that you can imagine that I haven't thought of? If you're facing similar space/port issues, how have you resolved them?
Thanks!
Message was edited by: Kathleen Fitzpatrick

My practice is to keep itunes music on an external hard drive. When syncing my iphone, I choose to not sync music after my first sync was finished. My music doesn't change frequently enough to worry about syncing it every time. Most important to me are other frequently changing information such as calendar and address book. You can connect multiple devices to your USB port but the USB hub must have external power to allow your external hard drive to work.
So all of my files and programs including Office 2008 and Parallels reside on my internal SSD drive. Music and photos are all on the external drive. Connect both your iphone and USB drive for the first sync and select all music and photos you want on your iphone transfered. Then deselect music and photos for future sync transfers. Connect all your USB devices and sync all when you have new music and photos you want to have on your iphone.
I also use a program called Xslimmer to reduce the size of most applications files. It automatically takes out the parts of programs you seldom use such as non-english files. This saves several gig on your SSD. My MBair has all Apple programs, Parallels with 10 gig virtual drive, office and all my data files. I still have 28 gig available.
Good luck and enjoy.

Why the size of system table space is limited to 16383MB

Hi,
I am using 10.2.0.3.0 on linux 64 bit
I want to find out that why size of sysaux tablespace datafile is limited to 16383MB as shown in Enterprose manager, i am using 64 bit linux
sysaux tablespace
File Size (KB) 716800
AutoExtend Yes
Increment 10240KB
Maximum File Size 16383MB
Maximum File Size 16383MB

Hi,
4194304 * 4096 = 17179869184 = 16384GB (4096 = database block size)
Come sir..
Name Abbr. Size
Kilo K 2^10 = 1,024
Mega M 2^20 = 1,048,576
Giga G 2^30 = 1,073,741,824
Tera T 2^40 = 1,099,511,627,776
Peta P 2^50 = 1,125,899,906,842,624
Exa E 2^60 = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976
Zetta Z 2^70 = 1,180,591,620,717,411,303,424
Yotta Y 2^80 = 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176
Now, 1 MB = 1,048,576 * 4= 419304 (4 MB Block Size)
4 MB Block Size * database Block Size (4096) = 17179869184 Kilo Bytes
17179869184 /1024/ 1024 = 16384 GB
Got it
- Pavan Kumar

Combining several iMovie projects when disk space is limited

I have searched the Forum but cannot find a precise solution to my problem. If it already exists, could someone kindly point me in the right direction?
I have created three separate iMovie 06 projects which need to be combined into one continuous movie of about 40 min. duration. Each of the three projects is 11 - 12 GB in size, and I have only 6.5 GB space remaining on my hard drive.
Is there any way to combine the three projects? Or perhaps some way to import them all into iDVD to make a single DVD?
Thanks in advance!

Computer Rule No. 23: There's No Substitute for Disk Space
Computer Rule No. 24: You Never Have Enough Disk Space
Plan A) copy files to an external, MacOsExtended formatted harddrive.. erase originals; 6GB is dangerous little disk space, iDVD will freeze your whole system while working immediately ..
Plan A2) .. in case you have access to a 2nd Mac, you can launch that device in 'Target Mode' and connect it via firewire ... for 'abusing' it as an 'external drive'..
Plan B) playout finished projects to camera, erase projects, import from tape straight into iDVD.. but probably, again, not enough disk space for those 'hidden' temp files, iDVD has in use (=10-15GB free is min. rec. AFTER importing files/tapes .. )
Plan C) .. no, I don't think there's a 3rd plan .. aside purchasing disk space..

Resumable space allocation limitations

If a DDL operation such as CREATE TABLE or CREATE INDEX is executed with an explicit MAXEXTENTS setting (or uses the MAXEXTENTS setting from the tablespace DEFAULT STORAGE clause) which causes an out of space error during its execution, the operation will not be suspended.
Could somone explain the statement above with an example..or let me know of a site where I can find an example..
Thank you very much Guys!!!!

Yes....but if it will not show warning message how can I know that it has issues on space?When the execution of a resumable statement is suspended, there are mechanisms to perform user supplied operations, log errors, and to query the status of the statement execution. When a resumable statement is suspended the following actions are taken:
1. The error is reported in the alert log.
2. The system issues the Resumable Session Suspended alert.
3. If the user registered a trigger on the AFTER SUSPEND system event, the user trigger is executed. A user supplied PL/SQL procedure can access the error message data using the DBMS_RESUMABLE package and the DBA_ or USER_RESUMABLE view.
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28310/schema002.htm
Regards
Girish Sharma

I have a free version of Revel on my iPad. My space is limited. How can I combine my paid subscription with my free app? Or do I need a new app to go with my paid subscription ?

How can put a Revel App on my iPad? With my paid subscription.

Hi there,
The trial version and the paid version are the same. If you have subscribed to the premium version of Revel using the same email/password that you used on your trial version there is nothing you need do. You can continue using the same Revel app.
Glenyse

Firefox is consuming too much of my limited profile space

I have installed Firefox 4 on my company laptop running on Windows XP. The profile space is limited by the Adminstrator to 30MB. Nice, so I can logon to the network from anywhere without excessive waiting time. Unfortunately, Firefox 4, or places.sqlite to be more precise, consumes 80-90% of that profile space easily. Now I don't need my bookmarks to be stored in my profile, but this seems all automatic and unchangeable. Does anyone know a solution to:
a) Put places.sqlite and the rest of the .sqlite files somewhere else?
or
b) Keep the size of places.sqlite under control? I can vacuum the database, but next time I open Firefox 4 it is back up to 10MB, which will immediately make my profile oversize.
Thanks for any help!
Ronald van Eekelen

I had exactly the same problem.
I found a way to bypass that here: http://www.tweakguides.com/Firefox_9.html.
You just have to execute firefox.exe -profilemanager in DOS, create a new profile and you can browse to select a profile folder. Delete the older one named "default" and you're good to go no more problem with the infamous sqlplaces :-D.

Now that I have backed up, can I delete items from my desktop? One of the reasons I got the time capsule was so that I could free up some space on my computer. I am confused about whether the backup will one day remove my photos/video

I purchased a 2TB time capsule yesterday. I set it up as a router and did the backup no problem. I then navigated the backup folder and found that all my photos/video that I am nervous about losing are on there. So far so good.
Taking a step back, the reason I bought the time capsule was 1.) I needed a router 2.) I have a mac and 3.) I am running out of disk space on that mac (I shoot and cut a lot of video and have years of high quality pictures on my mac hard drive)
Can I now delete them from my mac computer to free space? I have used standard external disk drives in the past, but the whole "Back Up" piece of things has me confused. I love the idea of backing up my computer so I want to keep that functionality, but will the drive still function as a static external hard drive? Or do I need to move that material in seperately as a folder outside of the backup folder?
I am nervous that if the backup overwrites information as the disk space becomes limited that in 10 years when I fill this drive up, that I will lose all of my photos that are part of the backups that I am running now.....
Or worse, I am nervous that if I remove things from my mac right now, that the next time that a back up is performed that it will lose this data as it is not currently on the device I am backing up? How does this work?
I apologize, the back up is a very new concept to me and I want to make sure I do not goof anything up.

applefool wrote:
Taking a step back, the reason I bought the time capsule was . . . 3.) I am running out of disk space on that mac
That's an entirely different thing from backups. A backup is an extra copy, in case the original is lost or damaged.   Additional space is just that -- more space for originals.
While it's possible to use the same disk (such as the TC's internal HD) for both things, it's dangerous -- when (not if) something happens to the TC, you risk losing the originals that are on it.   To be safe, you need (at least) two copies of everything important, in (at least) two different places.
Many (including me) recommend at least three copies (originals plus 2 backups). While it's not common for the Mac's hard drive to fail about the same time as the backup drive, it does happen. There are several threads here where it did, and very expensive data recovery was needed, but in some cases everything was lost.
So as the others recommend, getting an external HD for the stuff there isn't room for on your Mac is one solution for not having enough space. But you might explore getting a larger internal HD.   If possible, that might be bettter.
Then, also get another external, for "secondary" backups, so you're doubly protected. If you get a portable model, you can take it offsite for even better protection. See #27 in Time Machine - Frequently Asked Questions for details and some suggestions.
Can I now delete them from my mac computer to free space? I have used standard external disk drives in the past, but the whole "Back Up" piece of things has me confused.
You're not the first or only one.
There are different types of backup apps, so there are different answers for the different types.
As the others have posted, Time Machine will, sooner or later, delete it's backup copies of things that are no longer on your system. Depending on how long the original was there and when backups were run, that can be in as little as 24 hours, or as long as there's room.   So no, don't take the chance with data that's important!
Is there helpful information on how to add an external drive to your backup set up?
See the green box in #2 of the FAQ article. All you have to do is format it for a Mac and remove it from the exclusion list.
           Once I set it up, will I need to leave the hard drive plugged into my mac in order for the data to be backed up?
It can only be backed-up while it's connected.
           If I do, and a back up is performed without the hard drive attached to my computer, will it remove the backup of what was on the hard drive
No (unless you leave it disconnected until Time Machine starts deleting old backups).
It will back up the external when it's connected, and not complain if it isn't.

Maximum possible memory address space using OS 10.6.2 and iMac 8,1. . .

Hello,
My understanding of the 4 GB spec. of maximum supported RAM for my iMac 8,1 is that it is a legacy of 32 bit architecture, where the address space is 2^32 unique addresses. But that is for a 32 bit system. . .
Obviously my (and most other) mac is configured with 64 bit architecture, add Snow Leopard (using 64 bit kernal) to the mix, and I expect the address space to follow suite, and support 2^64 unique address (~16 terabytes of RAM).
So it seems that the 4 GB spec. is obsolete.
Can anyone provide for me a clear technical explanation of this? (Or point me to such a resource.) I'm not really interested in anecdotal information of the "I plugged it in and the System Profiler said X" variety. I've searched this forum and Google for an answer to this question to no avail.
Thanks,
-SkepticalRobot
Message was edited by: SkepticalRobot

You seem to understand correctly. What is it you want to know?
When your computer is booted into the 32-bit kernel the memory space accessible is restricted to the 32-bit limit of 4 GBs. Thus, running a 64-bit capable application still limits the application to the 4 GBs unless the application is written to allow it to address more than that. I don't know if any such application exists for OS X. If you boot the 64-bit kernel (requires that your model will boot the kernel) then the address space is limited by the 64-bit maximum of 16 TBs.
In order to take advantage of the increased memory space you must use only 64-bit capable applications that can address that much memory. You also would need to be able to install that much RAM in the computer. Your model supports a maximum of 6 GBs.
It's questionable whether booting the 64-bit kernel makes much sense given that you cannot install enough RAM to much exceed what is usable with the 32-bit kernel which is a maximum of 8 GBs (4 GBs per channel, and the hardware is dual-channel.) Furthermore, there are no larger memory modules for laptops than 4 GBs, and they are very expensive. And, there's a limited number of third-party applications and utilities that are 64-bit capable. This is especially a problem for system extension modules which may not be 64-bit capable and will not work with the 64-bit kernel.

Time Machine Space Problem

When I attempt to backup using Time Machine, I get an error stating that there is not enough space on my external drive...that I should exlude files from the backup. I've never run into this problem before. In the past, when space became limited on my external backup drive, Time Machine would simply delete the oldest files and then proceed with the backup.
I've searched the forums and can't find any similar cases. Is there any adjustments I need to make somewhere? Any suggesstions or help would be appreciated.
I have a MacBook Pro with OS 10.6.8.
Thanks.

Thanks. I read Pondini article and tried various suggestions for my OS. No luck. Still getting message that Time Machine can't back up to my BackUp drive. 'Need to exclude files or select larger backup disc.'

Oracle Express Limitation

Good day
As specified in the documentation Oracle Express offers the following space storage limitations. To clarify what defines the storage space, can you please answer the questions below. Here are the four limitation as specified in the Oracle Express documentation
1- User data cannot exceed 4 gigabytes in size (in addition to Oracle system data).
2- Each computer can host only one instance of Oracle Express.
3 - Oracle Express may be installed on a multiple CPU machine, but it will execute (run) only on a single processor or a single processor core if multi-core processors are used.
4- Oracle Express may be installed on a server with any amount of memory, but will use only up to 1 GB of available RAM memory.
User data cannot exceed 4 gigabytes in size (in addition to Oracle system data).
QUESTION 1 - Please confirm that the ENTIRE 4 GIG is allocated for user storage not oracle files storage?
QUESTION 1 - Please confirm that the 4 GIG limitation DOES NOT include space used by Oracle system files (SYS and SYSTEM)?
QUESTION 2 - Please confirm that the 4 GIG limitation DOES NOT include space used by Oracle Temp files and Undo / Redo files (TEMP and UNDO)?
QUESTION 3- Please confirm that the 4 GIG limitation DOES NOT include space used by Oracle CONTROL FILE and BLOCK CHANGE TRACKING files?
QUESTION 4 - What query can I run to identify the used space within the 4 GIG allocated storage space?
I have also heard that the overall Physical size is limited to 5 GIG (Need to know is this is true. It is not mentionned in Oracle Express documentation)
QUESTION 1 - Does Oracle Express limits the overall database physical size to 5 GIG?
QUESTION 2 - If Question 1 is true -- Please confirm that the 5 GIG limitation DOES NOT include space used by TEMP and UNDO / REDO files?
QUESTION 3 - If Question 1 is true -- Does the 5 GIG limitation includes space used by SYS and SYSTEM files?
QUESTION 4 - If Question 1 is true -- Does the 5 GIG limitation includes space used by CONTROL FILE and BLOCK CHANGE TRACKING files?
QUESTION 5 - What query can I run to identify the overall database size?
Thank you in advance for your help. I really appreciate it.

What query can I run to identify the overall database size?Try this :SQL> select sum(bytes) from dba_data_files
2 where tablespace_name not in (select tablespace_name
3 from dba_tablespaces where contents = 'UNDO');

Aperture library takes up twice the space of identical iPhoto library

I imported my iPhoto library into a new library because I thought it would possibly save space (since Apple advertises that Aperture libraries save space). But somehow my 14GB iPhoto library imported into a brand new Aperture library ended up with 23GB. Why would that be?

It's the latest iPhoto version as well. I know they can read each other's libraries. I just wanted to see if the version Aperture creates is more efficient. Already seems it isn't. Thinking I may stick with iPhoto if Aperture will increase my library size more than iPhoto over time. I'm on a retina MBP and space is limited.

Correct export color space for wide gamut monitors.

Running a photography studio I have 4 typical scenarios of how clients or end users will see my photo work. I create and edit the photos using LR 3 on a HP 2475w (wide gamut) monitor. I'm aware that there are color shifts, but trying to figure out which export color space to use to be most consistent.
A) Wide Gamut monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
B) Wide Gamut monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
C) Standard monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
D) Standard monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
A) gives the best results and that's what I run myself. No matter the color space that I export (sRGB, aRGB, or my custom calibrated ICC) the images appear to be correct 100%
B) gives mixed results...the hosting site for my photos seems to oversaturate a bit when I view the photos in their preview size which is what my clients see, when I view the original photo in full resolution (this feature disabled for my clients to avoid them downloading full rez copies of images), then the images appears a bit dull (70%). When I try this same scenario using aRGB export, it looks better (90-95%). When I export it using my monitor profile then the photo is spot on 100% however my monitor profile shows the photo incorrectly when viewing it using the standard Windows Vista photo viewer, it appears lighter and less saturated which I guess I expect since it's not color managed.
C) On a standard monitor the photos all look the same regardless of color space export so long as I use a color managed browser such as Firefox.
D) This gives pretty much the same breakdown of results as scenario B above. At the moment, it appears that when I use my custom ICC profile which is the calibration of my monitor...I get the best web results.
However my custom ICC profile gives me the worst local results within my windows viewer and when my clients load the photos on their machines, no doubt they will look just as bad on theirs regardless of which monitor they use. So aRGB seems to be the best choice for output. Anyone else do this? It's significantly better when viewing in IE on both Wide Gamut and Standard LCD's when compared to sRGB.
I would guess that my typical client has a laptop with Windows and they will both view the photos locally and upload them on the web, so it needs to look as close to what it looks like when I'm processing it in LR and Photoshop as possible. I know that a lot of people ask questions about their photos being off because they don't understand that there's a shift between WG and non-WG monitors, but I get that there's a difference...question is which color space export has worked best for others.

I am saying that since images on the internet are with extremely few
exceptions targeted towards sRGB. It is extremely common for those images to
not contain ICC profiles even if they really are sRGB. If they do not
contain ICC profiles in the default mode in Firefox, Firefox (as well as
Safari btw, another color managed browser), will not convert to the monitor
profile but will send the image straight to the monitor. This means that on
a wide gamut display, the colors will look oversaturated. You've no doubt
seen this on your display, but perhaps you've gotten used to it. If you
enable the "1" color management mode, Firefox will translate every image to
the monitor profile. This will make the colors on your display more
realistic and more predictable (since your monitor's very specific
properties no longer interfere and the image's colors are displayed as they
really are) for many sites including many photographic ones. This is most
important on a wide gamut display and not that big of a deal on a standard
monitor, which usually is closer to sRGB.
It seems you are suggesting that for a wide-gamut display it is better to
try using your own monitor's calibration profile on everything out there,
assuming on images posted with a wider gamat it will get you more color
range while there would be nothing lost for images posted in sRGB.
Indeed. The point of color management is to make the specific
characteristics of your monitor not a factor anymore and to make sure that
you see the correct color as described in the working space (almost always
sRGB on the web). This only breaks down when the color to be displayed is
outside of the monitor's gamut. In that case the color will typically get
clipped to the monitor's gamut. The other way around, if your original is in
sRGB and your monitor is closer to adobeRGB, the file's color space is
limiting. For your monitor, you want to make the system (Firefox in this
case) assume that untagged files are in sRGB as that is what the entire
world works in and translate those to the monitor profile. When you
encounter adobeRGB or wider files (extremely rare but does happen), it will
do the right thing and translate from that color space to the monitor
profile.
Wide gamut displays are great but you have to know what you are doing. For
almost everybody, even photographers a standard gamut monitor is often a
better choice. One thing is that you should not use unmanaged browsers on
wide gamut displays as your colors will be completely out of whack even on
calibrated monitors. This limits you to Firefox and Safari. Firefox has the
secret option to enable color management for every image. Safari doesn't
have this. There is one remaining problem, which is flash content on
websites. Flash does not color manage by default and a lot of flash content
will look very garish on your wide gamut display. This includes a lot of
photographer's websites.

Do Photostreams from others consume hard drive space on OSX 8 ?

I have a MacBook Pro with an SSD drive, so drive space is limited. I am running OSX 10.8.4. I have a few Photo Stream subscritions from others than I have subscribed to. One of them has about 400 photos in it. I was wonderfing if these are taking up hard drive space on my machine? Is there a way to check to see how much space it is usng up?

Thank you, that's good to know that the photos are not downloaded locally on the machine, taking up drive space. This sounds different than with my IOS devices, since I am able to see the photos even with a connection to the Internet.

Space & HD limits

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for