Track levels suddenly much higher than normal. ?!?!?

Need some help friends... I have a problem that I can't seem to fix;
When I boot up an existing song or project, the levels shown on most of my tracks are peaking but the sound isn't clipping. The faders were all well below zero normally but for some reason now the levels are much higher and in the red. Why? The whole song sounds the same as far as I can tell but the levels shown on the faders are all much, much higher! The only way to reduce them is to remove the compression and other plugins from the track but I need a way to just restore the original levels...
Many thanks in advance for any suggestions,
If you need any info - please ask - i really want to sort this out asap.
Acoma

So how come BeeJay gets a "Helpful" and I do not when I am the one who correctly diagnosed the problem? Sheesh!
That's 'cos I'm much prettier than you!
Er, no, wait... the other thing...
(In any case, when I saw the original question, I left it for you to answer as you are the chief PFM-advocate around here... )

Similar Messages

Higher than normal cpu for fed (PunjectRx) process

I noticed on my 3850 that the CPU seems to have gone up overnight a fed days ago and has stayed there. Everything seems to be fine at the moment but I was just wondering what the process is that's causing it (google gives me nothing) and if I should be worried.
Running show processes cpu sorted gives me this:
Core 0: CPU utilization for five seconds: 15%; one minute: 18%; five minutes: 25%
Core 1: CPU utilization for five seconds: 97%; one minute: 45%; five minutes: 34%
Core 2: CPU utilization for five seconds: 15%; one minute: 51%; five minutes: 39%
Core 3: CPU utilization for five seconds: 10%; one minute: 20%; five minutes: 42%
PID    Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec     1Min     5Min     TTY   Process
5711   183846      14637156 217    27.84    27.34    27.31    1088 fed
10184 481691      20810070 573    5.20     5.37     6.54     34816 iosd
I asked for detailed info on the fed process and got the output below. As you'll notice, the high cpu value on the core doesn't always show up on the same core. What is that PunjectRx process that's responsible for the higher than normal value do?
Core 0: CPU utilization for five seconds: 20%; one minute: 27%; five minutes: 30%
Core 1: CPU utilization for five seconds: 18%; one minute: 24%; five minutes: 28%
Core 2: CPU utilization for five seconds: 8%; one minute: 25%; five minutes: 34%
Core 3: CPU utilization for five seconds: 92%; one minute: 70%; five minutes: 52%
PID     T C TID     Runtime(ms) Invoked   uSecs 5Sec   1Min 5Min TTY   Process
5711    L            18656       146354252 217    26.9   27.2 27.3 1088 fed
5711    L 3 5711    29060       7853      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 1088 fed
5711    L 0 6144    2809206     23626670 0      0.00   0.01 0.02 1088 fed
5711    L 1 6145    5570        313407    0      0.00   0.00 0.00 1088 fed
5711    L 0 6146    296459      269367770 0      0.00   0.05 0.05 1088 CMI default xdm
5711    L 0 6147    3270        209596    0      0.00   0.00 0.00 1088 fed
5711    L 1 6150    2014171     254472866 0      0.34   0.30 0.29 0     fed-ots-main
5711    L 2 6151    600         13111     0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     fed-ots-mo
5711    L 2 6153    3715892     3065842   0      0.48   0.48 0.48 0     fed-ots-nfl
5711    L 0 6154    326140      18702233 0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     fed
5711    L 0 6155    137920      3126591   0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     pdslib thread
5711    L 0 6156    1820820     117290277 0      0.00   0.02 0.02 0     Timer
5711    L 2 6157    0           2805      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     fed
5711    L 0 6176    290660      152790809 0      0.72   0.77 0.73 0     IntrDrv
5711    L 0 6179    486230      31194756 0      0.00   0.02 0.01 0     LED
5711    L 0 10160   60          9427      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     Xcvr
5711    L 0 10162   233781      204227456 0      0.24   0.24 0.24 0     Xcvr
5711    L 2 10686   50780       1309757   0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     PdsEvent
5711    L 3 10687   2302060     113878739 0      24.0   24.0 24.0 0     PunjectRx
5711    L 2 10688   2689529     198752351 0      1.15   1.34 1.39 0     PunjectTx
5711    L 3 10689   0           7522      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     Consistency
5711    L 2 10690   0           7522      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     ShFwd
5711    L 0 10692   0           7544      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     eicore_bdn
5711    L 0 10693   0           7544      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     eicore_bdn
5711    L 0 10694   0           7544      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     eicore_bdn
5711    L 0 10696   50          7599      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     eicore_ipc
5711    L 3 10717   0           7752      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     fed
5711    L 0 10952   0           7849      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     fed
5711    L 0 11072   4281230     128013576 0      0.00   0.01 0.02 0     XcvrPoll

Seeing similar here on 3850 stack. Running 03.03.01SE IOS-XE.
Core 0: CPU utilization for five seconds: 45%; one minute: 40%; five minutes: 39%
Core 1: CPU utilization for five seconds: 57%; one minute: 46%; five minutes: 45%
Core 2: CPU utilization for five seconds: 58%; one minute: 57%; five minutes: 54%
Core 3: CPU utilization for five seconds: 39%; one minute: 56%; five minutes: 56%
PID     T C TID     Runtime(ms) Invoked   uSecs 5Sec   1Min 5Min TTY   Process
5679    L            2207615     162418091 66     23.7   23.1 22.7 1088 fed
5679    L 2 5679    29940       7879      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 1088 fed
5679    L 0 6112    321780      319764    0      0.00   0.03 0.04 1088 fed
5679    L 2 6113    520         24080     0      0.00   0.00 0.00 1088 fed
5679    L 2 6114    8770        5395188   0      0.00   0.03 0.04 0     CMI default xdm
5679    L 1 6115    320         16534     0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     fed
5679    L 2 6118    1130370     5020432   0      0.62   0.74 0.74 0     fed-ots-main
5679    L 1 6119    20          1303      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     fed-ots-mo
5679    L 2 6121    3855140     224587    0      0.52   0.49 0.48 0     fed-ots-nfl
5679    L 1 6122    23500       1399239   0      0.00   0.04 0.01 0     fed
5679    L 2 6123    11430       231772    0      0.00   0.01 0.03 0     pdslib thread
5679    L 1 6124    189270      9882134   0      0.05   0.04 0.04 0     Timer
5679    L 1 6125    0           2808      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     fed
5679    L 1 6144    793970      8150598   0      0.29   0.21 0.20 0     IntrDrv
5679    L 1 6147    33730       2295636   0      0.00   0.01 0.00 0     LED
5679    L 0 10452   40          9474      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     Xcvr
5679    L 1 10456   1922330     107887089 0      0.33   0.22 0.20 0     Xcvr
5679    L 3 12275   110         10697     0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     PdsEvent
5679    L 2 12276   980070      7963687   0      0.71   0.49 0.48 0     PunjectRx
5679    L 0 12277   1263190     4878455   0      21.1   20.8 20.5 0     PunjectTx
5679    L 0 12278   0           7567      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     Consistency
5679    L 0 12279   0           7567      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     ShFwd
5679    L 1 12283   0           7580      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     eicore_bdn
5679    L 1 12284   0           7580      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     eicore_bdn
5679    L 1 12285   0           7579      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     eicore_bdn
5679    L 3 12289   10          7608      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     eicore_ipc
5679    L 0 12298   0           7788      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     fed
5679    L 2 12610   0           7875      0      0.00   0.00 0.00 0     fed
5679    L 2 12801   233040      8635591   0      0.05   0.02 0.03 0     XcvrPoll

Help with Photoshop CS2 files MUCH larger than normal, possibly not compessing layer masks

Has anyone else come across a problem where Photoshop files grow in size much faster than expected, especially when adding layer masks?
Normally when you add a layer mask the file size grow a small amount if the layer mask is mostly all white or mostly all black. In this case it's like the file size is growing exponentially, almost as if the layer mask isn't being compressed at all.
The file in question although large, is similar dimensions, resolution, and number of layers as other projects that have been worked on and all the usual thing have been checked like resolution, colour mode, bit depth and the image has also been cropped so there's nothing outside of the page.
The file has been checked on 2 different macs and exhibits the same behaviour and Photoshop preferences have been deleted and re-created and we've tried copying the file by dragging layers to a new document of the same dimensions with no success.
The only things we're certain of is that file size grows dramatically when adding layer masks in particular and layers in general.
The file was created by someone else, if that might be a factor, though the file has been "saved as.." with no improvement.
Any ideas?
TIA
Tom
The only

Maybe it has something to do with "Maximize Compatibility". If that's checked when you save, it might add a lot of weight to your file, even with just a simple layer mask. Don't know, haven't done any testing, just a thought.
Edit: Just did a quick test:
1. flat image saved as PSD = 5.2 MB
2. same image converted to a layer with simple layer mask, saved as PSD = 5.8 MB
3. same layer mask image saved WITH "maximize compatibility" = 10.7 MB
So adding "maximize compatibility" nearly doubled this test file. Could be it?

Number of Records Loaded for 2LIS_02_HDR much higher than expected

Hi, I just did a setup for 2LIS_02_HDR and in table EKKO has 1.2 million and in bw it looks like it is loading well over 6 million right now. Is this because the HDR collects up detail information for header aggregation? Even with that I don't expect 6 million records.
Any ideas? I'm fairly certain I put in all the right parameters in my setup load! Any way to check?
thanks!

>
Kenneth Murray wrote:
> Hi, I just did a setup for 2LIS_02_HDR and in table EKKO has 1.2 million and in bw it looks like it is loading well over 6 million right now. Is this because the HDR collects up detail information for header aggregation? Even with that I don't expect 6 million records.
>
> Any ideas? I'm fairly certain I put in all the right parameters in my setup load! Any way to check?
>
> thanks!
Hi,
please check following :
1. setup most not be filled repeatdly.... in case if its filled multiple times it wil give u higher no. of records than expected. Kindly check in number of entries in table "MC11VA0HDRSETUP".
2. If records are higher than expected than please delete data for application 02 using tcode LBWG and refill it.
Thanks
Dipika

Time Capsule setup not working. Network much stricter than normal networks.

I recently purchased a Time Capsule and am trying to set it up under a very tightly controlled network that my dorms use. We are offered internet access through an ethernet port in the wall or through wireless. The internet here is restricted to the point where we must input our individual student passwords in order to access the internet. Also, in the initial setup, a client security agent had to be installed just to be able to gain access to websites.
My ideal for the Time Capsule would be to use its USB port for wireless access to my printer, use its base station ability to better the weak connection I get from my room, and to use it for Time Machine for my Macbook Pro.
My initial attempt to set up the Time Capsule used my laptop's connection on the wireless network and the wired ethernet connection of the Time Capsule. Once the Time Capsule established its connection, my laptop could no longer access the internet. The Security Client Agent Registration/download page for our dorms came up. It wasn't until I reset the Time Capsule did I regain my internet connection on my laptop. This made me believe that only one device could use my individual password at one time.
Time Capsule is probably very easy to setup but these network conditions are making it much more difficult. This has caused problems for connecting my iPod Touch as well.
How should I go about setting up the Time Capsule in order to gain the ideal as closely as possible?
Thanks for any help that anyone can offer.

sounds like a DNS problem to me..
Try to ping a server by his name instead of its IP.
If, for e.g. you can ping www.apple.com with success, DNS will not be the reason.
Otherwise, if DNS is the reason, this could be just a temporary fault.
Maybe the DNS server of your ISP went down or the DNS server (more or less a DNS cache) in your BT Business Router have a problem.
Try to restart the BT while the TC is powered down. After restart, power on the TC and reconnect your Mac to the WiFi.

Mileage display is much higher than audible mileage??

So ever since I update my Nano w/video to 1.0.2 something bizarre has started happening.
When I look at the screen on the nano it will tell me something insanely high, let's say 6 miles.
When I press the center button the lovely voice tells me the accurate mileage, usually about half.
When I get home and sync it shows my last run in iTunes as the higher mileage, but on the Nike+ website it displays the correct mileage.
Bizarre....

I am experiencing the same exact problem. The reading on the screen is ~ 1.6 times the true mileage covered, but the pace & times are correct and when you upload the data to nikeplus it uploads the correct data. This all started after I upgraded to 1.0.2, it immediately changed all the stored readings in the history by a fatcor of 1.6!
Is there a fix or do we just wait for the next nano 2nd gen update?

Intel i7-4800MQ CPU Power Consuming is much higher than Windows

On Windows 8.1, I run CPU-Z to generate these information:
Processor 1 ID = 0
Number of cores 4 (max 8)
Number of threads 8 (max 16)
Name Intel Core i7 4800MQ
Codename Haswell
Specification Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4800MQ CPU @ 2.70GHz
Package (platform ID) Socket 947 rPGA (0x4)
Core Stepping C0
Technology 22 nm
TDP Limit 47 Watts
***Core Speed 799.0 MHz***
Multiplier x Bus Speed 8.0 x 99.9 MHz
Stock frequency 2700 MHz
Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, EM64T, VT-x, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3
Turbo Mode supported, enabled
Max non-turbo ratio 27x
Max turbo ratio 37x
Max efficiency ratio 8x
You see: This CPU can run at 800MHz(Core Voltage 0.6 v) on windows, when there is no CPU toast Task. The fan is quiet.
===========================================================
But on Arch Linux, I run the latest i7z-git, I got these information:
Cpu speed from cpuinfo 2693.00Mhz
cpuinfo might be wrong if cpufreq is enabled. To guess correctly try estimating via tsc
Linux's inbuilt cpu_khz code emulated now
True Frequency (without accounting Turbo) 2693 MHz
CPU Multiplier 27x || Bus clock frequency (BCLK) 99.74 MHz
Socket [0] - [physical cores=4, logical cores=8, max online cores ever=4]
TURBO ENABLED on 4 Cores, Hyper Threading ON
Max Frequency without considering Turbo 2792.74 MHz (99.74 x [28])
Max TURBO Multiplier (if Enabled) with 1/2/3/4 Cores is 37x/36x/35x/35x
Real Current Frequency 2653.53 MHz [99.74 x 26.60] (Max of below)
Core [core-id] :Actual Freq (Mult.) C0% Halt(C1)% C3 % C6 % C7 % Temp VCo
Core 1 [0]: 2625.75 (26.33x) 2.45 16.6 1 2.39 77.6 40 0.89
Core 2 [1]: 2653.53 (26.60x) 1 1.14 2.44 1 94.4 40 0.89
Core 3 [2]: 2628.92 (26.36x) 1.41 4.7 1 0 92.9 42 0.89
Core 4 [3]: 2631.18 (26.38x) 2.29 20.4 1.44 1 74.9 39 0.89
CPU can only run at 2.7Ghz (or higher in turbo model), and Core Voltage is 0.89 v. Tha fan is very noisy.
I try many method in CPU power saving, but can not find the solution. Is there any diffierent in power management between Linux and windows?

Gusar wrote:
silenceleaf wrote:I compare the power consuming with windows.
How exactly? That was my question. Just the voltage report? Or do you actually notice something is not right, like shorter battery life? Different tools could possibly measure things differently. Try turbostat, it's in AUR.
Fan management can also be unrelated to actual power consumption. I've wondered before whether pstate, because it works differently, is confusing whatever is responsible for controlling the fans. What brand of laptop do you have? Post the output of lsmod.
And again, just because a tool says the frequency is at 2700MHz, does not mean the processor is actually at that frequency! It is not most of the time.
Thank you for your help.
I am using dell M4800 laptop which have a 97Wh battery. Mainly browing web page and typing some documents. In windows, its battery can last for 5 hours. In linux, it can only last 3 hours.
I am also trying to find more evidence to compare the power consuming between these two platforms. I understand your meaning. It is hard to fairly compare these two environment. I am strill trying to find more information.
lsmod output
Module Size Used by
rfcomm 50698 12
btusb 19648 0
hid_generic 1153 0
snd_usb_audio 117811 2
uvcvideo 72804 0
videobuf2_vmalloc 3304 1 uvcvideo
snd_usbmidi_lib 19755 1 snd_usb_audio
videobuf2_memops 2335 1 videobuf2_vmalloc
snd_rawmidi 18742 1 snd_usbmidi_lib
videobuf2_core 28243 1 uvcvideo
snd_seq_device 5180 1 snd_rawmidi
videodev 111840 2 uvcvideo,videobuf2_core
media 11719 2 uvcvideo,videodev
usbhid 40545 0
hid 90902 2 hid_generic,usbhid
ctr 3831 2
ccm 7894 2
nvidia 10621191 2
snd_hda_codec_hdmi 36379 1
joydev 9631 0
mousedev 10247 0
dell_wmi 1485 0
sparse_keymap 3146 1 dell_wmi
bnep 13053 2
bluetooth 326343 30 bnep,btusb,rfcomm
arc4 2000 2
x86_pkg_temp_thermal 6991 0
intel_powerclamp 8802 0
coretemp 6358 0
kvm_intel 131532 0
kvm 396221 1 kvm_intel
crct10dif_pclmul 4682 0
crct10dif_common 1372 1 crct10dif_pclmul
crc32_pclmul 2923 0
crc32c_intel 14185 0
ghash_clmulni_intel 4405 0
aesni_intel 45548 4
aes_x86_64 7399 1 aesni_intel
lrw 3565 1 aesni_intel
gf128mul 5858 1 lrw
glue_helper 4417 1 aesni_intel
ablk_helper 2004 1 aesni_intel
cryptd 8409 3 ghash_clmulni_intel,aesni_intel,ablk_helper
snd_hda_codec_realtek 45083 1
iTCO_wdt 5407 0
iTCO_vendor_support 1929 1 iTCO_wdt
ppdev 7118 0
fuse 76830 3
dell_laptop 12389 0
dcdbas 6463 1 dell_laptop
iwlmvm 136091 0
mac80211 474777 1 iwlmvm
microcode 15216 0
iwlwifi 140001 1 iwlmvm
i2c_i801 11269 0
psmouse 88171 0
pcspkr 2027 0
evdev 11045 22
serio_raw 5009 0
i915 725519 5
snd_hda_intel 37352 4
cfg80211 408167 3 iwlwifi,mac80211,iwlmvm
snd_hda_codec 150017 3 snd_hda_codec_realtek,snd_hda_codec_hdmi,snd_hda_intel
snd_hwdep 6332 2 snd_usb_audio,snd_hda_codec
snd_pcm 77822 4 snd_usb_audio,snd_hda_codec_hdmi,snd_hda_codec,snd_hda_intel
intel_agp 10872 1 i915
intel_gtt 12664 2 i915,intel_agp
snd_page_alloc 7298 2 snd_pcm,snd_hda_intel
drm_kms_helper 35710 1 i915
snd_timer 18718 1 snd_pcm
rfkill 15651 5 cfg80211,bluetooth,dell_laptop
drm 239102 5 i915,drm_kms_helper,nvidia
lpc_ich 13368 0
i2c_algo_bit 5391 1 i915
i2c_core 24760 7 drm,i915,i2c_i801,drm_kms_helper,i2c_algo_bit,nvidia,videodev
mei_me 9552 0
snd 59029 23 snd_hda_codec_realtek,snd_usb_audio,snd_hwdep,snd_timer,snd_hda_codec_hdmi,snd_pcm,snd_rawmidi,snd_usbmidi_lib,snd_hda_codec,snd_hda_intel,snd_seq_device
mei 62803 1 mei_me
soundcore 5418 1 snd
e1000e 222900 0
ptp 8244 1 e1000e
pps_core 8833 1 ptp
shpchp 25425 0
thermal 8556 0
wmi 8251 1 dell_wmi
parport_pc 19479 0
parport 30517 2 ppdev,parport_pc
video 11425 1 i915
ac 3334 0
battery 7565 0
processor 24620 0
button 4605 1 i915
vboxdrv 264122 0
msr 2565 0
ext4 473259 2
crc16 1359 2 ext4,bluetooth
mbcache 6074 1 ext4
jbd2 80912 1 ext4
sr_mod 14930 0
sd_mod 31361 5
cdrom 34880 1 sr_mod
atkbd 16806 0
libps2 4187 2 atkbd,psmouse
ahci 23048 3
libahci 21698 1 ahci
libata 172104 2 ahci,libahci
sdhci_pci 12604 0
ehci_pci 3928 0
sdhci 28820 1 sdhci_pci
xhci_hcd 144681 0
ehci_hcd 64171 1 ehci_pci
scsi_mod 132250 3 libata,sd_mod,sr_mod
mmc_core 95465 2 sdhci,sdhci_pci
usbcore 180320 8 btusb,snd_usb_audio,uvcvideo,snd_usbmidi_lib,ehci_hcd,ehci_pci,usbhid,xhci_hcd
usb_common 1648 1 usbcore
i8042 13366 2 libps2,dell_laptop
serio 10721 6 serio_raw,atkbd,i8042,psmouse

Used Space is much higher than actual space used in the partition

Hi All,
I am facing space problem in oracle Linux 5.3.
The parition /oradata is showing Used space as 379 GB when checked with df -TH command and when i go to partition and check space with du -sh command it is showing 280 GB.
How could i reclaim the space.
[orah@hih oracle]$ df -TH
Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda3 ext3 16G 1.0G 14G 7% /
/dev/sda4 ext3 11G 2.9G 6.8G 31% /usr
/dev/sdb5 ext3 11G 158M 9.5G 2% /tmp
/dev/sdb3 ext3 51G 189M 48G 1% /orasig
/dev/sdb2 ext3 11G 277M 9.4G 3% /var
/dev/sdb1 ext3 71G 12G 56G 17% /oracle
/dev/sda1 ext3 104M 16M 83M 17% /boot
tmpfs tmpfs 26G 9.6M 26G 1% /dev/shm
/dev/sdc ext3 529G 379G 140G 74% /oradata
/dev/sdd ext3 529G 401G 128G 76% /orabkp
/dev/sde ext3 212G 197G 14G 94% /oraprod1
/dev/sdf ext3 119G 73G 45G 63% /stage
Rgds,
Alig

What is your output of df -h?
-H uses powers of 1000, not 1024. Computer memory uses binary logic based on the power of 2 (2^10 = 1024, 8 * 8 * 8 * 2 = 1024)
Anyway, df and du measure different things:
"du" reports the space used by files and folders
"df" reports the space used by the file system, which includes the overhead for journals and inode tables.
If a file is open by a user and the same file is deleted then df and du will report different output.
A reboot of the system should align df and du output more closely.

Performance Requirements much higher than in Express 7 ???

Hi,
I am using a G5 Dual-Core 2.oGHz PowerMac and alsways found that I could work very comfortably with Logic Express 7. Since I upgraded to LE 8 I found that it uses up to 50% (!!!) more CPU power running the same projects as LE7 before. I even find myself quite often in the situation that I get CPU overloads - this happened extremely rarely before.
What can i do to minimize the CPU load in LE 8? The way it is now, it looks like I have to go back to LE 7 .....:-(
Greetings
Andreas

Great!
I'm just upgrading from Garageband - never got round to buying LE7 - went out and bought 8 - loaded it up, tried a demo and - wayhey - system overload! I've just added some more ram (2.5GB) - why is it overloading? I haven't even recorded anything yet! This is the kind of stuff I though I left behind with my eMac 700mhz!
Anyone any ideas folks?
Confused
mackers

Rman backup size for Dr db is very much higher than that of primary db

Hi All,
My production database on Oracle 10.2.0.4 had a physical size of 897 Gb and logical size of around 800 Gb.
Old tables were truncated from the database and its logical size got reduced to 230 Gb.
Backup size is now 55Gb which used to be of 130 Gb before truncation.
Now this database has a DR configured. Backup of this DR database is daily taken which is used to refresh test environments.
But the backup size for DR database has not decreased. The restoration time while refreshing test environments is also same as before.
We had predicted that the backup size for DR database will also decrease and hence reducing the restoration time.
We take compressed RMAN backup.
What is the concept behind this?

When you duplicate a database it will restore all the datafiles from the RMAN backup. You will find the physical space of your source database. Remove the fragmented space using object movement. Then shrink the tablespaces and take fresh RMAN backup and restore.
Regards
Asif Kabir

Line rate is higher than attainable rate!

I've been on Infinity for 3 or 4 months now and have had consistently a BT profile of 72.3 to 72.86Mbps, the changes occuring after modem resets or power cycles. Attainable rate (via the standard modem hack) has been 75272 to 76184kbps. Line rate has been 500 to 900 kbps below the attainable rate.
A few days ago we had a major power cut in the local area including here, lasting for several hours and afterwards, everything worked as normal. Just now I decided to check my BT profile and modem stats, just out of interest, as you do. The results are interesting - my profile has gone up to 75.73/20.00 and the modem stats are what I thought was impossible - line rate is much higher than the attainable rate! Stats are below.
Line is stable and needless to say I am delighted - I am now getting speedtest d/l results 3Mbps higher than ever before (74Mbps), but can anyone explain how line rate can be above attainable rate?
Mode    VDSL2
Traffic type    PTM
DSL synchronization status    Up
DSL up time    272927
   Line Status
    Downstream    Upstream
Attainable rate (kbit/s)   75948   26179
SNR margin (dB)        5.4      15.1
Line attenuation (dB)      0          0
Output power (dBmV)         13      3.8
   Statistics
      Downstream    Upstream
Line rate (kbit/s)   78235    20000
CRC errors      0             0
FEC errors               981       178
HEC errors             2182    0

You must have a good line and probably have the cabinet in your front room!
Who knows! I wouldn't say it would be impossible to hit pass your attainable rate, i would only take these as estimates as much as everything else.
It was like when i was on copper, thinking my line could only sync at 4MB, but constantly synced at around 6.5-7MB which was good for me! lol!
If you want to say thanks for a helpful answer, please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side If the the reply answers your question then please mark as ’Mark as Accepted Solution

I received my new Verizon Edge bill in the mail and it is $80 higher than my old plan. I have been so unhappy with this change over. Went through hell getting our second phone activated because of a weird computer glitch and when we asked if we would re

I received my new Verizon Edge bill in the mail and it is $80 higher than my old plan. I have been so unhappy with this change over. Went through hell getting our second phone activated because of a weird computer glitch and when we asked if we would receive any consideration for the time, travel, and money we put into getting the phones the way they were supposed to be, we were told to wait until the bill came and then they could make adjustments. Now I have the bill and have no idea "who" the we would be that could make adjustments. To top it off, the only way I know my account will get any attention is to post this in chat. I am so disappointed and will be counting the months until our phones are paid off and we can change companies.

Call 800-922-0204
I just purchased a new device using Verizon Edge. Why does my bill look higher than normal?
There’s two reasons why your first bill after signing up for Edge might be higher than normal:
Prorate Charges – If you upgraded an existing line and did a price plan change, you may have price plan charges and credits that went into effect the day you upgraded.
Sales Tax – Most states require sales tax on the full retail price paid by the customer, which in most instances will be charged at the time of the first invoice.
Note: Customers who purchased devices in AL, AZ, CO, IL, NM, ND or SD will be billed taxes and surcharges monthly as payments are made.
Your bill will normally include:
Your last Edge installment payment
The next Edge installment charge
If you are on a MORE Everything Plan, a monthly access discount for each qualifying line.
The details of Edge installments and discounts can be viewed at the line level portion of your bill under Monthly Charges and Equipment Charges, or in My Verizon, My Bill then Charges By Line.

The bottom list of apps on my ipod touch screen is way higher than its suppose to be

hi i have an ipod touch 2nd generation i dont update it to often cause i have very very slow iternet and it can take up to 4 hours and i dont have the time to update it but the bottom list of apps i dont know what its called but i think its the app bar is way higher than normal i dont know why the only app i really use is pandora i dont know if that helps

HI,
Try a Reset of your Device... You will not lose any data
Turn iPod touch off and turn it on again.
Press and hold the Sleep/Wake button on top of iPod touch for a few seconds until a red slider appears, and then slide the slider.
Then press and hold the Sleep/Wake button until the Apple logo appears.
From Here http://support.apple.com/kb/ts2771

When updating my legacy app to my native app I get the error that the "APK code version must be higher than 2000000" . I've specified in the builder that this would be 4.0.0.0

I've tried to update but I get that error. But the thing is that the version i´'m uploading is 4.0.0.0
Any help?Digital Publishing Suite

The version code needs be be much higher than 6. Make it 20000007 or something like that.
Digital Publishing Suite Help | Setting version numbers in Web DPS App Builder

Another one with much higher BB usage than normal

Hi,
This is probably going to sound familiar to lots of people, but we also are recording much higher BB usage than normal. We are only on the 10gb package, as our max 512kb broadband doesn't make it worthwhile trying to do much with the www.
Our usage is usually pretty close to the 10gb, and in fact we have probably gone over it 3 or 4 times in the last 2 years (I work away a lot, so Skype gets hammered, which I know could be up to about 350mb/hour). Our average usage has been 9.87gb according to BT. I was home at the end of June, and decided to reactivate BT FON, and my wife and I also installed the Smarttalk app. Now, halfway through July, we are already up at over 7gb used.
The warning e-mail for 6gb used was last night, the usage monitor is already showing over 7gb - that is a heck of a lot of broadband usage for a property with such a slow connection. I have tried tackling BT in the past, and got absolutely nowhere, being told that although they could give me details of the previous weeks usage, they couldn't go back any further because that informaton was unavailable - unsatisfactory response, but that was all I could get.
Obviously BT are saying we could always go unlimited, but I'd rather find out what the issue is and why this sudden increase - we aren't using that much internet.
Iain

Iain_L wrote:
Hi,
This is probably going to sound familiar to lots of people, but we also are recording much higher BB usage than normal. We are only on the 10gb package, as our max 512kb broadband doesn't make it worthwhile trying to do much with the www.
Our usage is usually pretty close to the 10gb, and in fact we have probably gone over it 3 or 4 times in the last 2 years (I work away a lot, so Skype gets hammered, which I know could be up to about 350mb/hour). Our average usage has been 9.87gb according to BT. I was home at the end of June, and decided to reactivate BT FON, and my wife and I also installed the Smarttalk app. Now, halfway through July, we are already up at over 7gb used.
The warning e-mail for 6gb used was last night, the usage monitor is already showing over 7gb - that is a heck of a lot of broadband usage for a property with such a slow connection. I have tried tackling BT in the past, and got absolutely nowhere, being told that although they could give me details of the previous weeks usage, they couldn't go back any further because that informaton was unavailable - unsatisfactory response, but that was all I could get.
Obviously BT are saying we could always go unlimited, but I'd rather find out what the issue is and why this sudden increase - we aren't using that much internet.
Iain
Got the same problem, see my seperate Post.
Don't wish to hi-jack your post but how can BT be tackeled?
It's hard to keep a daily check, I would say impossible!

Track levels suddenly much higher than normal. ?!?!?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for