Unlimited storage by Google - BIG JOKE.

Hey there.
News about it here.
"Google officially announced its long-rumored revamp of its photo-sharing service, Google Photos, at its I/O developer conference in San Francisco today. The killer feature? Users can now backup up full-resolution photos and videos – up to 16MP for photos and 1080p for videos – to Google’s cloud for free. The service will roll out to Android, iOS and web users starting today, the company says."
It's pure joke. I mean storage is really unlimited, but they reduce photo quality to very low. I have 16 Mpix digital camera and photo on my hard drive is 16 Mpix 7.2 Mb and on Google unlimited it is 16 Mpix 2 Mb in size. This is Unlimited, but so badly packaged, so it is bad backup! The video next. Quality is lower than originals and the most thing. YouTube plays online on my mobile 1 Mbps very fine, but this one - only buffering. I think this feature is pure joke and no one should really use it as main backup - as this reduces the quality of your photos and videos dramatically. I considered to keep all the stuff on my laptop on SSD-drive.
As backup for mobile phone photos this works great, but for digital camera stuff - look elsewhere.
I can say, I was excepting more from Google as Unlimited storage. It is Unlimited, but package quality is so low - it's almost joke.
Many thanks for reading.

I still love Unlimited personal video space for streaming at home pc, but this won't work well on 1.5 Mbps mobile internet. At least on Android phone.
I have now tried photos, comparing them. 7 MB vs 2MB, the difference is little. So package is somehow very great made. Mauybe Google stuff? But it's odd, they even managed to package big photo as low as 0.7MB, when original was 5MB and the size is till 16 Mpix. It works for most, but if you prefer to serve unedited photos in any way - Google unlimited photos is not for you.

Similar Messages

Is there a hosting site that provides unlimited storage, but ...

also has a great site creation tool...similiar to wix.
Thanks for taking the time to view my question, and for answering.

I doubt you'll find truly "unlimited storage" with a price range smaller than 4 figures a year. Honestly? You could buy and maintain your own server for that. And most hosts' site building setups (GoDaddy is a great example of the worst there is) are very limited and very shoddy, with loads of "proprietary code" that does more to promote the host than properly build your site.
If you're looking for a "one step" way to build a good site without having to learn HTML or CSS, frankly, you're wasting your time. You'll end up learning code eventually, the hard way, from all the mistakes you make along the way, and it'll be a lot more time and frustration than taking a few courses and figuring out how to do it right the first time.

Upgraded to Premiere Elements 12 and unlimited storage .. Elements program cannot find the catalog.

Upgraded to Premiere Elements 12 and unlimited storage per Adobe staff, only problems since. Once I got catalog to properly start loading to Revel the new software wrongly messaged was that it was completely up to date. Now when i tried to start Elements program cannot find the catalog. I am the type person that am willing to pay to get this resolved so who do I call? I am doing this as a hobby and this is not fun etc... many useless unpleasant hours.

I appreciate what you are both saying -- but it is not the music that is the problem. The video itself is NOT blocked - you can view it on a computer -- but when you try to view it on ipad/iphone the message says, "not available on this platform". Here is a link to a video I did in Elements 9 on Tuesday:
http://youtu.be/06TaM22SkdE
Here is the link to the video done last night in 11:
http://youtu.be/h353KBGkodU
The "raw files" are both adobe flash.flv -- it's just not making sense...
Thank you!!!

Is the "512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage" on the new mac worth the extra cost? I am comparing with a refurb with better specs (faster CPU, larger hard drive) and from what I undersand the PCIe flash storage is the big differentiator in cost.

hello - i am considering two macbook pros
NEW - http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro?product=ME294LL/A&step=config#
REFURB - http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0ML1LL/A/refurbished-macbook-pro-27ghz-quad-c ore-intel-i7-with-retina-display
The refurb actually has a faster processor and a larger hard drive. From what I understand, the big difference in cost is the new macbook pro contains "512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage" versus the refurb "768GB Flash Storage".
Is the PCIe flash storage really worth the extra cost (and smaller size)?
PS - Also I believe the brand new one has 2 GB graphics memory as opposed to 1 GB graphics memory. I don't really care about that as much as I won't be doing a lot of video editing or gaming.

RestonManJavaLuver wrote:
Is she wrong - are these actually going to people's homes, being used, then returned and resold?
Some are some are not. Otherwise Apple has a ton of Mac's sitting around that have been returned by customers under their 14 day No Questions Asked return policy.
But they not just Returned and Resold. They go back to Apple, checked out (Tested) any parts that are not up to spec replaced and then repackaged in a plain white box to be sold as refurbs.

How to create password protected folder (with unlimited storage) on Mac?

I want to create password protected folder on my mac. I tried the method where you create a dmg file and mount it whenever you want to use the folder and unmount it when you don't. However, this method only lets me store, for example, 2 gb data. I cannot store beyong that level as an error message pops up saying... "the following files cannot be copied because there is not enough storage space in the dmg file"
How can I create a passpord protected folder which can store as much available space that is on my mac?
Is there an application that does that? Suggest me some names if someone already is using something like that.
Thanks much!

You need to choose the size of the image when you create it. If you are getting that message, you only set the image to hold 2GB of data.
If you choose a Sparse Disk Image or a Sparse Bundle Disk Image, you can set it to any size, however, it will only be able to store up to the space available on your Hard Disk. Physically, it will only be the size of the stuff you saved into it, but It doesn't shrink automatically when you remove things.
A Sparse Bundle differs from a Sparse Image in that it writes the contents to small files so that when Time Machine sees changes, it only backs up the small file change, not the 100 GB (or whatever) of the total image size.
Notice that having created a 10 TB disk image (as shown above), there is only 80 GB available on the mounted image as that is all the space I have available on the 500 GB drive.

Keeping number of files in check is good for your Mac

I just did what I thought was impossible - reduced the space on my hard drive from 2.6GB to 11GB! The Mac is flying again, hard drive is hardly audible, I am not missing anything useful, all the projects with roughs from stage 1 through 40 have been consolidated into a few examples, copies and back-ups of copies for "just in case" during a project have gone, and gems of ideas have been organised properly into present and future projects.
I may sound like a totally disorganised worker, but not really, I can quickly find what I need, didnt really come across anything I had no recollection of, but I just fell into the trap of "whatever the size of your bin the rubbish will accumulate accordingly".
So now I have 28GB of pure hard drive data to clone to a wiped external drive and I am looking forward to being able to back up incrementally with quality files instead of dross for that rainy day.
It makes me wonder how much useless data other people are struggling long with, and is the upcoming trend for unlimited storage with Google and Amazon S3 services really needed?

lfdc:
Good for you. Getting rid of un-needed material is an excellent way to free up disk capacity. And backing up to an external FW HDD or archiving on CD or DVD, conserves more space. The graphic interface permits quite sophisticated filing systems so that even if one has a lot of data is can be organized in a way so it can be easily accessed. For example I have on major folder called DATA, in which I have nested folders, one of which e.g. is Financial. In this I have other Folders such as Taxes, Investments etc. The investment folder can is further broken into the Brokerage firms, and each of those in individual accounts, and each account with Bought and Sold for transaction statements. In this way, even with large masses of data it is easily accessible if you know exactly where it should be. Of course, every now and then something gets saved in the wrong place and that breaks the monotony trying to find it.
Incidentally, in your first sentence you said,"reduced the space on my hard drive from 2.6GB to 11GB!" I think you meant it the other way around (I hope).
Good luck.
cornelius

Apple Trailers? Any luck? Unlimited ipod touch storage?

You guys have any luck getting www.apple.com/trailers/iphone to work?
If the ability to play quicktime videos easily becomes reliable...then this story becomes very interesting I think.
http://9to5mac.com/trick-wifi-ipod-touch-iphone-unlimited-storage-2343452

I think the problem is only with specific pages on the apple trailers web site and not a bug with the Touch. My iPhone will go to the iPhone formatted pages (/trailers/iphone/fox/hitman) just fine. My coworker's Touch will try to go to the iPhone formatted page, but you can see the screen flash a couple of times and the url changes when it gets redirected to the non-iPhone trailer page. This page doesn't have the mobile Safari compatible version of the trailer. I think the pages that are having problems are not correctly recognizing that you are running mobile Safari. A small bit of information (called a user agent string) about your browser is submitted every time you go to a web page. The iPhone's starts out as "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U;"... and the Touch's starts out as "Mozila/5.0 (iPod; U;"...
I think the pages you are having problems with are checking to see if the user agent string says "iPhone" in it, which it doesn't, so it redirects to the non-mobile version. Apple needs to change those pages to check to see if it says "iPhone" OR "iPod".

Have you been successful porting your number and keeping unlimited data?

Hi , I am trying to save money by getting rid of my texting plan($20) and having Google Voice as my SMS provider. I want to keep my number so I will port my number to GV. For a 1-time fee of $20. The Problem is that during the process some people lose their UNLIMITED DATA package. I, of course don't want this to happen. I have searched the interwebs and found that this forum had the good information on it.
https://community.verizonwireless.com/thread/779321?start=0&tstart=0
https://community.verizonwireless.com/thread/779321?start=80&tstart=0
See post # 3 and # 85 for detailed instructions. I was in the process of doing it but Google Wallet denied my transaction because I needed to verify my account. This process takes 3 days. So I will wait and try again. I would like to know if the rest of the verizon community has been succesful or has regretted doing this.
I feel that this process should work and would like to keep this discussion open so other people can do the same. We all know sms and voice mins are cheap and carriers are just milking money from data plans.
PS. I felt # 85 was really straight forward
Joined the community to thank the OP - and to add in another success story. Before I start my 'experience share', I think its pertinent to mention that I have the Galaxy S4 [Android]
Started the GV Port on Monday at about 3PM. Provided GV with personal details, phone number, billing PIN (you can set one up or change your current PIN on the VZW website after logging on to your account) and my account number (excluded the -00001 after my account number as suggested by other posters on this thread). Google charged me $20 to complete the port.
On Tuesday morning, approximately at about 11AM, I logged into my VZW account and requested a new number (VZW's website states that this process is free if done online). At this time, my GV Port status showed "Number Change Pending". Once the new number was assigned to me by VZW (the number is issued instantly), I had to turn my phone off and wait a few minutes before turning it back on. When I turned my phone back on, it showed that the new number was active (no VZW notifications - just tried a test call from my landline).
Almost 24 Hours down to the minute (so at about 3PM on Tuesday), I got an email from GV stating that my port was complete. On the GV website, I then added in my new number (under Settings>Phones), and set all calls (and texts) to forward to my new number. GV walked me through a couple of programming steps - and confirmed that my GV calls would be forwarded to my new VZW number. Please note that if you want GV to pick up your VM's, then you will need to activate Google voicemail on the GV website (Settings>Phones). Else, VZW voicemail will end up picking up your calls - and a message like "this user has a VM box that has not been set up" will play.
I also opened up the GV app on my phone and changed the settings to "Make all calls through Google Voice". Also, I turned off the 'Messaging' app, and set the GV app as the default app for handling all texts.
As of now, I can make and receive calls via the setup described above. Folks receiving calls from me see my GV number on their displays (so no need to update folks with my new number), and when I receive calls on my GV number, my VZW phone displays the number of the person trying to reach me (so no updating my contacts list). Low priced international calls, desktop-based texting, unlimited storage of texts/VM's/call-logs, here I come!
My texts arent working yet, but GV states that it takes about 3 days before texting becomes active. When it does, I'm hoping that all texts will be routed via the GV app (I'm fairly certain that it will)
Other things to note:
Banking Apps: Some banking apps that require verification codes to be sent via text might stop working. I just got an email from BOFA this morning asking me to reverify my mobile number. Need to fix this once GV texting becomes active
Messaging: Existing texts on your device cannot be backed up/imported into GV. That said, Google Play has a couple of free apps that backup your entire message archive under a separate label within your Gmail account
Hope this helps someone else out there in taking the plunge. Seems like the process is fairly straightforward unless you decide to skip some steps or if you are impatient and try to change things too quickly (I would really urge you against skipping steps, hurrying things up, etc. GV is completely automated, and getting "support" is almost impossible).
All the best!"

You won't lose your unlimited data as long as your account stays active and you don't purchase a subsidized phone. I just did this yesterday and it took just a few minutes over 24 hours to port my number over to GV. I still have unlimited data. I pretty much followed the instructions you have above except I waited about 7 hours to get a new number from VZW just to make sure there were no hiccups. VZW says you may get some overages if you change your number immediately as opposed to on the first day of your billing cycle because they prorate your minutes and texts used. Luckily I have unlimited everything so it didn't make a difference for me. I'm planning on going over to T-Mobile. My home is a dead zone for cell phones and I always have a weak signal and sometimes don't get my calls. I figure if I'm going to pay for an unsubsidized phone, I might as well go with a company that has wifi calling and a cheaper unlimited plan. I pay $94/mo before taxes with VZW; I'll only be paying $59.50 with T-Mobile for the same plan with 2.5 GB tethering included. T-Mobile here in LA is pretty good and even if I don't get LTE, I can fall back on their HSPA+ network, which is way better than VZW's crippled 3G network. No regrets porting over. The ONLY way I'll stay with VZW is if they allow me to keep my unlimited data (not going to do Verizon Max) and get a subsidized phone. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW VERIZON?

Virtual storage drive causes lightroom to crash

I use a service called Bitcasa, which is essentially just another cloud storage solution a la Dropbox, etc, except that it allows unlimited storage. To do this, it mounts a virtual drive on your computer called the "Bitcasa Infinite Drive".
When I open the import dialog in Lightroom, since my Bitcasa Infinite Drive is the first drive in my drive list, Lightroom defaults to trying to load the photos available for import from there. The problem there, of course, is that it is a virtual drive and it is quite large, which causes Lightroom to hang and eventually crash.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to import from the Bitcasa virtual drive, it's just that Lightroom defaults to the first drive in the list in the import dialog so it tries to load previews from it and crashes. Trying to select the proper drive to import from (my sd card) is futile at that point because Lightroom has already stopped responding before I have a chance to actually click anything in the import dialog.
I am running Lightroom 5.2 on Windows 7 64-bit.

hi there
ended up here as I was just googling around the very same issue. I'm afraid I've not much to contribute apart from the fact that personally I moved to drag-and-drop the images to import in the LR library (thus avoiding to ever press the import button), it seemed less of an hassle to me than shutting down bitcasa every time
somebody suggested this already in this bitcasa forum thread
http://forums.bitcasa.com/index.php?/topic/931-cant-import-in-adobe-lightroom-while-bitcas a-is-running/

Windows Server 2012 - Hyper-V - Cluster Sharded Storage - VHDX unexpectedly gets copied to System Volume Information by "System", Virtual Machines stops respondig

We have a problem with one of our deployments of Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V with a 2 node cluster connected to a iSCSI SAN.
Our setup:
Hosts - Both run Windows Server 2012 Standard and are clustered.
HP ProLiant G7, 24 GB RAM. This is the primary host and normaly all VMs run on this host.
HP ProLiant G5, 20 GB RAM. This is the secondary host that and is intended to be used in case of failure of the primary host.
We have no antivirus on the hosts and the scheduled ShadowCopy (previous version of files) is switched off.
iSCSI SAN:
QNAP NAS TS-869 Pro, 8 INTEL SSDSA2CW160G3 160 GB i a RAID 5 with a Host Spare. 2 Teamed NIC.
Switch:
DLINK DGS-1210-16 - Both the network cards of the Hosts that are dedicated to the Storage and the Storage itself are connected to the same switch and nothing else is connected to this switch.
Virtual Machines:
3 Windows Server 2012 Standard - 1 DC, 1 FileServer, 1 Application Server.
1 Windows Server 2008 Standard Exchange Server.
All VMs are using dynamic disks (as recommended by Microsoft).
Updates
We have applied the most resent updates to the Hosts, VMs and iSCSI SAN about 3 weeks ago with no change in our problem and we continually update the setup.
Normal operation:
Normally this setup works just fine and we see no real difference in speed in startup, file copy and processing speed in LoB applications of this setup compared to a single host with two 10000 RPM Disks. Normal network speed is 10-200 Mbit, but occasionally
we see speeds up to 400 Mbit/s of combined read/write for instance during file repair.
Our Problem:
Our problem is that for some reason a random VHDX gets copied to System Volume Information by "System" of the Clusterd Shared Storage (i.e. C:\ClusterStorage\Volume1\System Volume Information).
All VMs stops responding or responds very slowly during this copy process and you can for instance not send CTRL-ALT-DEL to a VM in the Hyper-V console, or for instance start task manager when already logged in.
This happens at random and not every day and different VHDX files from different VMs gets copied each time. Some time it happens during daytime wich causes a lot of problems, especially when a 200 GB file gets copied (which take a lot of time).
What it is not:
We thought that this was connected to the backup, but the backup had finished 3 hours before the last time this happended and the backup never uses any of the files in System Volume Information so it is not the backup.
An observation:
When this happend today I switched on ShadowCopy (previous files) and set it to only to use 320 MB of storage and then the Copy Process stopped and the virtual Machines started responding again. This could be unrelated since there is no way to see
how much of the VHDX that is left to be copied, so it might have been finished at the same time as I enabled ShadowCopy (previos files).
Our question:
Why is a VHDX copied to System Volume Information when scheduled ShadowCopy (previous version of files) is switched off? As far as I know, nothing should be copied to this folder when this functionis switched off?
List of VSS Writers:
vssadmin 1.1 - Volume Shadow Copy Service administrative command-line tool
(C) Copyright 2001-2012 Microsoft Corp.
Writer name: 'Task Scheduler Writer'
   Writer Id: {d61d61c8-d73a-4eee-8cdd-f6f9786b7124}
   Writer Instance Id: {1bddd48e-5052-49db-9b07-b96f96727e6b}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'VSS Metadata Store Writer'
   Writer Id: {75dfb225-e2e4-4d39-9ac9-ffaff65ddf06}
   Writer Instance Id: {088e7a7d-09a8-4cc6-a609-ad90e75ddc93}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'Performance Counters Writer'
   Writer Id: {0bada1de-01a9-4625-8278-69e735f39dd2}
   Writer Instance Id: {f0086dda-9efc-47c5-8eb6-a944c3d09381}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'System Writer'
   Writer Id: {e8132975-6f93-4464-a53e-1050253ae220}
   Writer Instance Id: {7848396d-00b1-47cd-8ba9-769b7ce402d2}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'Microsoft Hyper-V VSS Writer'
   Writer Id: {66841cd4-6ded-4f4b-8f17-fd23f8ddc3de}
   Writer Instance Id: {8b6c534a-18dd-4fff-b14e-1d4aebd1db74}
   State: [5] Waiting for completion
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'Cluster Shared Volume VSS Writer'
   Writer Id: {1072ae1c-e5a7-4ea1-9e4a-6f7964656570}
   Writer Instance Id: {d46c6a69-8b4a-4307-afcf-ca3611c7f680}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'ASR Writer'
   Writer Id: {be000cbe-11fe-4426-9c58-531aa6355fc4}
   Writer Instance Id: {fc530484-71db-48c3-af5f-ef398070373e}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'WMI Writer'
   Writer Id: {a6ad56c2-b509-4e6c-bb19-49d8f43532f0}
   Writer Instance Id: {3792e26e-c0d0-4901-b799-2e8d9ffe2085}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'Registry Writer'
   Writer Id: {afbab4a2-367d-4d15-a586-71dbb18f8485}
   Writer Instance Id: {6ea65f92-e3fd-4a23-9e5f-b23de43bc756}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'BITS Writer'
   Writer Id: {4969d978-be47-48b0-b100-f328f07ac1e0}
   Writer Instance Id: {71dc7876-2089-472c-8fed-4b8862037528}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'Shadow Copy Optimization Writer'
   Writer Id: {4dc3bdd4-ab48-4d07-adb0-3bee2926fd7f}
   Writer Instance Id: {cb0c7fd8-1f5c-41bb-b2cc-82fabbdc466e}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'Cluster Database'
   Writer Id: {41e12264-35d8-479b-8e5c-9b23d1dad37e}
   Writer Instance Id: {23320f7e-f165-409d-8456-5d7d8fbaefed}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Writer name: 'COM+ REGDB Writer'
   Writer Id: {542da469-d3e1-473c-9f4f-7847f01fc64f}
   Writer Instance Id: {f23d0208-e569-48b0-ad30-1addb1a044af}
   State: [1] Stable
   Last error: No error
Please note:
Please only answer our question and do not offer any general optimization tips that do not directly adress the issue! We want the problem to go away, not to finish a bit faster!

Hallo Lawrence!
Thankyou for youre reply, some comments to help you and others who read this thread:
First of all, we use Windows Server 2012 and the VHDX as I wrote in the headline and in the text in my post. We have not had this problem in similar setups with Windows Server 2008 R2, so the problem seem to be introduced in Windows Server 2012.
These posts that you refer to seem to be outdated and/or do not apply to our configuration:
The post about Dynamic Disks:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee941151(v=WS.10).aspx is only a recommendation for Windows Server 2008 R2 and the VHD format. Dynamic VHDX is indeed recommended by Microsoft when using Windows Server 2012 (please look in the optimization guide
for Windows Server 2012).
Infact, if we use fixed VHDX then we would have a bigger problem since fixed VHDX are generaly larger then Dynamic Disks, i.e. more data would be copied and that would take longer time = the VMs would be unresponsive for a longer time.
The post "What's the deal with the System Volume Information folder"
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2003/11/20/55764.aspx is for Windows XP / Windows Server 2003 and some things has changed since then. for instance In Windows Server 2012, Shadow Copies cannot be controlled by going to Control panel -> System.
Instead you right-click on a Drive (i.e. a Volume, for instance the C drive/Volume) in Computer and then click "Configure Shadow Copies".
Windows Server 2008 R2 Backup problem
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/windowsbackup/thread/0fc53adb-477d-425b-8c99-ad006e132336 - This post is about the Antivirus software trying to scan files used during backup that exists in the System Volume Information folder and we do not
have any antivirus software installed on our hosts as I stated in my post.
Comment that might help us:
So according to “System Volume Information” definition, the operation you mentioned is Volume Shadow Copy. Check event viewer to find Volume Shadow Copy related event logs and post them.
Why?
Furhter investigation suggests that a volume shadow copy is somehow created even though the Schedule for Shadows Copies is turned off for all drives. This happens at random and we have not found any pattern. Yesterday this operation took almost all available
disk space (over 200 GB), but all the disk space was released when I turned on scheduled Shadow Copies for the CSV.
I therefore draw these conclusions:
The CSV Volume has about 600 GB of disk space and since Volume Shadows Copy used 200 GB, or about 33% of the disk space, and the default limit is 10% then I conclude that for some reason the unscheduled Volume Shadow Copy did not have any limit (or ignored
the limit).
When I turned on the Schedule I also change the limit to the minimum amount which is 320 MB and this is probably what released the disk space. That is, the unscheduled Volume Shadow Copy operation was aborted and it adhered to the limit and deleted the
Volume Shadow Copy it had taken.
I have also set the limit for Volume Shadow Copies for all other volumes to 320 MB by using the "Configure Shadow Copies" Window that you open by right clicking on a drive (volume) in Computer and then selecting "Configure Shadow Copies...".
It is important to note that setting a limit for Shadow Copy Storage, and disabaling the Schedule are two different things! It is possible to have unlimited storage for Shadow Copies when the Schedule is disabled, however I do not know if this was the case
Before I enabled Shadow Copies on the CSV since I did not look for this.
I now have defined a limit for Shadow Copy Storage to 320 MB on all drives and then no VHDX should be copied to System Volume Information since they are all larger than 320 MB.
Does this sound about right or am I drawing the wrong conclusions?
Limits for Shadow Copies:
Below we list the limits for our two hosts:
"Primary Host":
C:\>vssadmin list shadowstorage
vssadmin 1.1 - Volume Shadow Copy Service administrative command-line tool
(C) Copyright 2001-2012 Microsoft Corp.
Shadow Copy Storage association
   For volume: (\\?\Volume{e3ad7feb-178b-11e2-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\)\\?\Volume{e3ad7feb-178b-11e2-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\
   Shadow Copy Storage volume: (\\?\Volume{e3ad7feb-178b-11e2-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\)\\?\Volume{e3ad7feb-178b-11e2-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\
   Used Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Allocated Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Maximum Shadow Copy Storage space: 320 MB (91%)
Shadow Copy Storage association
   For volume: (E:)\\?\Volume{dc0a177b-ab03-44c2-8ff6-499b29c3d5cc}\
   Shadow Copy Storage volume: (E:)\\?\Volume{dc0a177b-ab03-44c2-8ff6-499b29c3d5cc}\
   Used Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Allocated Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Maximum Shadow Copy Storage space: 320 MB (0%)
Shadow Copy Storage association
   For volume: (G:)\\?\Volume{f58dc334-17be-11e2-93ee-9c8e991b7c20}\
   Shadow Copy Storage volume: (G:)\\?\Volume{f58dc334-17be-11e2-93ee-9c8e991b7c20}\
   Used Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Allocated Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Maximum Shadow Copy Storage space: 320 MB (3%)
Shadow Copy Storage association
   For volume: (C:)\\?\Volume{e3ad7fec-178b-11e2-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\
   Shadow Copy Storage volume: (C:)\\?\Volume{e3ad7fec-178b-11e2-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\
   Used Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Allocated Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Maximum Shadow Copy Storage space: 320 MB (0%)
C:\>cd \ClusterStorage\Volume1
Secondary host:
C:\>vssadmin list shadowstorage
vssadmin 1.1 - Volume Shadow Copy Service administrative command-line tool
(C) Copyright 2001-2012 Microsoft Corp.
Shadow Copy Storage association
   For volume: (\\?\Volume{b2951138-f01e-11e1-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\)\\?\Volume{b2951138-f01e-11e1-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\
   Shadow Copy Storage volume: (\\?\Volume{b2951138-f01e-11e1-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\)\\?\Volume{b2951138-f01e-11e1-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\
   Used Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Allocated Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Maximum Shadow Copy Storage space: 35,0 MB (10%)
Shadow Copy Storage association
   For volume: (D:)\\?\Volume{5228437e-9a01-4690-bc40-1df85a0e6736}\
   Shadow Copy Storage volume: (D:)\\?\Volume{5228437e-9a01-4690-bc40-1df85a0e6736}\
   Used Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Allocated Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Maximum Shadow Copy Storage space: 27,3 GB (10%)
Shadow Copy Storage association
   For volume: (C:)\\?\Volume{b2951139-f01e-11e1-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\
   Shadow Copy Storage volume: (C:)\\?\Volume{b2951139-f01e-11e1-93e8-806e6f6e6963}\
   Used Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Allocated Shadow Copy Storage space: 0 bytes (0%)
   Maximum Shadow Copy Storage space: 6,80 GB (10%)
C:\>
There is something strange about the limits on the Secondary host!
I have not in any way changed the settings on the Secondary host and as you can see, the Secondary host has a maximum limit of only 35 MB storage on the CSV, but it also shows that this is 10% of the Volume. This is clearly not the case since 10% if 600
GB = 60 GB!
The question is, why does it by default set a too small limit (i.e. < 320 MB) on the CSV and is this the cause of the problem? I.e. is the limit ignored since it is smaller than the smallest amount you can provide using the GUI?
Is the default 35 MB maximum Shadow Copy limit a bug, or is there any logical reason for setting a limit that according to the GUI is too small?

Is the 256GB flash storage enough for me? Can I install a bigger SD?

Hi there, I am transferring from a Dell (which I love) to the Macbook Air 256. However, I'm very concerned about the storage. I've had my Dell for 10 years and never gotten near the storage capacity. It has 285Gb and I've used 215GB of it. I figured the 256 would be enough, but I've only transferred 1 year of pictures over to my MAC, and the storage space is already HALF FULL!!!! I barely deleted 50 photos, and you can see the storage space free up by a couple GBs. Does flash storage not hold as much as regular hard drives? I'm a novice at mac computers and am getting really frustrated that this computer might not hold anything. Everything is also on an external drive, but I like it all on my computer for easy access. I also heard that I can put SD cards into my Macbook air to give me more storage. Is this true and if so, where do I get that? Thank you so so much for your help!

firebox is only $30 at walmart, if you dont have a safe deposit box.
theft is more about HIDING IT than vaulting it, buy a fireproof SLEEVE on Ebay for $30 and hide it under etc etc something, very easy to do.
you can buy your own private website, which is what I do, I have several   Cost is roughly $120 per year unlimited storage..
(see godaddy.com or otherwise)
However safety has to be put in place to prevent others from accessing your data, also very easy.
Its all about redundancy #1 and #2 longevity (DVD professional archival) for very important information that cant degrade over short term and rated for at least 60+ years.
All these points are explained in detail in the link I posted you as User Tip.
Online archives
Drawbacks:
1. Subject to server failure or due to non-payment of your hosting account, it can be suspended.
2. Subject, due to lack of security on your part, to being attacked and hacked/erased.
Advantages:
1. In case of house fire, etc. your data is safe.
2. In travels, and propagating files to friends and likewise, a mere link by email is all that is needed and no large media needs to be sent across the net.
3. Online archives are the perfect and best-idealized 3rd platform redundancy for data protection.
4. Supremely useful in data isolation from backups and local archives in being online and offsite for long-distance security in isolation.
5. *Level-1.5 security of your vital data.
As for hard drives, dont make the HUGE mistake others make, only having ONE off computer copy on a HD, thats a tragedy in waiting, 2 copies is 1, and 1 is none, ....and the data on the computer doesnt count in the 2-copy scheme.
Hard Drive Warning (all makes and models)
Ironically but logical, new hard drives are far more fragile than one that has been working for several months or a couple years. So beware in your thinking that a new hard drive translates into “extremely reliable”!
Hard drives suffer from high rates of what has been termed "infant mortality". Essentially this means new drives have their highest likelihood of failing in the first few months of usage. This is because of very minor manufacturing defects or HD platter balancing, or head and armature geometry being less than perfect; and this is not immediately obvious and can quickly manifest itself once the drive is put to work.
Hard drives that survive the first few months of use without failing are likely to remain healthy for a number of years.
Generally HD are highly prone to death or corruption for a few months, then work fine for a few years, then spike in mortality starting at 3-4 years and certainly should be considered end-of-life at 5-7+ years even if still working well. Drives written to once and stored away have the highest risk of data corruption due to not being read/written to on a regular basis. Rotate older working HD into low-risk use.
The implication of this is that you should not trust a new hard drive completely (really never completely!) until it has been working perfectly for several months.
Given the second law of thermodynamics, any and all current mfg. HD will, under perfect storage conditions tend themselves to depolarization and a point will be reached, even if the HD mechanism is perfect, that the ferromagnetic read/write surface of the platter inside the HD will entropy to the point of no viable return for data extraction. HD life varies, but barring mechanical failure, 3-8 years typically.
Hard drive failure and handling
The air cushion of air between the platter surface and the head is microscopic, as small as 3 nanometers, meaning bumps, jarring while in operation can cause head crash, scraping off magnetic particles causing internal havoc to the write surface and throwing particles thru the hard drive.
Hard drives are fragile in general, regardless, ... in specific while running hard drives are extremely fragile.
PDF: Bare hard drive handling generic instructions
hard drive moving parts
Some of the common reasons for hard drives to fail:
Infant mortality (due to mfg. defect / build tolerances)
Bad parking   (head impact)
Sudden impact   (hard drive jarred during operation, heads can bounce)
Electrical surge   (fries the controller board, possibly also causing heads to write the wrong data)
Bearing / Motor failure   (spindle bearings or motors wear during any and all use, eventually leading to HD failure)
Board failure   (controller board failure on bottom of HD)
Bad Sectors   (magnetic areas of the platter may become faulty)
General hard drive failure

Files in Storage Spaces taking WAY too much space

If you look at the following two Images:
You'll notice that while I have only 629 GB of files on the Storage Space, it is taking up an astounding 2.45 TB in my Storage Space. With the two-way mirror I have set up it should only be about 1.26 TB. I'm not sure can someone explain as to why my files
are taking up 4X the amount of space they should?
Thanks,
Andrew

Hi,
I made a test in our test enviroment, it seems like the phenomenon you encountered is system design by default.
Generally speaking, when you create a new storage pool, and put some file into it. The value of Using *** pool capacity should 3X bigger than the practical capacity. While if you set the Storage Pool too big, it would produce error. The greater the
number, the greater the error.
Roger Lu
TechNet Community Support

Oracle 11g XE UNLIMITED!

Oracle 11g XE must compete directly against DB2 Express C9:
*Unlimited Storage.
*2 CPUS.
*Memory 4GB.
*Unlimited instances
*32 and 64 bits.
*Optional Replication.
If ORACLE wants to position itself as #1 in the world of the data bases free, must be AGGRESSIVE.

Hi Gary,
Because the only real advantage of 64bit over 32bit is the more memory it can address.That's not strictly true (saying that that is the only real advantage). One of the other significant advantages of 64bit over 32bit is the extended register size, allowing manipulation and calculations of large numbers (i.e. numbers that's are larger than would fit into a 32bit register) much easier and faster.
A while ago I helped out on a (non Oracle related) scientific 'number-crunching' project where we basically gave some calculations to a cluster of AMD Opteron servers to churn through. We found that simply by recompiling the program as a 64bit executable rather than a 32bit executable led to around a 20% increase in speed (there were no other changes to the program, no other special GCC compiler options other than compiling as 64bit).
This was a very 'edge case', since the program was a pure calculation engine (it typically ran for around 4 weeks over 24 CPU's, i.e. around 672 CPU days of calculation), so the 20% increase in speed resulted in a very good gain in terms of the number of days saved.
So, in the case of the Oracle DB code you might not see anything noticibly faster about running in 64bit, I'm sure it probably helps out a few of those math calculations churning away inside to run a bit faster.
I agree with you that the memory is probably the key advantage for the 64bit move, however it's not the only advantage.
John.
http://jes.blogs.shellprompt.net

How to upload slo-no videos to any cloud storage apps?

Dear friends,
i ve have many slo-mo videos on my iPhone. And, when I tried to upload it to my personal cloud storage app(Google drive, one drive, flikcr) it just got uploaded as a normal video. I've lost the slo-mo in it.
It would be really helpful if anybody here help me to upload slo-mo videos as it is!
Thanks,
Ram

What did you use to convert them?
In the Video's Pane make sure that the movies you want to sync are selected to be synched over.
Page 59 of the [iPhone User Guide|http://manuals.info.apple.com/enUS/iPhone_UserGuide.pdf]
also check your conversion process to [Verify Video Conversion|http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1211]

Pandora says storage not enabled, but it is!

Help! My flash player appears to work for every site but Pandora.
It says that "local storage is not enabled" but when I go to global settings everything appears to be in order. I even made the settings as liberal as possible (always allow; unlimited storage space) and still nothing. I have also uninstalled and reinstalled flash a million times. Again, nothing.
Please note that this is true in Explorer AND Firefox. I even installed Opera and I have the same problem. So this isn't an issue with my browser, it's defintely with flash.
Also note that I do not have any firewall or security issues that I can see.
HELP!
Thanks in advance.

Thanks for your help.
> In add-ons manager, is it listed as Shockwave Flash Object, and is it enabled? Also, does it show the correct version?
Shockwave Flash Object is listed in Add-Ons manager and it is enabled. The version is 10.3.181.14.
> What files do you have in C:\Windows\system32\Macromed\Flash ?
The files in the Flash folder are:
Flash10q.ocx
FlashInstall.txt
FlashPlayer.xpt
FlashUtil10q_ActiveX.exe
FlashUtil10q_Plugin.exe
NPSWF32.dll
They are all dated 5-17-2011.
Hope this helps.
Fred

Unlimited storage by Google - BIG JOKE.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for