Why is the Log Area size much smaller than the log volume

I have been following up on an Early Watch report that has been generated for our production SCM 5.0 system running liveCache 7.6.02 Build 14. The alert says "The LOG volumes size in your system is too small. Recommendation: Configure LOG Volumes to at least 2 GB". There are two interesting things about this.
1) I have spent the last couple of days reading all the OSS Notes, and MaxDB documentation I could find, and this does not seem to be documented as a recommendation anywhere. Does this seem like a realistic recommendation without taking into account the level of change actifity?
2) There is a single log volume allocated with size 2,097,160 KB. In production LC10 and DBMGUI report this to be correct size under volume details, but only list the total log area size as 1,706,328 (81% of the volume size). We have a non-production environment with exactly the same size log volume, but it reports that the log area size is 2,032,008 KB (97% of the volume). What leads to these different amounts of wasted space, and is there any way of getting the database to start using it?
Thanks,
Mark

Hi Natalia,
I did read 869267, several times. It does not answer my questions which is why I posted here.
DBMGUI version = 7.6.00.25
DBMCLI commands for PL1 (Production)
> xinstinfo PL1
IndepData           : /sapdb/data
IndepPrograms       : /sapdb/programs
InstallationPath    : /sapdb/PL1/db
Kernelversion       : KERNEL    7.6.02   BUILD 014-123-152-175
Rundirectory        : /sapdb/data/wrk/PL1
> dbmcli -d PL1 -u control,control
dbmcli on PL1>db_state
OK
State
ONLINE
dbmcli on PL1>info log
OK
END
Name                            | Value
Log Mirrored                    = NO
Log Writing                     = ON
Log Automatic Overwrite         = OFF
Max. Size (KB)                  = 1706328
Backup Segment Size (KB)        = 699048
Used Size (KB)                  = 104640
Used Size (%)                   = 6
Not Saved (KB)                  = 104640
Not Saved (%)                   = 6
Log Since Last Data Backup (KB) = 0
Savepoints                      = 5210
Checkpoints                     = 0
Physical Reads                  = 2469115
Physical Writes                 = 15655616
Queue Size (KB)                 = 48000
Queue Overflows                 = 646
Group Commits                   = 98205
Waits for Logwriter             = 10957511
Max. Waits                      = 10
Average Waits                   = 0
OMS Log Used Pages              = 0
OMS Min. Free Pages             = 0
dbmcli on PL1>param_getvolsall
OK
LOG_MIRRORED                     NO
MAXLOGVOLUMES                    2
MAXDATAVOLUMES                   14
LOG_VOLUME_NAME_001              262145     F /sapdb/PL1/saplog/DISKL001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0001            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0002            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0002
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0003            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0003
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0004            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0004
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0005            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0005
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0006            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0006
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0007            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0007
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0008            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0008
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0009            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0009
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0010            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0010
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0011            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0011
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0012            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0012
dbmcli on PL1>param_directget MAXCPU
OK
MAXCPU 12
dbmcli on PL1>param_directget MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT
OK
MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT     0
dbmcli on PL1>param_directget LOG_IO_QUEUE
OK
LOG_IO_QUEUE    6000
> xinstinfo SL1
IndepData           : /sapdb/data
IndepPrograms       : /sapdb/programs
InstallationPath    : /sapdb/SL1/db
Kernelversion       : KERNEL    7.6.02   BUILD 014-123-152-175
Rundirectory        : /sapdb/data/wrk/SL1
dbmcli on SL1>db_state
OK
State
ONLINE
dbmcli on SL1>info log
OK
END
Name                            | Value
Log Mirrored                    = NO
Log Writing                     = ON
Log Automatic Overwrite         = OFF
Max. Size (KB)                  = 2032008
Backup Segment Size (KB)        = 699048
Used Size (KB)                  = 3824
Used Size (%)                   = 0
Not Saved (KB)                  = 3824
Not Saved (%)                   = 0
Log Since Last Data Backup (KB) = 0
Savepoints                      = 1256
Checkpoints                     = 0
Physical Reads                  = 2178269
Physical Writes                 = 4969914
Queue Size (KB)                 = 16000
Queue Overflows                 = 21201
Group Commits                   = 643
Waits for Logwriter             = 751336
Max. Waits                      = 4
Average Waits                   = 0
OMS Log Used Pages              = 0
OMS Min. Free Pages             = 0
dbmcli on SL1>param_getvolsall
OK
LOG_MIRRORED                     NO
MAXLOGVOLUMES                    2
MAXDATAVOLUMES                   10
LOG_VOLUME_NAME_001              262145     F /sapdb/SL1/saplog/DISKL001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0001            262145     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata1/DISKD0001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0002            262145     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata2/DISKD0002
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0003            1048577    F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata3/DISKD0003
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0004            1048577    F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata4/DISKD0004
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0005            783501     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata1/DISKD0005
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0006            783501     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata2/DISKD0006
dbmcli on SL1>param_directget MAXCPU
OK
MAXCPU 4
dbmcli on SL1>param_directget MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT
OK
MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT     0
dbmcli on SL1>param_directget LOG_IO_QUEUE
OK
LOG_IO_QUEUE    2000
Thanks for the explaination of the reserved space for the Log Queue pages. This does explain why there is the difference between the two. I think we probably have our log segment size too large. As you can see we do get occasional log queue overflows. Do you suggest we increase the size of our log IO queue higher, and allocate more log volume space to compensate?
select * from SYSINFO.LOGSTATISTICS (on PL1)
1706328;334176;19;334176;19;1879;20305192;64109066;7806480;182151514;12;48000
DBMGUI Log Area Usage
Total Size: 2048.01 MB
Free Log Area: 1330.38 MB
Used Log Area: 335.96 MB
Unsaved Log Area: 335.96
Log since Last Data Backup: 0.00 MB
Thanks,
Mark

Similar Messages

ORA-13044: the specified tile size is smaller than the tolerance

Hi,
I get the oracle error ORA-13044: the specified tile size is smaller than the tolerance when I do the following point cloud clip:
8 sdo_geometry(2003,29903, null,
9 mdsys.sdo_elem_info_array(1,1003,3),
10 mdsys.sdo_ordinate_array(316504,316510,234084,234090)),
However the bounds of my point cloud are
316500 to 316511 and 234080 to 234092 and my tolerance during point cloud creation is set to 0.000015 (I have alterated this value before to make it smaller but nothing seems fit).
Where do I set the "tile size"?
The set consists of 100 points and blk_capacity is set to 50.
Any help is really greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
F.

Hi BKazar,
thanks for responding.
Yes, I tried out all sorts of things and swapped the numbers to see if that would fix the issue. It did not.
I have found out now though what the issue was. When I loaded the data file into Oracle, the guy who gave me the file said that the first column is the longitude, but it wasn't. After switching sdo_point.x and y the error disappeard.
I suppose the sdo_srid was expecting a different range and got confused because my long and lat were swapped.
Cheers,
F.

Why is the sparse bundle so much smaller than the backed up computer...can I be confident all files are backed up?

Hey gang,
iphoto folder became big so I have moved it to an external drive. I made sure the external disk is not excluded from timemachine backup in tm preferences. Backup seemed to take forever (it actually said "preparing for backup" the whole time with a spinning progress bar) ie 24 hours and still the same pogress bar.
i stopped the process as i had no confidence anything was actually happening
When i open up time machine, an earlier version of my imac is there, but the external drive is kind of greyed and i cannot access it.
When I check the sparse bundle size, it is under 200 gb, when my imac is around 600 gb, 900 with the external drive.
Why is the sparse bundle so small relative to the imac? are there hidden data files outside of the sparse bundle? when checking the preferences, it states total included is 921 gb...yet that is not reflected in the sparse bundle size.
I want to be sure iphoto is actually backed up before deleting it from my imac.
thanks anyone!

marten berkman wrote:
I am wondering whether the "processing" progress bar was due to the time capsule freeing up space for the additional data on the new external drive. When I cancelled it, available space on the tc incresed from 200 to 500 gb.
Yes, quite possibly. Especially on Leopard and Snow Leopard, that process on network backups is excruciatingly repetitive and slow. It's improved greatly in Lion and later, but still isn't exactly quick.
The backup complete, i checked the contents of the backed up version of the external drive, and the iphoto folder was the same size as original, so I have confidence that iphoto is backed up. Now I could delete the iphoto from the imac, freeing up tons of space.
Yay!
Still curious why the imac sparsebundle is only 160gb, while my macbook pro sparsebundle is about 700 gb...as though they are inversely named from the computers they back up.
Oh, I didn't realize you had two Macs backing-up to the TC. Which one is the external HD connected to?
Unless you've specifically excluded things, after the initial backup, the sparse bundle should be nearly the size of the data it's backing-up (TM does exclude some things like system work files, most caches and logs, and trash, so the backups are a few GBs smaller). As you do more backups, of course, it will grow.
So please clarify how much data is on each drive, Mac, and sparse bundle.
Also, the 2tb time capsule has 258 gb of 1.8 tb available....am I to suppose that there is hidden backup data not in the sparse bundles?
Sparse bundles are odd critters. They don't automatically shrink when things are deleted from them. Instead, the vacated space is used for new files until it's full, then it begins to grow again. Time Machine will "compact" them when necessary, to reclaim the empty space, but doesn't take the time to do it unless it's out of room.
You can do that manually if you want, per the pink box in Time Machine - Frequently Asked Question #12.
Message was edited by: Pondini

Why are the photos i print much darker than the monitor image?

why are the photos i print much darker than the monitor image?

Please read this post then provide some details. What printer model? What operating system? What program are you printing from?
Some programs such as Photoshop give the option to print to CMYK or sRGB color spaces. Even though the printer uses CMYK inks the driver is expecting sRGB data. If CMYK is selected the prints will be much too dark.
Another thing to check is the media type. If you are printing on plain paper and have seelcted Photo paper the prints have too much ink.
Bob Headrick, HP Expert
I am not an employee of HP, I am a volunteer posting here on my own time.
If your problem is solved please click the "Accept as Solution" button ------------V
If my answer was helpful please click the "Thumbs Up" to say "Thank You"--V

All my brushes are about 20% smaller than the diameter of the circle. What's happened?

All my brushes are about 20% smaller than the diameter of the circle. What's happened?

Visited Genius Bar. Solution was System Preferences/Accessibility/Display and move cursor size to Normal. A couple months back I evidently saw the option of making the arrow larger and did so and did not discover the problem in Elements until later. Before I visited Genius Bar I discovered same problem with Photoshop CS6 and Pixelmator. I had also uninstalled then reinstalled Elements and knew it wasn't a bug in the software.

VAULT size is smaller than the LIBRARY

my vault size is smaller than the aperture library. is it saving everything? it seems like the two should be the same size or at least close to the same size. i regularly update my vault so that it is current with the library. VAULT = 168 GB | LIBRARY = 262 GB

what is the consequence if i totally turn previews off?
The major consequence is that you will not be able to share images from your library through the media browser. So if you want to email an image for example or add an image to a document you will need to export the image first rather then be able to get the preview from the library.
Also if you have referenced originals and the originals go off-line nothing will appear in the library. If you had previews for those images you would still see them and be able to do tasks like rate them.
Finally some operations might appear slower as you won;t see anything on the scree until the image you are looking at is rendered. With previews while Aperture is rendering the image in the background it will display the preview.
It is possible to selectively maintain previews for some projects and not for others. This might be a comprise position between having previews for al images and having no previews at all.

Thumbnails in the browser 3.3 is smaller than the previous version

thumbnails in the browser 3.3 is smaller than the previous version.

I did this, the difference is very small. for some reason the size of thumbnails was limited in the browser. in split view window if you increase the thumbs are larger. I'll try to photograph the screen to show the difference. excuse my google translator

The estimated project size is larger than the target media chosen

I am at a loss for trying to author a project using Adobe Encore. I first tried to author the project using version CS2. When attempting to export I received the following message:
"The estimated project size is larger than the target media chosen. While this is an estimate, the project may fail to build."
I have authored hundereds of projects in the past, but have never received that message before. I first thought that the problem was with the version of Encore I was using, but I received the exact same error when trying to author the project with Encore CS5.
The project itself has one menu, a motion menu, and one video file. The video file last 152 minutes, and I was attempting to export that to a dual layer DVD. I have since tried exporting the file using Adobe Premier CS5.5 using a variety of settings. I am trying to export it to a DVD-2 file, with the match soure attributes being set to the highest setting. The setting on the main concept MPEG encoder is set to 5. I have tried exporting the file using both constant and varaible bit rates.
When I recently exported the file using a contant bit rate of 6.5, I still had 650.4 MB remaining on my Encore project. I still received the same error about the project size, and so I am thinking that something else is wrong.
I have even exported the video file as an uncompressed AVI file, and then tried encoding it again using both Adobe Premier CS5.5 and the Adobe Encoder. I still get the same error message about file size.
Any help and/or suggestions about how to solve this problem would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Using the Imgburn product worked! It also helped me figure out what the real problem was...
As it turns out, some single-layer DVDs had been mixed in with my dual-layer DVDs. I feel very foolish about this. All of my discs are printable, and so there is no indication written as far as what their capacity is on them.
Encore can be a bit vague in identifying a problem such as this. For example, I can set the settings to plan for a dual-layer disc, and it will display a graphical status indicator with that capacity in mind. When I saw the original file message error I honestly believed that there was a problem with the encoded file instead of the type of disc itself.
Imgburn instantly displayed the discrepancy in the type of disc I had loaded and the needed capacity for the type of project that I was trying to create.
Thanks again for your help!

Is the Mountain Lion so much better than the Snow Leopard that make it worth buying?

Is the Mountain Lion so much better than the Snow Leopard that I'm currently using and worth the money to buy it? Is it more or less confusing to operate?

OS X 10.7-18.0+ will NOT run any current PPC based programs your running.
http://roaringapps.com/apps:table
If you have a MacPro like your signature says (the tower, not the laptop) then it's not going to have much of a performance loss as say the MacBook Pro's will.
Older, less powerful Mac's have performance losses with the newer OS X Lions, it might be best to stick with 10.6.8 on a older machine until it drops, then spend the money on all new software on a newer machine instead.
One guy was here today and had a 2007 Intel Core 2 Duo and it was struggling to run OS X Mountain Lion, Chrome and Photoshop.
It just didn't have the hardware horsepower for all that bloatware.
My advice if it's not a top end iMac or MacPro, then 2010 is the cut-off point, those 2010 machines and earlier are likely better off on 10.6.8 max.
It all depends upon one's perception of performance really.

Forwarded images are much smaller than the original

Something new has happened. After 10 years of Mail I am just experiencing this phenomenon. When I forward an email with pictures or illustrations attached, the forwarded images are about 75% the size of the original. In many instances that takes the readability away. Does anyone have an idea how I can fix this or what causes it? Thanks.

What size is set in the New Message widow in Mail?
Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
Regards
TD

Why is the saved JPG file much bigger than the original JPG file??

I used Image Processor in Bridge CS5 to open a jpeg, apply sharpening action and save as a jpeg. The bit size, color space and pixel dimensions are identical. However, when I save at Quality 12 I get a Jpeg file that is nearly DOUBLE the size of the original jpeg Only if I drop it to Quality 10 do I get a file that approximates, but doesn't equal, the original jpeg.
1) Isn't 12 the same as saying 100% and as such the file size should be the about the same?
2) why would it increase so much? Example about 6 mb to about 12mb???
Does this sound right? I am sure I am doing the steps and setting the parameters correctly. The action simply applies unsharp mask:
I can set the quality to 10 and get an approximate equivalent file size...but I want the higher quality of a 100%/12 setting.
WHAT AM I MISSING???
Thanks - Kevin

WHAT AM I MISSING???
The simple fact that JPEG is always a fully re-compressing format. Your newly created files bear no relationship to the original ones - no binary data structures are retained; the compression algorithm is always applied fresh upon the fully decoded original image and if you use different settings, the result is different. Moreover, since the initial compression artifacts become "valid pixels" once decoded, the successive compression has no way of knowing that they actually are "bad pixels" and those fine disturbances agfain result in different compression patterns. That is, after alll, why consecutive saves to JPEG will always degrade quality even at the best settings...
Mylenium

Using LR 5 to make slideshow and images in the preview are correct but when I play the actual slideshow the pictures are a lot smaller than what they should be. Help!

I'm making a slideshow with Lightroom 5. I'm using a 2014 Macbook Pro. Everything works except when I play the actual slideshow the pictures are smaller than what they should be. But the preview is showing the correct photo size. Does anyone know why this is happening and how to fix it? Thanks!

Hey ronfya
Did you ever get any feedback on this? I haven't read the Technicolor link yet. I was just trying to figure out why my stuff comes out darker on Vimeo. Could this be because FCPX is displaying it to brightly?
A.T.

The exported mbox is way smaller than the original?

Hi,
I have a local mail account where the mbox comes in at 1,5GB. When I use the export to mbox function the resulting mbox is only 850MB. I have used the "permanently purge deleted mails" option but that didn't change anything about thos 1,5GB. Should I be concerned that half my mails are missing from my new backup?
Thanks a lot.

You might have accidentally "zoomed" the site (zoom works both to make the font larger and smaller). Try resetting the zoom level first before moving into the font settings. You can do that by pressing '''Ctrl+0''' (''that's a zero'') when you're on the problem site.
This article has more information: [https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/how-do-i-use-zoom How do I use Zoom? | How to | Firefox Help]
Any luck?

Why are the backups to iCloud much smaller than those to my PC? I subscribed to extra iCloud space expecting for the backups to be the same size. Now I have more unused iCloud space I don't need, can I get a refund?

Backups to my PC were almost 30 G bytes each time, backup to the Icloud is only 1.4 G bytes. Expecting the backups to be about the same size I subscribed to extra Icloud space. Can I stop my Icloud pace subscription amd get a refund? I have all this extra space and have no use for it. It does not appear there is a way to use this space for other storage purposes.

You can't merge iCloud backups. You could create a current backup of your phone, then restore the backup of your old phone to it and save any data you want to keep, the restore it again to the current backup. Some of your old recovered data could then be synced back to your new phone (such as photos), but other data cannot (such as text message conversations). You may not want to save any of your old data but restoring the backup would be the only way to see what's there.

After importing a Light Room catalog, the files I export, export smaller than the originals - with every option of file ending. I want to export them as DNGs but the files are reduced from around 5000 pixels to about 1700 pixels in length.

Hi All ~ Thanks in advance for your help!
I have been on a support chat with Adobe for 2 hours now and they can't figure this out but hopefully one of you can!
I exported my files as a LightRoom Catalog
I zipped the catalog and the smart previews together
I sent the zipped folder via Dropbox to a photo editor
Editor edited the photos
Editor exported the files as a Lightroom Catalog and zipped them
Editor sent the LR Catalog back to me via Dropbox
I opened the Lightroom Catalog in LR (the pixel dimensions are the same as the originals)
I exported the photos as DNG's (which does not allow for any file size changes - I also tried JPGs and the same thing happened)
     Camera Raw 7.1 and later (I tried them all just to see - and they all rendered the same result)
     Embed Fast Load Data (checked on)
     Embed Original Raw File (check on)
I checked the Pixel dimensions on my exported photos and they are smaller
The original pixel dimensions are:
4912x7360 and the new size (after exporting) is: 1709x2560
But here's the real kicker! WHEN I UPLOAD A PHOTO TO LIGHTROOM FROM MY COMPUTER DIRECTLY (not from a LR catalog), AND EXPORT THAT FILE, IT EXPORTS AT FULL SIZE with no change in the pixels dimensions!

Hi All ~ Thanks in advance for your help!
I have been on a support chat with Adobe for 2 hours now and they can't figure this out but hopefully one of you can!
I exported my files as a LightRoom Catalog
I zipped the catalog and the smart previews together
I sent the zipped folder via Dropbox to a photo editor
Editor edited the photos
Editor exported the files as a Lightroom Catalog and zipped them
Editor sent the LR Catalog back to me via Dropbox
I opened the Lightroom Catalog in LR (the pixel dimensions are the same as the originals)
I exported the photos as DNG's (which does not allow for any file size changes - I also tried JPGs and the same thing happened)
     Camera Raw 7.1 and later (I tried them all just to see - and they all rendered the same result)
     Embed Fast Load Data (checked on)
     Embed Original Raw File (check on)
I checked the Pixel dimensions on my exported photos and they are smaller
The original pixel dimensions are:
4912x7360 and the new size (after exporting) is: 1709x2560
But here's the real kicker! WHEN I UPLOAD A PHOTO TO LIGHTROOM FROM MY COMPUTER DIRECTLY (not from a LR catalog), AND EXPORT THAT FILE, IT EXPORTS AT FULL SIZE with no change in the pixels dimensions!

Why is the Log Area size much smaller than the log volume

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for