×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On 21-Mar-2014 11:09 -0700, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
CRPence on 03/21/2014 12:31wrote:
On 20-Mar-2014 14:21 -0700, Sam_L wrote:
<<SNIP>>
Directory /instancecache/relationships has 10,887 stream files.
Directory /instancecache/resources has 10,727 stream files.
They <ed: the directories> take about 85 mb each, and seem to be
all .XML files. <<SNIP>>
The naming clearly identifies the directories as /cache/, so
whatever feature presumably manages that data store is likely
similar to other cache implementations whereby they generally can
be ignored and assumed to be beneficial to the performance of the
feature; and at merely 85MB each, they would seem to be of little
concern regarding storage.
<snip>
and at merely 85MB each,
</snip>
I'm questioning his SQL statement. The whole directory size should
only be 85MB. Even with 11,000 files.
My understanding was that the "SQL statement" from the OP had yielded
those same results; i.e. ~85MB/directory. Apparently what was implied
in the OP, was not interpreted consistently.
The remainder of my reply deals only with clarifying my
understanding, so is essentially off-topic:
I understood that the claimed SQL results from the OP had matched
closely both with what Jeff posted and your expectations; i.e. matching
closely both with what PRTDIRINF presumably would have shown for the
size of the directories and what the the calculation (8k/file * 11000)
yielded from WRKLNK information.
FWiW, I had inserted an <edit> to the text from the OP, that had
clarified an assumption that I made; my interpretation of what the OP
was implying. I understand that is easily overlooked, though is still
visible in the above quoted text from the OP.
If curious why my interpretation differs, then read on.
The OP was written essentially as following three statements:
• &x contains &m files
• &y contains &n files
• "They" take &p storage each, "and seem to be all .XML files"
From that, I inferred the "They" refers to the aforementioned &x and
&y. And given the subject of the sentence should not change suddenly
due solely to comma as punctuation, the latter part of the sentence
would imply the same subject "They", are ¿composed of? files. Thus, my
interpretation of the third bullet is:
• "They" take &p storage each, and ["They"] seem to be [¿composed
of?] all .XML files"
midrange.com
