I need to get a vague idea of disk space requirements before I start forwarding logs to a Splunk instance. Each indexed line will have on average 320 characters and I will be indexing around 500,000 lines a day.  My assumptions are 1 byte per character and I'm ignoring space taken by Splunk for indices, etc. That's 160MB per day.  Would you say that's semi-accurate or totally off the mark?
272
This is a  about  Related:      I have a question regarding capacity planning. Can the Server Fault community please help with the following:   What kind of server do I need to handle some number of users? How many users can a server with some specifications handle? Will some server configuration be fast enough for my use case? I'm building a social networking site: what kind of hardware do I need? How much bandwidth do I need for some project? How much bandwidth will some number of users use in some application?
75284
I am considering using btrfs on my data drive so that I can use , or something like snapper, to take time based snapshots. I believe this will let me browse old versions of my data. This would be in addition to my current off site backup since a drive failure would wipe out the data and the snapshots.  From my understanding btrfs snapshots do not take up much space (meta data and the blocks that have changed, plus maybe some overhead), so space doesn't seem to be a constraint.  If I have a million snapshots (e.g., a snapshot every minute for two years) would that cause havoc, assuming I have enough disk space for the data, the changed data, and the meta data?   If there is a practical limit on the number of snapshots, does it depend on the number of files and/or size of files?
56693
I have a log file that is 302MB.  I have done a log backup which has left the log file mostly free (I can see this through the Disk Usage standard report)  If i try to run   DBCC SHRINKFILE (N'AdventureWorks2014_Log' , 0, TRUNCATEONLY)   or   DBCC SHRINKFILE (N'AdventureWorks2014_Log' , 0)   the file is still showing as 302MB.  I know I can change the database to simple recovery, then run one of the commands above and set back to full recovery (and then do a full backup to make sure the database is not in )  However, why can I not shrink the file in full recovery mode?  I know shrink isn't something you should do, but in my real world database, since no one had ever backed up the transaction log it had grown to 30GB and now regular log backups have been put in place to prevent growth of this level
78231
I have a legacy database whose nightmarish lack of design I will not get into here, but the files on the server are (relatively) enormous. I have:  MyDatabase.mdf: 24.8GB MyDatabase.ldf: 114.6GB  This database is backed up to a .bak file every night and shipped over to our reporting server, where it's restored. The .bak file is much smaller at only 1.8GB.  However, when I try to restore it on the reporting server, it fails due to insufficient space. There are around 100GB free on the server, and it's trying to eat up the entire 139.4GB that the files consumed on the original server. Unless my knowledge of compression is horrifically wrong, I'm fairly confident that the 1.8GB file is not actually expanding by 7400%.  My Question: Is there any way to tell SQL Server to restore this backup file without reserving that space upfront? I do not care about any of the logs; I just need the data to be there. I understand databases from the development and schema perspective, but I am by no means any sort of DBA.  This is on SQL Server 2008 R2. Thanks for any help or suggestions.
60219
I have a server with 150GB of diskspace. Today I uploaded a dataset of 30GB. I cancelled the import due to internet dying, then noticed there was 29GB of space missing in the database (meaning the CSV was uploaded, but not deleted when I broke the operation). When uploading the data once again, it broke again and I lost another ~25GB. Now there isn't enough free space to upload the data.   This is hosted on AWS RDS, Postgres 10.6.   Is there a way to fix this? I read about VACUUM. But will this delete records? I'm hosting at the moment ~70GB of data and don't want to lose any records. What's the best way to go about this?
14415
I have a small server which I use for testing and programming. Currently it runs Debian 9.4 stretch with 4.14.0-0.bpo.3-amd64 kernel.  Today I tried to connect through SSH but I couldn't then I tried to ping it and it was unreachable. Therefore I had to hard-restart it by unplugging power cable. Then I went to  /var/log/syslog  and I found a strange line containing exactly 6140 characters like the following  ^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@  then nothing else until new log entries of system restart. This is actually the first time it happens.  Does someone know what could it be?
110003
I just made an image of a freshly installed dual boot (Ubuntu and Windows) using this command (which I've been using for a while for smaller images):  dd if=/dev/sda | gzip &gt; /mnt/drive.img.gz   On this drive less than 60G out of 500G are used. Nevertheless that image-file now is 409G big.   How is that? Shouldn't gzip manage to compress all those zeros? As I said, it is a freshly installed system. It couldn't be that cluttered.  Now I didn't expect for the file to be 60G, but 400G seems very huge to me.
32122
No, this is not a , nor is it a solicitation on  to backup or  and only a little bit about Where to backup and When to do it.  This is basically a strategy question: what, where and when all together. "How" is not really relevant: there are tons of back-up programs out there and they all do the same basic thing: make copies of data.  But the real question is: are these back-up programs making copies of the data important to you?  How should you install&amp;run Ubuntu while safeguarding your data?  There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to computers, Ubuntu versions or a backup strategy, therefore I've split this up into 5 basic user types with each their own answer:       (or you're running in UEFI mode!)   And as the above does not fit everyone, one for the impatient:   !    So click one of the above links and go to your user type!  P.S. If you're running a server farm and you've read this question so far, I'm sorry: this is about a single PC, not a network, nor a server farm.
10697
I'm trying to free up some disk space - if I do a df -h, I have a filesystem called /dev/mapper/vg00-var which says its 4G, 3.8G used, 205M left.  That corresponds to my /var directory.  If I descend into /var and do du -kscxh *, the total is 2.1G  2.1G + 200M free = 2.3G... So my question is, where is the remaining 1.7G ?
70177
I would like to have a list of the installed software on my machine, with the disk space consumed by them alongside. I would prefer to be able to order by largest/smallest, but that is not a necessity.  I am the sort of person who will install software to try it, and never clean up after myself.  As a result, my 7GB (Windows and my Data are on separate partitions, as well as a swap area) Ubuntu 11.04 partition is suffering, and has started regularly showing warning messages.
99674
This is a situation I am frequently in:   I have a source server with a 320GB hard-drive inside of it, and 16GB of ram (, but as this is an issue I run into frequently on other machines as well, I would prefer the answer to work on any "reasonable" Linux machine) I have a backup server with several terabytes of hard-drive space (, see disclaimer above)   I want to transfer 320GB of data from the source server to the target server (specifically, the data from /dev/sda).   The two computers are physically next to each other, so I can run cables between them. I'm on a LAN, and , which means my network speeds should "ideally" be 1000Mbit, right? Security is not an issue. I am on a local network, and I trust all machines on the network, including the router. (optional) I don't necessarily need a signed checksum of the data, but basic error checking (such as dropped packets, or the drive becoming unreadable) should be detected rather than just disappear into the output.     I searched for this question online, and have tested several commands. The one that appears the most often is this:  ssh user@192.168.1.100 'dd bs=16M if=/dev/sda | gzip' &gt; backup_sda.gz   This command has proven too slow (it ran for an hour, only got about 80GB through the data). It took about 1 minute and 22 seconds for the 1GB test packet, and ended up being twice as fast when not compressed. The results may also have been skewed by the fact that the transferred file is less than the amount of RAM on the source system.  Moreover (and this was tested on 1GB test pieces), I'm getting issues if I use the gzip command and dd; the resulting file has a different checksum when extracted on the target, than it does if piped directly. I'm still trying to figure out why this is happening.
18838
I was using df -h to print out human readable disk usage. I would like to figure out what is taking up so much space. For instance, is there a way to pipe this command so that it prints out files that are larger than 1GB in size? Other ideas?  Thanks
38338
System drive, OS is Windows 7 x64 SP1 Ultimate.    Windows Explorer shows 100GB of used space.  TreeSizeFree shows 75GB of used space.  Total Commander and FAR confirm TreeSizeFree's measurements (counting hidden files).  Shadow copy is using up to 5GB with the current usage of 1.36GB.  Running FAR from Win7 PE shows the same.  Checkdisk shows no bad sectors. Disk is an OCZ SSD.  SMART monitor suggests SSD condition is perfect.    Where is the rest of space gone?
45930
Closely related to  from a few weeks ago, but the answers didn't discuss how to do the . Here's the situation:  We now 15 GB data in a database, but a logging bug in an application ran wild and ran this up to 80GB data giving us DB files around 130GB. We've fixed the bug, cleared out the affected tables, and I'd like to get some of the space back, maybe bring the DB back down to 40GB or so.  The biggest reason I'd like to do this is so that we can more easily restore backups to smaller drives on virtual test instances.  I get it: Shrink is evil, and will fragment both indexes and on-disk file. I'm sold. This is a one time event.  So how can I minimize the pain? Seems like I should:   Use DBCC SHRINKFILE (DataFile1, 40000); to aim for 40 GB.  Immediately use some smart reindexing to reorganize and rebuild indexes Defrag physical disks   Will that appropriately mitigate the side effects of a shrink? Or is this only going to end up on my application for the Evil League of Evil?
54157
I am in the process of creating an offsite backup, and need to do a initial load of data. Currently, that's about 400Gb, give or take 10Gb or so... The backup system is producing files which are about 4Gb each, and has some other, smaller related files also. So, i need to transfer all 400ish gigs to a remote server, but how? What is the best method?  I have full remote access to the server, so i can install anything i need to install. There are Windows, Linux and a Solaris VM running on the box itself, so any of those can be used there, and i have Windows and Linux at home. I have 2 internet connections in house, 10Mb/s uploading on each, so something that could potentially split the number of connections would be handy (kind of like GetRight, but in reverse... PutRight?).   [Update] I have tried the option below of using RSync, but there is only one connection being made between my workstation and server. When uploading large files to Amazon, there is an option of breaking them apart locally and unbreaking them on the server end. multiple files are also send over multiple connections. so, a 4Gb file could be split into 800 ish 5Mb chunks, and sent 4 or 8 at a time, using as much of your upload bandwidth as possible. So, how would i do this automatically? I could hack something together to do it and use SFTP to send the files, but is there an automagic option?
54938
I have a database, that due to some silly code issues has grown hugely. It is now sitting at 24GB, most of it is very unnecessary logging information (system generated debug information).  My server lives on a cloud hosted server. I am now sitting with 2 issues because of the file size:   I pay for storage. I am happy to pay for my core business, but paying for silly data seems....silly My backups are now huge also. I do nightly full backups, and then ship them off to an FTP server. This process is taking longer and longer.   Given my issues, is shrinking so bad? I will rebuild all my indexes. I did a dry run, and brought my database down to 6GB.  This guy (who I have always trusted as my SQL guru), says it's bad....mkay
70009
I ran into this error earlier today and requested that the extra logs be purged from the server. It was done but it still claims that there isn't any room. Is there a way to notify the server that it has more room than it thinks?