Migratedphotolibrary file has doubled the memory space taken by photos

Question

Migratedphotolibrary file has doubled the memory space taken by photos

I have read all the posts and advice about the "migratedphotolibrary" and I am still puzzled. What they say does not seem to be true. This migratedphotolibrary seems to have doubled the memory space consumed by my photos, and I would like to get this space back I would like to delete the migratedphotolibrary if it is a duplication. Is that possible?

I went from having 30Gb of photos to having almost 30 Gb in the new Photos library, and 29 GB in this migratedphotolibrary.

The advice says this is not a duplication, but I am sorry, it reads that way in "Get Info", and definitely brings my scant Macbook Air memory (biggest default in an otherwise great product) to almost full.

What can I do? I am backing up both files and I am going to try to delete the migrated one to free up the 29Gb. This seems like a very buggy way of doing things, though. Is it supposed to be this funky?

Any suggestions? Please don't say anything about "hard linked" which makes no sense at all, linguistically or technically. I just want to keep my existing photos, add new ones, in a rational manner, and use the new program, Photos (which seems pretty nice) , without any fuss. Thanks.

MacBook Air, Mac OS X (10.5)

Posted on Dec 25, 2015 10:04 AM

Reply

Answer 1

LarryHN

Level 10

106,142 points

Dec 25, 2015 10:13 AM in response to macbookairuser64

You are wrong but there is no danger loss by deleting the migrated iPhoto library unless you need it and your archive does not work

As to answering since you demand we not tell you the actual facts then there is no way to help you - you do what you please and good luck

LN

Reply

Answer 2

Dec 25, 2015 10:22 AM in response to LarryHN

But why do I see twice the memory consumed in "Pictures"? One folder for Photos, and a roughly equivalent sized one for Migratedphotolibrary? When I do the math on my machine of these and all the other files, plus available space, this adds up to my total capacity, 128Gb

By the way, I would really like to understand why, but the expression "hard linked" is really hard for an average consumer to understand. It kind of suggests that the files are necessary to keep.

Reply

Answer 3

Dec 25, 2015 10:47 AM in response to LarryHN

But why do I see twice the memory consumed in "Pictures"? One folder for Photos, and a roughly equivalent sized one for Migratedphotolibrary? When I do the math on my machine of these and all the other files, plus available space, this adds up to my total capacity, 128Gb

By the way, I would really like to understand why, but the expression "hard linked" is really hard for an average consumer to understand. It kind of suggests that the files are necessary to keep.

Sorry if I sounded snappy, it is just kind of frustrating. When you said I was wrong, which part am I wrong about? The doubling of memory consumption? I do archive with Time Machine, so I see your point of about having everything archived if absolutely lost elsewhere. But I am just confused about it being on my very limited computer hard disk. Seems redundant.

Reply

Answer 4

LarryHN

Level 10

106,142 points

Dec 25, 2015 11:01 AM in response to macbookairuser64

It is impossible to answer since you demand that we not explain HardLinks (which is the only answer)

Please don't say anything about "hard linked" which makes no sense at all, linguistically or technically.

Since you do not what the answer do not read this link -- Photos saves disk space by sharing images with your iPhoto or Aperture libraries - Apple Support

But again since you will never know the answer just go ahead and archive (totally different than a backup) the migrated iPhoto library and then delete it

LN

Reply

Answer 5

Old Toad

Level 10

216,100 points

Dec 25, 2015 2:17 PM in response to macbookairuser64

Read this post by léonie and it is a very good explanation of hard links and how they work with iPhoto and Photos:

léonieJul 23, 2015 8:39 AM
Re: iPhoto to Photos: duplicate libraryin response to Tim in TorontoSolved

Depending on the size of your originals the disk space should increase by no more than about 20% of the size of the original library.

You can check, if the files are linked or not with a simple test in the Terminal:

If two files are hard linked, the inode numbers will be identical, when you list the file with the ls -licommand in the Terminal:

For example, looking into the packages of an new migrated Photos library and the original iPhoto Library. Everything looks duplicated with the same size:

The Terminal is showing this, when I type "ls -li " into the Terminal and drag one of the master files behind this command:

Hermione:~ dreschle$ ls -li /Users/dreschle/Pictures/Photos\ Library\ 2.photoslibrary/Masters/2015/05/28/20150528-184932/IMG_0966.JPG

39167952 -rw-r--r--@ 3 dreschle staff 1283723 25 Mai 12:00 /Users/dreschle/Pictures/Photos Library 2.photoslibrary/Masters/2015/05/28/20150528-184932/IMG_0966.JPG

Hermione:~ dreschle$ ls -li /Users/dreschle/Pictures/iPhoto\ Library.migratedphotolibrary/Masters/2015/05/28/20150528-184932/IMG_0966.JPG

39167952 -rw-r--r--@ 3 dreschle staff 1283723 25 Mai 12:00 /Users/dreschle/Pictures/iPhoto Library.migratedphotolibrary/Masters/2015/05/28/20150528-184932/IMG_0966.JPG

In both libraries are the files listed with the identical inode number 39167952, meaning they are linking to the same physical file in the file table. For the Finder both files are separate, regular files and so it is reporting the size twice.

When I compared the used space on my hard drive right after migrating the test library with 40 photos, the used storage had not been increased much: