James,

I'm seeing what I *think* is an unusual delay when capturing. This started with the release version of QRecall, but at the moment, I'm trying the 1.1.0(6) beta, and I'm still seeing it -- at least on the first capture.

This is starting with a new empty archive, and I did a verify disk and repair permissions on the source disk before I started.

I opted for the first test to capture my home folder, which is about 8.5 GB in size. I used the capture assistant to do an immediate capture (i.e. I haven't created any actions yet).

At the moment, the capture window is open, the dropdown panel at the top says "Capture bgiles to MacBook Pro Archive.quanta", the progress bar is in barber pole mode, and it says "Capturing" below that. The problem? It's been doing that for 20 minutes now. It hasn't captured the first file yet. Yes, I'm pretty sure. The capture file is 32.1 MB in size, and the modification date/time is about 20 minutes ago, when the archive was created.

I really don't have much stuff in the home folder on this machine. A couple of ripped DVDs accounts for a significant portion of the 8.5 GB.

I usually back up this computer weekly, and I noticed a similar problem this morning, when it was still running the previous release version of QRecall. When it happened this morning, I was busy doing other things, so I'm not sure how long it took before it finally started actually capturing files, but it was at least an hour. Eventually, the capture did complete.

I was hoping the beta might fix this, but apparently not. Any idea what the problem is? I'm running Leopard 10.5.3, with all the latest updates. security patches, etc.

(It's now been 27 minutes, and nothing has changed. I'll let you know if it eventually proceeds.)

-- Bruce

An update. I'm not sure how long QRecall appeared to do nothing before it finally started capturing files, but it was well over an hour, maybe an hour and a half. It did eventually start, however, and finished not long after that. As far as I can tell, it captured everything it should have captured, correctly.

The log file is interesting. I see log entries for every home directory on our server, like this:

2008-06-13 21:39:27.813 -0400 #debug# user 1026 (jhartis); home directory '/Network/Servers/server1.xxx.com/Users/jhartis' does not exist, user ignored [2.733206.364.40]
2008-06-13 21:39:27.813 -0400 #debug# user 1026 (jhartis); home directory '/Network/Servers/server1.xxx.com/Users/jhartis' does not exist, user ignored [2.733206.364.41]
2008-06-13 21:41:57.855 -0400 #debug# user 1027 (skarnitz); home directory '/Network/Servers/server1.xxx.com/Users/skarnitz' does not exist, user ignored [2.733206.364.42]
2008-06-13 21:41:57.855 -0400 #debug# user 1027 (skarnitz); home directory '/Network/Servers/server1.xxx.com/Users/skarnitz' does not exist, user ignored [2.733206.364.43]

I'm not sure what's up with that. Note that this copy of QRecall isn't running on the server, it's on my MacBook Pro, which happened to be connected to the network while the backup was running. I've obscured part of the domain name that's included in the paths above. I'll send you the unadulterated log file privately.

-- Bruce

The log entries are very interesting. QRecall uses the BSD database of users to determine the home folder of every user defined on the system. If your computer is connected to a network with a networked Directory Services server, QRecall might be plowing through every user defined on the network.

Anyway, the most straightforward approach to figuring out what it's doing would be to take a sample of the application the next time it's in a stupor. Launch Activity Monitor, select the QRecallHelper process, and click Sample Process (usually in the toolbar, but View > Sample Process or Command+Option+S works too). Save that and send it to me.

I just wanted to follow up on this. Today I downloaded the latest beta (1.1.0(15) beta) and tried again with a new archive. It still ran through the entire list of network users, but it did so MUCH faster, in only a few seconds. The backup proceeded after that, and everything appears to be fine.

I can send you the log if you're interested.

-- Bruce

Bruce Giles wrote:I can send you the log if you're interested.

Yes, thank you. Try the new Help > Send Report... command.

James Bucanek wrote:

Bruce Giles wrote:I can send you the log if you're interested.

Yes, thank you. Try the new Help > Send Report... command.

Done!