James

Thanks yet again for a very detailed explanation. I am content to leave things as they are and let QRecall just do it's "thing" on the grounds that it, and you, know what to do far better than do I. For your information The archive is about 300GB, I have 9GB RAM and 4 processors. At the time it was archiving a VMWare Fusion drive image of about 10GB.

Adrian

How much real memory would you expect QRecall Helper to use? I am currently running a backup and it is using over 900MB, and increasing.

Adrian

My first full capture from the Zevo volume proceeded at what seemed to be a perfectly reasonable speed and the resulting archive did not have an apparent issues as I was able to open and view it and restore files to the Desktop. However, the next incremental backup was a disaster with QRecall insisting on performing a deep file system scan at a glacial speed. Worse still, in a fairly short time all my free memory disappeared to be replaced by inactive memory.

It was worth a try but I won't be using Zevo just yet I am sorry to say.

Adrian

James Bucanek wrote:
The only thing I've testing is capturing to a QRecall archive stored on a ZFS volume. I'll try capturing and restoring files on a ZFS volume when I have a chance.

I have just tried this and ended up with a damaged archive. I have repaired the archive and run another capture and again I have a damaged index, so it looks like using QRecall and Zevo in this manner isn't viable for the time being.

I am in the process of running a capture from a Zevo volume to an hfs+ volume and I'll report back in due course. I should add that I am using the latest beta of Zevo.

James

Do the problems you have encountered relate to using a Zevo formatted disk for archive storage and/or for capturing files on a Zevo formatted disk?

Adrian

I sincerely hope it does because as soon as Tenscomplement release the Gold edition of Zevo I want to use it for my mirrored drives hosting my user directories.

Adrian

James Bucanek wrote:

Question: Is your QRecall application on a different volume than your home folder?

Yes

James Bucanek wrote:
This message appears when the activity monitor process fails to find the QRecall application bundle. The QRecall bundle contains the Sparkle upgrade framework, which the activity monitor uses to determine if a QRecall upgrade is available. If the activity monitor can't locate and load the framework, the worst thing that will happen is that an upgrade notification won't appear in the activity monitor window.

Thanks James.

Hi James

I am seeing the message

"QRecall bundle does not appear to be valid"

occurring frequently in the QRecall log, but it doesn't seem to be causing any problems.

Adrian

I take my hat off to you James. Not only do you always respond to questions and problems expeditiously but you are also very quick to come up with solutions, and I wish every developer was as conscientious.

This particular incident serves to remind all of us that while QRecall 2 is a rock solid application most of the time, it is still in beta and we shouldn't grumble if just once in a while it throws a bit of a wobbly. There is still nothing else that comes anywhere close to this application.


Thank you again
Adrian

Thanks James. What prompted my question was that in the advanced settings page of the Cookbook & FAQ forum it says "Leopard only" for this parameter and I just wondered if anything had changed with later releases of OS X.

Out of curiosity I tried changing QRAuditFileSystemHistoryDays to zero so it would perform an exhaustive scan on every capture but I didn't notice any change in the capture speed which seems a bit odd if QRecall has to examine every file. Also how confident are you that a seven day interval is reasonable?

Can you tell me where in the archive the date is stored as I have had a look at the various files and I can't see anything obvious.

Thanks

Adrian

James

Does QRecall still perform a periodic exhaustive file system scan in Lion and if so how frequently?

Adrian

James

Everything is working fine with beta 57 after removing the hack.

Thanks

Adrian

James

I am pleased to report that your hack has been working perfectly for the last 24 hours and there were no problems following a reboot.

Thanks again

Adrian

Hi James

At this rate I might have to put you back on my Christmas card list

Adrian

Hi James

Thanks for the hack, so far it seems to be working fine. Using a symlink had passed through my mind but I lack the knowledge of what to move and where. I'll keep you updated if there are any problems but so far it's looking good.

It does seem a odd that Apple allow the user directories to reside on another volume, and even provide a simple mechanism for making the change, but then alter the security model so that some things break.

Adrian