<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[QRecall Community Forum - Latest posts for "jakabasej4"]]></title>
		<link>https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/listByUser/522223</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Latest posts for "jakabasej4"]]></description>
		<generator>JForum - http://www.jforum.net</generator>
			<item>
				<title>[Problems and Bugs] QRecall.log may quickly fill up the entire local storage?</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote>
 <div><cite>James Bucanek wrote:</cite>Olefin, <br> <br>
  <blockquote>
   <div><cite>Olfan wrote:</cite>By the time I took notice the log file was some 180GiB in size. I panicked, killall'ed QRecallHelper and deleted the QRecall.log so it wouldn't choke my Mac with clogged local storage. <a class="snap_shots" href="https://sharpedgeshop.com/collections/gyuto-knives-chefs-knife" target="_blank">https://sharpedgeshop.com/collections/gyuto-knives-chefs-knife</a>
   </div>
  </blockquote> <br> <br>That was clearly the right thing to do. Once the connection to the volume was broken, the helper process was useless anyway. <br> <br>QRecall's pretty fanatic about logging everything it does, but even I'm having trouble thinking of anything that would generate 180GB of log data without stopping. Most logging is self-limiting: you get an error, or three, or a hundred, but ultimately the process gives up, logs one final "I've given up" message, and terminates. <br> <br>The only code that will log an error and continue to plow ahead is during a repair, and that code (at least in QRecall 3.0) does limit the number of messages it logs before logging just a summary. There is also code that corrects slightly damaged data, but if the drive was dis-connected there's no way successive corrections could be successful. <br> <br>So without a peak at what was getting logged, I can't offer much in the way of useful suggestions, other that what you've already done.
 </div>
</blockquote> <br>Your troubleshooting approach seems quite thorough, especially given the intricacies of handling log data. It's impressive how QRecall is designed to log and handle errors, limiting the potential for runaway log growth.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/preList/4845/12109</guid>
				<link>https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/preList/4845/12109</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:16:40]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jakabasej4]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>[Suggestions and Feedback] Rotate usage of CPU cores to distribute temperature?</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote>
 <div><cite>James Bucanek wrote:</cite>
  <blockquote>
   <div><cite>maxbraketorque wrote:</cite>Just wondering if its feasible to rotate usage of the CPU cores to more evenly distribute heat production across the cores and keep max core temperatures down. My MacBookPro is getting fairly toasty during the initial backups of my external drives. <a class="snap_shots" href="https://sharpedgeshop.com/" target="_blank">Sharp edge shop</a> QR seems to be favoring Core 1 and Core 2 with their temperatures consistently running in the mid-80C range while Core 3/4 are running in the mid-70C range.
   </div>
  </blockquote> <br>What tasks get assigned to what CPU is completely outside QRecall's control. That's entirely the job of the Darwin kernel and I know of no way to influence it. <br> <br>Also note that modern, mobile, CPUs often have one core that's more powerful, with auxiliary cores that are more efficient. So intensive tasks vs. light/periodic tasks are going to favor one core, or one type of core, over others.
 </div>
</blockquote> <br>Thank you for shedding light on the intricacies of CPU tasks allocation.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/preList/1913/12072</guid>
				<link>https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/preList/1913/12072</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 7 Dec 2023 12:03:30]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jakabasej4]]></author>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>