Thumbnail Cache can't exceed 2.00GB

[sgtfish]

It looks like the .dbits2 file, or the way it's being created, has some issue with going past 2.00 GB (size reported by Windows 7 file properties).

Once the file hits that cap, navigating away and back to the folder for that cache results in the cache rebuilding itself from scratch.
However, before navigating away from the folder, everything appears to be fine, since all files correctly display their thumbnails.
It also looks like .dat2 file gets corrupted once the the 2GB cap is hit, as the first file I can see indexed is not the first file in the folder.

A few more observations:
If the "Show cached thumbnails only" option is checked, then navigating away and back to the folder after hitting the cap will simply display nothing at all.
If I interrupt the creation of the cache at 1.99GB, then navigating away and back to the folder will correctly display thumbnails for the files already cached.
If I lower the resolution of the thumbnails such that the .dbits2 file stays below 2GB, all items appear to get correctly indexed by the .dat2 file and the folder no longer needs to get rebuilt upon navigating away and going back.


Let me know if can clarify anything or provide more details.
Thanks!

[highend]

Filesystem on which the .dbits2 file(s) reside?

If it's NTFS, forget this comment

[sgtfish]

Filesystem on which the .dbits2 file(s) reside?

If it's NTFS, forget this comment

It's indeed NTFS.
Happens on both my C:/ HDD as well as the extra SSD I have.

[admin]

Confirmed. Fixed in next version. Thanks!

[sgtfish]

Confirmed. Fixed in next version. Thanks!

Great news!
Thank you!

[klownboy]

I don't think it's my imagination, displaying a folder with a huge listing of images in a thumbnail view does seem to be quicker to the punch.

[admin]

Well, I mentioned it in the change log.

[klownboy]

Well, I mentioned it in the change log.

Yes, I did see the beta notes. I wanted to let you know we noticed the difference. Thanks.

[admin]

Yes, and I'm all happy about it. As happy as I am about finding the Alex Chilton version of Lipstick Traces (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcFk9cMGPY4).

[klownboy]

Alex Chilton reminds me in some respects of the early work (60'sand 70's) of Lou Reed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBniorwC1VY I saw him in a very small venue concert about 12 years before that video. This one has the very nice guitar work of Steve Hunter and nearly 5 million views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrMLt9bMd_I I still have the original Velvet Underground album with this recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkumhBVPGdg

[admin]

Yep, fully agreed. Never saw him, but Lou Reed is on my playlist for a long time. Chilton is a new discovery for me personally (of course, everybody knows The Letter). Yesterday I came across his cover of Sugar Sugar, this is the best cover of anything I heard in a decade (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDLgrQv2rgs). Totally glorious!

[klownboy]

Yes I think it's the raw unrefined voices of guys like Alex Chilton, Low Reed and Eric Burton (the Animals) make them alike to me in some ways. None of them would probably win a "Voice" competitition, but that is what's great about them...see this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sB3Fjw3Uvc Holy mackerel 133 million views...they're just kids.

[PeterH]

Please say: "Eric Burdon"

[klownboy]

Oops sorry! Yes, Eric Burdon. He had an excellent voice, many say perhaps the best around in those days. It's obvious on many of his songs. Unlike the other two singers mentioned above [RIP], he is still with us.

[admin]

We should be eternally thankful for the invention of sound recording.