I seem to have a love/hate relationship with concurrency. On the one hand, with data being on USB, it’s great to limit the number of live scans, but on the other, nothing happens until the scan and sync has taken place.
I have 4 very large jobs, all between 400Gb ~1.2Tb. If I set concurrency too low and all those jobs are scanning then nothing else is ever going to happen for days if not weeks. If I set concurrency high then there’s a huge amount of disk thrashing.
However, if concurrency was tweaked that the limitation was only applied to the number of jobs being scanned, and the syncing operation is not counted towards the concurrency limit, this would make everything more efficient as the syncing is plodding along at it’s own speed per job where necessary whereas the scanning can continue through the rest of the jobs.