PDA

View Full Version : Slimserver memory consumption



Matthias Schnizer
2005-01-10, 12:00
I am looking at memory consumtion too right now in order to have an adequate
server for the final implementation.

I am running 5.4 release under W2K with ~500 CD library. When I startup
Slimserver, I see the following memory consumption (no clients connected
throughtout the test):

0h: Slimserver.exe. 2.9 MB
Slim.exe 54 MB

After 1h: Slimserver.exe 8.3 MB
Slim.exe 54 MB

After 2h: Slimserver.exe 2.9 MB
Slim.exe 64.4 MB

It stays stable after 2 h.

I assume that slimserver is reading/indexing/caching info about the libarary
into the memory?

Any insight on that?

Thanks


Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: kdf [mailto:slim-mail (AT) deane-freeman (DOT) com]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 1:40 PM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: [slim] Slimserver memory consumption

Quoting John Harding <john_squeezebox (AT) john (DOT) harding.name>:

> I also run slimserver as a service on WinXP and have just recently
> started getting bizarre server failures after running anywhere between
> a couple hours to a few days (until this started, typical uptime was
several weeks).
> I'll keep an eye on slim.exe memory consumption and see if I'm getting
> the same behavior.

and are you running 6.0 nighties or 5.4.1 nightlies? If you haven't done
any changes to the server recently, what music files/plugins have you added?

-kdf

kdf
2005-01-10, 12:11
Quoting Matthias Schnizer <matthias (AT) schnizer (DOT) com>:

> I am looking at memory consumtion too right now in order to have an adequate
> server for the final implementation.
>
> I am running 5.4 release under W2K with ~500 CD library. When I startup
> Slimserver, I see the following memory consumption (no clients connected
> throughtout the test):
>
> 0h: Slimserver.exe. 2.9 MB
> Slim.exe 54 MB
>
> After 1h: Slimserver.exe 8.3 MB
> Slim.exe 54 MB
>
> After 2h: Slimserver.exe 2.9 MB
> Slim.exe 64.4 MB
>
> It stays stable after 2 h.
>
> I assume that slimserver is reading/indexing/caching info about the libarary
> into the memory?
>
> Any insight on that?

the memory usage seems reasonable enough, even a little lower than I would have
expected for 500 CDs. I'm confused however with regard to slimserver.exe and
slim.exe. I thought those two were merged into just slim.exe a while ago. I
wonder if one of those is a leftover from an earlier version, or the server
somehow manages to report two different processes.

-kdf

Bill Burns
2005-01-10, 12:40
kdf wrote:

> the memory usage seems reasonable enough, even a little lower than I would have
> expected for 500 CDs. I'm confused however with regard to slimserver.exe and
> slim.exe. I thought those two were merged into just slim.exe a while ago. I
> wonder if one of those is a leftover from an earlier version, or the server
> somehow manages to report two different processes.

On WinXP (and latest 6.0 nightly), task manager shows slim.exe whenever
the server software is running. When I start the SlimServer interface
from the desktop icon, slimserver.exe is added to the list.
Slimserver.exe looks like some kind of wrapper around Internet Explorer.

--
Bill Burns
Long Island NY USA
mailto:billb (AT) ftldesign (DOT) com

kdf
2005-01-10, 12:49
Quoting Bill Burns <billb (AT) ftldesign (DOT) com>:

> kdf wrote:
>
> > the memory usage seems reasonable enough, even a little lower than I would
> have
> > expected for 500 CDs. I'm confused however with regard to slimserver.exe
> and
> > slim.exe. I thought those two were merged into just slim.exe a while ago.
> I
> > wonder if one of those is a leftover from an earlier version, or the server
> > somehow manages to report two different processes.
>
> On WinXP (and latest 6.0 nightly), task manager shows slim.exe whenever
> the server software is running. When I start the SlimServer interface
> from the desktop icon, slimserver.exe is added to the list.
> Slimserver.exe looks like some kind of wrapper around Internet Explorer.

yes, it is an ActiveX version of IE, just different enough from the real IE to
be annoying :). I was recalling the old slimsvc.exe which used to be run for
the service, while slim.exe could be run for command line.

-kdf

dbls
2005-01-10, 19:43
>
> yes, it is an ActiveX version of IE, just different enough from the real IE to
> be annoying :). I was recalling the old slimsvc.exe which used to be run for
> the service, while slim.exe could be run for command line.
>
> -kdf
>

Perhaps it's annoying, but it's the only place I know of that
one can view the debug window, since normal browsers don't
have a "Debug window" option in the View menu, for some
unexplained reason!

If I wanted to have an option to show the debug window in my
own annoying ActiveX wrapper, is there a URL that will make it
appear?

-:- dbls

kdf
2005-01-10, 22:52
Quoting dbls <dbls (AT) comcast (DOT) net>:

> >
> > yes, it is an ActiveX version of IE, just different enough from the real IE
> to
> > be annoying :). I was recalling the old slimsvc.exe which used to be run
> for
> > the service, while slim.exe could be run for command line.
> >
> > -kdf
> >
>
> Perhaps it's annoying, but it's the only place I know of that
> one can view the debug window, since normal browsers don't
> have a "Debug window" option in the View menu, for some
> unexplained reason!
>
before you continue shouting, you may want to try:
http://serverIP:9000/log.txt

there is a link to this log url given in the message when you turn on any debug
flags, btw.

-kdf

Donald B. Lagosz-Sinclair
2005-01-11, 04:49
----- Original Message -----
From: "kdf" <slim-mail (AT) deane-freeman (DOT) com>
To: "Slim Devices Discussion" <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [slim] Slimserver memory consumption [side topic]


> Quoting dbls <dbls (AT) comcast (DOT) net>:
>
>>
>> Perhaps it's annoying, but it's the only place I know of that
>> one can view the debug window, since normal browsers don't
>> have a "Debug window" option in the View menu, for some
>> unexplained reason!
>>
> before you continue shouting, you may want to try:
> http://serverIP:9000/log.txt
>
> there is a link to this log url given in the message when you turn on any debug
> flags, btw.
>
> -kdf
>

Sheesh - I thought I had seen that the "Debug window"
(a separate frame in the web UI) had somewhat different
contents than log.txt, but now I see they're the same.

I apologize for giving the impression I was shouting; in
fact I thought I was being self-deprecating, with the
reference to "my own annoying ActiveX wrapper". This
newfangled email thing can be dangerous!

-:- dbls

kdf
2005-01-11, 10:41
Quoting "Donald B. Lagosz-Sinclair" <dbls (AT) comcast (DOT) net>:


> Sheesh - I thought I had seen that the "Debug window"
> (a separate frame in the web UI) had somewhat different
> contents than log.txt, but now I see they're the same.
>
> I apologize for giving the impression I was shouting; in
> fact I thought I was being self-deprecating, with the
> reference to "my own annoying ActiveX wrapper". This
> newfangled email thing can be dangerous!
:)