PDA

View Full Version : SS6 - Lack of confidence



Iain Shaw
2005-04-02, 12:00
I know there a number of threads aroundf talking about should I /
shouldn't I upgrade to 6

My experience

I think I've got a modest requirement running on reasonable kit - only
5000 tracks on a P4 machine with 1GB RAM - 250GB disk. Machine runs W2K
Server and isn't used for too much else - houses a lot of digital photos
and video rips but doesn't get a hard life, doesn't run desktop apps etc.

I was really looking forward to 6 - Iv'e got 3 SliMP3s and one original
SqueezeBox. And I'm disappointed. It locks up, occasionaly vanishes,
suffers long pauses when being asked to Browse Music Folder. I've been
a member of this list for a year or so and I don't normally post
whinges. And when people do I know they can get a fairly robust response.

But my point it this: My library is small, my hardware is more than
capable, I'm not doing anyting on the Server machine, my files are not
exotic, just a mix of MP3 ripped with EAC. The library plays
beautifully with a rival machine (x4), albeit a more expensive and new
one.........I love my Slims, I just hate the fact that they don't work
as I would like them too.

Does anyone else have this constant unease that their setup is just not
robust enough. If you flame me with complaints that I'm not giving
sufficient info for diagnostics etc, you're missing the point. I'm a
fan, I've got a billy bog-standard setup with a lot of oomph (more
than!), the Server software is up to release 6 and it doesn't work
properly. Yes I could move my server to one of my Linux boxes, but why
should I?

hopefully you will take this in the spirit it has been written. I'm not
satisfied the product is good enough and I love the product at the same
time if that makes any sense.
Iain

Jack Coates
2005-04-02, 14:42
Iain Shaw wrote:
> I know there a number of threads aroundf talking about should I /
> shouldn't I upgrade to 6
>
> My experience
>
> I think I've got a modest requirement running on reasonable kit - only
> 5000 tracks on a P4 machine with 1GB RAM - 250GB disk. Machine runs W2K
> Server and isn't used for too much else - houses a lot of digital photos
> and video rips but doesn't get a hard life, doesn't run desktop apps etc.
>
> I was really looking forward to 6 - Iv'e got 3 SliMP3s and one original
> SqueezeBox. And I'm disappointed. It locks up, occasionaly vanishes,
> suffers long pauses when being asked to Browse Music Folder. I've been
> a member of this list for a year or so and I don't normally post
> whinges. And when people do I know they can get a fairly robust response.
>
> But my point it this: My library is small, my hardware is more than
> capable, I'm not doing anyting on the Server machine, my files are not
> exotic, just a mix of MP3 ripped with EAC. The library plays
> beautifully with a rival machine (x4), albeit a more expensive and new
> one.........I love my Slims, I just hate the fact that they don't work
> as I would like them too.
>
> Does anyone else have this constant unease that their setup is just not
> robust enough. If you flame me with complaints that I'm not giving
> sufficient info for diagnostics etc, you're missing the point. I'm a
> fan, I've got a billy bog-standard setup with a lot of oomph (more
> than!), the Server software is up to release 6 and it doesn't work
> properly. Yes I could move my server to one of my Linux boxes, but why
> should I?
>
> hopefully you will take this in the spirit it has been written. I'm not
> satisfied the product is good enough and I love the product at the same
> time if that makes any sense.
> Iain

You've obviously got a problem, which I'm not going to be able to solve
with the information given. I'm not trying to flame you or even
complain, as troubleshooting your problem isn't really my problem.

I can say that based on this information, playing your music ought to
work fine. Why doesn't it? Well, that's the part where the ugly little
secret of the computing industry starts to rear its ugly head:

<b>You can't get predictable performance in every possible use case by
using general purpose operating systems on unknown hardware designed for
the lowest possible price point. All the hardware standards, software
standards, and design models in the world will only provide for an 80%
success ratio, at best.</b>

I'm not interested in opening the "product for propellerhead geeks vs
product for drooling vegetables" discussion again, but I will note that
the product you've chosen is available at a low price point because it's
a pair of components in a larger system that you the user are expected
to know how to install and maintain. If it were a hermetically-sealed
self-contained system for doing the same functions, it would be a lot
more reliable, a lot less flexible, a lot easier to use, and a lot more
expensive.

Maybe the server machine is infested with spyware and is doing a lot
more than you think. Maybe you've got a crappy hard disk and it's
operating very poorly. Maybe your switch doesn't like something about
the slimserver traffic. Maybe you've got a bad ethernet cable, a
marginal network card, or something else odd. If you'd like help
figuring out which one it is, I and others can help you get some tools
installed and interpret their output.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!