PDA

View Full Version : System requirements for 6.2



Munge
2005-10-26, 23:55
System requirements for 6.2 seems to be quite a bit higher than for previous releases. Is it because of significant changes to 6.2, or is it just to be safe? I'm running 6.1.1 on a 300 MHz, 192 MB laptop. Should I forget about the 6.2?

ModelCitizen
2005-10-27, 01:03
System requirements for 6.2 seems to be quite a bit higher than for previous releases. Is it because of significant changes to 6.2, or is it just to be safe? I'm running 6.1.1 on a 300 MHz, 192 MB laptop. Should I forget about the 6.2?
It would be useful if you mentioned the OS. I am running 6.2 very successfully on a 500mx P2 with 192mb RAM under Windows XP. The machine is dedicated to SlimServer and has been stripped of all unneccessary hardware and software. Total memory usage is stable at around 119mb. I only run one Squeezebox... if I had more synched (or used Softsqueeze) I imagine I might run into difficulties.

However, it has been mentioned here that SD think the minimum spec for a Windows machine running XP should be 700mhz.

For me 6.2 runs much better than previous versions.

The only painful thing is the rescan the software does as soon as you install it. It is very slow on my machine (with 10k flac songs) and uses all it's capacity. When I first installed a 6.2 beta I received no warning that it was going to do a rescan, so I just assumed the software was dodgy and attempted to uninstall it immediately.

You might want to wait for 6.2.1 if you decide to upgrade. Apparently it should be released in a week and includes many fixes highlighted by the new large user base of 6.2.

MC

Neil Davidson
2005-10-27, 01:15
> System requirements for 6.2 seems to be quite a bit higher
> than for previous releases. Is it because of significant
> changes to 6.2, or is it just to be safe? I'm running 6.1.1
> on a 300 MHz, 192 MB laptop.
> Should I forget about the 6.2?
>
>
>

Install it in a separate directory and tell it not to start as a service or
automatically. Then shut down the 6.1.1 Slimserver and manually start 6.2
for testing.

Munge
2005-10-27, 03:00
The laptop is running W2K

hickinbottoms
2005-10-27, 03:49
I run 6.2 (actually the latest trunk) on an old 450MHz laptop with 192MB RAM running Gentoo Linux and it runs fine for me (this server machine runs without a graphical desktop, which helps reduce memory and CPU load).

My library is ~7000 tracks and I use MySQL for the database backend (I was already running it on this machine so it made sense for me). My music is nearly all FLAC, and I have a SB1.

I don't notice any problems with this configuration, even when transcoding to MP3 for remote listening. I don't get any pauses in playback in normal usage, and I find the web interface usable whether the server is playing music or not.

I see ~10% load when playing. This obviously becomes higher when transcoding for remote listening, but it's still easily manageable.

The only time performance is noticably sluggish is when rescanning the library. However, I find that totally acceptable as it only happens once in a while, and I've scheduled a nightly scan to avoid having to manually rescan during normal usage. I think that performance is understandable given the amount of data the server is having to chew through.

Obviously my experience is on Linux only, but based on the performance I see then I think the 6.2 server would run quite happily on a 300MHz machine, and you wouldn't see any performance problems (eg pauses) except when rescanning the library.

As others have said, however, it's easy to try it and see for yourself, and roll back if you find any problems. The new features enabled by the use of the database are very nice indeed.

dean
2005-10-28, 08:26
We upped the system requirements on the web site and in the
documentation to make sure that folks have plenty of headroom when
running on their machine and don't have a bad experience. Will it
run well on smaller machines? Absolutely, and in many ways 6.2 is
faster than previous releases.

-dean

alefgr
2005-10-28, 09:08
The first page 'Home' takes too much time for display on Mozilla, 10-20 seconds!!!

System: Celeron at 2,8G, RAM 1G and OS Win2K3 Ent.
Database: ~3800 artists, ~41000 songs.

PaulR
2005-10-28, 09:32
I'm running version 6.2 on a LinkstationHG which (I think)is running at 270MHz and 128MHz RAM.
I've not (yet) had any problems with audio dropouts or real performance issues.
I do use .flac so that the server doesn't have to do any transcoding.
The web interface is a little sluggish but bearable. The remote control interface is reasonably/acceptably responsive. I have approx 350 CDs ripped.

All in all I'm delighted with the whole deal!

My linkstation spec seems to be quite a bit lower than the minimum requred spec of a PC. I presume if I used transcoding I would need a system closer to that recommended. Also I don't use the linkstation for anything else.

I hope Slim Devices don't start to push up the minimum requirements so that they can bundle in new whiz-bang features to the cost of making these 'low end' servers unusable. It would be a real shame if low power quiet servers such as linkstations became non-viable in future.

Having said all that I do like new features(!) and fully understand things have to move forward. It would be great though if Slim can achieve this without having to compromise on the minumum spec requirements for the server machine.

Paul

mattybain
2005-10-28, 09:54
The first page 'Home' takes too much time for display on Mozilla, 10-20 seconds!!!

System: Celeron at 2,8G, RAM 1G and OS Win2K3 Ent.
Database: ~3800 artists, ~41000 songs.

Have you seen this thread? http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=17395&page=1 removing the count scan has made a real difference to me on Firefox, the whole thing is so much more lively then before.

alefgr
2005-10-29, 11:21
Have you seen this thread? http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=17395&page=1 removing the count scan has made a real difference to me on Firefox, the whole thing is so much more lively then before.

Nothing change ... 10-20 secs on Win Mozilla v1.7.11. The same delay time and with Explorer.