PDA

View Full Version : Can no longer get a full rescan



stevekdavis
2005-11-03, 02:16
Hi,

I've been running the 6.2 betas for a while quite happily on a Win2003 SBS box with 512MB RAM. I have about 10,000 tracks and it was taking a few hours to rescan but it got there and there was nothing obvious missing.

I've since upgraded to the full 6.2 release and have now added about 10 new albums that I ripped to 192kbps MP3. I copied these albums into my music folder that is on a Linksys NSLU2 Network store (300GB USB2).

I triggered a scan for new and changed files and after about 5 hours none of the new tracks turned up and the server was just eating RAM and CPU. The first new album I added was in the D's (Don Maclean) and it hadn't even got that far, it had managed about 2800 tracks but the count was stuck.

I tried a full rescan and the same thing happened.

Last night I deleted the SQL DB and upgraded to the 11/02 nightly and left it rescanning overnight. This morning it's got to the same point 2884 tracks but is now using 380 MB RAM and rising and 70-90% CPU.

I'm now going to roll back to the last time I know this was working 6.2beta I think.

So are there any ideas what could be causing this, has something been introduced in the final 6.2 that was not in the later betas?

One thing to note, when I upgraded to the final 6.2 I did try the "keep server unswapped" setting, I changed this from the default of 30, to 15 and then to 10 but I couldn't see it making any difference to startup times when you first use the slimp3 or squeezebox 2 after a period of inactivity. This is currently set to 10. WOuld that make a difference?

Any other ideas?

cheers

Steve

stevekdavis
2005-11-03, 04:10
I have rolled my install back to the Oct 12th 6.2beta Nightly. Deleted the database and rescanned.

Full rescan took about 1hr. 11,000 tracks, 800 albums. Max mem usage was 75MB.

blueranger
2005-11-04, 01:07
My neighbour is having a very similar problem. He is getting close to finishing ripping his collection of 2000+ CDs and has not managed a complete re-scan since I put 6.2 on his system. The re-scan (or delete and scan from scratch) seems to hang and consume ever increasing amounts of memory causing XP Pro to report out of virtual memory errors.

I hope to have time to look at his system this weekend and will probably revert to 6.1. Have we run up against some sort of limit in 6.2?

Michaelwagner
2005-11-04, 20:38
Have we run up against some sort of limit in 6.2?Not intentionally. But some people are having problems in this area. Others are not. No one seems to have figured out the difference ...

blueranger
2005-11-08, 12:53
Wow - finally got to the bottom of the problem. Having spent most of the weekend and yesterday evening tinkering. It turns out it was nothing to do with the 6.2 update! Apologies for leaping to conclusions and blaming the new release.

First thing I did was to back-rev to 6.1.1, delete the database and rebuild from scratch. After nearly 2 hours the database had stopped growing but the scan had not finished. Then spent a few hours scanning the directories for bad rips/damaged mp3s etc. Moved out over 40 of these and did another scan - no change.

I then decided to download a copy of sqlite and have a look inside the database. Being a complete amateur with sql it took a while to grasp what was going on. Then the lightbulb suddenly came on and I realised that the last entry in the database could be identified and probably pointed to the directory with the problem (or the one before the problem).

The last entry was id 2207 pointing to a UB40 album. I checked the directory and there it was! - a link/shortcut to the top level directory! Poor old slimserver had been getting this far and then starting again, over and over!

So, there we are. A simple mistake caused hours of fun. My neighbour is pleased he has access to his full music collection and I can finally get back to listening to my Squeezebox. Sorry once again for blaming the 6.2 release.

Dan Sully
2005-11-08, 12:58
* blueranger shaped the electrons to say...

>So, there we are. A simple mistake caused hours of fun. My neighbour is
>pleased he has access to his full music collection and I can finally get
>back to listening to my Squeezebox. Sorry once again for blaming the 6.2
>release.

And just FYI - I put in checking for recursive Windows shortcuts in the 6.2.1 nightlies.

-D
--
"A good messenger expects to get shot." --Larry Wall

Michaelwagner
2005-11-08, 13:07
I put in checking for recursive Windows shortcuts in the 6.2.1 nightlies.Beat me to the punch. I was going to ask if we could. It's an easy enough mistake to make, and in a directory tree full of many twisty branches, all the same, relatively difficult to find on one's own.