PDA

View Full Version : A suggestion for people with large music library



agentsmith
2005-12-13, 07:39
I have been busy ripping all my CDs into Flacs, I have done 588+ so far, and I am not quite half finished. And yes I bought all my CDs over the years, I have a whole wall of CDs that I never get to listen to. Hopefull when I retire I can just put SB on random play till eternalty.

Problem is that Slimserver/SB seem to go slower with large libraries, and with that much music, it is hard to navigate through the DB menu.

Would it be possible to have one Slimserver keeps multiple (seperate) databases and run multiple server instances on a demand basis? (e.g. One Per Genre). I.E. When Slimserver starts, you can choose from a menu of different server names/database?

That would sort of be a best of both worlds, wouldn't it?

agentsmith
2005-12-13, 07:42
I have been busy ripping all my CDs into Flacs, I have done 588+ so far, and I am not quite half finished. And yes I bought all my CDs over the years, I have a whole wall of CDs that I never get to listen to. Hopefull when I retire I can just put SB on random play till eternalty.

Problem is that Slimserver/SB seem to go slower with large libraries, and with that much music, it is hard to navigate through the DB menu.

Would it be possible to have one Slimserver keeps multiple (seperate) databases and run multiple server instances on a demand basis? (e.g. One Per Genre). I.E. When Slimserver starts, you can choose from a menu of different server names/database?

That would sort of be a best of both worlds, wouldn't it?

This was not meant as a suggestion for users. It is a suggestion for developers of Slimserver to implement a feature to run multiple databses.

JJZolx
2005-12-13, 10:17
As far as databases are concerned, the difference in performance between 500 CDs (say 6000 tracks) and 5000 CDs (60,000 tracks) _should_ be fairly small. Having 60,000 records in a table should be easy work for a well-designed database system. Once version 6.5 comes out using MySQL I think larger libraries will be handled better than with the current SQLite. With one caveat... I think the hardware requirements may go up a bit.

It's a tough tradeoff. On the one hand you want to be able to run the SlimServer on a wide variety of equipment, but on the other you need to enable installations with larger collections to work well.

agentsmith
2005-12-13, 18:44
As far as databases are concerned, the difference in performance between 500 CDs (say 6000 tracks) and 5000 CDs (60,000 tracks) _should_ be fairly small. Having 60,000 records in a table should be easy work for a well-designed database system. Once version 6.5 comes out using MySQL I think larger libraries will be handled better than with the current SQLite. With one caveat... I think the hardware requirements may go up a bit.

It's a tough tradeoff. On the one hand you want to be able to run the SlimServer on a wide variety of equipment, but on the other you need to enable installations with larger collections to work well.

I am not at 1,000 CD mark yet but it is good to know that it may not make much difference. Although I think the re-indexing speed should at least be linear to the number of records in the database.

It would still be beneficial to be able to seperate collections into different groups for easy navigation of music and for the ability to be able to "freeze" music collections seperately.

twylie
2005-12-14, 09:23
what hardware are you running slimserver on? I've got almost 60k tracks in my database and it's been running 24x for the last 3 years on a 2.4P4 with 1GB of RAM. I'm now running the SliMP3, a SB and a SB2 on my network and aside from some delay in searching (I've got search set to look across all tags), it's plenty snappy for my use.

agentsmith
2005-12-15, 02:48
what hardware are you running slimserver on? I've got almost 60k tracks in my database and it's been running 24x for the last 3 years on a 2.4P4 with 1GB of RAM. I'm now running the SliMP3, a SB and a SB2 on my network and aside from some delay in searching (I've got search set to look across all tags), it's plenty snappy for my use.

SlimServer - IBM Thinkpad T30 with 768MB RAM running Wireless G, music data is mapped to a Linkstation network drive.

Storage - Linkstation 250GB Network Drive connected with Cat5 FE 100MBps to the Wireless Access Point

Squeezebox2 - Connected with Cat5 FE to Wireless Access Point

twylie
2005-12-15, 09:04
SlimServer - IBM Thinkpad T30 with 768MB RAM running Wireless G, music data is mapped to a Linkstation network drive.

Storage - Linkstation 250GB Network Drive connected with Cat5 FE 100MBps to the Wireless Access Point

Squeezebox2 - Connected with Cat5 FE to Wireless Access Point
Looks like it should be plenty fast enough for 600 albums. Only thing I could think to check would be to make sure that the speedstep stuff on the laptop isn't staying in low power mode and you might want to try experimenting with connecting the laptop, NAS, and SB2 to a switch or to the wired ports on the access point to see if it makes a differnce. I can't imagine wireless G woudl be causing you any delays, but it would help take one more thing out of the troubleshooting equation.

When you mentioned that it's slow navigating through the data, is this via the remote or using the interface back to the server? if it's on the interface to the server, is it local (laptop) access or access from somewhere else on your network?

rick's cafe
2006-01-09, 05:54
I got my SB3 a couple of weeks ago.. and aside from the usual connection problems that I had to sort out the whole system works great. However, one thing I've notice with my set up is that there is a considerable delay when browsing my music folders on the SB3. Once I drill into a folder it often takes 10 secs to drill down further into the artist/album listings.

My music is organized Genre/Artist/Album/Track

I have about 140gigs of tunes or roughly 16K tracks all stored on an external HD. For the most part the tracks are ripped as 192 kbs MP3's... the Slimserver is loaded on an old PC (which may be my problem?) and connected to a Belkin wireless G router....

My PC is a PIII 550mhz, 512mb RAM and is running WIN XP

Is this the couase of my slowdown or is such a slowdown to be expected with my size of music library?

Any helpful advice would be appreciated to improve the overall performance of my system

thanks

rick's cafe
2006-01-09, 05:56
I got my SB3 a couple of weeks ago.. and aside from the usual connection problems that I had to sort out the whole system works great. However, one thing I've notice with my set up is that there is a considerable delay when browsing my music folders on the SB3. Once I drill into a folder it often takes 10 secs to drill down further into the artist/album listings.

My music is organized Genre/Artist/Album/Track

I have about 140gigs of tunes or roughly 16K tracks all stored on an external HD. For the most part the tracks are ripped as 192 kbs MP3's... the Slimserver is loaded on an old PC (which may be my problem?) and connected to a Belkin wireless G router....

My PC is a PIII 550mhz, 512mb RAM and is running WIN XP

Is this the couase of my slowdown or is such a slowdown to be expected with my size of music library?

Any helpful advice would be appreciated to improve the overall performance of my system

thanks

SlimPvC
2006-01-09, 07:00
Hopefull when I retire I can just put SB on random play till eternalty.

That's exactly what I used to think, but bear in mind that your musical taste may have changed drastically by that time...
Nowadays, I really can't stand most of the rock shit I bought in the seventies.
So better enjoy it NOW :-)

bflatmajor
2006-01-09, 07:31
For those that are having speed issues, you may look into the following items, they may be causing you the problems.

1) Memory, if you have less than 1gb of memory then you may be suffering from the lack of available memory. Example; if you 512 mb memory and you have various other tasks/programs loaded in the background, those tasks are using your memory. That means SS does not have 512mb of memory available for it's usage. Go into to Task manager and kill/stop some of the other processes and then run SS and see if the speed increases. Also the speed of your memory may be an issue.

2) Disk speed. How fast is your harddrive. Reading a database is a fairly simple and quick operation, but if you have a slow harddrive then it will be slower than a pc with a faster harddrive.

Those are just my suggestions, YMMV


Later

radish
2006-01-09, 08:00
To be fair, slimserver rarely uses over 100mb, so 512 would be fine unless you're running a LOT of other junk at the same time. A dedicated slimserver box would be fine with 256, probably significantly less. And memory speed makes very little noticable difference to anything, I certainly wouldn't expect to see any difference with SS. Agreed about the disk speed though, particularly when indexing.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-09, 08:16
I agree with Radish. I'm running W2K, and I just checked. Peak usage on my Slimserver is 70MB. Add another 8MB for Slimtray (not sure why that's so large) and you're still around 80MB RAM. That's for about 8600 tracks.

I use the option, available only in recent releases, of specifying where the database is stored. I keep it in RAM.

That provides some speedup.

I gather the database used in 6.2 isn't the fastest, and that's going to change some time soon.

Also, performance improvements are being made to the code every couple of days. They'll make it into the next major release and then everyone will benefit from them. I'm not sure when that is, though.

Browny
2006-01-09, 08:26
....

My PC is a PIII 550mhz, 512mb RAM and is running WIN XP

Is this the couase of my slowdown or is such a slowdown to be expected with my size of music library?

Any helpful advice would be appreciated to improve the overall performance of my system

thanks

To be honest a PIII 550 is bottom spec for a fully patched up Windows XP SP2. If you're running it as a desktop as well then you really need something around the 1Ghz mark for things to run smoothly. Adding more RAM is always another solution especially if you're running more processes at once, but you may find that you're just hitting the limits of a fairly old processer.

Of course another way of prolonging the life of an old pc would be to switch to Linux......your PC would be fine as a dedicated server running Linux.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-09, 08:31
one thing I've notice with my set up is that there is a considerable delay when browsing my music folders on the SB3. Once I drill into a folder it often takes 10 secs to drill down further into the artist/album listings.
I need to read more carefully ...
You say it's slow when browsing music folders.
Do you mean, it's slow when using the "browse music folder" menu item?

If I understand properly, that function bypasses the database and re-reads the various folders. So then the thing that is slowing you down is hard disk speed and connectivity.

You mentioned that your hard disk is an external. What flavour of connection does it have? USB1? USB2? Firewire?

Does the corresponding port on your computer support the disk fully? i.e. if it's a USB port, is the computer able to run USB2 on that port. PIIIs at 500MHz are probably 4 or 5 years old .. they mostly didn't have USB2 support.

If so, that may be part of your problem.

Possible solutions:
Faster/newer computer
Internal Hard disk
Newer faster USB hardware in your PC
Don't use the "browse music folder" function, but rather the ones by artist/album/genre, which go through the database.

Hope this helps.

rick's cafe
2006-01-09, 09:11
thanks for the guidance:

Yes.. I use the Browse Music Folder option via the SB3 interface.

I have installed a USB 2.0 card in the back of my PIII .. the external HD is connected to this slot.

The HD is made by Western Digital technical specs as follows:

Rotational Speed 7,200 RPM (nominal)
Buffer Size 2 MB
Average Latency 4.20 ms (nominal)
Seek Times
Read Seek Time 8.9 ms
Track-To-Track Seek Time 2.0 ms (average)
Serial Transfer Rate
USB 2.0
Serial Bus Transfer Rate (USB 2.0) 480 Mbits/s (Max)

My PC, although old.. is not used for anything other than running SS and browsing the net. I have no other apps to speak of running other processes.

Basically I am trying to figure what I should best do to speed up overall performance... if the PC can work then I am not minded to change it out... as for the HD .. I have jsut noted that mine only has 2 mb buffer size and new models extend up to 8 mb and 16 mb cache / buffer size.... I am thinking of getting a new external HD as I am running out of storage.. do you think the added buffer size will assist?

thanks

rick's cafe
2006-01-09, 09:14
on th eusb 2.0 aspect.. when I installed the new usb card my system updated the drivers itself.. is there anything else that i should have done to ensure that the pc and card are both speaking the same languaage (i.e transfering at 2.o rates)???


if so how do you do that? any ideas?

Mitch Harding
2006-01-09, 09:21
I think the main problem is using the "Browse Music Folder" interface.
That's going to be slower than Browse Artists/Albums. If I understand
correctly, BMF reads from the disk, and Browse Artists/Albums reads from the
DB -- which you can keep in memory for faster access.

On 1/9/06, rick's cafe <ricks.cafe.21dl3b (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> thanks for the guidance:
>
> Yes.. I use the Browse Music Folder option via the SB3 interface.
>
> I have installed a USB 2.0 card in the back of my PIII .. the external
> HD is connected to this slot.
>
> The HD is made by Western Digital technical specs as follows:
>
> Rotational Speed 7,200 RPM (nominal)
> Buffer Size 2 MB
> Average Latency 4.20 ms (nominal)
> Seek Times
> Read Seek Time 8.9 ms
> Track-To-Track Seek Time 2.0 ms (average)
> Serial Transfer Rate
> USB 2.0
> Serial Bus Transfer Rate (USB 2.0) 480 Mbits/s (Max)
>
> My PC, although old.. is not used for anything other than running SS
> and browsing the net. I have no other apps to speak of running other
> processes.
>
> Basically I am trying to figure what I should best do to speed up
> overall performance... if the PC can work then I am not minded to
> change it out... as for the HD .. I have jsut noted that mine only has
> 2 mb buffer size and new models extend up to 8 mb and 16 mb cache /
> buffer size.... I am thinking of getting a new external HD as I am
> running out of storage.. do you think the added buffer size will
> assist?
>
> thanks
>
>
> --
> rick's cafe
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> rick's cafe's Profile:
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3021
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19080
>
>

Browny
2006-01-09, 09:24
on th eusb 2.0 aspect.. when I installed the new usb card my system updated the drivers itself.. is there anything else that i should have done to ensure that the pc and card are both speaking the same languaage (i.e transfering at 2.o rates)???


if so how do you do that? any ideas?

To make sure the card is running as USB2 goto Device Manager and Expand the Universal System Bus controllers. You should see entries in here for both the onboard USB and your added card. Your card should show as a 'USB2 Enhanced Host Controller' and you should also have a USB2 Root Hub listed.

ModelCitizen
2006-01-09, 09:36
I run Slimserver 6.2.2 and one wireless Squeezebox 2 on a P3 500Mhz with 192mb Ram. It's a dedicated laptop with a very minimal installation of Windows XP SP2 (lots of services turned off etc). I have over 10,000 flac songs and the total machine RAM usage varies betweeen 120mb and 130mb.
It works very well indeed. My 300gb Maxtor oneTouch, which holds all my music, is attached via USB1.

Scanning doesn't cause a problem as it happens every night while I'm asleep.

MC

rick's cafe
2006-01-09, 09:54
I much prefer searching for music via the browse music folder route... does anyone know if there are any plans or if there is any way in which SS can be modified so that it reads this info from the Databse rather than from the disk.

I know that I can browse by artist but the logic of my current file structure and organization of files lends itself to browsing by folder....

at the moment my structure is like this

f://soundsystem/spinsounds/reggae/peter tosh

the root is soundsystem

then i have various sub folders which help me categorize where i got my tunes from ...

any ideas relating to organization and speed for searching would help..

one other point is that prior to using SB3 .. i used winamp as my player.... same file structure and smae number of tunes but no issues in terms of lag time when using winamp search facility which presumably worked on a database system.... although there was a bit of a lag when using the Dynamic lilbrary winamp plugin , which basically mirrors the usual windows file structures...

any thoughts welcomed

Michaelwagner
2006-01-09, 10:12
on th eusb 2.0 aspect.. when I installed the new usb card my system updated the drivers itself.. is there anything else that i should have done to ensure that the pc and card are both speaking the same languaage (i.e transfering at 2.o rates)?
I believe that windows XP pops up a little message box with a warning when you connect a USB 2 device to a port that isn't running USB2.

If you didn't see the message, likely your port really is running USB2.

ajmitchell
2006-01-09, 11:41
Its amusing that those with 60k+ songs or more have about 2 years music continuous listening 8 hours a day. About 10 listens and suddenly your trendy 2005 music sounds like 1985 again!! ;)

Michaelwagner
2006-01-09, 12:16
You can cut it down to under a year if you listen at work and when you're asleep too :-)

Mitch Harding
2006-01-09, 12:36
Let me preface my comments by saying that I've not done any SB development
work, so those who have should feel free to jump in and correct me if I'm
misstating anything here.

>From reading this forum for a couple of years, here's my understanding of
the hows and whys of the different browse options.

The Browse Artist/Album/Genre, etc, options use the tags that have been read
into the database. The advantage is speed (and the ability to look through
your library in a logical manner even if they are not laid out on disk
logically). The disadvantage is that the files have to be in the database.
So if you rip a new CD and encode it and stick it in your music folder, it's
not going to show up in your database automatically.

This brings us to Browse Music Folder. As far as I know, it's main purpose
is to allow you to access music that hasn't yet been put in the database,
since a full-fledged re-scan can take a long time. Because it's allowing
you to access music that is not in the library yet, it has to go directly to
disk. It can't access the database in memory. And thus, it's going to be
slower than the other browse methods.

I understand what you're saying and what you are asking for -- you have your
files organized on disk in a way that is meaningful to you, and this
provides better organization than what the tags provide. Unfortunately, I
think the only solution using the current Slimserver model is to tag your
files in a way that allows you to use that browsing method.

For example, it looks like your structure is roughly as follows:

F:/soundsystem/<source of music>/<genre of music>/<artist>/

So one option you could use would be to change the "genre" tags of your
music. So let's take your specific example below:

f://soundsystem/spinsounds/reggae/peter tosh

Right now I'm guessing that the "genre" tag of files in that directory are
"reggae". But you could change the genre tags to:

"Spinsounds.Reggae"

And then you could use browse by genre, scroll down to the Spinsounds genres
(which will be grouped alphabetically), and pick the sub-genre that
interests you (Spinsounds.Reggae, Spinsounds.Dance, whatever).

The downside is that it's kind of kludgy to put that in your genre tag, but
it would get the job done, I think. It probably wouldn't even be too tough
to write a script that goes through your library and appends the "Music
Source" info to the front of each genre tag.

On 1/9/06, rick's cafe <ricks.cafe.21dmxz (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I much prefer searching for music via the browse music folder route...
> does anyone know if there are any plans or if there is any way in which
> SS can be modified so that it reads this info from the Databse rather
> than from the disk.
>
> I know that I can browse by artist but the logic of my current file
> structure and organization of files lends itself to browsing by
> folder....
>
> at the moment my structure is like this
>
> f://soundsystem/spinsounds/reggae/peter tosh
>
> the root is soundsystem
>
> then i have various sub folders which help me categorize where i got my
> tunes from ...
>
> any ideas relating to organization and speed for searching would
> help..
>
> one other point is that prior to using SB3 .. i used winamp as my
> player.... same file structure and smae number of tunes but no issues
> in terms of lag time when using winamp search facility which presumably
> worked on a database system.... although there was a bit of a lag when
> using the Dynamic lilbrary winamp plugin , which basically mirrors the
> usual windows file structures...
>
> any thoughts welcomed
>
>
> --
> rick's cafe
>
> WHEN MUSIC HIT YOU ....YOU FEEL NO PAIN!!!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> rick's cafe's Profile:
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3021
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19080
>
>

snarlydwarf
2006-01-09, 15:49
Let me preface my comments by saying that I've not done any SB development
work, so those who have should feel free to jump in and correct me if I'm
misstating anything here.


Nor have I, but I think this is logical. :)



This brings us to Browse Music Folder. As far as I know, it's main purpose
is to allow you to access music that hasn't yet been put in the database,
since a full-fledged re-scan can take a long time. Because it's allowing
you to access music that is not in the library yet, it has to go directly to
disk. It can't access the database in memory. And thus, it's going to be
slower than the other browse methods.


That's true that it has to go to the disk, but I don't think that should be a significant source of delay. At least on a *nix box, this is done so often by so many programs that it's highly optimized. Opendir() and readdir() etc are all very very fast.

The catch is that (in the web interface, when you load the page, or when it shows the filename on the squeezebox), it does actually open the file and check for tags and inserts them into the database. It should only do this if the file is newer than the version in the database, though: so the demand shouldn't be very high.

In this case, I think one of the problems is the external drive.

Even USB2.0 is... slow.

USB2.0 is 480Mbps max, or 60MBps. But that's making a whole slew of assumptions about zero-packet-overhead, zero interrupt latency, etc. In reality, the speed is much much lower.... For comparison, the theoretical maximum is around what the typical maximum -real- spec for 100Mbps ethernet is.

(oops, left here even if it's wrong.. I'll admit when I need more caffeine to do math. so, yes, this is an edit :P)

I will still say USB2.0 is far slower than an internal drive: if you can replace that with an internal drive you would most likely see much better performance.

Readdir() and some inode checks (or whatever the equiv in windows is) shouldn't take long at all regardless of how many files you have on your system.. the only limit should be how many are in that directory.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-10, 06:35
That's true that it has to go to the disk, but I don't think that should be a significant source of delay.
It depends, somewhat, on how many directory levels, etc.


The catch is that (in the web interface, when you load the page, or when it shows the filename on the squeezebox), it does actually open the file and check for tags and inserts them into the database. It should only do this if the file is newer than the version in the database, though:
*Should* is the important word here. I'm not sure that check is really being done. And if it is, the optimizations Dan put in are recent. I don't think they've made it beyond the nightlies yet.


Even USB2.0 is... slow. ... far slower than an internal drive: if you can replace that with an internal drive you would most likely see much better performance.

True.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-10, 06:47
I much prefer searching for music via the browse music folder route... does anyone know if there are any plans or if there is any way in which SS can be modified so that it reads this info from the Databse rather than from the disk.
There's no good fundamental reason Slimserver couldn't do this. The information about the full path name of each song is in the database. I assume the original authors just thought tags were so much better a way to find music than the directory structure, which, for many people, isn't all that well thought out.

The way to go about getting what you want is to file an enhancement request.

An enhancement request is actually a bug report with one of the fields (I don't recall which at the moment) selected as "enhancement". Then you describe how you'd like things to work. And if people agree with you, someone will work on it in the future some time and make it so.

Do you want to fill out such a request? If you're not comfortable doing it, I can do it and you can add yourself to the interested parties list, so that you can see what progress is being made.

rick's cafe
2006-01-10, 09:18
Many thanks for your replies.... i now have a much better understanding of how the system works.... After reading your comments I suspect that my best bet is to go thru and tag and rename a number of fields within all my tracks ... I know there are many programs that will assist but the mamoth task that I envison puts me off.. perhaps I need not think of it that badly...

nevertheless... as for the ability to browse music folders within the database rather than the hard drive I for one think that might be a useful addition, although whether there are competing interests to keep the existing way in place (ie to allow users to search for tracks outside of the database) - who knows?? I would happily endorse a bug fix for this.. but being new to the forum (and forums generally for that matter) I dont really have a clue on how to start off the process... Michael .. if you can start the ball rolling and let me know how I can endorse it .. please do.

anyway... thanks for the help.. will post an update on how i get on in due course...

Michaelwagner
2006-01-10, 10:34
OK. I'm at work now, but will file an enhancement request when I'm at home tonight.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-10, 22:43
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2808

JJZolx
2006-01-10, 22:59
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2808
I don't think it's so much that BMF isn't using a cache that makes it so slow - what it has to do is many many lookups in the db at each junction in the tree. If these database interactions are as slow and unoptimized as I understand the scanning lookups to be, then it's no wonder BMF is so slow.

Actually, I think Dan said that something like this may be forthcoming in v6.5. I suggested that you be able to browse through the music folder without BMF actively looking for new and changed files. At each branch in the tree you can display a button that would let you explicitly catalog that folder and any subfolders. This would kill two birds - you'd have a nice, quick means of browsing the directory structure _and_ you'd also have a nice user interface for cataloging newly added music.

I've been harping about this forever. At some point I'd really like a BMF does a simple directory browse, showing every single file in the folders - not what SlimServer thinks is in those folders and that it thinks is worthy of being cataloged in the database. Say you had 10 scans of artwork for an album - there's no way in SlimServer to view those scans. Display all image files in BMF, not just the single 'cover' and let a user click on the file names to view them. If you come across a playlist, allow the user to click the playlist to play the referenced files. It's one of those things that's conceptually so damned simple that I don't understand why it wasn't done a long time ago.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-10, 23:26
At some point I'd really like a BMF does a simple directory browse, showing every single file in the folders - not what SlimServer thinks is in those folders and that it thinks is worthy of being cataloged in the database. Say you had 10 scans of artwork for an album - there's no way in SlimServer to view those scans. Display all image files in BMF, not just the single 'cover' and let a user click on the file names to view them. If you come across a playlist, allow the user to click the playlist to play the referenced files. It's one of those things that's conceptually so damned simple that I don't understand why it wasn't done a long time ago.
Remember, there are 2 BMFs. The web UI one and the one on the 2 line client-front display.

What you're describing sounds like just invoking windows explorer from inside Slim - for the web interface.

I can't imagine how to do anything similar with the front panel.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-10, 23:30
Actually, I think Dan said that something like this may be forthcoming in v6.5.
I too thought I remembered some such statement ... but with the forum crashing tonight, I gave up looking and just filed the enhancement request. If in fact it's been done, it can be closed redundant or some such.

After I spent most of an hour trying to get the enhancement request entered and trying to find where I'd seen a better discussion of BMF and what exactly was getting improved in 6.5, while the web site kept crashing, I was disinclined to continue my research. I was just happy it finally after 4 tries took my enhancement request at all.

(I'd already copied the text into a text file on my desktop in case I would have to resubmit it).

emm
2006-03-22, 00:20
I'm using the Maxtor One Touch II (300gb external drive) with USB2 connection and having pauses and delays when playing music using SB3 and Linksys WRT54GX2 router (hardwired to laptop). Had no problem when music folder was on my laptop's internal drive, but now my music folder is too large (90gb) for my laptop (80gb). My laptop's got 2g RAM and 1.7ghz PIII.

Is there some problem with the way the Maxtor external drive accesses the disk?

emm

ModelCitizen
2006-03-22, 00:51
I'm using the Maxtor One Touch II (300gb external drive) with USB2 connection and having pauses and delays when playing music using SB3 and Linksys WRT54GX2 router (hardwired to laptop). Had no problem when music folder was on my laptop's internal drive, but now my music folder is too large (90gb) for my laptop (80gb). My laptop's got 2g RAM and 1.7ghz PIII.
Is there some problem with the way the Maxtor external drive accesses the disk?
emm

I use the same Maxtor drive via USB 1 into a 500mhz 192mb RAM Dell Latitude running XP, wireless router is Netgear. The Maxtor is completely full of flac files and the whole thing is rock solid.

MC

emm
2006-03-22, 02:36
Yes it seems the external Maxtor drive is not the problem after further testing. I get the same dropouts when running from my laptop and playing just 1 FLAC file from a music folder with just a few FLAC files in it. When I use the "Server and Network Health" feature of Slimserver, it tells me my Buffer Fullness is low and I should check my network connection. My network connection appears to be fine. I run Slimserver using http://localhost:9000/

Should I run Slimserver from my laptop using my own IP address? Please help.
emm

snarlydwarf
2006-03-22, 02:54
So there's a wireless link between the server and the router, but not between the SB3 and the router?

You may want to look at that link: perhaps a neighbor bought a new wireless setup and is now interfering with yours.

Try switching to channel 1 or 11 on the router, since most routers come on channel 6, those are far away enough to not overlap with channel 6.

Fifer
2006-03-22, 03:46
Once version 6.5 comes out using MySQL I think larger libraries will be handled better than with the current SQLite. With one caveat... I think the hardware requirements may go up a bit.
Mmmm. Should those of us who have just invested in Qnap TS-101s be concerned?