PDA

View Full Version : Quality of Slimserver



gb115b
2007-05-22, 07:39
does anyone think that the quality of releases has been extremely poor of late...

i'm not sure what they're doing to the server software, but when i can't even browse by artist anymore it seems a bit cheeky to call 6.5.2 a stable release...

i'm seriously considering a device that just works...the extra features you get with slim are nice, but if it can't get basic functionality to work correctly whats the point?

gb115b
2007-05-22, 07:40
sorry missed the <rant> </rant> on that comment

mherger
2007-05-22, 07:44
> i'm not sure what they're doing to the server software, but when i
> can't even browse by artist anymore it seems a bit cheeky to call 6.5.2
> a stable release...

If you can't even browse by artist you obviously have a problem, I agree.
But this doesn't mean the server is poor. If _everybody_ had that problem,
it would be.

Now... if you want your problem solved, you should stop the rant, start a
new thread, and give some information which might help us solve your
problem.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a CD
http://www.herger.net/slim - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR

gb115b
2007-05-22, 08:21
basically i have a brand new set up

consisting of windows 2003 server enterprise r2 32-bit (running as a virtual machine on a 2003 64-bit box)

latest slimserver install 6.5.2.

the audio file path is a UNC one if that makes any difference...



anyway, the server scans through the directory but when i select the artist view it only brings those artists from compilations plus some select albums (seem to be the more recent ones?).

i can see the albums appear fine in the album list (with appropriate artist info etc. in them)


I previously had an older version of slimserver running fine on xp pro (32-bit), which worked fine with all my tagging...



back to my rant however, i still think that since version 5 i have encountered a hell of a lot of problems / bugs (that needed the nightly builds) etc. for rather key functionality...especially considering these are meant to be release versions!

smst
2007-05-22, 08:57
That sounds like this bug:

http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4882

...which has affected me too (searching by artist was where I noticed it). Do you set ALBUMARTIST, COMPOSER or BAND for most of your albums? I think the bug affects non-compilation albums when those tags are set as well as ARTIST.

Comments #25 and #26 there describe a workaround which should allow you to get the database back into a state where browsing by artist will work again.

(I'm only helping with that problem you're having; I'm not commenting on the question of stability or quality of SlimServer one way or the other.)

gb115b
2007-05-22, 09:51
thanks...it does sound the same...however after adding those two sql lines i just end up with 0 artists?

i sent an item to support about it...we'll see what happens

i think i've had to make an error report after nearly every upgrade... sigh...

JJZolx
2007-05-22, 10:06
i'm not sure what they're doing to the server software, but when i can't even browse by artist anymore it seems a bit cheeky to call 6.5.2 a stable release...

Expand on "can't even browse by artist anymore". What does that mean? You have no 'Browse Artist' on the main menu? You have no artists in the database? The links don't work?

Northstar
2007-05-22, 10:31
What releases? It still doesn't work properly with Vista and that has been out since February! There doesn't seem to be any support for the product since Logitech took over, just as expected. How long before they try to sell us something new instead?

Time to get rid and look at the alternatives i'm afraid.

servies
2007-05-22, 10:36
What releases? It still doesn't work properly with Vista and that has been out since February! There doesn't seem to be any support for the product since Logitech took over, just as expected. How long before they try to sell us something new instead?

Time to get rid and look at the alternatives i'm afraid.
Indeed: you should get rid of Vista. Slimserver works perfectly in combination with Linux. I have no problem at all.

Oh... that's not the answer you want to hear...

discocarp
2007-05-22, 12:02
Indeed: you should get rid of Vista. Slimserver works perfectly in combination with Linux. I have no problem at all.

Oh... that's not the answer you want to hear...

For me "perfectly" includes rhapsody. :)

forestcaver
2007-05-22, 14:48
I agree - I ended up backing off a couple of releases (to 6.2.2) which works for me (hooray - but not the point of the email). I use a low powered laptop server (quiet) and a NSLU2 to store the music to drive a slimp3. I have a large (~30-40 k tracks) music library and just cannot tolerate the time to rescan on a NAS. Hence broken releases are a huge pain. I have given up attempting to upgrade, which I did pretty religiously since about v3 (mostly for stability and some functionality).

I would also like to see a more partitioned server, where the user can choose to install a lower footprint functionality. There is only a tiny amount of the functionality that I personally use (basically just playing MP3s and using AlienBBC when that works).
It does seem to me like slimserver is getting very bloated and resource hungry. Given the comments from many users, it appears that I am not the only one who wants to run it on a low wattage system rather than a state of the art server.
I have tried to make this rant free - there are many on the forum who will instantly claim any criticism (constructive or otherwise) is a rant/troll etc. It isn't. I am merely trying to point out that there is strong support in the user base for a lighter weight slimserver that is fully tested and stable prior to release.

Cheers,
Andy

pfarrell
2007-05-22, 14:59
forestcaver wrote:
> powered laptop server (quiet) and a NSLU2 to store the music to drive a
> slimp3. I have a large (~30-40 k tracks) music library and just cannot
> tolerate the time to rescan on a NAS.

Did you ever consider not using a low power laptop and NAS, since you
don't like the time to rescan?

Its not clear to me that your problem is with the SlimServer, but with
your selected hardware.

> I would also like to see a more partitioned server, where the user can
> choose to install a lower footprint functionality.

Ok, you say you don't want to rant, but can you explain why you think
two versions of the SlimServer would result in you getting a better product?

While SD didn't say why they dropped the wired-only SqueezeBox, I bet a
strong reason was that the costs for making, inventorying, handling
repairs for, and selling two units with only a small difference in
selling cost exceeded the actual savings to SD.

I know that having two versions of any software can trivially double the
cost and time for QA, testing, bugfixes, etc.

powerful CPUs are nearly free, dual core Intel CPUS are under $200 and
are screaming fast. Memory is almost free, you should have a gigabyte in
any semi-serious computer server, and anything running SlimServer is by
definition a server.

I think you will be happier with the results, and I know it can happen
more quickly, if you just upgrade your hardware. Get an old PC, put it
in a closet and be happy.

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

forestcaver
2007-05-23, 02:29
[QUOTE=Pat Farrell;203871]forestcaver wrote:[color=blue]
> powered laptop server (quiet) and a NSLU2 to store the music to drive a
> slimp3. I have a large (~30-40 k tracks) music library and just cannot
> tolerate the time to rescan on a NAS.

> Did you ever consider not using a low power laptop and NAS, since you
> don't like the time to rescan?

Yes - I have used a number of different boxes - I have used a linux box that was pretty much dedicated to slimserver. However, if you read what I said, I want to use a low wattage system for many reasons (climate, cost, etc.)



> Ok, you say you don't want to rant, but can you explain why you think
> two versions of the SlimServer would result in you getting a better product?

Not what I said - I don't want n versions. I just don't want a monolithic, bloated server.



> powerful CPUs are nearly free, dual core Intel CPUS are under $200 and
> are screaming fast. Memory is almost free, you should have a gigabyte in
> any semi-serious computer server, and anything running SlimServer is by definition a server.

Sorry - I must live in a different socioeconomic grouping - $200 is not free to me and neither is memory.

> I think you will be happier with the results, and I know it can happen
> more quickly, if you just upgrade your hardware. Get an old PC, put it
> in a closet and be happy.

1) I dont want to keep a dedicated server on all the time.
2) I dont want the noise
3) I dont want the heat
4) I dont want the cost (climate, finances, etc)

Moreover, I really think that the model is starting to get absurd - the recommendation that you need to build a dedicated high-powered modern server to play music on a consumer electronics device is slightly ridiculous.
Am I really the only one who thinks that if a music player's software bloats the solution is to build a large dedicated modern server ?
Let me put it another way - I really like my Slimp3 but there is no way that I could recommend this to a non-computer literate friend - the maintenance costs on their time would be too great. It is not the hardware but rather the software that is the problem.

Cheers,
Andy

Smiley Dan
2007-05-23, 04:36
This might not help Andy but I try to conserve energy using Wake-on-LAN or ACPI features of your PC. Unfortunately as you are using Vista there's going to be a crap load of other stuff going on too.

The only real solution is something lightweight and dedicated... and really that cannot mean a Windows operating system. A minimal Linux installation onto a fanless Epia box may be a useful way to go, for instance...

servies
2007-05-23, 04:48
> Ok, you say you don't want to rant, but can you explain why you think
> two versions of the SlimServer would result in you getting a better product?

Not what I said - I don't want n versions. I just don't want a monolithic, bloated server.

What do you mean by monolithic bloated server? I don't see any monolithic issues...
Just deselect the plugins you don't want.

1) I dont want to keep a dedicated server on all the time.
2) I dont want the noise
3) I dont want the heat
4) I dont want the cost (climate, finances, etc)

Ah, I see it: you want everything but you don't want to do anything to get it...


Moreover, I really think that the model is starting to get absurd - the recommendation that you need to build a dedicated high-powered modern server to play music on a consumer electronics device is slightly ridiculous.
Am I really the only one who thinks that if a music player's software bloats the solution is to build a large dedicated modern server ?
Please tell us: do you know any example of a device with the same functionality as squeezebox/slimserver which does it the way you want it?


Let me put it another way - I really like my Slimp3 but there is no way that I could recommend this to a non-computer literate friend - the maintenance costs on their time would be too great. It is not the hardware but rather the software that is the problem.
The problem is not the software, the problem is the user that wants to drive a car without even trying to obtain a drivinglicense or even buying/renting a car...

pfarrell
2007-05-23, 06:00
forestcaver wrote:
>> Ok, you say you don't want to rant, but can you explain why you
>> think two versions of the SlimServer would result in you getting
>> a better product?
>
> Not what I said - I don't want n versions. I just don't want a
> monolithic, bloated server.

The current server is what it is. "bloated" is a very value laden word.
One man's bloat is another man's rich feature set.

The source to the server is available, patches welcome.

But the point is that if you suggest a different software architecture,
it will add bugs during the transition. And if the software is designed
with many small modules, the combinatorial explosion will make support
problems grow exponentially.

>> powerful CPUs are nearly free, dual core Intel CPUS are under
>> $200 and are screaming fast. Memory is almost free, you should have a
>> gigabyte in any semi-serious computer server, and anything running SlimServer
>> is by definition a server.
>
> Sorry - I must live in a different socioeconomic grouping - $200 is
> not free to me and neither is memory.

That is the price for new CPUs.
I've run my slimserver for years on cast off (i.e. free) computers.


> 1) I dont want to keep a dedicated server on all the time. 2) I
> dont want the noise 3) I dont want the heat 4) I dont want the cost
> (climate, finances, etc)

I think you are grossly overestimating the cost and impact of these.
A used machine will run from free to $100 or so. Trading your car for a
bicycle once a week will save the energy.

In all homes, the refrigerator is the largest energy user, more so than
even air conditioning.

> Moreover, I really think that the model is starting to get absurd -
> the recommendation that you need to build a dedicated high-powered
> modern server to play music on a consumer electronics device is
> slightly ridiculous. Am I really the only one who thinks that if a
> music player's software bloats the solution is to build a large
> dedicated modern server ? Let me put it another way - I really like
> my Slimp3 but there is no way that I could recommend this to a
> non-computer literate friend - the maintenance costs on their time
> would be too great. It is not the hardware but rather the software
> that is the problem.

If you like your Slimp3, keep using it.

All software suffers from feature creep. My first Windows machine was a
386/33 with 5 MB of ram. Worked for what I needed. Modern machines are a
hundred times faster (and no more than 1/3 the cost).

I think a better comparison is not to a slow laptop and NAS, but to a
SONOS, which bundles in the server. That is a consumer device. It is
also much more expensive than a SqueezeBox and used PC.

But more importantly, your ideal SlimServer is not mine. Supporting both
is a non-trivial effort.

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

cliveb
2007-05-23, 06:05
The only real solution is something lightweight and dedicated... and really that cannot mean a Windows operating system. A minimal Linux installation onto a fanless Epia box may be a useful way to go, for instance...
Not necessarily. My Slimserver (release 6.5.1) is running on the household general server, which is Windows 2000 on a 533MHz fanless EPIA (the slowest of all the mini-ITX systems), with just 512MB RAM. It has two 3.5" hard disks, and consumes about 40W. (If I were building it now, with bigger disks available, it could use just one disk, bringing power consumption down to somewhere around 25W).

This machine also runs an Oracle database (not high-throughput, of course!), Xitami web server, VPOP3 email server, two printers, and a sprinkling of other minor services. It never has any problems keeping two Slim clients (Transporter and SB2) happy. So you *don't* need a high-powered box to run Slimserver.

Pale Blue Ego
2007-05-23, 06:05
If you want a lighter-weight, basic server, why not go back to a 3.x or 4.x release? Or take a stable release and see how much code you can strip out without breaking it? Or offer to pay a perl guru to do that? It's open source - you aren't forced to use the latest "bloated" version.

pfarrell
2007-05-23, 06:14
cliveb wrote:
> So you *don't* need a
> high-powered box to run Slimserver.

Totally correct. You need a decent box. And if you are concerned about
scan time, you need fast IO. But all of this is relative.

Cliveb's 533 mHz with 512MB of ram is probably not an ideal current
target, mostly because even Via has lots of 1gHz processors these days.

My current SlimServer is some random AMD 2400+ type CPU, which is really
about 1.4gHz. I don't know what it really is, it was free, and I don't
need more speed.

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

shermoid
2007-05-23, 06:27
it seems that there are at least 2 camps of people in the slimserver universe:

1. those who think the product should work as the customer expects, and
2. those who think the customer should work as the product expects

i work as a software engineer (previously also in system administration) like many of us in these forums, and like many who use slimdevices' products. so, we all are at least familair with computing devices, and the maintenanace issues surrounding ANY computer.

i used to be be in camp #2 - i thought that i had to work to get my computers into the shape i wanted them. i believed that all computing devices, even one that "just" plays music, needed to be configured, and lovingly adjusted and constantly tweaked, and that's just what it takes to be able to own and use a product.

i have changed horses, and am now in camp #1 - i want device manufacturers to provide the customer an appliance. i have simply lost interest in dealing with hardware, software, firmware and any other *ware, that does not work when plugged in and turned on. in other words i want a product, not someone's bench experiment that happens to work, sort of, mostly, and depends on the positions of the sun, moon and stars.

i've gone from using sun and linux machines to apple macintosh - you plug it in, and it works in a very powerful way. i don't feel "boxed in" or "trapped" with something less than satisfactory, just because i did not need to spend days or weeks tweaking it into a working state.

i also do not find it helpful for those who think that you must tweak your setup constantly to keep it running to berate those who believe that the product ought to work for the customer. it's just two different mindsets. not everyone likes to mess with machinery all the time. i know i don't - or at least, not any more. i'll do the work to set something up, but i do expect commercial product quality out of hardware and software. that means the product works consistently when you turn it on - no ifs, no ands and no buts.

products that require as much attention as slimserver are not really full-fledged commercial products, they're for tinkerers, hobbyists or geeks. i agree with forestcaver that the slimserver product is far from ready for mainstream, but works in the meantime, as long as oyu have patience for it. after about a month of tech support, i finally have a working readynas and slimserver setup. i will never touch it again, except to add more music to the nas. it's too painful to deal with a product in a perpetual alpha/beta state like slimserver.

-sherm

Paul_B
2007-05-23, 07:19
CliveB,

I have a very similar setup to you using a Via MoBo and it consumes just 25W (measured from a plug-in Watt-Meter).

My machine is a Via EN 1.5GHz with 1GB of RAM and 1 SATA HDD. The machine does more than just run Slimserver (which it does pretty well). It also runs Exchange 2003, SQL 2005, IIS 6.0, WINS, DNS, DHCP, WSUS, Home-Automation software, Print Server all on Windows 2003 Server. It doesn't really struggle for the basic stuff I am throwing at it but it does serve the entire house.

Must confess I have never timed a full re-scan but then I only do that very infrequently and usually just before going to bed.

So I think it is possible to run Slimserver on a low power consuming machine. In my experience memory is critical to SS rather than raw processing power. Initially I used a QNAP TS-101 but with just 64MB it was horrible using the web-interface with 6.5.x Although both Moose and SlimFX worked pretty well as the tasks were offloaded from server to client.

cliveb
2007-05-23, 08:15
Cliveb's 533 mHz with 512MB of ram is probably not an ideal current target, mostly because even Via has lots of 1gHz processors these days.
Very true. I was an early mini-ITX adopter, and the 533MHz EPIA5000 is the mobo I happen to own. It does the job, so no need to replace it. (I did have to add a new IDE controller, though, as the on-board controller doesn't support 48-bit LBA. Modern mini-ITX boards don't have this problem, of course).

Patrick Dixon
2007-05-23, 09:56
Ah, I see it: you want everything but you don't want to do anything to get it...

Sounds just like a normal customer to me ...

Malor
2007-05-23, 12:03
Ah yes, the lovely open source ethos: "Blame the User". You'll see this all the time. User describes what he or she wants something to do. If that something is difficult with current open source offerings, then the user is told he or she is stupid for wanting it. This is as inevitable as the sun rising. It has nothing to do with the merits of the actual idea; if you want something that is difficult with open source, then obviously you MUST be stupid, as open source products are perfect.

In any given problem space, the abuse doesn't go away until the open source solutions DO solve a given problem, and then all of a sudden the exact same people will realize that, hey, maybe that wasn't such a bad idea after all.

The idea of requiring a multi-Ghz machine to serve music is pretty startling, IMO. I've run servers that held all the daily work for about seventy-five programmers and another twenty or twenty-five support staff that that didn't break 500mhz. Somehow, they managed to serve their files just fine to dozens of people at once. Yet, for some reason, this software requires multi-ghz to do a good job of handling ONE AUDIO STREAM.

Yes, I understand why that is; it's in Perl and runs on Mysql and can run a bunch of clients at once. But someone who shows up and points out that a nice, consumer-friendly device shouldn't require a Cray XMP in the back room is not being stupid. He or she is correct that this is a suboptimal solution for many people. Explaining WHY it's done that way, instead of abusing him or her, would seem far more intelligent.

Shipping software that works out of the box would also be helpful; release versions of Slimserver are a freaking nightmare. Nightly builds are much better, but major bugfixes to the 'stable' code don't get pushed out fast enough. To this dev team, "stable" means the code isn't changing, not that it works. This causes confusion and distress among users, who tend to assume that if you call something stable, they can trust that it will do what it's advertised to do.

It's especially frustrating because the nightly builds are so GOOD, but the releases always suck so bad. I don't know what it is, but it's like there's a snaggletooth fairy that waves her crooked wand over the code base the night before any given major release.

There was one release awhile ago -- 6.3 maybe? -- that couldn't POSSIBLY work out of the box; someone had changed some paths at the last minute and broke the server completely. The 'stable' code on the website was completely nonfunctional, but it didn't change for over two weeks, close to three IIRC. For that period, anyone downloading that software wouldn't have a working Squeezebox. That's a customer service disaster, but I'm not sure anyone learned anything from it.

I even tried to volunteer to help test before releases went out... just to go through the installation process to be sure it worked. The replies were so assholish that I gave up on the idea. The Open Source ethos at work again, I guess.

mherger
2007-05-23, 12:12
> But someone who shows up and points
> out that a nice, consumer-friendly device shouldn't require a Cray XMP
> in the back room is -not being stupid-.

Nobody says you're stupid. But you're wrong. You don't need even one GHz
to run SlimServer. I've never had anything beyond a Via C3/1GHz to serve
up to seven devices.

> I don't know what it is, but it's like
> there's a snaggletooth fairy that waves her crooked wand over the code
> base the night before any given major release.

I've read every Harry Potter available in different versions, but I still
can't fight her :-)

Michael

Malor
2007-05-23, 12:13
I mean... when people complain about the slow scanning, instead of abusing them for not having a fast machine, tell them something like this:

"The reason the server has to be so fast for a decently quick scan is because the logic in figuring out the correct tags in all the different formats we support is extremely difficult. We support CUE/wav, CUE/flac, ogg, mp3, wma, and aac. The number of different permutations and corner cases in scanning is startling, and it takes a lot of horsepower to figure out a sensible way to organize and present the information to you. We run into all sorts of weird problems where fixing one bad choice will cause others, so the code gets quite involved, and, thus, slow."

(insert your own corrections for actual formats supported, I just use mp3 and flac, myself. :) )

pfarrell
2007-05-23, 12:35
Malor wrote:
> Ah yes, the lovely open source ethos: "Blame the User". You'll see
> this all the time. User describes what he or she wants something to
> do. If that something is difficult with current open source offerings,
> then the user is told he or she is stupid for wanting it.


No, you are being argumentative.
The OP claimed that scanning was "too slow" on very slow hardware.
The problem has nothing to do with open source or not. It has to do with
unreasonable expectations.

> The idea of requiring a multi-Ghz machine to -serve music- is pretty
> startling, IMO.

There is no claim to such a thing.

The claim is that since one gigahertz CPUs are obsolete, there is no
reason to run a slow computer and then complain that it is slow.

> Yet, for some
> reason, this software requires multi-ghz to do a good job of handling
> ONE AUDIO STREAM.

There is no truth to this claim. I ran for years on a 500 mHz p3.
The only reason I changed was that the fan got filled with rabbit fur,
and I had a newer machine sitting idle.


> Yes, I understand why that is; it's in Perl and runs on Mysql and can
> run a bunch of clients at once.

No, it is not because it is Perl or MySql.

The claim is that scanning is too slow, and the reason that is slow is
because it has to read much of, if not all of, the data in the files.
On a slow computer or with slow disks or with limited memory, that will
take a long time.


I have no idea what your problem with the developers was, they have
always welcomed whatever I have offered.

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

amcluesent
2007-05-23, 13:12
>Ah yes, the lovely open source ethos: "Blame the User". <

Then again, some of the people who post questions here are obviously utter numpties...

forestcaver
2007-05-23, 13:19
Just to clarify - the original poster complained about stability. I said that stability was poor and upgrading to new releases was a pain because they were often broken and required a rescan, which was slow. I can live with slow rescanning if you only have to do it once. The current way of adding music is very klunky. (Rescan or manually browse through a poor web interface).

I do think that it is possible to provide a music server that does not require seriously powerful hardware.
No, I am not going to build it myself (I am a customer here) - I have too much else to do. I know how to do it but I really do not want to - I want to buy something that is easy to use.

I am merely trying to voice an opinion that Slimdevices may want to consider that some of their customers consider their software server to be the weakest link by a very long way. I personally do not like the idea that a music server that is streaming a single stream (I know some people here have many devices, but the majority must surely only have one). I personally would like to see a modular architecture that allowed plugins for the functionality some people want. I really think that Slimdevices need to seriously assess what market they are aiming at. Either hackers or consumers (I have moved camps over the years).

This really is a personal view - I am not here to argue with the vocal devotees. I really respect the point of view of wanting to squeeze in as much extra functionality and pure "gee wow" stuff as possible. I just think that there are probably a number of people like me who normally stay silent on this board (I have been reading these fora since they started). Up until very recently I have been very happy, almost evangelical (and not posted), but the standard of recent releases and the direction of the server (increased functionality/bloat whatever people choose to call it) has left me very disillusioned. Let me reiterate, my main use of the server is to stream one stream of MP3 to a single player. That really must be what most users do and what most want. It should be simple and reliable, with added functionality secondary to that primary functionality.

(By the way, that probably is a bit of a rant to be fair :-) ).

Cheers,
Andy

brucegrr
2007-05-23, 20:44
Where are people getting the idea you need a "powerful" machine to run slimserver? From what I have seen, slimserver will run on some pretty slow, antiquated equipment. I think what really drives a lot of this..........is our impatience. If rescan takes 2 minutes longer than we think it should....it is the bloated software's fault. How easily we forget the days of dialup and slow, slow, slow computers.Remember the boot up, go get coffee, eat breakfast, and then just maybe you might be able to use the computer days?

As to Vista and slimserver not working together well.I am sure they will get that worked out. There are LOTS of programs and hardware that do not play nice with Vista. I spent a whole day upgrading a new laptop to Vista. Got all done........only to find out my printer wouldn't work with Vista and that HP might have the driver out by JULY!! Personally, I like Vista.

Let's remember Vista was not on the supported OS list when most of us bought our Squeezebox. At the time we bought it functioned according to the stated system requirements. Just because Microsoft foists another OS on the world doesn't mean slim devices must hurry up and make everything compatible. Perhaps it is in their best interest to do so.........but it may not be a #1 priority. I have slimerver on an XP system. I want to upgrade it to Vista but I am waiting until Vista is more mature and slimserver is more Vista friendly.

mherger
2007-05-23, 23:23
> utter numpties...

I must bookmark the Urban Dictionary...

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a CD
http://www.herger.net/slim - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR

mherger
2007-05-23, 23:26
Hi Bruce

> As to Vista and slimserver not working together well.

I haven't seen many conrete reports about this (maybe I've overseen them).
Could you please open a new thread with some more details? Or a bug, if
it's not covered yet?

> may not be a #1 priority.

Triode's done a lot of work to make SlimServer 6.5.2 behave better on
Vista - because he happened to install it (poor guy :-)). It would
therefore be important to know what's wrong for you.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a CD
http://www.herger.net/slim - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR

Pale Blue Ego
2007-05-23, 23:36
My expectations are the same as those of the people complaining the loudest. The difference is, I'm not having any of the problems they are. I've been using slimserver for 5 years and "it just works". I used to stay several months behind the current release, just to be safe - but the releases were coming much faster back then. And generally I wouldn't upgrade unless there was some compelling new feature I wanted. For instance, since 6.5.1 is working great, I won't consider upgrading until 7.x, because the only thing missing now (for me) is support for embedded album art in FLAC.

Maybe some people think that all their personal desires should be met with every release. Hey, most companies don't even ASK what you want! But I'm sure if enough people clamor for a Slim "appliance", they'll eventually get their wish - not that the complaining would stop.

Side note - I recently tried various music cataloging software - OrangeCD, Helium, JRiver, etc - guess what? They all took a long time to pull the tag info from thousands of files.

mherger
2007-05-23, 23:37
> until 7.x, because the only thing missing now (for me) is support for
> embedded album art in FLAC.

I think kdf added this to the latest 6.5.x branch (post-6.5.2). Just in
case you really wanted it ;-).

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a CD
http://www.herger.net/slim - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR

Smiley Dan
2007-05-24, 04:57
Not necessarily. My Slimserver (release 6.5.1) is running on the household general server, which is Windows 2000 on a 533MHz fanless EPIA (the slowest of all the mini-ITX systems), with just 512MB RAM. It has two 3.5" hard disks, and consumes about 40W. (If I were building it now, with bigger disks available, it could use just one disk, bringing power consumption down to somewhere around 25W).

This machine also runs an Oracle database (not high-throughput, of course!), Xitami web server, VPOP3 email server, two printers, and a sprinkling of other minor services. It never has any problems keeping two Slim clients (Transporter and SB2) happy. So you *don't* need a high-powered box to run Slimserver.

I, er, didn't say you did. I was just advising that maybe different platforms are advisable to run on lower power hardware. Nice setup you've got there though :)

Personally I'd say you don't need a hard disk, storage should be compartmentalised too.

brucegrr
2007-05-24, 05:29
Michael,

I have not tried Vista with slimserver. I based my opinion on what I have read in the forums. Since my setup works PERFECTLY I hate to mess it up. It looks like, from the release notes anyway, that maybe 6.5.2 is much more Vista friendly.

My point is.........Microsoft throws out to the world its latest and greatest.........and then eveyone expects instantaneous compatibility. Never mind the fact that there are more people who clean the toilets at Microsoft than work at Slim Devices. Vista is a major OS change (especially in how it handles security)and Slim Devices should not be faulted for there being issues that need to be worked out between the OS and slimserver. I am quite confident it will all work out. People need to be patient.

Bruce

Marc Sherman
2007-05-24, 06:27
Pale Blue Ego wrote:
> My expectations are the same as those of the people complaining the
> loudest. The difference is, I'm not having any of the problems they
> are. I've been using slimserver for 5 years and "it just works". I
> used to stay several months behind the current release, just to be safe
> - but the releases were coming much faster back then. And generally I
> wouldn't upgrade unless there was some compelling new feature I wanted.
> For instance, since 6.5.1 is working great, I won't consider upgrading
> until 7.x, because the only thing missing now (for me) is support for
> embedded album art in FLAC.

Ditto. I find the number of "poor quality" threads that crop up here
quite baffling, actually -- it's always just worked for me, ever since I
first installed version 5.4.

If there was one critical error that Slim made, I think it was the
high-profile bundle they did with Infrant that gave people some false
expectations of the level of performance they could expect from running
the server on a NAS.

- Marc

MrD
2007-05-24, 13:09
Vista / XP / etc... is not server architecture, it is desktop / workstation architecture.

Run server software on a server OS.

Slimserver is not CPU bound**, it is I/O bound, meaning gets lots of memory and fast disk.

** Unless you are trancoding during playback.

slimkid
2007-05-24, 13:32
Vista / XP / etc... is not server architecture, it is desktop / workstation architecture.

Run server software on a server OS.

...

Really. I wonder how many SBs would be out there if that was a requirement. Granted, all the remaining ones would have been owned by cool people.

MrD
2007-05-24, 14:54
Really. I wonder how many SBs would be out there if that was a requirement. Granted, all the remaining ones would have been owned by cool people.

Just don't complain if you are trying to open a can with a screwdriver. You can do it, but it isn't pretty.

slimkid
2007-05-24, 17:15
Just don't complain if you are trying to open a can with a screwdriver. You can do it, but it isn't pretty.
Since this can is on the front shelves in the supermarket, sensible approach is for it to be 'openable' with whatever majority of their (intended) customer base have.

Mark Lanctot
2007-05-24, 19:53
Slimserver is not CPU bound**, it is I/O bound, meaning gets lots of memory and fast disk.

Generally I agree, but a fast disc? A WAV stream is only 1411 kbps. Heck, even a 24/96 WAV is 4608 kbps. Even a very slow disc will be orders of magnitude faster than that.

Perhaps for rescanning, yes.

MrD
2007-05-24, 20:46
Generally I agree, but a fast disc? A WAV stream is only 1411 kbps. Heck, even a 24/96 WAV is 4608 kbps. Even a very slow disc will be orders of magnitude faster than that.

Perhaps for rescanning, yes.

Yeah, fast disk and memory for the DB.