PDA

View Full Version : squeezecenter - dissapointing



gordon_the_gopher
2008-03-09, 14:32
Just replaced a dead music server and went to download slimserver only to find it's replaced by squeezecenter.
"Great" I thought, another new improved version.
How wrong could I have been....
Why do people always think that flashier looking and all new is better? It's just soooooooo slow, like travelling back in time, selecting a menu option in squeezecenter reminds me of loading outrun on my Dragon 64 when I was 10 years old - painful.
I've been using my squeezebox for around 2 years now and have raved about it to anyone who would listen - I firmly believed this was the coolest consumer electronics device ever created.
Not any more.
Please fix this quickly......

kdf
2008-03-09, 14:42
On 9-Mar-08, at 2:32 PM, gordon_the_gopher wrote:

>
> Just replaced a dead music server and went to download slimserver only
> to find it's replaced by squeezecenter.
> "Great" I thought, another new improved version.
> How wrong could I have been....
> Why do people always think that flashier looking and all new is
> better?

http://<serverip>:9000/classic if you prefer the old web ui.

Also note that instaling SC7 will cause a rescan of your library.
This WILL slow down your system noticeably until it has completed.
Completion time will vary on number of tracks, formats and artwork
content.

-kdf

Dougal
2008-03-09, 14:49
The old default skin is now called classic.

radish
2008-03-09, 15:05
And you can always go back to 6.5.4 if you want: http://www.slimdevices.com/downloads/SlimServer_v6.5.4/

EnochLight
2008-03-09, 22:04
Just replaced a dead music server and went to download slimserver only to find it's replaced by squeezecenter.
"Great" I thought, another new improved version.
How wrong could I have been....
Why do people always think that flashier looking and all new is better? It's just soooooooo slow, like travelling back in time, selecting a menu option in squeezecenter reminds me of loading outrun on my Dragon 64 when I was 10 years old - painful.
I've been using my squeezebox for around 2 years now and have raved about it to anyone who would listen - I firmly believed this was the coolest consumer electronics device ever created.
Not any more.
Please fix this quickly......

SqueezeCenter is such a massive improvement over the old SlimServer - you must be smoking crack... ;^P but I agree with everyone else: if you're more into the old basic interface, use the Classic skin. Be that as it may, SqueezeCenter is leaps and bounds *FASTER* than the old SlimServer...

JimC
2008-03-09, 22:08
SqueezeCenter is such a massive improvement over the old SlimServer - you must be smoking crack... ;^P but I agree with everyone else: if you're more into the old basic interface, use the Classic skin. Be that as it may, SqueezeCenter is leaps and bounds *FASTER* than the old SlimServer...

I agree with EnochLight... in my experience, SqueezeCenter is a lot faster than SlimServer. There's clearly something unique about these installations that are creating a slowdown.

Any chance the folks experiencing the problem could post details on their system configurations? Perhaps there's something common that would point to a cause behind their slowdowns.


-=> Jim

Mitch Harding
2008-03-09, 22:24
This is completely opposite of my experience. I find SqueezeCenter
significantly faster than SlimServer was.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:32 PM, gordon_the_gopher <
gordon_the_gopher.360ycb1205098501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> Just replaced a dead music server and went to download slimserver only
> to find it's replaced by squeezecenter.
> "Great" I thought, another new improved version.
> How wrong could I have been....
> Why do people always think that flashier looking and all new is better?
> It's just soooooooo slow, like travelling back in time, selecting a
> menu option in squeezecenter reminds me of loading outrun on my Dragon
> 64 when I was 10 years old - painful.
> I've been using my squeezebox for around 2 years now and have raved
> about it to anyone who would listen - I firmly believed this was the
> coolest consumer electronics device ever created.
> Not any more.
> Please fix this quickly......
>
>
> --
> gordon_the_gopher
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> gordon_the_gopher's Profile:
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13745
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44503
>
>

jhermann
2008-03-09, 22:42
As for the speed of the UI, for win32 users there's always a Moose around the corner. The library selection it features is awesome and you'll never get this kind of UI into a normal browser (w/o a plugin).

haunyack
2008-03-09, 22:44
This is completely opposite of my experience. I find SqueezeCenter
significantly faster than SlimServer was.

I agree SC7 is a significant improvement over prior versions.
When I first migrated over to the beta release, there was a bit of a relearning curve.
I was completely accustomed to the "Classic" interface and found myself fouling things up in my attempt to regain the look and feel of the older versions.
Once I realized the nature of the software makeover, I began to accept the changes and learn to interface with the new system intuitively rather than fight it in an effort to regain my comfort zone.
I also moved to Firefox which is significantly more efficient than IEx.

Nice work.

.

miked
2008-03-09, 23:24
I'll also chime in that I much prefer SqueezeCenter. It's significantly faster for me. SlimServer always left me with an unpolished feel to it -- certain things just never seemed to always work the way I expected. Thus far, SC has been flawless.

AlexV
2008-03-10, 01:19
Why a web-based interface ? Php, Mysql... Ok, it's open-source and can be used on Windows, Linux and Mac but really, a proper software would be faster !

mherger
2008-03-10, 01:31
> Why a web-based interface ? Php, Mysql... Ok, it's open-source and can
> be used on Windows, Linux and Mac but really, a proper software would
> be faster !

A "proper" software probably wouldn't be available on your operating system, as we prefer developping for the other OS.

--

Michael

Espen
2008-03-10, 01:44
Why a web-based interface ? Php, Mysql... Ok, it's open-source and can be used on Windows, Linux and Mac but really, a proper software would be faster !

The advantage is that one know one can access that database from
any kind of machine and OS. Without having to install decicated
software. My experience is that such dedicated software that one
is forced to install for various devices tend to be big, and
rather slow (because many companies do not tune their software
well, it just has to work). And normally they only make it
available on Windows systems.

Disadvantage is, as you say, speed. I am writing a controller
application (UNIX/X11) to address this issue myself, but, I
consider it is best to have a good working web-based controller
at the bottom.

pfarrell
2008-03-10, 07:46
JimC wrote:
> I agree with EnochLight... in my experience, SqueezeCenter is a lot
> faster than SlimServer. There's clearly something unique about these
> installations that are creating a slowdown.

Or perhaps it is just expectations and the unfortunate timing of when
the slowness is visible.

Specifically, the initial scan can be slow, and that is exactly when
folks who have just unboxed their Duet, plugged it in, installed
SqueezeCenter, etc., are waiting to hear great music.

A few hours later, when the scan is done, the performance is
good/fast/better. But the impression lingers.

Of course, I've been running SC7 for so many months that I can't
remember how long it took to get my ~800 CDs scanned.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

pfarrell
2008-03-10, 07:51
AlexV wrote:
> Why a web-based interface ? Php, Mysql... Ok, it's open-source and can
> be used on Windows, Linux and Mac but really, a proper software would
> be faster !

Hate to be an engineer here, but got any reasons you expect non-web
based to be faster? Changing the GUI, or the language that implements
the back end will have trivial if any impact on the speed of the slow
parts, which are the initial scan of all the music files, and perhaps
some of the database accesses.

Web based is the future, so you can use your iPhone, PHP, handheld,
laptop, etc. all use it.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

JimC
2008-03-10, 14:36
JimC wrote:
> I agree with EnochLight... in my experience, SqueezeCenter is a lot
> faster than SlimServer. There's clearly something unique about these
> installations that are creating a slowdown.

Or perhaps it is just expectations and the unfortunate timing of when
the slowness is visible.

Specifically, the initial scan can be slow, and that is exactly when
folks who have just unboxed their Duet, plugged it in, installed
SqueezeCenter, etc., are waiting to hear great music.

A few hours later, when the scan is done, the performance is
good/fast/better. But the impression lingers.

Of course, I've been running SC7 for so many months that I can't
remember how long it took to get my ~800 CDs scanned.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

Yeah, I'd love to see the initial scan complete faster, but it's a lot faster than it was in 6.5.x, in my experience. My scan took about 54 minutes for 1100-ish CDs on my Linux-based server... for comparison, Media Monkey took about 45 minutes on the same collection (though on a different box and OS, with comparable h/w).

In this case, though, switching back to 6.5.4 gave the OP the impression the "slowness" was fixed. This leads me to believe there's something specific about these installations.


-=> Jim

AndrueC
2008-03-10, 14:42
I quite liked the new look and feel. The lack of explanations on the settings page was a bit poor but for normal use it looks good.

My only gripe at the moment is that it kills my SB3 but that might be because I didn't set the name.

mherger
2008-03-10, 14:52
> I quite liked the new look and feel. The lack of explanations on the
> settings page was a bit poor but for normal use it looks good.

It's not lacking, just not cluttering the page ;-). hovering the mouse
over the "i" icon would display it.

Michael

kolding
2008-03-10, 18:44
I find that browser speed can have a HUGE impact. I use an old laptop (P3 800MHz, with 256MB of RAM, yes, it actually can run XP Home), and it's dog slow. Go upstairs to my uber machine (dual core, 3GHz Athlon's, boatloads of memory, etc), and the web interface is much faster.

Of course, lowering the priority of the scanner can help a lot too. Buried under Settings->Performance, if I remember correctly, is a setting to change that. Lets the web interface use the server much better, and really doesn't impact scan times much. Makes the UI on any Squeezeboxen with displays snappier too.

Eric

haunyack
2008-03-10, 18:51
One simple fix for slow interface performance with SC7 is to switch to Firefox.
The improvement is palpable.

.

bobkoure
2008-03-10, 19:01
It's just soooooooo slow, like travelling back in time, selecting a menu option in squeezecenter reminds me of loading outrun on my Dragon 64 when I was 10 years old - painful.
Gordon, are you running this on Windows or Linux (and if on Linux on a PC on a network disk)?
How much memory? How big a music library? Is it just the web interface that's sooooooo slow, or via the squeezebox(es) as well?
What are you using for a web browser? How fast is that machine? Are they both hard-wired into your network or connected via wireless?
Have you changed anything else? Added music? Re-encoded in FLAC? Added a email service to the server?
Folks here are incredibly helpful - but you really need to give 'em something to work with.

haunyack
2008-03-10, 19:13
Looks like ol' gordon may be incommunicado.
Oh well, maybe the suggestions offered here will be helpful to other forum readers who may be experiencing "dissapointing" Squeezecenter performance.

gordon_the_gopher, if you are listening - let's get to the bottom of your difficulty.

.

CardinalFang
2008-03-11, 00:19
Be that as it may, SqueezeCenter is leaps and bounds *FASTER* than the old SlimServer...

Not for me :-(

I have been using a PowerMac G4 since forever as my server and the interface was slow, but vaguely usable. All other web pages are snappy and render quickly.

With SqueezeCenter, it's completely unusable, taking over a minute to load the initial screen, on Firefox or Safari. As soon as I run any other app, music starts to drop out.

My guess is that the SqueezeCenter/Browser combination uses more memory than previous versions, especially when rendering the new interface. If you are on older hardware with a smaller RAM footprint, then a lot more swapping goes on.

The only way I can use it now is if I ensure that no other apps are running (apart from system apps), but even then the web interface is still painful in the extreme.

SuperQ
2008-03-11, 00:39
Not for me :-(

I have been using a PowerMac G4 since forever as my server and the interface was slow, but vaguely usable. All other web pages are snappy and render quickly.

Have you tried the Classic interface?

The new interface loads over my wifi network in under 4 seconds. Classic loads in about 1 second.

mherger
2008-03-11, 00:39
> I have been using a PowerMac G4 since forever as my server and the
> interface was slow, but vaguely usable. All other web pages are snappy
> and render quickly.
>
> With SqueezeCenter, it's completely unusable, taking over a minute to
> load the initial screen, on Firefox or Safari. As soon as I run any
> other app, music starts to drop out.

Ok, let's get this sorted out: we get complaints about SC being slow. But
in fact we're talking about two potential sources of slowness here: client
(the machine running the browser) and server (machine running SC), though
often they are the same.

As many are using old or underpowered hardware as their servers (think
NAS...), but rather up to date machines on the client side running their
browsers, we moved a bit of the load from the server to the client side in
the new Default skin. Many of the web page updates that were rendered on
the server side in SS are now done in the browser, using JS (player
control panel). Thus it can run considerably faster on a NAS & powerful
client installation, as the NAS doesn't have to work that hard any more.
But it can get slower on a slow client, or if the client is run on the
same machine as the server.

> My guess is that the SqueezeCenter/Browser combination uses more memory
> than previous versions, especially when rendering the new interface. If

Memory and CPU cycles.

> you are on older hardware with a smaller RAM footprint, then a lot more
> swapping goes on.

I'm seeing more of a CPU load problem than RAM. Heavy JS loaded we
interfaces only have come up in recent years. Many of the browsers out
there aren't optimised for JS execution speed.

> The only way I can use it now is if I ensure that no other apps are
> running (apart from system apps), but even then the web interface is
> still painful in the extreme.

But only in Default skin? Classic et al. should be as fine as always.

Michael