PDA

View Full Version : Remote responsiveness in 5.1



Clive Chater
2004-02-21, 08:17
By my experience, the directory scan completely destroys the playback.
Personally I never stop and start the server software (PC stays on all the
time anyway) and only occasionally do a manual rescan when not listening to
music. That seems to keep me happy. I can't use the web interface though
as it takes too many resources and the music plays as you describe. My
server PC is a on old PII 400 256Mb RAM with an external 500GB hard disc for
music storage. Win 2003 Server & SlimServer 5.1.

Clive

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of fauxfrenchdeux
Sent: 21 February 2004 15:04
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: [slim] Remote responsiveness in 5.1

FWI, this happens to me too. This delayed responsiveness is sporadic. I
wonder if a directory scan is the culprit.

Julius

--- Jason <jason (AT) pagefamily (DOT) net> wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed that the remote response is really fubar'd in
> 5.1?
> Sorry if this has already been brought up but I didn't see anything
> recently about it. Sometimes I press a button on the remote, the
> squeeze won't respond, I'll hit the button again and then both button
> pushes register.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

dean
2004-02-21, 13:37
Clive (et al),

When you are having this problem, can you take a look at the Task
Manager and see what the CPU and Memory load are?

Thanks,

dean

On Feb 21, 2004, at 7:17 AM, Clive Chater wrote:

> By my experience, the directory scan completely destroys the playback.
> Personally I never stop and start the server software (PC stays on all
> the
> time anyway) and only occasionally do a manual rescan when not
> listening to
> music. That seems to keep me happy. I can't use the web interface
> though
> as it takes too many resources and the music plays as you describe. My
> server PC is a on old PII 400 256Mb RAM with an external 500GB hard
> disc for
> music storage. Win 2003 Server & SlimServer 5.1.
>
> Clive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of
> fauxfrenchdeux
> Sent: 21 February 2004 15:04
> To: Slim Devices Discussion
> Subject: [slim] Remote responsiveness in 5.1
>
> FWI, this happens to me too. This delayed responsiveness is sporadic. I
> wonder if a directory scan is the culprit.
>
> Julius
>
> --- Jason <jason (AT) pagefamily (DOT) net> wrote:
>> Has anyone else noticed that the remote response is really fubar'd in
>> 5.1?
>> Sorry if this has already been brought up but I didn't see anything
>> recently about it. Sometimes I press a button on the remote, the
>> squeeze won't respond, I'll hit the button again and then both button
>> pushes register.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
>

Pat Farrell
2004-02-21, 17:11
I'm just a user, and only had my Squeezebox a couple of weeks, so
take this with the appropriate grain of salt.

At 06:58 PM 2/21/2004, Clive Chater wrote:
>On Feb 21, 2004, at 7:17 AM, Clive Chater wrote:
> > you describe. My server PC is a on old PII 400 256Mb RAM with an
> > external 500GB hard disc for music storage. Win 2003 Server &
> > SlimServer 5.1.
>Yes, when rescanning, using the web interface (especially with larger lists)
>and sometimes using the remote to navigate to other albums can cause the
>music to be interrupted. The processor at this point is running at 100% so
>it's not too surprising really. I have maybe 25,000 mp3 and it takes time
>to read this info in I guess. I've just learnt to except these limitations
>and blamed an aging pc. But I prefer to use an old separate pc as the
>server, rather than my new desktop pc.

I also like to "recycle" old PCs.
But you are asking a lot of a P2, especially with W2003 server.
W2003 server itself will eat all of your 256MB of ram.

If you are just trying to run the slimserver, and maybe some minor
file sharing, you might have better luck with a Linux install, as it
works better on old, slow, small systems. I've got my songs
on a P3-500 with Fedora, and it is pretty happy.

So I'd suggest either a lighter OS or a motherboard-ecktomy.
Even W2K professional would probably work better as a slimserver
platform.

Email me off-list if you are interested in my specific setup, Samba, etc.

Pat