PDA

View Full Version : Slim.exe mem usage 136MB



caldvd
2008-04-04, 09:01
Hi,

I looked around for this exact issue, but didn't find it. Sorry if I missed it somewhere.

System:
HP XW4400 Workstation 2GB RAM Windows XP Pro
SlimServer Version: 6.5.4 - 12568 - Windows XP - EN - cp1252
Server IP address: 192.168.0.106
Perl Version: 5.8.8 MSWin32-x86-multi-thread
MySQL Version: 5.0.22-community-nt

I'm not playing anything on the playlist, my Squeezbox is off.

In Task Manager, it says: Slim.exe SYSTEM 136,996K

Why would it take up such a huge amount of system resources?

I'm not interested in upgrading to 7.0 because of all the trouble I'm hearing about on the bboard.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Todd

Phil Leigh
2008-04-04, 09:59
The Slim.exe holds a lot of data in memory to improve performance. Mine is 133Mb. Why do you have a problem? - do you have less than 1Gb of ram? (XP needs at least 1Gb, preferably 2Gb).
IME SC7 is faster than 6.x and more stable. You should try the upgrade.

caldvd
2008-04-04, 10:47
The Slim.exe holds a lot of data in memory to improve performance. Mine is 133Mb. Why do you have a problem? - do you have less than 1Gb of ram? (XP needs at least 1Gb, preferably 2Gb).
IME SC7 is faster than 6.x and more stable. You should try the upgrade.

2GB RAM
I don't have a problem, it is just that it seems like a lot when it isn't doing anything to be keeping all that memory tied up. You would think that it could retrieve that info from another file when I decide to turn on the Squeezebox? In fact, it seems silly that it has to be running with ALL the stuff in the background just waiting for the Squeezebox to turn on. If there was a little tiny app running that could call the slimserver when the SB is turned on, then the need to having the entire server + all the info running at all times would not be an issue. Just my .02.

RE: the upgrade, the amount of trouble people are having leads me to believe that it is not ready for primetime. Not worth the headache at this point.
Thanks,
Todd

funkstar
2008-04-04, 11:40
2GB RAM
I don't have a problem, it is just that it seems like a lot when it isn't doing anything to be keeping all that memory tied up. You would think that it could retrieve that info from another file when I decide to turn on the Squeezebox? In fact, it seems silly that it has to be running with ALL the stuff in the background just waiting for the Squeezebox to turn on. If there was a little tiny app running that could call the slimserver when the SB is turned on, then the need to having the entire server + all the info running at all times would not be an issue. Just my .02.

RE: the upgrade, the amount of trouble people are having leads me to believe that it is not ready for primetime. Not worth the headache at this point.
Thanks,
Todd
considering the significant changes in SC7 vs SS6.x, there has been s surprisingly few problems. v6 had its issues so did 6.5, if I remember right 6.5.1 was really quick in being released.

As for the memory: Your SB is only ever 'off' when you physically switch it off. When youpress the power button on the remote, it just stops playing and shows something different on the screen. That display (even the clock) is driven by the server.

Dumping a load of stuff out of memory would mean there could be a very iritating wait for the server to get itself sorted out before you are able to do anything useful with your SB. As it stands, picking up the remote and using it should be pretty much instant.

bhaagensen
2008-04-04, 11:47
2GB RAM
I don't have a problem, it is just that it seems like a lot when it isn't doing anything to be keeping all that memory tied up. You would think that it could retrieve that info from another file when I decide to turn on the Squeezebox? In fact, it seems silly that it has to be running with ALL the stuff in the background just waiting for the Squeezebox to turn on.


That reasoning is somewhat flawed. Unless you for some reason know that an application is badly implemented, leaking memory or something like that, one really want applications to use as much ram as they can. There is no reason to pack up lots of ram if its free all the time. There are many ways of measuring memory. Depending on what is included in the xp task manager some of it may be freed at virtually no cost. Also I trust the memory manager in xp handles things sensible if SqueezeCenter idles for long period of times, and/or a running application requests more memory than currently available. (I don't know xp, but this are features of modern memory management)

B.

Teus de Jong
2008-04-04, 11:54
As bhaagensen already suggests, the amount of memory XP allocates to a program can be totally different from the amount the program needs (as an amateur programmer, I know this from experience). So concluding from the amount of memory the Task Manager reports that a program really needs that memory is completely false.

I'm sure if your computer had only 1 GB of memory, XP would allocate less memory to the program.

Teus de Jong

caldvd
2008-04-04, 12:16
Thank you for the quick reply.
Todd