View Full Version : Remote responsiveness in 5.1

Clive Chater
2004-02-22, 04:35
Thanks for the good advice. Under normal circumstances I would agree that
Windows 2003 is too heavy an OS to run just SlimServer on the said PC.
However, I am a database programmer by trade and occasionally need to use
the latest versions of SQL and Exchange for testing, hence the need for
2003. Actually 2003 is much lighter than XP as is has much of the graphics
removed and looks more like Win 2000.

I have never had any experience with Linux, just never had the need to even
look at it. Where might I get a copy from?



From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of Pat Farrell
Sent: 22 February 2004 00:11
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: [slim] Remote responsiveness in 5.1

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

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


Roy M. Silvernail
2004-02-22, 09:51
On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 06:35, Clive Chater wrote:

> I have never had any experience with Linux, just never had the need to
> even look at it. Where might I get a copy from?

At the risk of sensory overload: http://www.distrowatch.com

For a first experience, many people recommend Mandrake or Knoppix (a
variant of Debian).
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
Never Forget: It's Only 1's and 0's!