View Full Version : SqueezeCenter Sluggish

2008-06-10, 19:17
Hoping the Slim Devices community can help me track down the reasons why SoftSqueeze is behaving sluggishly.

Everything was working perfectly up until I made some changes last weekend. First, here's the 'working' configuration before I made any changes:

- Win XP Pro
- SqueezeCenter 7.0
- Drobo/Droboshare
- AVG 8.0 Antivirus

Last weekend's changes:

- Same mother board/CPU
- Same HDD
- Same Drobo/Droboshare
- New case/power supply
- Replaced recent model DVD burner with an older CD burner
- SqueezeCenter 7.1
- Fresh install of Win XP (home edition this time)
- Kespersky 7.0 antivirus replaces AVG

Prior to making these changes, SqueezeCenter was incredibly responsive. Even when calling up a huge folder (50+ tracks), SqeezeBox would begin playing immediately. The only exception was my Playlist folder where SqueezeCenter/Drobo would have to 'think' for a brief period before the list would populate.

Now that behavior occurs no matter what folder I call up. If a track is playing and I select a different track for another folder, it can take over 15 seconds for the new track to begin playing. When I look directly on the SqueezeCenter UI, 'Loading' appears and the list builds quite slowly. Even jumping down to another track in a populated list results in a delay before the track begins to play.

One hint could be my router. With all this rework last weekend, the router locked up. When I recovered it, it's DHCP was handing out weird IP addresses (e.g.: 99.xxx.xxx.xxx). Even the gateway address didn't start with the typical 192.168.x.xxx. It also started with 99. I eventually got the router to serve up a 'proper' IP address, along with giving itself a typical gateway address but I wonder if the router is responsible. Or could Kespersky be causing the problem?

Thanks for your indulgence through this long-winded post.

Ben Sandee
2008-06-10, 21:24
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:17 PM, ShutterShock <
ShutterShock.3atjjb1213150801 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

> Or could Kespersky be causing the problem?