PDA

View Full Version : Sever idle but using a lot of processor time



Nick F Ryman-Tubb at MindsI
2004-03-14, 14:08
Hello

I will try the slim.exe option.

I have just waited over an hour for a complete rescan. Once it is
"finished", it is still taking some 20%+ of processor (btw it has worked
before with almost no processor being t in idle). This is with all my
squeezeboxes in "off". I have no idea why it is now sat at the 20%-25%
processor time - any ideas?

Thanks

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com]On Behalf Of kdf
Sent: 14 March 2004 19:48
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: [slim] Sever idle but using a lot of processor time


Quoting Nick F Ryman-Tubb at MindsI <nrt (AT) mindsitech (DOT) com>:

> Hi again
>
> I turned on the Squeezebox and hit information and can see the number of
> albums climbing - so the server is clearly re-scanning all my files again.
>
> Why when my PC starts does it have to re-scan all the files again - as
this
> is a slow process. In server settings, performance, I have the CACHE
turned
> on for every option on that page. What causes the server to rescan the
> entire library?
>
It does need to scan fully so that it can write the info to slimserver.db.
This
file is still loaded each time you start the server, so you will still see
the
count increase when you start up. All this information has to be loaded
when
slimserver runs, as nothing of a program is stored in ram when its execution
is
stopped.

--d_info will report details about the dbCache, but this info comes up right
after execution, so you will need to find slim.exe to do this.

-kdf

kdf
2004-03-14, 15:22
Quoting Nick F Ryman-Tubb at MindsI <nrt (AT) mindsitech (DOT) com>:

> Hello
>
> I will try the slim.exe option.
>
> I have just waited over an hour for a complete rescan. Once it is
> "finished", it is still taking some 20%+ of processor (btw it has worked
> before with almost no processor being t in idle). This is with all my
> squeezeboxes in "off". I have no idea why it is now sat at the 20%-25%
> processor time - any ideas?
>
no definate idea here. hopefully the log output will give you some idea.
Clearly there is some activity, since you have seen it sit near zero before. It
could be a plugin doing something, or a recursive shortcut. Its hard to say offhand.

-kdf