PDA

View Full Version : Scanning doe new or updated music--



Zevs
2008-07-17, 09:11
Hi!

Why isn't it possible as an option to specify a directory to scan when one one wants to update one's music database. As it is now we have the options of deleting all and rescan all or look for new or changed music in the full database. Both these options take loads of time if you have a large database. Wouldn't it be possible to add one more option, which which would allow you to just select a specific folder and have that scanned, retrieveing all tags, album covers and MusicIP info? It would be so much simpler and one wouldn't have to wait a couple of hours every time one has added an album!

Zevs

ewreck
2008-07-17, 10:06
Brilliant Idea.

rmckay
2008-07-17, 16:18
Hi, I was looking for the same thing. I have the same problem with a huge library that takes forever to rescan just to add one new album. I'm running the server on a linux box and noticed another file in the same directory as the server:
/usr/libexec/squeezecenter-scanner
After a quick look at the source code, I tried the following:

sudo -u squeezecenter /usr/libexec/squeezecenter-scanner /music_library/new_album

It worked! The new album was added in a few seconds instead of many minutes through the web interface full library scan.
Cheers,
Ryan

Zevs
2008-07-17, 20:18
Hi, I was looking for the same thing. I have the same problem with a huge library that takes forever to rescan just to add one new album. I'm running the server on a linux box and noticed another file in the same directory as the server:
/usr/libexec/squeezecenter-scanner
After a quick look at the source code, I tried the following:

sudo -u squeezecenter /usr/libexec/squeezecenter-scanner /music_library/new_album

It worked! The new album was added in a few seconds instead of many minutes through the web interface full library scan.
Cheers,
Ryan

Thanks for the tip Ryan! Do you get also the covers and any MusicIP info and all tags by doing this ? If so does anyone know if this works also under Windows? How would the command then look? I assume one would then do this using the run command or a command box then? Haven't had time to test yet, but will do.

Even if this works, I still think it would be great to have this option directly in the SqueezeCenter web page as one predefined way of scanning your music collection, i.e. by user selected folder.

Zevs

mherger
2008-07-17, 23:12
> Hi, I was looking for the same thing.

Isn't this the same as Browse Music Folder to the new album? It's then
added to the library.

Michael

Zevs
2008-07-18, 04:08
> Hi, I was looking for the same thing.

Isn't this the same as Browse Music Folder to the new album? It's then
added to the library.

Michael

Hi Michael!

But do you really get the tags and the covers and the MusicIP info embedded in the files read by doing that? I thought not, but perhaps I'm wrong ?

Zevs

jeffmeh
2008-07-18, 04:43
Hi Michael!

But do you really get the tags and the covers and the MusicIP info embedded in the files read by doing that? I thought not, but perhaps I'm wrong ?

Zevs

Yes, you do.

mherger
2008-07-18, 04:44
> But do you really get the tags and the covers and the MusicIP info
> embedded in the files read by doing that? I thought not, but perhaps
> I'm wrong ?

I'm sorry, no. Just the tags. MIP should be updated in regular intervals (as defined in SC's MIP settings).

--

Michael

Zevs
2008-07-18, 07:32
> But do you really get the tags and the covers and the MusicIP info
> embedded in the files read by doing that? I thought not, but perhaps
> I'm wrong ?

I'm sorry, no. Just the tags. MIP should be updated in regular intervals (as defined in SC's MIP settings).

--

Michael

Thanks Michael for the response, so you won't get the mixer info even if you in MIP has set it to always write the music fingerprint directly into the tags ?

Zevs

rmckay
2008-07-18, 20:01
> Hi, I was looking for the same thing.

Isn't this the same as Browse Music Folder to the new album? It's then
added to the library.

Michael

Thanks, I didn't know about that..that is better :)

Zevs
2008-07-18, 21:23
Thanks Michael for the response, so you won't get the mixer info even if you in MIP has set it to always write the music fingerprint directly into the tags ?

Zevs

...and if you won't I guess I'm back to my original question and proposal, i.e. that it would be great to have scanning a specified folder as an additional option to the other ones already available. A scanning that retrieves tags, covers and MIP data ...

Zevs

JJZolx
2008-07-19, 00:01
I find the new & changed scanning to be quite fast. On my old P4 Windows server a full scan of 21,000 Flac files takes about 26 minutes. A new & changed scan takes only 2:20.

Your idea has been suggested before and even accepted by many people as a good idea. Something like: you browse through the music folder within the SqueezeCenter web interface, get to a junction in the directory tree, and press a button that says "scan for new & changed music". Unfortunately, this simple approach would be a little bit philosophically opposed to the current idea that browsing through the library should do this automagically.

Zevs
2008-07-19, 00:12
I find the new & changed scanning to be quite fast. On my old P4 Windows server a full scan of 21,000 Flac files takes about 26 minutes. A new & changed scan takes only 2:20.

Your idea has been suggested before and even accepted by many people as a good idea. Something like: you browse through the music folder within the SqueezeCenter web interface, get to a junction in the directory tree, and press a button that says "scan for new & changed music". Unfortunately, this simple approach would be a little bit philosophically opposed to the current idea that browsing through the library should do this automagically.

Hi Jim, thanks for the response!

What do you mean with the "new & changed" scanning ? I'm using SqueezeCenter 7.1 and have ~54 000 tracks on an external harddrive. A regular scanning update of this takes up to 2 hours (depending on what else I'm doing on the computer, Windows Vista), and this I have to wait for even if I just have added one single album... or am I missing something.. ?

The browsing part does not scan for MusicIP fingerprint info though, and that is what I think would be useful, to have all the info from tags, cover and MIP in one single rapid scan.

Zevs

JJZolx
2008-07-19, 00:35
What do you mean with the "new & changed" scanning ? I'm using SqueezeCenter 7.1 and have ~54 000 tracks on an external harddrive. A regular scanning update of this takes up to 2 hours (depending on what else I'm doing on the computer, Windows Vista), and this I have to wait for even if I just have added one single album... or am I missing something.. ?

There are two scanning options (plus the playlist only scan):

- Look for new and changed music
- Clear library and rescan everything

The first is the "new & changed" scan. The second one starts all over from scratch and takes a lot longer.

It may be the external drive that's killing you. Is it either USB or Firewire 400? If so, internal drives would probably make scanning a lot faster. Another option, though, is an external drive with an eSATA interface, which can be just as fast as an internal.

Zevs
2008-07-19, 00:47
There are two scanning options (plus the playlist only scan):

- Look for new and changed music
- Clear library and rescan everything

The first is the "new & changed" scan. The second one starts all over from scratch and takes a lot longer.



Yes and the first option anyhow looks through my whole database it seems in order to find what has changed, I would therefore add one more option to your list:

- Scan for a specific folder

and then have simple button or something opening up a regular folder/file selection box

... and I guess as you say it could be the external hard drive (USB) that makes it take so long time I guess. But I don't see the logic in that the whole music database needs to be scanned if I have just added one single album, seems overkill if I instead can just tell SC which files I have added.

Zevs

Zevs
2008-07-19, 01:02
It may be the external drive that's killing you. Is it either USB or Firewire 400? If so, internal drives would probably make scanning a lot faster. Another option, though, is an external drive with an eSATA interface, which can be just as fast as an internal.

..by the way Jim do you use MusicIP integration with SC ? When looking at the times reported for the scanning, it seems it is clearly the MusicIP database that takes 95 % of the scanning time.

Zevs

JJZolx
2008-07-19, 01:33
..by the way Jim do you use MusicIP integration with SC ? When looking at the times reported for the scanning, it seems it is clearly the MusicIP database that takes 95 % of the scanning time.

No, I don't. It looks like the discussion in this bug report may be relevant:

http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=5637

Zevs
2008-07-19, 06:28
No, I don't. It looks like the discussion in this bug report may be relevant:

http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=5637

Thanks Jim! Yes that seems to be something similar for sure.

Zevs