PDA

View Full Version : Big libraries?



Dermaplex
2008-09-25, 13:05
Hi there,

Please could you tell me if the Squeezebox can handle big libraries (like 150G+ )?

Thanks!

Dplx

snarlydwarf
2008-09-25, 13:11
Hi there,

Please could you tell me if the Squeezebox can handle big libraries (like 150G+ )?


The ability of the Squeezebox to handle large libraries depends on your PC.

150G is probably around 20,000 tracks or so? SC shouldn't flinch at that on any even semi-modern machine.

That is a bit less than what I have, and it's far less than what many here have.

Thg6276
2008-09-25, 13:29
I have personally more & less 400gb in flac and that's running correctly

Dermaplex
2008-09-25, 13:29
The ability of the Squeezebox to handle large libraries depends on your PC.

150G is probably around 20,000 tracks or so? SC shouldn't flinch at that on any even semi-modern machine.

That is a bit less than what I have, and it's far less than what many here have.

29000... Anyway, good news, the beast really seems to be suited for my needs :-)

Tx for the answer

volpone
2008-09-25, 14:15
The ability of the Squeezebox to handle large libraries depends on your PC.

150G is probably around 20,000 tracks or so? SC shouldn't flinch at that on any even semi-modern machine.


Hi Snarlydwarf,
Could you elaborate a little bit on the specs of "semi-modern machine" (I'm Linux oriented).

I project to manage a quite "big" classical libray > 50.000 tracks (FLAC) using CustomBrowse to suit classical music browsing.

I'm interested in performance issue (database and on the fly conversion). I've read here that current database schema might be optimized (perhaps in 7.3 release).

Regards

Volpone

snarlydwarf
2008-09-25, 16:59
Hi Snarlydwarf,
Could you elaborate a little bit on the specs of "semi-modern machine" (I'm Linux oriented).

Then your specs needed are going to be much lower than a Windows machine. (Especially if you run headless... killing X off saves a ton of RAM.)

My machine is a $200 Dell that came with FreeDos a couple years ago: a 2.5G single core Celeron... which works fine. I do have 2G of RAM on it now, but that was mainly because it does other things (its my home router, web server, NAS, devel machine, etc etc...) SC is fine on it. It would be nicer if I had faster drives, at least for scanning, but I do a wipe/scan in the middle of the night and don't worry about it.



I project to manage a quite "big" classical libray > 50.000 tracks (FLAC) using CustomBrowse to suit classical music browsing.

I'm interested in performance issue (database and on the fly conversion). I've read here that current database schema might be optimized (perhaps in 7.3 release).


Conversion is very dependent on what you do... I convert to a 64k mp3 stream to listen to music at work, but don't do any other on the fly conversion.

You say you have SC already... so don't you know how it performs with your collection? Or are you talking about on a new machine?

volpone
2008-09-25, 17:52
Conversion is very dependent on what you do... I convert to a 64k mp3 stream to listen to music at work, but don't do any other on the fly conversion.

You say you have SC already... so don't you know how it performs with your collection? Or are you talking about on a new machine?

Thank you Snarlydwarf.

I'm using a NAS (500Mhz / 256Mo) and i'm quite happy for the moment. But, as my library is growing, i experiment some real or potential issues or limits with my current server hardware:

=> Streaming and Synching FLAC streams on several players

=> Transcoding on the fly some "non native" streams (m4a for example)

=> Scanning a big library (very time consuming)

=> UI ergonomics (responsivness) when browsing and searching a "big" database, using CustomBrowse plugins to deal with classical music specific organization.

So, i'm thinking on the best hardware (small, silent, powerfull, secure, and reliable) to use.

I'm glad to share opinion and experience to refine my "specs".

Regards

pfarrell
2008-09-25, 19:15
volpone wrote:
> So, i'm thinking on the best hardware (small, silent, powerfull,
> secure, and reliable) to use.

As Tim says on Tool Time, more power, must have more power.
Modern desktop PCs are near silent and far more powerful than needed for
any combination of SqueezeCenter. My library is small, only about 200GB,
and I use a left over PC that my kid decided was too slow.

Any $400 PC sold at big box stores is more than enough, most have dual
core CPUs and 2GB of disk, which is overkill for even Vista.

I just build a dual library for a friend of mine, using a SATA disk that
cost $100. It is a 750GB disk, and a complete 200GB flac library and a
complete copy in MP3 left more than $70 worth of disk space free. And
the disk, while aimed at the inexpensive market, was blindingly fast, a
complete movie could be copied in under 10 seconds.

"best" is an impossible criteria. But there are tons of options that are
very good, robust, and inexpensive.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

syburgh
2008-09-26, 08:01
Hi there,

Please could you tell me if the Squeezebox can handle big libraries (like 150G+ )?

Thanks!

Dplx
The limitation is the system where you run the SqueezeCenter server software. If this is a reasonably modern (P4 and newer should have no problem) system with 100-200MB of RAM available for SC7 then you can expect excellent performance.

If you want to run SC7 on its own dedicated system then this is possible with modest hardware. Issues arise when trying to run SC7 on embedded systems or appliances with limited RAM and CPU (SC7 likes RAM, 100-200MB just for SC with a large library). You will also want a >=1Ghz CPU if you need snappy performance from the web interface (controller/SB navigation is snappy with lower spec hardware).

I have a 1.2GHz Celeron system with 1GB of RAM dedicated to running SC7. It is grossly overpowered for the 1TB of FLAC files and several players it serves.