PDA

View Full Version : Server Hardware - Linux or Mac?



Jeff Ganson
2004-09-02, 12:27
I'm skeptical. A few weeks back there was some discussion here about the
merits of Windows as a SlimServer platform, and it was pretty clear that
it's not ideal, and not the Slim team's main focus. Why should it take a
gig of RAM to run SlimServer on XP when I don't even need that much to
capture DV, edit it with Premiere, and author/burn it to DVD? Not saying
it's Slim's fault, but that's what has me thinking about taking Slim to
a *nix-based platform.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: narya [mailto:forum (AT) narya (DOT) de]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:35 PM
To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
Subject: [slim] Server Hardware - Linux or Mac?

If you're hesitant to spend money on new hardware, just try an upgrade
to 1 GB of RAM. I'm currently working all day on a similar machine
(Athlon XP 1800+, 1 GB RAM, Win XP) and Slimserver 5.2.1 with 13.000
songs is running constantly in the background without serious
performance issues.

Only if that doesn't help, look for the extra server/Mac.

Jules Taplin
2004-09-02, 12:39
Hi Jeff.

The main reason that slimserver has a huge footprint at the moment is the
fact that the track database is held entirely in memory. Not just in a
packed format, either - a nested set of huge hashes hold onto EVERYTHING
that the server knows.

Work is underway to move that off to a more normal database, which should
alleviate the memory issue.


-- Jules

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Ganson" <jeff (AT) ganson (DOT) net>
To: "'Slim Devices Discussion'" <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:27 PM
Subject: [slim] Server Hardware - Linux or Mac?


> I'm skeptical. A few weeks back there was some discussion here about the
> merits of Windows as a SlimServer platform, and it was pretty clear that
> it's not ideal, and not the Slim team's main focus. Why should it take a
> gig of RAM to run SlimServer on XP when I don't even need that much to
> capture DV, edit it with Premiere, and author/burn it to DVD? Not saying
> it's Slim's fault, but that's what has me thinking about taking Slim to
> a *nix-based platform.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: narya [mailto:forum (AT) narya (DOT) de]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:35 PM
> To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
> Subject: [slim] Server Hardware - Linux or Mac?
>
> If you're hesitant to spend money on new hardware, just try an upgrade
> to 1 GB of RAM. I'm currently working all day on a similar machine
> (Athlon XP 1800+, 1 GB RAM, Win XP) and Slimserver 5.2.1 with 13.000
> songs is running constantly in the background without serious
> performance issues.
>
> Only if that doesn't help, look for the extra server/Mac.
>
>
>

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-09-02, 12:49
Jeff Ganson wrote:

> I'm skeptical. A few weeks back there was some discussion here about the
> merits of Windows as a SlimServer platform, and it was pretty clear that
> it's not ideal, and not the Slim team's main focus. Why should it take a
> gig of RAM to run SlimServer on XP when I don't even need that much to

I don't really know where this one gig figure comes from.
I don't think I have ever seen the memory usage go above
75 MB with the current, and as I understand it non optimal,
database structure. As I said I have about 7k songs so YMMV.
Perhaps someone with Linux and an *enormous* library can
comment on the memory usage with the current database
structure.

Now don't get me wrong I run Linux for several servers at work
and am no MS apologist but I have not yet seen any issues with
WinXP that are not likely also problems elsewhere. And as for
Windows not being a main focus of slimdevices: well I certainly
hope it is if they expect to achieve any degree of market
penetration.

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

Jules Taplin
2004-09-02, 13:21
Hmmm. If it helps:

PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU COMMAND
22478 slimserv 16 0 133M 123M 1376 S 14.5 24.9 2960m 0
slimserver.pl
22627 slimserv 15 0 4660 3712 868 S 2.9 0.7 237:06 0
transcoder_prox

That's around 20k tracks - on linux. There are some folks on the list with
truly monstrous libraries (100k+ items).

As for focus... I think that's difficult. Slim Devices are clearly committed
to slimserver working on the largest possible number of platforms. That
clearly includes Windows systems.

Right now, if you need to run a codebase across Windows, Linux, MacOS/X,
etc... you have a few choices - probably Java, perl, or Python. You _COULD_
do it in C, or something similar, but the platform-specific bits of that
would be pretty tedious. Bear in mind that as it stands... pretty much the
WHOLE of slimserver is the same on every platform, with only minor breakouts
where they're needed.

I wonder whether if there's a substantive difference in emphasis, it lies
not within Slim themselves, but in the surrounding developer community.
Given that the above are your options... firstly none of those technologies
are the 'one true way' in Microsoft Terms (the Microsoft One True Way only
runs on Microsoft platforms, if you discount things like Mono). So...
Microsoft style developers are probably turned off by perl (in my
experience, you either 'get' perl, or you don't. If you look at it, and feel
an uncontrollable urge to vomit... you're never going to get past that
*grin*). Equally... and this is pure biggotry speaking - given 50 Linux
users, and 50 Windows users, it's my opinion that there are likely to be
more 'contributors' in the Linux group than the Windows group, as that's
(still) where the geeks hang out, and they're the one with the programming
MadSkillz ;)

Everything I've said above, of course, could be said to apply to the Mac
folks too... except that given they're basically UNIX nowadays... making
stuff work on their platform is much easier ;)


-- Jules

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daryle A. Tilroe" <daryle (AT) micralyne (DOT) com>
To: "Slim Devices Discussion" <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:49 PM
Subject: [slim] Server Hardware - Linux or Mac?


> Jeff Ganson wrote:
>
>> I'm skeptical. A few weeks back there was some discussion here about the
>> merits of Windows as a SlimServer platform, and it was pretty clear that
>> it's not ideal, and not the Slim team's main focus. Why should it take a
>> gig of RAM to run SlimServer on XP when I don't even need that much to
>
> I don't really know where this one gig figure comes from.
> I don't think I have ever seen the memory usage go above
> 75 MB with the current, and as I understand it non optimal,
> database structure. As I said I have about 7k songs so YMMV.
> Perhaps someone with Linux and an *enormous* library can
> comment on the memory usage with the current database
> structure.
>
> Now don't get me wrong I run Linux for several servers at work
> and am no MS apologist but I have not yet seen any issues with
> WinXP that are not likely also problems elsewhere. And as for
> Windows not being a main focus of slimdevices: well I certainly
> hope it is if they expect to achieve any degree of market
> penetration.
>
> --
> Daryle A. Tilroe
>
>

Victor Brilon
2004-09-02, 14:31
Daryle A. Tilroe wrote:
> Perhaps someone with Linux and an *enormous* library can
> comment on the memory usage with the current database
> structure.

Don't know if this counts as "enormous" but.....
My library is at 17017 files.
Memory usage by the slim process is current at about 57 megs listed as
virtual and about 20 megs listed as resident.

This is running under Fedora Core Release 2.

Hope that helps,
Victor

Jack Coates
2004-09-03, 15:12
> Jeff Ganson wrote:
>
>> I'm skeptical. A few weeks back there was some discussion here about the
>> merits of Windows as a SlimServer platform, and it was pretty clear that
>> it's not ideal, and not the Slim team's main focus. Why should it take a
>> gig of RAM to run SlimServer on XP when I don't even need that much to
>
> I don't really know where this one gig figure comes from.
> I don't think I have ever seen the memory usage go above
> 75 MB with the current, and as I understand it non optimal,
> database structure. As I said I have about 7k songs so YMMV.
> Perhaps someone with Linux and an *enormous* library can
> comment on the memory usage with the current database
> structure.
>

OP's got 14K songs, so there's 150 MB assuming linear progression.

> Now don't get me wrong I run Linux for several servers at work
> and am no MS apologist but I have not yet seen any issues with
> WinXP that are not likely also problems elsewhere. And as for
> Windows not being a main focus of slimdevices: well I certainly
> hope it is if they expect to achieve any degree of market
> penetration.
>

you're right, I just suggested upgrading the RAM because it's cheaper and
easier than troubleshooting :-P Honestly, it is a big bang for the buck
upgrade regardless of your platform, and while slim is not likely to be
consuming more than a couple of hundred megs, it's not the only thing
running.
--
Jack At Monkeynoodle.Org: It's A Scientific Venture...
"Believe what you're told; there'd be chaos if everyone thought for
themselves." -- Top Dog hotdog stand, Berkeley, CA