PDA

View Full Version : New versions of Squeezecenter don't like large collections-?



benthos
2012-01-14, 10:18
Hello - I've had some problems with the newer versions of Squeezecenter, and was wondering if other people have encountered these problems. I use an SB3 with music streaming from a Readynas Duo. I have a large collection of music. Using version 7.7.1, as well as several prior versions of Squeezecenter, I can't browse folders without it timing out. It does this regardless of whether I'm using a web browser or browsing from the unit.

Unrelated - is there a good Squeezecenter interface for the Ipad? I just got an Ipad, and I've found the web browser version of Squeezecenter to be really clunky - the type is too small, and if you try to zoom in, it actually changes the layout of Squeezecenter in a way that renders it unuseable (removes the options that were there before zooming, etc.).

Chris

benthos
2012-01-14, 10:20
I'm using 7.2.1 now, as it seems to be the most recent version that allows me to browse folders without timing out.

garym
2012-01-14, 10:24
Hello - I've had some problems with the newer versions of Squeezecenter, and was wondering if other people have encountered these problems. I use an SB3 with music streaming from a Readynas Duo. I have a large collection of music. Using version 7.7.1, as well as several prior versions of Squeezecenter, I can't browse folders without it timing out. It does this regardless of whether I'm using a web browser or browsing from the unit.

Unrelated - is there a good Squeezecenter interface for the Ipad? I just got an Ipad, and I've found the web browser version of Squeezecenter to be really clunky - the type is too small, and if you try to zoom in, it actually changes the layout of Squeezecenter in a way that renders it unuseable (removes the options that were there before zooming, etc.).

Chris

I really like ipengHD and squeezepad for the iPad and use them both. They are excellent.
I find 7.7.1 very fast on my 67,000 track library (mostly FLAC). I quit using my readynas duo years ago. Too painfully slow scanning or browsing except on small libraries.

audiot
2012-01-15, 07:48
I've found that asking it to look for updated/changed files takes days and fails. But doing a clear and re-scan only takes 15 minutes on 50,000+ files.

Mnyb
2012-01-15, 07:55
And browse folder is not the prefered method by any mean it is magnitudes slower than the normal artist album menus etc.

Especially if you have many files in one folder ina very flatt structure " browse folder " is considered for test or badly tagged files by logitech.

I to do recomend iPengHD very good but also consider squeezePad and why not get both as they cost next to nothing , logitech has a free app to, not so fantastic imho and it is broken as it can't even switch server, for example between LMS and mysqueezebox.com .

jimzak
2012-01-16, 04:01
I have a moderately large collection and 7.7.2 is the best ever version of SBS/LMS for me.

However, I don't use a NAS as my server. I firmly believe in using a laptop such as the one I am currently using.

benthos
2012-01-16, 09:32
And browse folder is not the prefered method by any mean it is magnitudes slower than the normal artist album menus etc.


Well, I found that it timed out even when trying to browse "New Music". Also, if you have a large collection and you get a new cd (new rip), you really have no choice but to choose browse folder, because (without the browse folders function) there's no simple way to add new music without completely rescanning your entire collection, which in my case takes hours. Also - if these options exist, shouldn't they work well? I don't understand why Squeezecenter gets progressively worse with each new version.

Mnyb
2012-01-16, 09:34
scan for new and changed takes 2 minutes to move over my 37000 files 30s to add a new album ?

garym
2012-01-16, 09:36
Well, I found that it timed out even when trying to browse "New Music". Also, if you have a large collection and you get a new cd (new rip), you really have no choice but to choose browse folder, because (without the browse folders function) there's no simple way to add new music without completely rescanning your entire collection, which in my case takes hours. Also - if these options exist, shouldn't they work well? I don't understand why Squeezecenter gets progressively worse with each new version.

how many tracks does your library have? I can do a "new and changed" scan of 67,000 tracks in typically way less than 15 minutes. Clear and rescan is maybe an hour or less. But it is true that the ReadyNas duo is painfully slow at scanning and browsing. I quit using mine years ago except as a backup storage location.

fillmore
2012-01-16, 10:41
I don't understand why Squeezecenter gets progressively worse with each new version.
thats why i recommend finding an old version that works for your setup and dont upgrade. i only updated to the newer required version when i got the touch and havent messed with it since. nearly flawless operation.

pomatomus
2012-01-23, 09:29
with 580,000 tracks, server 7.5.5 takes about 7.5 hours to look for new/changed, on my reasonably fast i7 machine. I still get timeouts sporadically on the New Music browse (controller only, not in the web interface), but I've found 7.5.5 is better than previous versions, which used to time out almost every single time. I don't think large collections were really anticipated.

slate
2012-01-23, 09:43
[QUOTE=pomatomus;685867]with 580,000 tracks, server 7.5.5 takes about 7.5 hours to look for new/changed, on my reasonably fast i7 machine.QUOTE]

Have you tried 7.7.1? comparable times for full rescan etc...?!

emalvick
2012-01-23, 16:00
with 580,000 tracks, server 7.5.5 takes about 7.5 hours to look for new/changed, on my reasonably fast i7 machine. I still get timeouts sporadically on the New Music browse (controller only, not in the web interface), but I've found 7.5.5 is better than previous versions, which used to time out almost every single time. I don't think large collections were really anticipated.

As an aside, can you even listen to 580,000 tracks? by rough approximation it seems it would take 2 years of listening to tracks 24/7 at a minimum to get through that.

I think it is a testament to the software that it runs, and I'm not sure I'd ever fault it for not running fast enough given the db size you'd end up with.

Mnyb
2012-01-23, 16:23
with 580,000 tracks, server 7.5.5 takes about 7.5 hours to look for new/changed, on my reasonably fast i7 machine. I still get timeouts sporadically on the New Music browse (controller only, not in the web interface), but I've found 7.5.5 is better than previous versions, which used to time out almost every single time. I don't think large collections were really anticipated.

it does not seems to be a linear relation at all 32000 tracks on an 1,2 ghz single core via mini itx takes 3 minute to do a new and changed scan in 7.7.2 and your pc is probably 20 times faster , so if the relation was linear you should do new and changed in 3 minutes too.

A factor that always seems to make things much slower is non local storage spread on different slow nas boxes or similar.

pomatomus
2012-01-24, 19:12
There's always someone who's got to chime in with "you can't listen to all that music anyway" on any problems-with-large-collections thread... not helpful.

I'll post back with scan times under a newer version should I ever have the spare time to mess about with this again - I hadn't appreciated that there might be substantial scanning speedups to be had. I've been burned so many times by upgrades that were downgrades that I've stopped paying attention to the new versions.

Mnyb
2012-01-24, 20:09
There's always someone who's got to chime in with "you can't listen to all that music anyway" on any problems-with-large-collections thread... not helpful.

I'll post back with scan times under a newer version should I ever have the spare time to mess about with this again - I hadn't appreciated that there might be substantial scanning speedups to be had. I've been burned so many times by upgrades that were downgrades that I've stopped paying attention to the new versions.

Actually who knows, I think there may be 1 or 2 forum members with similar experience.

But I do actually think that the server scan time does not scale in a linear fashion sadly :-/ it looks almost as a square function.

New versions I sort of understands your conservatism, the scanner is usually bound to crash if it does not like a file, more files means less chance of sucess ?

mps
2012-01-25, 09:37
There's always someone who's got to chime in with "you can't listen to all that music anyway" on any problems-with-large-collections thread... not helpful.

I'll post back with scan times under a newer version should I ever have the spare time to mess about with this again - I hadn't appreciated that there might be substantial scanning speedups to be had. I've been burned so many times by upgrades that were downgrades that I've stopped paying attention to the new versions.

I'm still curious to hear how you make use of such a large collection (I'm not criticizing your expectation that LMS should be able to handle your collection, just interested in the answer.).

aubuti
2012-01-25, 09:43
I hadn't appreciated that there might be substantial scanning speedups to be had.
With the change from MySQL to SQLite and substantial rewriting of the code, yes, there may be speedups to be had. For your case the big question is how well those changes scale. During testing of the early SQLite versions (7.6.0) the results for large collections seemed pretty scattered.

garym
2012-01-25, 09:51
I'm still curious to hear how you make use of such a large collection (I'm not criticizing your expectation that LMS should be able to handle your collection, just interested in the answer.).

I can't speak for him. But for me, I have about 240,000 or so tracks. At the moment, I'm in the midst of a several year reripping program to convert all my CDs to FLAC (I won't repeat the details of my sad story of carefully ripping all my CDs to 192 mp3 many years ago before I knew enough). So for now, my primary library is about 68,000 tracks.

But back to the 240,000. I'm a bit of a collector (I still have my first albums from the early 1960s). If I like an artist, I want to have everything they ever did. Some of it I may play once and never again. But I also like the ability to play about any song of any artist that a friend might want to hear. (You're setting on the deck enjoying a beer and the friend says, "do you remember that band that Joe's sister dated the drummer back in high school that had one album released?" And you say, "you mean this one" as you call it up with iPeng on your iphone.

Stupid or silly I know. And how many of the five or six hundred complete grateful dead shows do I *really* need? The idea for me is NOT that I will frequently listen to all this music, but that if I *want* to listen to something, I have it.

Also keep in mind that much of my major collecting was done well before anything like spotify, mog, rhapsody, etc. This makes it easy to find some songs without owning the CD (although many things I own are not on those services). In today's times I might have done things very differently. And I have friends that have a lot more CDs than I have....one with an entire wing of his home designed and built with moveable shelving designed for mass storage of CDs and vinyl. Obsessive? yes. But hey, it's their money and their hobby. {and no one I'm talking about or me is a professional DJ}

mps
2012-01-25, 13:02
I can't speak for him. But for me, I have about 240,000 or so tracks. At the moment, I'm in the midst of a several year reripping program to convert all my CDs to FLAC (I won't repeat the details of my sad story of carefully ripping all my CDs to 192 mp3 many years ago before I knew enough). So for now, my primary library is about 68,000 tracks.

But back to the 240,000. I'm a bit of a collector (I still have my first albums from the early 1960s). If I like an artist, I want to have everything they ever did. Some of it I may play once and never again. But I also like the ability to play about any song of any artist that a friend might want to hear. (You're setting on the deck enjoying a beer and the friend says, "do you remember that band that Joe's sister dated the drummer back in high school that had one album released?" And you say, "you mean this one" as you call it up with iPeng on your iphone.

Stupid or silly I know. And how many of the five or six hundred complete grateful dead shows do I *really* need? The idea for me is NOT that I will frequently listen to all this music, but that if I *want* to listen to something, I have it.

Also keep in mind that much of my major collecting was done well before anything like spotify, mog, rhapsody, etc. This makes it easy to find some songs without owning the CD (although many things I own are not on those services). In today's times I might have done things very differently. And I have friends that have a lot more CDs than I have....one with an entire wing of his home designed and built with moveable shelving designed for mass storage of CDs and vinyl. Obsessive? yes. But hey, it's their money and their hobby. {and no one I'm talking about or me is a professional DJ}
Thanks for the interesting response. I can understand where you're coming from (although my 6000 song collection is currently kicking my ass :) ).

garym
2012-01-25, 13:06
Thanks for the interesting response. I can understand where you're coming from (although my 6000 song collection is currently kicking my ass :) ).

;-) But remember I'm an old guy. In 1967 I probably listened to the same 3 albums over and over and over and over.

jimzak
2012-01-25, 17:42
I can't speak for him. But for me, I have about 240,000 or so tracks. At the moment, I'm in the midst of a several year reripping program to convert all my CDs to FLAC (I won't repeat the details of my sad story of carefully ripping all my CDs to 192 mp3 many years ago before I knew enough). So for now, my primary library is about 68,000 tracks.

But back to the 240,000. I'm a bit of a collector (I still have my first albums from the early 1960s). If I like an artist, I want to have everything they ever did. Some of it I may play once and never again. But I also like the ability to play about any song of any artist that a friend might want to hear. (You're setting on the deck enjoying a beer and the friend says, "do you remember that band that Joe's sister dated the drummer back in high school that had one album released?" And you say, "you mean this one" as you call it up with iPeng on your iphone.

Stupid or silly I know. And how many of the five or six hundred complete grateful dead shows do I *really* need? The idea for me is NOT that I will frequently listen to all this music, but that if I *want* to listen to something, I have it.

Also keep in mind that much of my major collecting was done well before anything like spotify, mog, rhapsody, etc. This makes it easy to find some songs without owning the CD (although many things I own are not on those services). In today's times I might have done things very differently. And I have friends that have a lot more CDs than I have....one with an entire wing of his home designed and built with moveable shelving designed for mass storage of CDs and vinyl. Obsessive? yes. But hey, it's their money and their hobby. {and no one I'm talking about or me is a professional DJ}

I have the same "disease".

I love to collect and when I find a cool artist, I want their entire catalog.

I'm about 1/4 - 1/3 through with my ripping odyssey. I've done over 100,000 tracks in the past 10 months or so.

pomatomus
2012-01-25, 20:04
Very much what Garym said, with the twist that all that music includes my wife's music as well, and she's just as much of a music fiend as I am. I know it's not all listenable, and sure I have fantasies about devoting retirement years to more music, but I just love being able to easily go deep on something when the interest strikes me. For instance, my wife was getting into old timey jazz 78s on a radio show, so we started listening to some stuff on the Yazoo label, and a week later we ended up with just an epic amount of that sort of stuff, which then sparked a self-education campaign in old blues material, with a diversion into klezmer for some reason. Having a huge amount of mp3s around made that easy and pleasurable to do.

erland
2012-01-25, 23:50
with 580,000 tracks, server 7.5.5 takes about 7.5 hours to look for new/changed, on my reasonably fast i7 machine. I still get timeouts sporadically on the New Music browse (controller only, not in the web interface), but I've found 7.5.5 is better than previous versions, which used to time out almost every single time. I don't think large collections were really anticipated.

When I asked Logitech some time ago in the following thread, the largest library they ever performed any official tests on was a 120 000 tracks library. So based on this, I'm pretty sure the system hasn't been optimized to run good in a 580 000 tracks library, since they have no way to test it. I suspect most of their testing is done in a lot smaller libraries so even if they have access to a 120 000 tracks library it doesn't mean that they run a lot of tests with that library.
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=88867

pippin
2012-01-26, 02:24
Well, I believe in any case LMS is not too bad.

Sonos, for example, maxes out at 65.000 tracks, 1/8th of that library.
DLNA servers like Twonky can easily handle more but they provide almost no intelligence so the software using the library has to do a lot more processing and now how many embedded devices like players or controllers are able to handle such a library well?

jo-wie
2012-01-26, 05:24
... now how many embedded devices like players or controllers are able to handle such a library well?

Good question. Do some of the large library users do have experience on using DNLA devices with their library?

jimzak
2012-02-01, 06:09
It takes 7.7.2 approximately 6 minutes to perform a new and changed music scan on my nearly 140k collection.

Discovering files/directories: c:\link (1 of 1) Complete 00:00:00

Discovering files/directories: F:\ (41007 of 41007) Complete 00:00:47

Scanning new music files: F:\ (47 of 47) Complete 00:00:08

Discovering files/directories: H:\ (56891 of 56891) Complete 00:01:43

Scanning new music files: H:\ (38 of 38) Complete 00:00:08

Discovering files/directories: I:\ (55138 of 55138) Complete 00:01:43

Scanning new music files: I:\ (68 of 68) Complete 00:00:18

Pre-caching Artwork (209 of 209) Complete 00:00:36

The server has finished scanning your media library.
Total Time: 00:05:23 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / 7:46 PM)

pomatomus
2013-01-24, 07:29
[QUOTE=pomatomus;685867]with 580,000 tracks, server 7.5.5 takes about 7.5 hours to look for new/changed, on my reasonably fast i7 machine.QUOTE]

Have you tried 7.7.1? comparable times for full rescan etc...?!


I know it's a long time for a followup, but I finally got around to trying 7.7.2. I was having serious connectivity issues with the Duet and figured why not upgrade and see what happens, since it's not working anyway. Pretty sure I have a networking hardware problem with the Duet, but that's another post. LMS is working fine.

So, here's my comparison between 7.5.5 and 7.7.2 scanning speeds on a large library of ~600,000 tracks on an i7 machine/win7/6gb ram:

7.5.5 clear and rescan - 27 hours
7.7.2 clear and rescan - well over 30 hours (not sure exactly as the log files used up all available space and I don't have a final timestamp)

7.5.5 scan for new: 9.5-10 hours depending on how much actual new material is there
7.7.2 scan for new - 2.75 hours +/- 15 minutes depending on how much new material there is.

So, upgrading to 7.7.2 was definitely the way to go for dealing with a large collection, where you need daily scanning!