Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Simon Turner
    Guest

    significant slowdown after upgrade

    > I suspect that any performance problems are purely MS Windows-related.
    > It would be interesting to hear from both MS Windows and GNU/Linux users
    > on this matter - without starting a war :-)


    I don't think it's likely to start any sort of war but I would be very
    interested to hear of any other Windows users who use SlimServer on a
    machine anything like the spec of mine who think that the behaviour of the
    program is acceptable. I used to think the poor performance was due to the
    service being designed in Perl which I guessed was not a good language for
    Windows, but a quick Google has not confirmed my suspicion at all...

    To hear from anyone who uses it on both Windows and Linux would be very
    interesting.

    I'm sure it can't take 10 seconds for most Windows users before albums will
    list.

    Simon Turner
    Brighton UK

  2. #2
    Robin Bowes
    Guest

    significant slowdown after upgrade

    Simon Turner wrote:
    > To hear from anyone who uses it on both Windows and Linux would be very
    > interesting.
    >
    > I'm sure it can't take 10 seconds for most Windows users before albums will
    > list.


    Actually, I just timed my setup, i.e. slimserver running on linux, and
    it takes ~ 7 seconds for my album list to come up.

    R.
    --
    http://robinbowes.com

  3. #3
    Steve Baumgarten
    Guest

    significant slowdown after upgrade

    > Actually, I just timed my setup, i.e. slimserver running on linux, and
    > it takes ~ 7 seconds for my album list to come up.


    Same for me, on Windows XP, with a 2Ghz P4 and lots of RAM.

    This is currently one of the things that the Slimserver doesn't do
    particulary well. (In fact it's really pretty sad, seeing it take that
    long to produce a relatively short list of albums.)

    Having said that, I find that I rarely use this mode; that's probably why
    I'm not too bothered by the lousy performance. I tend to browse my music
    folder, and that seems to work a lot faster and also give almost identical
    results to browsing by album (and by artist, for that matter).

    Also quite fast: simply typing in part of an album name. I get immediate
    results that way. (This is all with kdf's excellent Fishbone skin; I'm
    pretty sure that performance would be the same with other skins, however.)

    Like many others, I'm assuming the forthcoming database back end will sort
    out many of these browsing issues. In the meantime, performance in areas
    of simply getting music to the Squeezebox (either in MP3 or FLAC/WAV
    format) is greatly improved in 5.4, and I do appreciate the work done to
    better integrate playing Internet radio streams. Overall I'm always happy
    to see improved performance in music browsing; but for the core feature of
    actually playing music -- getting it from my PC to my Squeezebox, showing
    me what's playing, letting me control it -- 5.4 is a big improvement over
    prior releases, and I'm pretty darn happy with it.

    SBB

  4. #4
    NOT a Slim Devices Employee kdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,493

    significant slowdown after upgrade

    Quoting Steve Baumgarten <sbb (AT) panix (DOT) com>:

    > > Actually, I just timed my setup, i.e. slimserver running on linux, and
    > > it takes ~ 7 seconds for my album list to come up.

    >
    > Same for me, on Windows XP, with a 2Ghz P4 and lots of RAM.
    >
    > This is currently one of the things that the Slimserver doesn't do
    > particulary well. (In fact it's really pretty sad, seeing it take that
    > long to produce a relatively short list of albums.)


    its counter-intuitive, but the server has to search and sort all genres, then
    search and sort all albums. it may be a small list but there is more going on
    in the background. to increase startup times, and reduce memory footprint,
    some stuff has to be done over and over instead of caching. Again, this is
    only for now due to the hardcoded indexing of the library. This is why SQL has
    been lauded as the great panacea. It should be able to spead this kind of
    opeeration up greatly, plus allow adding of a number of new sort/search
    features.

    >
    > Having said that, I find that I rarely use this mode; that's probably why
    > I'm not too bothered by the lousy performance. I tend to browse my music
    > folder, and that seems to work a lot faster and also give almost identical
    > results to browsing by album (and by artist, for that matter).
    >

    This works great if you have an organised file system. The server just has to
    read the folder, and the OS already has it sorted.

    -kdf

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •