Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Roland0 View Post
    RAM almost certainly won't be the root cause, LMS doesn't use that much (~500MB for LMS should be ample. To make sure, check settings>performance if you even have enabled high memory settings, and check actual usage with e.g htop), and for a scan, memory-based caching is basically irrelevant anyway.
    One possible reason might be the write speed of the storage where the LMS databases are located. If e.g. they are on the EMMC storage on the XU4 and on a slow HDD on the NAS, this will make quite a difference. Worst case is if they are on the same drive as the audio files.
    Sandisk high-speed SD card on the XU4, those SD-card classifications are so all over the place now that I can't remember but I think it is the fastest category SD Card available.

    NAS 4*6TB WD Red RPM: 5400.


    Disk usage during scan on NAS never went above 50% though when I checked (only about 1000 times).

    One difference in settings I did make: I set "scanner priority" to "-6 above normal" on the NAS.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by mherger View Post
    > RAM almost certainly won't be the root cause, LMS doesn't use that much
    > (~500MB for LMS should be ample. To make sure, check
    > settings>performance if you even have enabled high memory settings, and
    > check actual usage with e.g htop), and for a scan, memory-based caching
    > is basically irrelevant anyway.


    Memory is super important during a scan. With a library the size of
    echable's the difference between high and max can be massive.

    echable: looking at the scanner stats, how are those hours distributed?
    Is there one step which takes considerably longer on one system vs. the
    other?


    Both devices have Advanced - Performance - Database Memory Config set to "Maximum (recommended for libraries with more than 50.000 tracks and machines with 2+ GB RAM). Should that be an and or an or ? Meaning, since the NAS actually only has 1GB memory, it would actually be detrimental to set it to this setting ? Also, as mentioned in other post, I changed NAS server scanning priority to "-6 above normal", but left it at default on the xu4.

    Here are the full scan stats from both devices:

    NAS:

    Media Scan Details
    Discovering files/directories: /volume1/music (309595 of 309595) Complete 00:12:22

    Scanning new music files: /volume1/music (280892 of 280892) Complete 15:45:26

    Discovering playlists: /volume1/music/[[PLAYLISTS]] (5 of 5) Complete 00:00:00

    Scanning new playlists: /volume1/music/[[PLAYLISTS]] (4 of 4) Complete 00:00:04

    Building full text index (7 of 7) Complete 00:12:53

    Pre-caching Artwork (13096 of 13096) Complete 02:36:48

    Database Optimize (2 of 2) Complete 00:24:26



    XU4:

    Media Scan Details
    Discovering files/directories: /mnt/nfs_client/volume1/music (433803 of 433803) Complete 00:26:16

    Scanning new music files: /mnt/nfs_client/volume1/music (280893 of 280893) Complete 05:22:50

    Building full text index (7 of 7) Complete 00:05:06

    Find updated coverart files (29930 of 29930) Complete 00:05:12

    Pre-caching Artwork (12037 of 12037) Complete 00:32:16

    Database Optimize (2 of 2) Complete 00:06:50






    > One possible reason might be the write speed of the storage where the
    > LMS databases are located. If e.g. they are on the EMMC storage on the
    > XU4 and on a slow HDD on the NAS, this will make quite a difference.

    This is particularly true if you run low on memory.
    --

    Michael[/QUOTE]

    Yes, as mentioned, the XU4 uses a high-speed SD-card, the NAS 5400RPM WD Red disks in RAID5.

    However, when scanning, the NAS never went above 50% in disk usage and never (approx) above 20-30% in memory usage.

    Also, someone please friggin' explain the difference in number of files found between two LMS servers scanning the exact directories when NO changes have been (by me, maybe by LMS itself) made in between the two scans

    (BTW sorry if I'm messing up with the quoting and stuff, I think I did better this time than I've done before, but it's harder than I thought and I'm not quite there yet...)
    Last edited by echable; 2019-11-15 at 07:48.

  3. #13
    I should add: both the XU4 and the NAS had just been factory reset and had nothing but LMS installed on them.

  4. #14
    Senior Member pinkdot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,119
    Quote Originally Posted by echable View Post

    Also, someone please friggin' explain the difference in number of files found between two LMS servers scanning the exact directories when NO changes have been (by me, maybe by LMS itself) made in between the two scans

    (BTW sorry if I'm messing up with the quoting and stuff, I think I did better this time than I've done before, but it's harder than I thought and I'm not quite there yet...)
    Difference in scanned files could be a permission issue on the server. So, check the top folder's permission and apply these setting to all underlying folders. This can easily be done in Files.
    If your nas is not comnnected to the internet, change the
    Also, share your scanner log. This might reveal some issues that are causing the difference.

    You also might want to update your package to 0028: https://pinkdot.myds.me/sspks/
    - removed Audio scan from CPAN (duplicate).
    -DS718+, RPI 2 (myMPD/Squeezelite),HifiBerry Digi+ Pro, Aune S6 - Exposure 3010S2 - PMC FB1i-s
    -LmsUpdate - Updated and Cleaned up Logitech Media Server 7.9.2 for Synology.

  5. #15
    Thanks for the tip on the update - how can I be automatically notified about these updates? Why isn't there a normal Synology package repository/ advice about the update showing up in package centre like with other packages!

    Otherwise, thanks again for the package, great work!

  6. #16
    Hmmm, did manual install of the package, downloaded from your mirror for my ds415play, stopped and started package, LMS information still showing same version, 7.9.2 - 0028.1572699180 @ Sat Nov 2 14:19:59 CET 2019

  7. #17
    Senior Member pinkdot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,119
    Quote Originally Posted by echable View Post
    Hmmm, did manual install of the package, downloaded from your mirror for my ds415play, stopped and started package, LMS information still showing same version, 7.9.2 - 0028.1572699180 @ Sat Nov 2 14:19:59 CET 2019
    Previous version was 0027.
    -DS718+, RPI 2 (myMPD/Squeezelite),HifiBerry Digi+ Pro, Aune S6 - Exposure 3010S2 - PMC FB1i-s
    -LmsUpdate - Updated and Cleaned up Logitech Media Server 7.9.2 for Synology.

  8. #18
    Senior Member pinkdot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,119
    Quote Originally Posted by echable View Post
    Thanks for the tip on the update - how can I be automatically notified about these updates?
    Why isn't there a normal Synology package repository/ advice about the update showing up in package centre like with other packages!
    Synology doesn't allow me to push LmsUpdate to the Package Center. Therefore you only be notified by me on this forum or by checking the download sites yourself.
    Only for x86_64 nas I have recently added a package that bypasses the Synology restriction, and after adding a respo, is shown in Package Center.
    Last edited by pinkdot; 2019-11-16 at 05:33.
    -DS718+, RPI 2 (myMPD/Squeezelite),HifiBerry Digi+ Pro, Aune S6 - Exposure 3010S2 - PMC FB1i-s
    -LmsUpdate - Updated and Cleaned up Logitech Media Server 7.9.2 for Synology.

  9. #19
    Tried looking for scanner logs: Settings - Information - The two log files at the bottom. The NAS one was empty, because of the update I did earlier today I suppose, the XU4 one has identical info in both files and none of it to do with library scanning:

    [19-11-16 15:35:24.1341] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command.
    [19-11-16 15:35:24.1366] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:*****
    [19-11-16 15:35:49.2650] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command.
    [19-11-16 15:35:49.2658] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:*****
    [19-11-16 15:40:14.2886] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command.
    [19-11-16 15:40:14.2889] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:*****
    [19-11-16 15:44:48.9692] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command.
    [19-11-16 15:44:48.9701] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:*****
    [19-11-16 15:46:10.4443] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command.
    [19-11-16 15:46:10.4471] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:*****
    [19-11-16 15:49:42.5407] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command.
    [19-11-16 15:49:42.5425] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:*****

    None of those ports, they're all different, are ports I've read about being used in connection with LMS before, I thought it was only 9000,9090, and 3483. I have UPnP turned off.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    936
    Sandisk high-speed SD card on the XU4, those SD-card classifications are so all over the place now that I can't remember but I think it is the fastest category SD Card available.
    It should be a A1 certified card (not A2, as they are not well supported on Linux, and are actually slower in practice)

    Disk usage during scan on NAS never went above 50% though when I checked (only about 1000 times).
    You should use something that can monitor and log the whole scan process, as the workload varies depending on the scan phase (see below)

    Both devices have Advanced - Performance - Database Memory Config set to "Maximum (recommended for libraries with more than 50.000 tracks and machines with 2+ GB RAM). Should that be an and or an or ? Meaning, since the NAS actually only has 1GB memory, it would actually be detrimental to set it to this setting ?
    "Maximum" means that LMS' database cache is set to grow to a maximum of 500MB. However, I run it with this setting, and it allocates 170MB initially, and 280M after a couple of hours of using it. After several rescans (new & changed), and loading the metadata of ~6000 tracks, it's now 360MB. Even with heavy usage, I've yet to see it grow larger than 500MB (NB: numbers are for ARM64 (RPI3) and ARM (Odroid HC2) platforms)

    Name:  lms_mem.jpg
Views: 78
Size:  24.2 KB

    Breaking down your results:
    Media Scan Details
    Discovering files/directories: /volume1/music (309595 of 309595) Complete
    NAS: 00:12:22 XU4: 00:26:16
    I/O (find tracks) bound (for empty library) or I/O (find tracks) and CPU (for new & changed). Some slowdown due to network drive might be expected, but if this was a clear/rescan, is's a lot. Maybe slow network or slow NAS share.
    btw, to improve XU4 network speed, see here. May or may not be default for your distro.

    Scanning new music files: /volume1/music (280892 of 280892)
    NAS: 15:45:26 XU4: 05:22:50
    Mixture of I/O (read tracks, write database) and CPU (database). Which one is the bottleneck will depend on your specific setup. You'll have to do some monitoring on your system.

    Building full text index (7 of 7)
    NAS: 00:12:53 XU4: 00:05:06

    Pre-caching Artwork (13096 of 13096)
    NAS: 02:36:48 XU4: 00:32:16

    Database Optimize (2 of 2)
    NAS: 00:24:26 XU4: 00:06:50
    All of these are CPU-bound.

    Unless there's something weird going on on your NAS, my guess is that your NAS has a really weak CPU which is the bottleneck. While the Atoms are the slowest Intel CPUs, it's still surprising to see one with a lower single-core performance than an ARM design. However, the Atom CE5335 seems obscure enough that I can't even find a datasheet (it appears to be a design from 2011).
    Various SW: Web Interface | Playlist Editor / Generator | Music Classification | Similar Music | Announce | EventTrigger | LMSlib2go | ...
    Various HowTos: build a self-contained LMS | Bluetooth/ALSA | Control LMS with any device | ...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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