Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    545

    A suggestion for people with large music library

    I have been busy ripping all my CDs into Flacs, I have done 588+ so far, and I am not quite half finished. And yes I bought all my CDs over the years, I have a whole wall of CDs that I never get to listen to. Hopefull when I retire I can just put SB on random play till eternalty.

    Problem is that Slimserver/SB seem to go slower with large libraries, and with that much music, it is hard to navigate through the DB menu.

    Would it be possible to have one Slimserver keeps multiple (seperate) databases and run multiple server instances on a demand basis? (e.g. One Per Genre). I.E. When Slimserver starts, you can choose from a menu of different server names/database?

    That would sort of be a best of both worlds, wouldn't it?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    545

    Clarification

    Quote Originally Posted by agentsmith
    I have been busy ripping all my CDs into Flacs, I have done 588+ so far, and I am not quite half finished. And yes I bought all my CDs over the years, I have a whole wall of CDs that I never get to listen to. Hopefull when I retire I can just put SB on random play till eternalty.

    Problem is that Slimserver/SB seem to go slower with large libraries, and with that much music, it is hard to navigate through the DB menu.

    Would it be possible to have one Slimserver keeps multiple (seperate) databases and run multiple server instances on a demand basis? (e.g. One Per Genre). I.E. When Slimserver starts, you can choose from a menu of different server names/database?

    That would sort of be a best of both worlds, wouldn't it?
    This was not meant as a suggestion for users. It is a suggestion for developers of Slimserver to implement a feature to run multiple databses.

  3. #3
    Senior Member JJZolx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    11,531
    As far as databases are concerned, the difference in performance between 500 CDs (say 6000 tracks) and 5000 CDs (60,000 tracks) _should_ be fairly small. Having 60,000 records in a table should be easy work for a well-designed database system. Once version 6.5 comes out using MySQL I think larger libraries will be handled better than with the current SQLite. With one caveat... I think the hardware requirements may go up a bit.

    It's a tough tradeoff. On the one hand you want to be able to run the SlimServer on a wide variety of equipment, but on the other you need to enable installations with larger collections to work well.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by JJZolx
    As far as databases are concerned, the difference in performance between 500 CDs (say 6000 tracks) and 5000 CDs (60,000 tracks) _should_ be fairly small. Having 60,000 records in a table should be easy work for a well-designed database system. Once version 6.5 comes out using MySQL I think larger libraries will be handled better than with the current SQLite. With one caveat... I think the hardware requirements may go up a bit.

    It's a tough tradeoff. On the one hand you want to be able to run the SlimServer on a wide variety of equipment, but on the other you need to enable installations with larger collections to work well.
    I am not at 1,000 CD mark yet but it is good to know that it may not make much difference. Although I think the re-indexing speed should at least be linear to the number of records in the database.

    It would still be beneficial to be able to seperate collections into different groups for easy navigation of music and for the ability to be able to "freeze" music collections seperately.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    141
    what hardware are you running slimserver on? I've got almost 60k tracks in my database and it's been running 24x for the last 3 years on a 2.4P4 with 1GB of RAM. I'm now running the SliMP3, a SB and a SB2 on my network and aside from some delay in searching (I've got search set to look across all tags), it's plenty snappy for my use.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by twylie
    what hardware are you running slimserver on? I've got almost 60k tracks in my database and it's been running 24x for the last 3 years on a 2.4P4 with 1GB of RAM. I'm now running the SliMP3, a SB and a SB2 on my network and aside from some delay in searching (I've got search set to look across all tags), it's plenty snappy for my use.
    SlimServer - IBM Thinkpad T30 with 768MB RAM running Wireless G, music data is mapped to a Linkstation network drive.

    Storage - Linkstation 250GB Network Drive connected with Cat5 FE 100MBps to the Wireless Access Point

    Squeezebox2 - Connected with Cat5 FE to Wireless Access Point

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by agentsmith
    SlimServer - IBM Thinkpad T30 with 768MB RAM running Wireless G, music data is mapped to a Linkstation network drive.

    Storage - Linkstation 250GB Network Drive connected with Cat5 FE 100MBps to the Wireless Access Point

    Squeezebox2 - Connected with Cat5 FE to Wireless Access Point
    Looks like it should be plenty fast enough for 600 albums. Only thing I could think to check would be to make sure that the speedstep stuff on the laptop isn't staying in low power mode and you might want to try experimenting with connecting the laptop, NAS, and SB2 to a switch or to the wired ports on the access point to see if it makes a differnce. I can't imagine wireless G woudl be causing you any delays, but it would help take one more thing out of the troubleshooting equation.

    When you mentioned that it's slow navigating through the data, is this via the remote or using the interface back to the server? if it's on the interface to the server, is it local (laptop) access or access from somewhere else on your network?

  8. #8
    Senior Member rick's cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    156

    delays in searching

    I got my SB3 a couple of weeks ago.. and aside from the usual connection problems that I had to sort out the whole system works great. However, one thing I've notice with my set up is that there is a considerable delay when browsing my music folders on the SB3. Once I drill into a folder it often takes 10 secs to drill down further into the artist/album listings.

    My music is organized Genre/Artist/Album/Track

    I have about 140gigs of tunes or roughly 16K tracks all stored on an external HD. For the most part the tracks are ripped as 192 kbs MP3's... the Slimserver is loaded on an old PC (which may be my problem?) and connected to a Belkin wireless G router....

    My PC is a PIII 550mhz, 512mb RAM and is running WIN XP

    Is this the couase of my slowdown or is such a slowdown to be expected with my size of music library?

    Any helpful advice would be appreciated to improve the overall performance of my system

    thanks

  9. #9
    Senior Member rick's cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    156

    delay in browsing music folders

    I got my SB3 a couple of weeks ago.. and aside from the usual connection problems that I had to sort out the whole system works great. However, one thing I've notice with my set up is that there is a considerable delay when browsing my music folders on the SB3. Once I drill into a folder it often takes 10 secs to drill down further into the artist/album listings.

    My music is organized Genre/Artist/Album/Track

    I have about 140gigs of tunes or roughly 16K tracks all stored on an external HD. For the most part the tracks are ripped as 192 kbs MP3's... the Slimserver is loaded on an old PC (which may be my problem?) and connected to a Belkin wireless G router....

    My PC is a PIII 550mhz, 512mb RAM and is running WIN XP

    Is this the couase of my slowdown or is such a slowdown to be expected with my size of music library?

    Any helpful advice would be appreciated to improve the overall performance of my system

    thanks

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by agentsmith
    Hopefull when I retire I can just put SB on random play till eternalty.
    That's exactly what I used to think, but bear in mind that your musical taste may have changed drastically by that time...
    Nowadays, I really can't stand most of the rock shit I bought in the seventies.
    So better enjoy it NOW :-)

Posting Permissions

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