Stewart Loving-Gibbard wrote:
The larger the music library gets, the worse the performance. It's
getting to a stage where it really isn't good enough to run - when for
example two people run searches on the music library, all three
players
will stall.
Ah, a topic near to my heart.
In the
Kevin,
Which bug numbers describe the issues you are having?Scanning and
searching should NOT take as long as you describe.
-dean
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
dean blackketter wrote:
Kevin,
Which bug numbers describe the issues you are having?Scanning and
searching should NOT take as long as you describe.
-dean
Hi dean,
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=399
Kevin
___
Discuss mailing
Thanks, is there a bug about your scanning performance issues?
On Aug 4, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
dean blackketter wrote:
Kevin,
Which bug numbers describe the issues you are having?Scanning
and searching should NOT take as long as you describe.
-dean
Hi dean,
No - I haven't filed a bug as I have only just experienced this in a
6.2 nightly . Previously I have kept my library DB between installs so I
don't know how long it's been there. I know some changes were made
recently to the DB duplicates issue and that maybe related. It maybe
something
Just to chime-in I have a dual 500MHz Dell
Precision workstaion with 2Gb RAM and a 640Gb MicroNet
RAID-5 connected via firewire 800 that stores my
70,000 tunes on WinXP SP2. I have been a SlimDevices
customer since around v3 of the slim server software.
An initial scan of the library takes
The larger the music library gets, the worse the performance. It's
getting to a stage where it really isn't good enough to run - when for
example two people run searches on the music library, all three players
will stall.
Ah, a topic near to my heart.
I'm running a dual P3 800 mhz Linux box.
