slate wrote:
pomatomus wrote:
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
It takes 7.7.2 approximately 6 minutes to perform a new and changed
music scan on my nearly 140k collection.
--
jimzak
http://zzzone.net
http://have-a-nice-day.org
http://www.last.fm/user/zzzoneDOTnet
http://somethingsomethingsomething.net
Ripper: dBpoweramp
Router: Cisco E4200
Server: SBS
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
pippin;686422 Wrote:
... 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?
--
jo-wie
2 * Classic, 2 * Boom, SC 7.7.2 auf GigaByte
pomatomus;686227 Wrote:
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
pomatomus;686227 Wrote:
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
mps;686323 Wrote:
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
garym;686327 Wrote:
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
mps;686361 Wrote:
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.
--
aubuti;686326 Wrote:
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
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
pomatomus;685867 Wrote:
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
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
pomatomus;686227 Wrote:
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
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
pomatomus;685867 Wrote:
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...?!
--
slate
Main: Receiver (Audiocom) - Beresford Caiman+ (Gatorized) - Carver
pomatomus;685867 Wrote:
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
pomatomus;685867 Wrote:
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
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.
--
jimzak
http://zzzone.net
http://have-a-nice-day.org
Mnyb;684178 Wrote:
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
scan for new and changed takes 2 minutes to move over my 37000 files 30s
to add a new album ?
--
Mnyb
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2
benthos;684402 Wrote:
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
benthos;684402 Wrote:
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
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.
--
audiot
audiot's Profile:
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
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
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.
--
benthos
benthos's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2556
View this thread:
benthos;683911 Wrote:
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
