Lost Viking;165775 Wrote:
>
> 1)
> It took more than 5 (!) hours to scan my music collection. This is
> awful! I added a few files and performed the "look for new and changed
> music" option. And it seems to take another 5 our scan to make it
> available for Squeezebox/Transporter. So in future,
I too have had the same problem with the slim server software on my more
powerful system (P4 2.8 gighz with 2 gig of ram twin 80 gigHD) I also
installed the slim server on the kids system (P3 800mhz 1gig ram with
twin 20 gigHD) the slim server works like is says on the kids system,
but it has ne
It shouldn't take 5 hours to scan your music, unless you have a huge
library, like 50,000 tracks or more - or, unless you're running
slimserver on very underpowered hardware. Also in some cases, the scan
process can get in a loop due to broken shortcut links. You can log
errors during the scan p
Recoveryone;165785 Wrote:
> I have re-install it 10-12 times even deleting files from the reg to
> make sure its a clean install. the only difference in these system on
> the connection side is that my system is wireless and the kids is
> hardwired to the router. which I dont see how that wou
Lost Viking;165775 Wrote:
> 1)
> It took more than 5 (!) hours to scan my music collection. This is
> awful! I added a few files and performed the "look for new and changed
> music" option. And it seems to take another 5 our scan to make it
> available for Squeezebox/Transporter. So in future, if
Lost Viking;165775 Wrote:
> 3) Why is this software browser-based? It is laggy, takes more time to
> load than the crappiest website at the end of the world...
>
I would second what JJZ says about giving it a bit of time. The sheer
ease and breadth of the functionality gets hidden behind the l
JJZolx;165802 Wrote:
> Several reasons. Cross-platform compatibility is one - the server can
> be run on a number of different operating systems. Centralized
> management is a more important reason, IMO. You can have several
> Squeezeboxes running in your home and you can control them from any
I went and look at my browsers settings that was mention early in
another post to make sure my content was not messing up the SS, that
was ok (marked off) what I did notice that my security level was a bit
high. I turned it down all the way and also D/L the 6.5.1. patch off
the nightly site and i
snarlydwarf;165780 Wrote:
> Something is wrong if it takes that long. I have a very underpowered
> system (with 128M of RAM!) that works great as a server, and can do a
> full scan of 17,000 tracks in less than 30 minutes
>
>
>
> Tags are read, a large database is filled with album names,
Pale Blue Ego;165790 Wrote:
> It shouldn't take 5 hours to scan your music, unless you have a huge
> library, like 50,000 tracks or more - or, unless you're running
> slimserver on very underpowered hardware. Also in some cases, the scan
> process can get in a loop due to broken shortcut links.
1) You need a faster server if you want better performance.
2) It will work better without SoftSqueeze
3) If it's a dedicated server, you could try a headless linux without
any GUI running, Clarkconnect works really well for me.
4) On the remote or Web UI, select Browse, then Music Folders and you
Siduhe;165803 Wrote:
> I would second what JJZ says about giving it a bit of time. The sheer
> ease and breadth of the functionality gets hidden behind the look of
> the interface on my first viewing too. However, everything I've ever
> needed Slimserver to do, it's done (or someone here's been
thanks for your reply!
Patrick Dixon;165837 Wrote:
> 1) You need a faster server if you want better performance.
> 2) It will work better without SoftSqueeze
> 3) If it's a dedicated server, you could try a headless linux without
> any GUI running, Clarkconnect works really well for me.
>
I di
Lost Viking;165775 Wrote:
> I just ordered Slim Device Transporter.
>
> While waiting I decided to install and set up SlimServer software.
>
> I have to say, the way it is operating is a bit disappointing :-(
> I strongly hope, the device itself (Transporter) is better.
>
> 1)
> It took more t
Lost Viking;165842 Wrote:
> Maybe this is an important information: During installation this error
> occured (see attachment).
I post this quote from another thread, which helped me with my new
SlimServer install.
vdorta;56701 Wrote:
> The solution was easy enough: I uninstalled Slimserver; s
Lost Viking, you might want to look at your Avira settings. The
anti-virus application might be inspecting each music file as
slimserver opens it. If that's the case, your scan will take forever.
You should be able to tell the anti-virus program to ignore mp3 files
and other music filetypes.
Marc Sherman;165871 Wrote:
> Lost Viking wrote:
> >
> > * MS Win XP Prof SP2
> > * Celeron 900MHz (admittedly not exactly a rocket to the moon)
> > * Mainboard Intel S815EBM1
> > * SATA Seagate Barracuda 320GB (latest model)
> > * onboard graphics
> > * 512MB RAM
> >
> > * Promise TX2300 RAID1
snarlydwarf;165780 Wrote:
> I have a very underpowered system (with 128M of RAM!) that works great
> as a server, and can do a full scan of 17,000 tracks in less than 30
> minutes
Wow. How do you achieve this? What format is your music in? Do you have
album art? My full scan takes several hou
shabbs;165898 Wrote:
> Wow. How do you achieve this? What format is your music in? Do you have
> album art? My full scan takes several hours (12,000 mp3 tracks). My
> music is on a NAS device and everything has album art so I'm sure that
> adds a bit, but still, 17K track in less than 30 mins...
Lost Viking;165890 Wrote:
> I would like to state here again my gratitude for all of you, dealing
> with my problems!
>
> I will give it a try, setting the virus scan accordingly. However, I
> bought a Intel Dual Core Core 2,4GHz 1GB RAM ASUS P5B in the meantime
> ;-) I hope, this is sufficient,
Just to chip in with a few assorted views...
- while I agree that Windows isn't much of an OS, please don't get the
idea that you can't run SS satisfactorily on it. You can. Scanning
doesn't take forever for everyone.
- if you're lucky, it may well be that simply building a new box will
avoid w
Lost Viking;165970 Wrote:
> Diabling the virus scanner didn't help. mp3 wasn't scanned anyway.
> (exception already set). Canceled after two houers of scanning...Do you have
> any playlist files in the directories that are scanned ?
I think I have heard people having performance problem if playl
Phil Karn;166039 Wrote:
> Lost Viking wrote:
>
> > It takes ~45secs from clicking to diplaying the result page. Is this
> > normal? Will it be as slow using the Transporter (once I have it in
> my
> > hands, it is still on its way..)?? *shudder*
>
> No, that's definitely not normal. IMHO, the S
ceejay;166046 Wrote:
> Just to chip in with a few assorted views...
>
> - while I agree that Windows isn't much of an OS, please don't get the
> idea that you can't run SS satisfactorily on it. You can. Scanning
> doesn't take forever for everyone.
>
>
Yes, I thought so. For now, it will be W
Lost Viking;166191 Wrote:
>
>
> Meaning mp3 is a lossy format not living up to the expectations a
> "true" (whatever this is..) audiophile listener should use?
> Well, I did some testing (using a high qualitiy hifi set), comparing CD
> to qualitiy mp3 using a blind testing setup and I have to s
I am now ready with my 2.4GHz Dual as my new music server.
What I did so far:
Installing Windows XP, incl. servicepack & updates
Installing the appropriate drivers
Installing the latest nighty version of SlimServer
Setting the permissions (see above)
nothing else (esp. no anti virus progs, etc.)
Peter;166224 Wrote:
> Lost Viking wrote:
> > Yes, this is exactly my intention. And the old server will be useful
> > anyway. Lot of stuff here to be safely stored using RAID (photos,
> > videos, documents, etc.)
> >
>
> RAID doesn't protect against a lot of things. In domestic situations
>
Lost Viking;166235 Wrote:
>
> If I am not wrong, this is a LINUX only program. Whack me, but I am not
> (yet) using Linux. Is there an alternative available for Windows?
I use Microsoft's SyncToy (free download). But I prefer to have my
library backup initiated manually - sod's law states that
On 12/29/06, Recoveryone
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I too have had the same problem with the slim server software on my more
powerful system (P4 2.8 gighz with 2 gig of ram twin 80 gigHD) I also
installed the slim server on the kids system (P3 800mhz 1gig ram with
twin 20 gigHD) the slim serve
Lost Viking wrote:
* MS Win XP Prof SP2
* Celeron 900MHz (admittedly not exactly a rocket to the moon)
* Mainboard Intel S815EBM1
* SATA Seagate Barracuda 320GB (latest model)
* onboard graphics
* 512MB RAM
* Promise TX2300 RAID1
* NO iTunes!!!
* NO personal firewall
* Avira Antivir Personal Ed
Lost Viking wrote:
It takes ~45secs from clicking to diplaying the result page. Is this
normal? Will it be as slow using the Transporter (once I have it in my
hands, it is still on its way..)?? *shudder*
No, that's definitely not normal. IMHO, the Slimserver web interface
could be a lot faste
Lost Viking wrote:
Yes, this is exactly my intention. And the old server will be useful
anyway. Lot of stuff here to be safely stored using RAID (photos,
videos, documents, etc.)
RAID doesn't protect against a lot of things. In domestic situations
you're usually better off with some kind of
ceejay wrote:
Lost Viking;166235 Wrote:
If I am not wrong, this is a LINUX only program. Whack me, but I am not
(yet) using Linux. Is there an alternative available for Windows?
I use Microsoft's SyncToy (free download). But I prefer to have my
library backup initiated manually - sod's
The rsnapshot script is Linux only because it uses hard links (a Unix
feature) to keep the snapshot sizes as small as possible.
There's a similar feature in recent Windows versions, it's called
"junction" or something. I've seen at least one script similar to
rsnapshot using this on Windows
34 matches
Mail list logo
