Why are people still posting to this thread?
Useful information would be a lot easier to find if posts didn't go
off-topic and if new threads were started instead of hijacking older
threads.
--
MelonMonkey
Bruno
*'Twisted Melon - Fine Mac OS Software' (http://twistedmelon.com) |
'mira -
Try turning of playlist persitance. I'm not in front of a server right
now, so am not sure what it is actually called on the web interface -
perhaps someone else can help here.
The main call taking time
Slim::Player::Playlist::modifyPlaylistCallback writes the current
playlist to the database
RainmanRam;165375 Wrote:
I can't find anything related to persisting the playlist
Server Settings Behavior Maintain Client Playlists
--
JJZolx
Jim
JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
RainmanRam;165375 Wrote:
Unfortuately My formatting of the tables doesn't appear on this page, it
looks like white space is compressed. For some reason the formating
appears when I edit the post however.
For info, you need to put *[co**de]* at the start of the text in
question, and then
RainmanRam;165410 Wrote:
This has zero impact on the slow performance I'm seeing with remote
browsing Again, browsing from the machine running slim server is
immediate. Browsing from a remote machine is painfully slow. Another
datapoint on this is that I'm not seeing log entries for slow
JJZolx;165402 Wrote:
Server Settings Behavior Maintain Client Playlists
This has zero impact on the slow performance I'm seeing with remote
browsing Again, browsing from the machine running slim server is
immediate. Browsing from a remote machine is painfully slow. Another
datapoint on this
snarlydwarf, you nailed it! It wasn't a plugin, it was the content
advisor in IE 6 that was causing the slowdown. I have no idea why.
Disabling the content advisor made remote browsing of slimserver as
fast as it should be.
I don't really understand how the content advisor works so I have no
RainmanRam;165421 Wrote:
I don't have this problem with any other pages that I can think of so I
suspect there is some characteristic of slim's pages that is causing
content advisor to stumble.
Thoughts?
From the little I can glean for MS's support site, it seems that IE6's
Content
It would appear wcburnette is experiencing some really long timer late
delays. I had a bunch of timer late delays in my performance logs as
well.
Can anyone explain what this message means or point me to documentation
on how the timers are being used and their purpose? I do have a
programming
Timer Late means a timer task is firing late. But it is usually a
symptom of another task taking a long time which blocks timer tasks
being processed. So you really need to look at any log entries before
the timer later ones.
--
Triode
I ran my tests from the SB3. I clicked on a remote to change playlists,
and I waited until sound actually came from the speakers.
I ran another set of tests as you requested, using the SlimServer web
interface running on a browser on the server machine to change
playlists. I wasn't able to save
I have a Mac mini, 512MB ram, 1.33 Ghz G4, with upgraded 5400rpm 100GB
internal drive, and all music stored on an external Maxtor 300GB drive.
I have three SqeezeBox v3s, one wired, and the other two wireless.
I have ~35K tracks. I just wiped my hard drive, and installed a fresh
copy of 10.4.8,
I started down the NSLU2 path and after spending way too much time
getting it up and running I realized I was stupid going down this path.
I saw posts of it taking hours to reindex, don't put all your music in
one play list, etc. I decided to abort and retired a 3 year old laptop
Thinkpad T40p
I tried disabling my virus checker on the server and accessing
slimserver via localhost and it was lightning fast. I reenabled my
virus checker and it still was lightning fast. Unfortunately, I didn't
try the local server before disabling the virus checker so I'm not
convinced it was the problem.
I also agree with that.
===
Card games is my nature,
Can you tell me the game for me?
Reveal your future, tarot reading
www.tarotcard-psychic.com
--
yelena66
yelena66's Profile:
I'm having extramly slow web response from slim server 6.5 on a 2.8 GHz
dual core with 1 Gig of ram runing xp sp2 as well. The initial web page
takes about 15 seconds to open (even on the server). Other web pages
take 5+ seconds for the most part. Painfully slow.
I've enabled server statistics
Are you using the default skin. If so please try the latest 6.5.1 as
this should speed up the time to build the playlist which looks like it
is the web page taking the longest time to build.
In addition to this, the database line lead me to suspect that
something is causing the database to
Thanks for the suggestions. I have disabled all plugins EXCEPT for CLI,
clock screensaver, and network health. I then restarted SS so my new
plugin selections would take effect, but it was still very slow. I
enabled the network health monitoring and it reported that Server
Response Time is
Could you set the warning level to 0.5 and post the output of the log
too? [see wiki referenced below for detailed steps]
The results you have posted are a summary of what is going on and
indicate that web page builds are taking a long time. At present we
optimise to avoid streaming drop outs,
Triode,
This the sort of thing you are looking for?
Web Page Build 0.5 : 3.87970Backtrace:
frame 0: Slim::Utils::PerfMon::log (/PerlApp/Slim/Web/HTTP.pm line
829)
frame 1: Slim::Web::HTTP::generateHTTPResponse
(/PerlApp/Slim/Web/HTTP.pm line 687)
frame 2: Slim::Web::HTTP::processURL
Don't need the backtrace set, just the following:
To help diagnose poor server reponse times, follow the following
steps:
* Enable Performance Monitoring on the Network and Server Health
page
* Select the Server Statistics page
* Enter 0.5 in the box at the very bottom of the page between
High
6.5 is generally much better than 6.2/6.3, but there may be some special
cases which take longer and which could be improved.
It would help if people experiencing long delays could enable
performance monitoring and post the output of the server diagnostics
for all events taking more than 0.5
I'll try to do this sometime this week and get back to you.
I love my SB's either way, but if the performance could be improved, I would
not complain!
On 12/4/06, Triode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
6.5 is generally much better than 6.2/6.3, but there may be some special
cases which take longer
On 12/4/06, Mitch Harding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running SS 6.5.1 (a nightly from a couple weeks back) on WinXP SP2 with
a 1GHz Athlon and 512MB RAM. My typical playlists have 3-4k tracks. When I
add or delete tracks from them, or try to save them, the web interface takes
5-10 seconds to
Jack Coates;158428 Wrote:
Slimserver may conceivably have a performance difference based on OS,
but I rather doubt that it has anything to do with Perl on Windows,
until someone can step up with some numbers to prove otherwise. I am
definitely willing to believe that it's a little slower on
I've lately been feeling more fed up with the response time of
SlimServer. I'm not sure if I never noticed it before or if it has
actually gotten slower since the 6.5 release. I'm running SS on WinXP
SP2 with a 2.6GHz P4 HT with 1GB RAM and RAID0. For example if I click
on a song to delete it
A few thoughts:
RAM is your friend, the more the better.
The 6.5+ MySQL-based Slimserver builds are much quicker than the old
SQLite backend.
The best performance I have seen, comparing several Windows and Linux
installations on the same machine, has been ClarkConnect, a Linux-based
server OS
On 12/3/06, bgriffis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've lately been feeling more fed up with the response time of
SlimServer. I'm not sure if I never noticed it before or if it has
actually gotten slower since the 6.5 release. I'm running SS on WinXP
SP2 with a 2.6GHz P4 HT with 1GB RAM and RAID0.
One thing that may help a bit is to unload any plugins that you're not
using. Restart SlimServer after going into the server settings and
unchecking the ones you don't want. If you don't use Rhapsody, you
can disable the UPnP client in the server by using the --noupnp command
line option. If
TonyCharman wrote:
It spoils the whole experience for me - may have to put Slimserver back
on a (fast) PC. Looking forward to seeing if Logitech have some ideas
on this - perhaps they will add track discreet advance/back buttons to
the top of the machine as well - oh the number of times I've
On 12/1/06, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TonyCharman wrote:
It spoils the whole experience for me - may have to put Slimserver back
on a (fast) PC. Looking forward to seeing if Logitech have some ideas
on this - perhaps they will add track discreet advance/back buttons to
the top of the
ModelCitizen wrote:
There is a quite a difference between running SlimServer via the remote
as opposed to the web gui. I ran a 192mb, 500ghz PII dedicated Windows
XP machine for Slimserver 5.*/6.2/6.3 for a long while. Using the
remote (my usual device) was fine but the web gui was pretty pants
If it does run into problems I won't be blaming Perl, which is plenty
fast in my experience, but the slimserver coders. The speed of software
is mainly impacted by poor design decisions.
[..]
I don't mean to imply that the current slimserver is poorly designed.
How should these to
Michael Herger wrote:
If it does run into problems I won't be blaming Perl, which is plenty
fast in my experience, but the slimserver coders. The speed of
software is mainly impacted by poor design decisions.
This is a general remark, not specifically targeted at slimserver.
[..]
I don't
radish wrote:
Completely irrelevant. You are looking at Softsqueeze taking 320mb and
saying that's too much without any understanding of what's actually
going on under the hood or whether it's really using that memory. You
It's just too much for a music player, radish...
Regards,
Peter
MelonMonkey;158486 Wrote:
I have no doubt most of the time spent by the CPU is with the sql
queries and I didn't mean to imply that the blame rested on the
shoulders of the Perl implementation.
I was running the server on my G5 (2x2.3G w/ 5G RAM) and ended up
getting a reconditioned Mac
MelonMonkey;158387 Wrote:
I'm relatively new to the forum so I've been doing my best to read as
much as I can to quickly get up to speed. I had plenty of time to
fiddle with Slimserver without the use of an actual Squeezebox thanks
to UPS (have to thank the Slim support guys for finally
It is a bit unclear from your posting: in your tests, were you using the
web interface on the server (ie running firefox or whatever on the same
machine as the files)?
That can slow things down noticably, especially on older machines --
there are a whole lot more context changes and, well, web
snarlydwarf;158395 Wrote:
It is a bit unclear from your posting: in your tests, were you using the
web interface on the server (ie running firefox or whatever on the same
machine as the files)?
That can slow things down noticably, especially on older machines --
there are a whole lot more
MelonMonkey;158387 Wrote:
So what's the point? Just an observation. I'm not suggesting everyone go
out and buy new machines. I'm not certain I can leave the mini as the
server for long - it's one of my development and test machines aqnd I'd
hate to have to interrupt the music while working
... with you Mr MelonMonkey, I run Slimserver from a QNAP TS-101 NAS
that I bought specifically for the job as I liked the idea of a
dedicated machine with a small power need. It's just too slow!
Streaming seems fine. Maybe I use it differently from most others but
I want view and play
snarlydwarf;158395 Wrote:
It is a bit unclear from your posting: in your tests, were you using the
web interface on the server (ie running firefox or whatever on the same
machine as the files)?
That can slow things down noticably, especially on older machines --
there are a whole lot more
Peter;158399 Wrote:
MelonMonkey wrote:[color=blue]
Yes, for raw operations C is faster and assembly language is even
faster, but in real world speed is limited by disk access times and
database transactions. Perl is no slower in accessing databases than
assembly language.
Regards,
Peter
JJZolx;158398 Wrote:
You can easily test the web interface and scanner without any clients,
either Squeezebox or software, connected to the server. I have several
instances of SlimServer running on my network like this.
Yes, but the OP said he was using Softsqueeze while waiting for UPS to
There is a quite a difference between running SlimServer via the remote
as opposed to the web gui. I ran a 192mb, 500ghz PII dedicated Windows
XP machine for Slimserver 5.*/6.2/6.3 for a long while. Using the
remote (my usual device) was fine but the web gui was pretty pants (I
could even say it
radish;158409 Wrote:
You seem to think pretty much everything sucks! Whilst I reserve
judgment on UPS, and Firefox has been behaving itself for me lately, I
take issue with your anti-Java rant. Having a JVM running certainly
adds a memory-usage overhead to your app, it's typically around
JJZolx;158403 Wrote:
I agree with some of your observations. SlimServer needs a fast machine
to be usable for many of us. I have zero tolerance for slow loading web
sites and even less when that site is running on a local machine with 5%
CPU load.
The slow-loading gallery issues seem to
...
I'm not sure you are not completely correct on this. I know he's Mac
(Linux plus GUI) based and that Slashdot runs on a *nix based servers
but Perl on Windows seems quite inefficient. CYG-Win (or whatever it
is) just does not cut the mustard.
MC
...
Cygwin is not Perl, it's a unix
What would be useful in this thread is to actually quote some stats.
Slimserver allows you to measure the responsiveness of the various
operations. In my case I started using 6.5 with QNAP TS-101, the web
generation suffered with a response of the web pages averaging 2 to 5
seconds. I now have a
snarlydwarf;158419 Wrote:
typically around 10-20mb is certainly not the case I see.
Let's look again:
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
bem 20812 0.0 11.4 321052 29276 pts/3 S09:26 0:00
/home/bem/jre1.5.0_07/bin/java -Xbootclasspath/a
Sorry I wasn't a bit more clear in my opening post regarding some
details.
I'm running with a real Squeezebox now. I thanked the Slim support
team for handling the situation with UPS. UPS says they delivered the
original package yet I received nothing. They had no signature because
they said
MelonMonkey;158486 Wrote:
I'm running with a real Squeezebox now. I thanked the Slim support
team for handling the situation with UPS. UPS says they delivered the
original package yet I received nothing. They had no signature because
they said it was left at the front of the house. Nice
52 matches
Mail list logo
