Vidur Apparao wrote:
You're right - I believe there is scope for substantial improvement
here. Please file an enhancement bug at http://bugs.slimdevices.com,
assign it to me and target it for 6.1.
Cool. I just changed my recently filed bug 1497 from a bug to an
enhancement request, targeted it f
Steve Baumgarten wrote:
Which brings me back to my initial post on this, and why I was so
surprised to find that "Browse Music Folder" took so long in 6.0.2.
You're right - I believe there is scope for substantial improvement
here. Please file an enhancement bug at http://bugs.slimdevices.com,
Steve Baumgarten Wrote:
> I kind of understand what's going on behind the scene. If you think
> about it, what can SlimServer do when it descends into a directory?
>
> If it just spit back a raw directory listing, well, that's OK as far
> as
> it goes, but then none of the tracks would be "clic
if you can read perl, the handler for browse music folder(and browse playlists)
is in Pages.pm, sub browser() and browser_addtolist_done()
If you have any suggestions or find any places where there is room to optimise,
let me know. I would love to be able to understand that part, but I just cant
JJZolx wrote:
> IMO, it's just plain silly to use this method of navigation to build
> the database. Aren't there better options for low-cost methods of
> cataloging newly added files?
I kind of understand what's going on behind the scene. If you think
about it, what can SlimServer do when it de
Quoting JJZolx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> IMO, it's just plain silly to use this method of navigation to build
> the database. Aren't there better options for low-cost methods of
> cataloging newly added files?
Lots of options/plans, none implemented yet. Resources are tied up elsewhere.
As always,
kdf Wrote:
> It is a known issue, but those who have spent the most time working with
> it are not sure, at this time, how to optimise it any more without
> losing aspects of the design.
IMO, it's just plain silly to use this method of navigation to build
the database. Aren't there better optio
Quoting SlimPvC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thanks, that does clear things up for me!
> However, in case of using the Browse Music Folder, it does not 'feel'
> like an enhancement. Although technically, I'm sure it is.
I can certainly understand that. The enhancement of it is not really seen so
much
kdf Wrote:
> There was no database in 5.4.x. All data was loaded and stored in ram,
> hence
> the long startup and heavy ram usage. 6.x has a faster startup, but
> the data
> is primarily stored on disc in a database. scanning files, and hitting
> the
> database means accessing the filesystem.
There was no database in 5.4.x. All data was loaded and stored in ram, hence
the long startup and heavy ram usage. 6.x has a faster startup, but the data
is primarily stored on disc in a database. scanning files, and hitting the
database means accessing the filesystem. Browse music folder does
Steve Baumgarten Wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> >
> > 1 - Don't use browse folders, tag all your stuff correctly.[/color]
>
> My stuff is all tagged 100% correctly, and SlimServer's DB reflects
> this. For what I want to be able to do, however, it's not enough.
>
I second this post. I use 'browse mus
Quoting "max.spicer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Dan Sully Wrote:
> >
> > Artist names are shown in these listings in the 6.1 tree. We listen! :)
> This is a preference in 6.1. If you want to enable it , look under
> Server Settings->Formatting (a strange place to put such prefs,
> IMHO!).
except t
Dan Sully Wrote:
>
> Artist names are shown in these listings in the 6.1 tree. We listen! :)
This is a preference in 6.1. If you want to enable it , look under
Server Settings->Formatting (a strange place to put such prefs,
IMHO!).
Max
--
max.spicer
The wild things roared their terrible ro
Jim Wrote:
>
>
> 1 - Don't use browse folders, tag all your stuff correctly.
>
> 2 - Seperate your folders into subfolders, e.g. "D:\Music\Beatles -
> White Album\" could become "D:\Music\B\Beatles\White Album"
nr 1 would be nice but damn time consuming
nr 2 nAH
i dont use window$...
i see
Jim wrote:
But then you're going to be moaning about a 5-minute startup time as it
would need to scan all the folders to put them into a database (kind of
like a lite version of the existing rescan).
It takes 15 seconds for a perl script to traverse my 800 folder, 16,000
track music library on Win
But then you're going to be moaning about a 5-minute startup time as it
would need to scan all the folders to put them into a database (kind of
like a lite version of the existing rescan).
Windows provides no easy way to see if new folders were added to a
folder, especially when in the name of sp
about the slow issue:
i thinks its only when i browse folder. wouldn^t it be possible to add
the dirs to database aswell?
--
nemstter
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
17 matches
Mail list logo
