Playback would stop as soon as I tried to access the main web
interface. Menu navigation also caused drop outs. This was while I
was playing FLAC files (so it would be transcoding). The server runs
on a dedicated linux box (XP2200 with 512MB). I did wait for the
rescan to complete.
This is d
Encouraged by the news that recent 6.2 nightly builds solved
performance issues, I tried the 10-12 nightly with my original
Slimp3.. Unfortunately, it was much worse than 5.4.1 with my 48K
track library.
Playback would stop as soon as I tried to access the main web
interface. Menu navigation al
Triode. I ran Server and Network Health as you asked. Here is the
output. It's not perfect but doesn't appear worrying. I wonder how much
running the web interface and the annoying refresh on the laptop server
influenced the figures (I've just realised that there was also a second
instance of the
As a suggestion - how about the welcome screen showing something differerent
when a player is turned on and the server is scanning?
At the very least, it needs to be made very obvious to the user via
release notes and, preferably, a large bit of text next to the download
link! I wonder how ma
It actually doesn't bother me that much at this point since the machine
truly is a dog and I woudln't expect slimserver to run very well on it.
Certainly, improvements in slimserver would be nice, but Im a perfectly
happy customer right now. I used to OC the machine to 550Mhz but it
doesn't see
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 17:57 -0700, Michaelwagner wrote:
> MrC Wrote:
> > Can you say... swapping!
> Yeah, that sounds like more memory, if you can add it easily, might be
> a quick fix to get out of the problem for now.
More memory is always good.
If you can't add it, change systems.
> However,
Jess,
Can I suggest you try the Random Mix plugin that is part of 6.2. This provides an alternative way of randomly playing your music
collection without the performance problem of shuffled play (for long lists)
Goto Plugins->Random Mix and select relavent option and press play.
I typically
I have an under powered machine and here are my delay scenarios...
PII 366 Celeron, 384M RAM, 320gig UDMA-100 driver with PCI UDMA-100
Controller
745 Albums, 12353 Songs
Linux Mandrake 9.2 - BIND9, Postgresql, Slimserver
I have my folders organized in the root music folder like this
Christmas
Did that. And updated firmware. Slimserver took more than three seconds
to respond to any request via the remote with the new version. Since
then I have been trying to revert to my previous SS version, without
success so far (lots of Squeezebox can't find SlimServer).
MC
Is this after allowing
On 10/12/05, Patrick Dixon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I also think it would be useful to be able to cancel tasks that are
> taking too long: I seem to regularly accidentally ask the server to
> play 'everything' (I'm pretty stupid, I know), and my server literally
> goes away for minutes! It's
> > If I choose Browse Music > Browse Genres > Rock > All Albums from the
> > Squeezebox2 using the remote, the list appears with no detectable (< 1
> > second) delay. There are 513 albums in this genre. Using SS6.2
> > nightlies on Win XP SP2 with an Athlon 1.4GHz with 768MB RAM.
> > RichardIf it'
> I'd be very glad if someone above who stated that SlimServer
> performance was acceptable on a (preferably not hugely specced) Windows
> machine could use the *remote* to call up Browse Genres > A Genre With a
> Lot of Albums > All Albums, and let me know if performance is fine with
> this menu c
Michaelwagner said the following on 12/10/2005 15:17:
Robin Bowes Wrote:
If the core code is broken out into separate threads/processes with
clearly defined interfaces then each process can be written in whatever
language you like. I think each core element of the code should have its
own proce
What's "a Lot of Albums"? 100? 1000?
Michael, a mere 122 under Browse Music > Browse Genres > Ambient > All
Albums
This is not huge enough a number to make me understand the delay you
encounter. I have 87 albums in the largest genre I found, and they show up
in about 1-2 seconds on a Via C3
Michaelwagner said the following on 12/10/2005 14:22:
Robin Bowes Wrote:
However, the current architecture is such that any blocking operation
will interrupt audio streaming if it blocks for long enough.
From looking at the code, it seems that perl has no built-in interrupt
handling or disp
Music Machine said the following on 11/10/2005 23:13:
Two cents from the Peanut Gallery
It seems like people are pretty happy with performance if they have
around 350 or less albums in the database. 750 albums or more is about
the place where no one seems satisfied with performance. Between th
I'd be very glad if someone above who stated that SlimServer
performance was acceptable on a (preferably not hugely specced) Windows
machine could use the *remote* to call up Browse Genres > A Genre With a
Lot of Albums > All Albums, and let me know if performance is fine with
this menu choice.
> It seems like people are pretty happy with performance if they have
> around 350 or less albums in the database. 750 albums or more is about
> the place where no one seems satisfied with performance. Between those
> quantities satisfaction varies quite a bit. I could easily have missed
> posts
th 48489 songs by 6223 artists
Regards
Richard
-Original Message-
From: Jack Coates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 October 2005 03:01
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] Re: Best Performance - recommendations?
Music Machine wrote:
>Two cents from the Peanut Ga
Music Machine wrote:
Two cents from the Peanut Gallery
It seems like people are pretty happy with performance if they have
around 350 or less albums in the database. 750 albums or more is about
the place where no one seems satisfied with performance. Between those
quantities satisfaction vari
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 15:13 -0700, Music Machine wrote:
> It seems like people are pretty happy with performance if they have
> around 350 or less albums in the database. 750 albums or more is about
> the place where no one seems satisfied with performance. Between those
> quantities satisfaction
Unfortunately this laptop is not a high spec machine. It only has a
500ghz P3 processor and O.5gb Ram. Is this considered to be too
underpowered to run as a dedicated SS machine? What is SlimDevices
minimum spec for XP running SS? I've had a good look around but not
found any recommendations.
A
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 11:09 -0700, ModelCitizen wrote:
> Free Lunch Wrote:
> > The performance problems are mainly due to the way the slimserver
> > software is written. Throwing hardware at the problem will not solve
> > those design issues.
I generally find that throwing hardware at most proble
> Still, the easiest way to get performance in the PC world is with new,
> fast systems. I'd look at a SFF system for music performance.
> I don't like laptops in that environment because they tend to be
> more fragile than I like. Not that you can let a roadie throw
> any computer around like they
ModelCitizen said the following on 08/10/2005 19:25:
Unfortunately this laptop is not a high spec machine. It only has a
500ghz P3 processor and O.5gb Ram.
You might like to check that - when I was logged in when you had CentOS
installed the machine only appeared to have 192MB physical RAM .
Pat Farrell wrote:...
If laptops are wanted for the display and IO, then I'd look
at big "desktop replacement" laptops, probably used from IBM
or other major vendor. Even a Centrino 1.5mHz is way fast enough
to Slimserver and a few other toys for eye candy. A grand worth of
used laptop can buy
On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 20:57 -0700, Jack Coates wrote:
> Pat Farrell wrote:
> >Or a decent SFF chasis.
> >
> SFF's are nifty for the gamers because they have rocking video cards,
> but they're bigger than a laptop, just as expensive as a laptop, lack
> the integrated flat panel, mouse, and keyboar
Pat Farrell wrote:
On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 18:56 -0700, Jack Coates wrote:
...
Sounds like you might be letting a less-important consideration
(portability) interfere with a more important consideration (viability).
What's wrong with a decent laptop chassis (say a T41, $500-$1000 on
EBay)
On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 19:27 -0700, Michaelwagner wrote:
> Works fine with 5. Broke with "new improved better performance" 6, so I went
> back to 5.
> But I can't stay there forever.
Why not? I run Windows 2K on my serious Windows machine. And I'm
currently running my slimserver version 5.1 and
On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 18:56 -0700, Jack Coates wrote:
> Michaelwagner wrote:
> >I'm in a similar situation - I have to have low-spec hardware in order
> >to have low weight.
> Sounds like you might be letting a less-important consideration
> (portability) interfere with a more important considera
Michaelwagner wrote:
nmizel Wrote:
I also suffered from similar problems in the past with my SB1, mainly
caused by my low-power hardware (VIA Eden 533 MHz, USB 1.1 external
hard disk).
I DJ with my squeezebox, and I'm trying to build a portable system.
Portable means light weight hardw
* radish shaped the electrons to say...
> >Could it be file types? I'm mainly vorbis & FLAC,
> with only a very few
> >mp3s. I know vorbis tags are supposed to be
> somewhat better designed
> >than ID3, but I don't know if they're more
> efficient to read. Also do
> >the obvious things like making
--- radish
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why the scan time is
> seemingly exponential.
> I can do a full wipe and rescan of about 10,000
> tracks in under 15
> minutes (more like 10), so why does 7x the tracks
> take 96x as long to
> scan?
Radish... diff OS?? Is Linux th
Maybe a .cue/.m3u problem?
A lot of the CDs I have ripped have playlist files in the dir with the
music. If I browse folders and play a directory containing a CD that
has a playlist file in it I get 2 of each song. I commented out .cue
and .m3u in types.conf to remedy.(which of course broke playl
One important piece of data to add:
slimserver-2005_05_30-1
Haven't bothered to update since it does what I need 99%
of the time.
On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 22:46 +0100, Mark Bennett wrote:
> Intrigued by this thread I wanted to test my system to see
> what happens. First of all, I'll make no bones -
Intrigued by this thread I wanted to test my system to see
what happens. First of all, I'll make no bones - it's a
fairly high-end system, so I wasn't expecting any problems:
Intel P4, 3.4GHz with Hyper-threading
1 GB 400MHZ dual-channel DDR
OS/home on a Western Digital 200GB PATA drive with
Ah, good to know -- thank you for responding!
I have an Adaptec RAID card that came bundled with my new machine, I was
concerned it would be too slow for the purpose. Your library is just a
little smaller than mine, and your specs very close to what I was
intending. I'd be tickled if I had si
At 4:28 PM +0100 8/4/05, Craig, James (IT) wrote:
I was just thinking that.
Surely overkill for what we all know is a single threaded process?
I run SlimServer on my office desktop, which I frequently use heavily
while playing music on SlimServer and I have no problems apart from
during the resc
I was just thinking that.
Surely overkill for what we all know is a single threaded process?
I run SlimServer on my office desktop, which I frequently use heavily
while playing music on SlimServer and I have no problems apart from
during the rescan, which I have scheduled to run at night.
(almo
39 matches
Mail list logo
