SMC wrote: > Yes, my NAS is a dual-core J1800 Celeron with 8Gb RAM, but your library > is also 10 times larger than mine. I'd forgotten to check the > performance setting, but after a bit of experimentation there seems to > be <10% difference in scan time whether database memory config is set to > normal, high or maximum and whether scanner priority is set to normal 0 > or -20. Presumably this is because the CPU and memory resources in this > NAS are more than enough for a smaller library.
10x larger, yes, but scanning does take much more than 10x longer. But I, too, think that's because of your newer and better hardware. From what I can see here the RAM is sufficient. It spikes only during Custom Scan. mherger wrote: > >> 10,000 file full scan took about twice as long as 1.10.b1 at 484 > >> seconds. > > > > My system seemingly has slower disks, as an 100.000 files full scan > > takes about three hours here. > > Or you have different NAS models. ARM vs. Intel CPU, 4GB RAM vs. 512MB > etc. And with a library your size it's crucials to use the high memory > options. Using Maximum (if you have <1GB RAM) can greatly improve > performance. See Settings/Advanced/Performance. > > -- > > Michael Thank you, I added similar thoughts in an (for you) "invisible" edit. I already have the max setting since I "maxed out" the RAM to 3GB. I was merely wondering why scanning would take that much longer as I would have thought the disks' transfer rate is the bottle neck here and not the CPU. But it doesn't bother me as long as LMS itself is fast (and it is now, I'm so happy! :D) QLMS 7.9.2@1.10b2 (digimaster) / QNAP 469L QTS 4.3.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ dolodobendan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=67663 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108292 _______________________________________________ Squeezecenter mailing list Squeezecenter@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/squeezecenter
