sxr71;441290 Wrote: > The system is unbelievably CPU intensive. I mean I have checked CPU use > and disk activity using the wonderful Windows 7 resource manager and > clearly the system is excessive in CPU usage. > > I mean on a 1.6Ghz Core Duo laptop which I tweaked to run 100% CPU > speed 24/7 so as to not suffer from Intel Speedstep slowdowns it sits > and uses 50% CPU (yeah it look very single threaded this program - > somebody fix that one day I mean 4 or more cores are becoming the norm) > for a good 5-10 seconds. > > WHY? > > I mean I run the whole shebang inside a RAM disk and I cache album art. > Why it is reading data from my music drive every time I load an album > page? It takes so darn long to load even if I reduce the number to 50 > items. The fact that it does not cache properly and needs to read the > album art from the music disk is simply inexcusable. My entire cache is > on RAMDisk and it is still so slow. Beyond that it was much slower when > running on a HDD. I wonder how people running this on NAS even find the > performance acceptable at all. > > The program is so badly CPU and disk limited. I am now thinking of > building an expensive fast dual core machine just for this program at > considerable cost to me. Why I don't just wisen up and switch to another > system I don't know. It would save me hundreds of dollars. The only > reason I am doing this is just to take pride in having the fastest > operating SC I know of. So for this I am planning on getting a Core i7 > and O/C to 4Ghz (maybe that will reduce an album page load from 5-10 > seconds to 2-4 seconds - which still isn't that fast considering). Then > I am going to get 12GB RAM so maybe I can devote 1GB just for this > program and then take hours and hours to move all my album art to a > separate folder and then put that whole folder on the RAMDisk. Maybe > together with all that effort I will finally see album pages loading in > 1-2 seconds. Maybe then I can set it to the 200 items per page I want to > use. > > So $800 and hours of work later finally this system will perform > DECENTLY. Why I don't just get a Sonos or just get iTunes + remote and > run it on a cheap $300 machine with better performance I don't > understand sometimes. Maybe I am an idiot. With MusicIP dead and Apple > getting Genius, it has lost its only advantage. Genius "computes" out my > library in 2-3 hours as opposed to MusicIP taking 3-4 days at 100% CPU. > > > All this over-engineering to get acceptable performance. Something is > seriously wrong with the way this system is coded. Performance is > unacceptable and 7.4 despite its change of DB and breaking of Trackstat > doesn't help one bit. Someone needs to sit down and rewrite this thing > from scratch. Just my honest advice.
Reading that, sounds are you talking about web interface performance? Or actual performance of the players? You could overclock your PC to the cows come home, but web interface will never be as snappy a native application. Have you looked at Moose? I admit i have seen a few spikes in CPU and memory usage recently, but this is beta software (very much so at the moment). Generally though i dont have any performance issues with my very modest server. -- autopilot Cheers, auto. -"don't call me Shirley."- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ autopilot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1763 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65549 _______________________________________________ beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/beta
