John Gorst wrote:
Ian Payton wrote:
I'm at a dead end with this now, because it's down to the performance on my Linux box...
I (used to) run softsqueeze on mandrake 10 on a celeron 633 with good performance and fairly good sync and did not see the issue that you see. And that was with runnign an x desktop and slimserver on the same machine!
What cpu is your machine?
It's at P2/400 machine with 128MB of memory that I got for �30 off eBay. I'm running nothing else but the X server, twm and SoftSqueeze (it's hidden behind a sofa, with the display on a TV via my video card's TV-Out and a hand-held mouse-trackball affair to control it. Wife-friendly and cheaper than a second Squeezebox).
Anyway, 'top' shows that I'm *just* running everything in physical memory (no swap being used). The slimserver's on another machine. I have been perplexed why the CPU usage has been 70%-80% with SoftSqueeze running, though.
So, given your comments, I started hunting around again found a lot of firewall entries in the syslog for blocked incoming UDP traffic on port 34443. I unblocked this port, and the CPU usage has come down to an average of about 20%, and the drop-out problems appear to have gone. I can only think that the firewall activity was significant, and having the impact on the machine performance (?).
I don't know enough about the protocol to know why SoftSqueeze still works without getting the data that was destined for it on this port. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
I still get a CPU usage peak between tracks which *sometimes* results in knocking the SoftSqueeze out of sync. I still need to look into that - and someone else posted an alternative GC setting for java that I might try. (could it be related to the soundcard problem?)
Anyway, thanks for prompting me to have another dig around.
Ian
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
