OK here goes..
Setup. 
2 SB2's wired and 1 SB1 wireless
Cisco AP-350
Dell 3024 Sw
Sun Enterprise 3000 - 6 250Mhz Ultra Sparc - 3 gig mem.
10 73 gig scsi Seagate barracuda 16meg cache, Soft Raid 5.
600gig MP3 store/250gigs Mp3 - 40,000 songs
perl 5.8.5
lame 3.96.1
Slimserver 7-31 nightly
Solaris 10
90% of hardware was "in stock" before I got into Slim.

Up til the 6.1 release the web interface was pretty slow and browsing
folders was also very painful especially when entering a directory with
a large number of subdirectories. However I had not had any problems
with drop outs with the exception of some wireless issues that were
taken care of.

With the latest releases the response from the SqueeezeBoxen is almost
instantaneous and the Web UI is also greatly accelerated.  Granted if I
go apesh*t with the remote it will eventually choke for a second or 5
but after that it goes back to normal and zips through the menus with
the exception of Playlist and maybe search but I can't say for sure
cause I don't use search.  I'm at work right now streaming from home at
64K, SSH'd to the server and FTPing a 215meg Mp3 to the same volume that
my MP3's are stored and it has only dropped once for a few
seconds(network issue). At work I'm on a single T-1 that is shared by
300 other people and at home I have a basic 384/1.5 DSL. At home I can't
remember ever having a drop out where the server was at fault.
I often sync all 3 players as well as playing different streams on each
player.  I also stream to work pretty much 24hours a day and its always
nice to come to work in the morning at hear that the music is still
playing day after day. Also faithful alarm clock. Except for that one
morning with the new release, playlist problem, now I make sure(at
night) that the alarm still works after upgrading. 


Process stats current
When just streaming to one player remotely (xmms) -> 1.1%
When streaming to one player with WebUI open 2-5%
When rescanning 15-20% - players are slow to respond but no drop outs.
LAME is at about 4-5% when streaming remotely.

   PID USERNAME  SIZE   RSS STATE  PRI NICE      TIME  CPU PROCESS/NLWP
 13097 root     4128K 3008K sleep   20    0   0:10:03 5.0% lame/1
 13106 wr420    8928K 3320K sleep   43    0   0:02:42 2.8% sshd/1
 11058 root       76M   72M sleep   59    0  15:22:09 1.1%
slimserver.pl/1
 13107 wr420    3288K 1976K sleep   59    0   0:00:16 0.3% sftp-server/1
 13136 wr420    4768K 4440K cpu10   59    0   0:00:03 0.2% prstat/1
 13130 wr420    8160K 2824K sleep   59    0   0:00:00 0.0% sshd/1
   461 root     8440K 3496K sleep   59    0   0:17:59 0.0% dtgreet/1
   416 root       12M 6904K sleep   59    0   0:16:55 0.0% Xsun/1
   105 root     4272K 2944K sleep   59    0   0:03:46 0.0% nscd/25
 10931 root     3632K 2120K sleep   59    0   0:01:05 0.0% nmbd/1
   182 root     2296K 1056K sleep  100    -   0:05:53 0.0% xntpd/1
     7 root     8384K 1408K sleep   59    0   0:03:56 0.0% svc.startd/12
   380 root     1992K  192K sleep   59    0   0:00:00 0.0% smcboot/1
   322 root     3808K 2016K sleep   59    0   0:00:06 0.0% syslogd/13
   214 root     2120K  664K sleep   59    0   0:00:01 0.0% ttymon/1
    99 root     2520K    8K sleep   59    0   0:00:00 0.0% syseventd/15
   199 daemon   2584K  272K sleep   59    0   0:00:00 0.0% rpcbind/1
   109 daemon   4296K 1840K sleep   59    0   0:00:09 0.0% kcfd/3
   213 root     4992K  952K sleep   59    0   0:01:03 0.0% inetd/4
   215 root     2080K  144K sleep   59    0   0:00:00 0.0% ttymon/1
   202 daemon   2840K  272K sleep   59    0   0:00:00 0.0% statd/1
Total: 56 processes, 160 lwps, load averages: 0.41, 0.41, 0.40


> 
> Ah, a topic near to my heart.
> 
> I'm running a dual P3 800 mhz Linux box. 512 MB RAM. 750 GB RAID 5
array
> (4 x 250 GB drives, PATA), 3Ware 4-port RAID controller. I have about
> 300 GB of MP3s in the SlimServer library. 2 Slimp3s, 1 Squeezebox 1,
> although it's the Slimp3s getting active duty.
> 
> The server does some very light email chores and file serving, but its
> primary task is to run Slimserver. Which it struggles with. Which
still
> surprises the heck out of me.
> 
> Doing a search or active use of the web interface will often interrupt
> music playing. The web interface can take 10-20 seconds to respond or
> get to the next tab, although it's usually 2-5 seconds.
> 
> Until browsing was fixed in the 6.1.x releases, it could take 50
seconds
> to get from one directory to enclosed directories using the remote and
> display. Sometimes, the player display would actually blank out. Now,
> it's better, but each button press still takes .5 - 5 seconds to
> respond, usually .5-1.5 seconds. It's still aggravating, regardless.
> 
> I can't shake the feeling that if the server were multi-threaded that
> these problems would be completely absent. One thread to make sure the
> players didn't go dry, one to handle navigation via the remote, one to
> handle the web server, etc. Part of me keeps hoping SlimDevices has a
> master plan to fix all this. Python, Java? A tidy C++ core maybe? I'm
> not holding my breath.
> 
> In the meantime, I'm going to throw an absurd amount of hardware at
this
> problem. I'm putting together a dual Xeon 3ghz server, likely with a
> Areca SATA RAID 5. (The performance of the 3ware RAID cards has always
> been underwhelming, Perl proc hogs aside. The Areca/Tekrams I have
> running elsewhere seem far, far better.)
> 
> I'd be curious if anyone out there with a "large" library (I'll let
you
> define what that means) is getting good or even snappy performance
with
> their setup? Care to brag?
> 
> Stew


The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential and for the
intended use of the addressee only; it may also be legally privileged and/or
price sensitive.  Notice is hereby given that any disclosure, use or copying 
of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited
and may be illegal.  If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail.  All e-mail sent to this 
address will be received by Acacia Pacific Holding's e-mail system and is
subjected to archiving and review by someone other than the recipient.

Acacia Pacific Holdings has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that
any attachment to this e-mail has been swept for viruses.  We accept no
liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses and
advise you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss

Reply via email to