I'm thinking about this more and tweaking the update rate and pixel
delta.  I'm convinced, as you have already said, the payload going over
the net is minuscule for the display updates (artist/song/album)
compared to the stream of data that is the music itself.

That makes me conclude that my resource constraint is the CPU time in
the server.  There is not much going on in my WHS except the Squeeze
Server.  No other media sharing (e.g. Twonky) is enabled or other
server apps other than what WHS itself needs to run or balance the
disks.  There might be some thrashing going on, but in the case of the
audio, there is NEVER a glitch, probably due to buffering ahead enough
in the Transporter to hide any case where the audio stream gets behind
a bit.  

I worked for 10+ years as a dev and then engineering manager in the
WinNT/WinXP group at Microsoft.  I do not understand the motivation for
the client/server split in the design for SqueezeServer.exe updating the
display on the Transporter.  Why wouldn't the design be such that the
server sends the data ONCE to the Transporter at the beginning of each
track and let the Transporter do the animation?

Is it possible that the server is getting the data to the Transporter
in plenty of time, but the Transporter itself isn't getting around to
getting that data from the input queue and updating the display because
it's busy playing music?  I don't think this would be the case since
other people with Transporters are experiencing smooth scrolling. 
Hence, I still think it's due to the (poor?) choice of client/server
split.

Can any of the Transporter firmware people or SqueezeServer devs chime
in here?

Regards,
Leif Pederson


-- 
LeifPederson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LeifPederson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14930
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=77413

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

Reply via email to