DrJ wrote: > pfarrell Wrote: >>Its Perl, and there is a lightweight Database. > > My mistake. Still, unless the perl script is terribly involved, this > too should not add a lot of overhead. The database should almost be > flat, without too much relational "stuff."
Right not a lot of twelve way joins. >>I forget how Sparc memory maps to Intel memory, but my >>old P3-500 had under 400 MB of ram. > > The Ultra 5 (at least the 400MHz variety) is roughly equal to a P3-500. > It can map a full 64 bit address space, but for practical purposes, 1GB > is about all you can do with an Ultra 5. > > If you mean how efficiently memory is used, that's more involved than > we can deal with here. Call it the same for present purposes. I was actually thinking that some RISC processors, the Dec Alpha for one in particular, end up needing a lot more memory to do a given task than an Intel chip would, in part because the RISC vs CISC theory and part because the Alpha was 64 bits at a time that lots of PCs were will using 16 bit addressing. >>Transcoding files from weird formats to PCM, Flac or MP3 is >>fairly CPU intensive, but if your tunes are in a good format, >>then it is just a mindless read block push out NIC until >>done loop. > > That's what was my perception. You can encode once on whatever machine > you want, transfer, and then the serving should not take that much. A lot of people are in love with iTunes and Windows weird closed formats, so their SlimServer has to spend a lot of time converting (waste a lot of time in some people's minds) > I may well give it a shot. I figure I can put together this server, > with 300GB or so of storage, for about $100. Clearly not with SCSI disks, or do you have them laying around as well? Clearly try it and see if it runs or walks or is too slow for your tastes. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
