radish;287588 Wrote: > In your case, it's probably an old, inefficient USB implementation on > your motherboard. It's also probably USB 1 which is horribly slow at > the best of times. > > More evidence that USB is causing the problem. Old USB implementations > often take huge amounts of CPU. If you can't make the disc local, buy a > $10 USB2 card and that will help.
USB 2.0, installed a Stratitec USB 2.0 upgrade card, (ICUSB25, I think) long ago. Zero evidence USB is the culprit. radish;287588 Wrote: > Firewalls slow network access down. Other users on this thread are using > NAS units, which are network connected, hence the relevance. In your > case, it's probably an old, inefficient USB implementation on your > motherboard. It's also probably USB 1 which is horribly slow at the > best of times. > Firewalls slow down access? Maybe, maybe not. I did take the step of unplugging the WAN cable from my router and then turning off ZA, AVG, and Spysweeper to see if that would increase the scanning speed. CPU usage in task manager was still clipping at 100%. radish;287588 Wrote: > > > Sure, it's simple and basic. Doesn't make it quick. > Um, yes, simple and so basic a function that very little time would be required to perform. Hell, programming files stored on cassette loaded faster to the TI 99/4A. Come on, file management is very low down on computer use primary functions list. File manager or Windows explorer brings it up fast. radish;287588 Wrote: > If you can't make the disc local, buy a $10 USB2 card and that will > help. The drive IS local, attached to the desktop running SC. radish;287588 Wrote: > What makes you think it's poorly implemented? Any evidence? Any advice > on how it can be made quicker? > > Why do I think it's poorly implemented? Because flat out no simple file retrieval and basic database info should require vast amount of resources and time. Also, a casual scan of other thread titles seems to indicate others are facing this issue as well, and not simply with NAS drives. (Which I have seen marketed as capable of running SC alone. My dinosaur PC must at least dust them.) Suggestions? Maybe let the OS do the file structure and simply access it through SC. For that matter, I am unclear why the scanning needs to occur at all. However, I have scanned music libraries in other media players, say Media Monkey for instance, and it is able to proceed at a much more reasonable clip. WinAmp, WMP, iTunes: all do it faster. Why reinvent the wheel? Which makes me wonder - not that I really want to do this - that I could load iTunes, use it to scan my lossless library of WAV files, then select the option to have SC monitor iTunes and dispense altogether with using the SC scammer. -- Sona ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sona's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10815 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33041 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
