Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
l.vervae...@telenet.be;445989 Wrote: > So if we take a normal pc or portable what is then needed to run the > squeezebox duet fast? (with about 55k songs) > In terms of CPU / memory. I'd leave all the music on the NAS because I > think access speeds are good enough on the ReadyNAS DUO. > Looking for a quick, good and fast solution... > > Thank you! I wouldn't keep music separately, it just adds additional performance problems. I'd suggest something like a shuttle case, any C2D CPU, enough local disk for your music collection, a CD drive to rip music, all running VortexBox. -- shake-the-disease Players: Boom, SB3 Server: QNAP TS-239 w/ SSOTS 3.18, SS 7.3.3, MusicIP 1.8, 7k+ tracks (formally running SS 6.3.1 on a QNAP TS-101 streaming to a SB1) shake-the-disease's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=698 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
l.vervae...@telenet.be;445989 Wrote: > So if we take a normal pc or portable what is then needed to run the > squeezebox duet fast? (with about 55k songs) > In terms of CPU / memory. I'd leave all the music on the NAS because I > think access speeds are good enough on the ReadyNAS DUO. > Looking for a quick, good and fast solution... > > Thank you! slightly ot: A low power pc might not always use less power then a pc with higher peeks. Rightly configured a faster cpu will finish the job faster and can go to power save faster (deep sleep modes etc). (this is partially the reason why an amd sempron can use less power on average then an atom (beside chipset) and same goes for the via nano cpu is better). under linux you can tweak this pretty good, you want an ondemand cpu scheduler and you can use tools like intel's powertop to see how much time it spend in what state. Also chipset is important (if you want more info try reading up on the whole energy efficient intel atom and power hungry chipset they are sold with, enough articles about it on the internet). Also laptops howto's can help you minimize power user. (f.e. turning off onboard soundcard, wifi, etc.) -- qball qball's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32031 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
l.vervae...@telenet.be;445989 Wrote: > So if we take a normal pc or portable what is then needed to run the > squeezebox duet fast? (with about 55k songs) > In terms of CPU / memory. I'd leave all the music on the NAS because I > think access speeds are good enough on the ReadyNAS DUO. > Looking for a quick, good and fast solution... If you are going to put something together for running Squeezecenter, I really don't see the point in keeping the NAS as well. Just build you own NAS :) Anything desktop dual core cpu will be fast enough (not that dual core is needed, but it does garantee a fast enough CPU) and a couple of GB or RAM. Linux will be fater than windows. There are some very easy distributions going around. Have a look at Vortex Box (http://vortexbox.org/), the guy behind it is a regular on here too. -- funkstar my collection: *1*x boom *2*x controller, *1*x receiver *2*x sb3 (sliver/black, *1*x sb2 wired (silver), *1*x sb (black) *1*x slimp3 (with rear shield) interested in any others if you have them! funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
l.vervae...@telenet.be;445937 Wrote: > It's really not about the green issue here but we got devices running > enough as it is. > I'll got tweak some more and maybe we can beaf it up a bit, if not i'm > sure we'll buy something else. > In the times of a slow economy it's good to buy new stuff :p Just don't throw good money after bad. For example, memory is not your problem, so don't add memory to your NAS. Jumbo frames or not is definitely not your problem, not that this costs anything anyway. Remember, CPU speed is your problem, so if you spend any money that's what it needs to be spent on. -- shake-the-disease Players: Boom, SB3 Server: QNAP TS-239 w/ SSOTS 3.18, SS 7.3.3, MusicIP 1.8, 7k+ tracks (formally running SS 6.3.1 on a QNAP TS-101 streaming to a SB1) shake-the-disease's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=698 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
l.vervae...@telenet.be;445898 Wrote: > ... > or look for a small pc (but I hate wasting energy) that has more > processing power... > > But after all not so fun to buy a system (what is advertised as a solid > solution for large music collections) that doesn't work as expected. If it will help you sleep better, do what Al Gore and others do: buy off your carbon sins with a donation to Green Peace. :) Thou shall be forgiven (with a big enough check). I run my entire networked music & video system, including three SB players, from a simple dual core laptop, with no issues. I have no clue what power draw the laptop is using but it can't be much worse (if at all) than a beefy NAS device. A NAS is basically a stripped down PC and I'd bet if you tried a PC/laptop with the same (lower) specs of your NAS device you would likely have the same issues you are experiencing now. The SB players & server software are more than capable of handling very large music collections, when paired with the appropriate hardware. :) -- toby10 toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
l.vervae...@telenet.be;445898 Wrote: > or look for a small pc (but I hate wasting energy) this comes up every so often, and I have views on the subject :) This was from another thread some time ago: funkstar;409310 Wrote: > How much is this little system going to cost you? > How much can you buy a second hand, basic PC for? (probably < 100 > Euro) > > What are your running costs for the low power system? > What would be your running costs for the second hand PC once you strip > everything you don't need out of it? (optical drive, floppy, card > readers, etc.) > > Now taking these two comparisons into account, how long is it going to > take you to spend more on energy powering the second hand PC, than the > purchase and running costs of the Geode system? > > And if you are doing it for environmental reasons, then buying new > hardware to save the environment is not going to work and if flawed > thinking :) The carbon footprint -to you- for the Geode will be a lot > higher than the zero for recycling the second hand PC (someone else has > already taking the carbon footprint hit for buying that one new in the > first place). And as a bonus, the second hand PC will have the > performance to run other services if you needed and will be far quicker > at serving your 3 or 4 Classics. > > > However, you can ignore all that if you want to build this as an > excercise in putting together something cool :D This was in response to someone custom building a very small PC, efectively self building a NAS box, as it would have had about the same processing power and been just as expensive or even more so. The argument is the same for your situation as well. -- funkstar my collection: *1*x boom *2*x controller, *1*x receiver *2*x sb3 (sliver/black, *1*x sb2 wired (silver), *1*x sb (black) *1*x slimp3 (with rear shield) interested in any others if you have them! funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
radish;445833 Wrote: > I disagree with that last bit - I can't see why you need dual core for > SC in any circumstance, in fact seeing as most of SC is single threaded > (apart from things like transcoding) a faster-clocked single core would > be better. As it is, I run on the slowest CPU AMD make and it's just > fine for everything I throw at it. The idea of a dual core being beneficial is so that 1 core is used for the OS + any other started tasks, and SC can have another core all to itself. I take your point on higher clock speed. -- shake-the-disease Players: Boom, SB1 Server: QNAP TS-239 w/ SSOTS 3.18, SS 7.3.3, MusicIP 1.8, 7k+ tracks (formally running SS 6.3.1 on a QNAP TS-101) shake-the-disease's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=698 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
shake-the-disease;445806 Wrote: > > I run a QNAP TS-239 which is really the minimim I'd recommend once you > have more than a few thousand tracks. Once over 30k or so even a single > core Atom is possibly too slow and a dual core something should be > considered. I also tried running SC on an old Buffalo NAS and it was impossibly slow. However, I now run it on a QNAP TS-219P which only has 512MB RAM compared to 1.5GB of TS-239, and the speed is actually faster than running SC off my dual core Thinkpad laptop. The rescan speed when running through the laptop was much slower, probably due to the fact that the drive is mapped through the network. The web and remote control response is also slower on the laptop, partly because the laptop is not dedicated and runs many other processes. And mostly because of the ailment of Windoze and especially Windoze Vista. So for me, the QNAP TS-219P is also acceptable. My experience with QNAP is extremely positive, built quality is superb, software is excellent, and the fan is whisper quiet. Comparatively my Thecus N299 is built with cheap plastic and the fan sounds like a old Chevette disel with a broken tailpipe. Thecus N299 also had zero firmware update since its introduction, had no spin down for hard disks, their so called support never answered my repeated email for help, not even once. Whatever you do, think twice before buying Thecus. -- agentsmith System 1: Transporter+Hi-Line RCA-DIN, Naim 202/200/Hicap+Powerline/NAPSC, Naim NAT03 tuner, CD5X, Harbeth Monitor 30 System 2: SB2 or Airport Express connected via TOSLINK to a Meridian F80 Headphone: Naim Headline+NAPSC and ancient Senn HD580 agentsmith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1838 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
shake-the-disease;445806 Wrote: > > I run a QNAP TS-239 which is really the minimim I'd recommend once you > have more than a few thousand tracks. Once over 30k or so even a single > core Atom is possibly too slow and a dual core something should be > considered. I disagree with that last bit - I can't see why you need dual core for SC in any circumstance, in fact seeing as most of SC is single threaded (apart from things like transcoding) a faster-clocked single core would be better. As it is, I run on the slowest CPU AMD make and it's just fine for everything I throw at it. -- radish http://www.last.fm/user/polymeric radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
l.vervae...@telenet.be;445744 Wrote: > > > What else is there to speed things up? > Thinking of: > 1. creating folders A to Z so the artists are no longer in one folder. > = Would this help alot or not? > 2. add memory to readynas duo to for example 1GB. > = Some people say this doesn't help because the cpu is botteneck > here. > 3. change settings in the my.sql file but I'm not a mysql user. > = any thoughts on that? > 4. wait for the squeezecenter 8 to run sqlite. > = any tests on performance yet? > 5. buy another NAS > = any recommandations? > > Any help is very much appreciated and if you have questions about > installing and stuff I can help (only got the duet for 3 days so no hard > questions yet...) Of that list #1 is definitely worth trying. What you're coming up against is that teh ReadyNAS Duo is hopelessly underpowered for running Squeezecenter at a performance level expected by most people. *Bottom line, the CPU in that NAS is too slow. End of story.* You can tweak and tune, but in the end you are polishing a turd. I've run SC on a slow NAS in the past and it's no fun. My rule of thumb is that is if take your server/NAS more than 1hr to do a full scan of your music library, your server/NAS is not up to the job. This is not because the scan itself is a major issue, it's because the scan is a great indicator as to the size of your library vs. the CPU speed of your server. If either push your server over a 1hr full scan it's time for a new server. I run a QNAP TS-239 which is really the minimim I'd recommend once you have more than a few thousand tracks. Once over 30k or so even an Atom is possible too slow and a C2D should be considered. -- shake-the-disease Players: Boom, SB1 Server: QNAP TS-239 w/ SSOTS 3.18, SS 7.3.3, MusicIP 1.8, 7k+ tracks (formally running SS 6.3.1 on a QNAP TS-101) shake-the-disease's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=698 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
VIA boards make excellent and cheap servers. Can't really beat a C7 on price and power usage. Yes its not as low power as a NAS but at last it has enough horse power to do other things. Mine has 4x250GB in raid5 (will update to 4x1TB soon), samba, appletalk, printing, itunes serving, ... and of course squeezecenter. NAS boxes, IMO, are overrated. 15min for 10k tracks on my box. Lawrence -- Aslak3 Aslak3's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31977 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
The performance of Browse Music Folder will always be related to the number of items in the folder, so yes, reducing that will help. However, as signor_rossi mentioned, you're missing out if you're only using BMF. The whole point of the scan is to populate the db so you can browse/search it instead of the filesystem. That should be _much_ faster than BMF, particularly with large directories. As for scan time, yes it's slow on an (average) NAS. There's no magic bullet to improve that, but for tips/suggestions ask in the 3rd Party Hardware forum. When sqlite and the new scanner are in place things will be better (people were seeing maybe 30% improvement during testing) but that could be a way off. What I (and many others) do is just not use a NAS. A small PC is cheaper & (much) faster than a dedicated NAS, and doesn't have to use much more power. It takes my $100 server <20 mins to scan 20k tracks. -- radish http://www.last.fm/user/polymeric radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
First thing that comes to my mind, since you have one big directory with subdirectories for all artists, why do you use 'Browse Music Folder' at all? Browse through your music with 'Library - Artist' instead, that's what the scan at the beginning is for. :) signorRossi. -- signor_rossi signor_rossi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11941 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
