Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
We couldnt make out the reason for my buddys long scan times, maybe a hardware fault after all. He decided we postpone further diagnostics until well both switch to Linux Mint 20, hopefully July or so. @BJW: Thanks for the kind words! Long time ago :-) Moonbase: 'The Problem Solver' (http://www.kaufen-ist-toll.de/moonbase) Moonbase's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21594 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
Good to see Moonbase again, I love ur ver of vbrfix. Anyway, here is something that seems like it's still needed: https://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?49429-feature-request-file-vs-track-calculator using: win7 64 + lms 7.9 & duet & ipads w/the logitech app, and ipeng on an ipod http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/various_artists_logic & http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/compilations BJW's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58242 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
Will ask him when he’s back from his current business trip. Anything special to be looked for, or any debug settings to be made? The scan times from Settings/Information would already be a good start. -- Michael ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
Will ask him when hes back from his current business trip. Anything special to be looked for, or any debug settings to be made? Moonbase: 'The Problem Solver' (http://www.kaufen-ist-toll.de/moonbase) Moonbase's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21594 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
regularly takes much more than *20 hours* for the same. 20 hours is too much. Check the scanner.log file and the server's status page. Where is it spending all this time? -- Michael ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
Dont want to hijack the thread but a close friend and I observe a similar difference: On the same ~150k tracks library (mixed FLAC/MP3), I usually get between *815 minutes* for an update scan, while his machine regularly takes much more than *20 hours* for the same. We both use the same LMS version and have the same settings, the machines differ as follows: Mine: Ubuntu Studio 14.04, XFCE, Dell Optiplex 7010 (4-core i5-3470), 32 GB RAM, boot disc: 1TB SSD, music disc: 4TB HGST HDD. His: Linux Mint 17.3 (based on Ubuntu 14.04), Cinnamon, Dell Optiplex 9010 (4-core i7-3770), 16 GB RAM, boot+music disc: 4TB WD SSHD. Could that really "only" be his slower DE and 16 GB less RAM, and/or running from a SSHD instead of an SSD/HDD combination? Moonbase: 'The Problem Solver' (http://www.kaufen-ist-toll.de/moonbase) Moonbase's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21594 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
pinkdot wrote: > Difference in scanned files could be a permission issue on the server. > So, check the top folder's permission and apply these setting to all > underlying folders. This can easily be done in Files. > Very interesting tip this, didn't try it until now, I assumed everything was correct. When I right-clicked music folder, went to "permissions tab", checked that everyone had read access, ticked the "apply this to all subfolders and files"-box, then apply - it went very quickly at first, as if all these settings had been applied already - then it started displaying specific files and folders names, as if these ones had to have these "new" permissions applied to them. Why would this be ? I have never changed anything about this setting. Could I have downloaded music files that have had different permission settings set on them already, that they have then retained while downloaded to my NAS ? Or is that not how it works ? Thanks for any input. echable's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=69542 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
Roland0 wrote: > It should be a A1 certified card (not A2, as they are not well supported > on Linux, and are actually slower in practice) > > > You should use something that can monitor and log the whole scan > process, as the workload varies depending on the scan phase (see below) > > > "Maximum" means that LMS' database cache is set to grow to a maximum of > 500MB. However, I run it with this setting, and it allocates 170MB > initially, and 280M after a couple of hours of using it. After several > rescans (new & changed), and loading the metadata of ~6000 tracks, it's > now 360MB. Even with heavy usage, I've yet to see it grow larger than > 500MB (NB: numbers are for ARM64 (RPI3) and ARM (Odroid HC2) platforms) > > 28570 > > Breaking down your results: > > > I/O (find tracks) bound (for empty library) or I/O (find tracks) and CPU > (for new & changed). Some slowdown due to network drive might be > expected, but if this was a clear/rescan, is's a lot. Maybe slow network > or slow NAS share. > btw, to improve XU4 network speed, see 'here' > (https://obihoernchen.net/1416/odroid-xu4-tune-network-and-usb-speed/). > May or may not be default for your distro. > > > Mixture of I/O (read tracks, write database) and CPU (database). Which > one is the bottleneck will depend on your specific setup. You'll have to > do some monitoring on your system. > > > All of these are CPU-bound. > > Unless there's something weird going on on your NAS, my guess is that > your NAS has a really weak CPU which is the bottleneck. While the Atoms > are the slowest Intel CPUs, it's still surprising to see one with a > lower single-core performance than an ARM design. However, the Atom > CE5335 seems obscure enough that I can't even find a datasheet (it > appears to be a design from 2011). True dat, I hate my tech reviews, where are the reliable ones ? This got great reviews when it came out, it's been nothing but a slow mess since I got it. Synology has a good OS and I suppose you can get them with good CPUs, this one has "hardware transcoding" which was what sold me because I was supposed to use it to store my video library, it's never been usable for that purpose, basically no files need transcoding anyway I've discovered. The processor is called "Evansport" and Synology's own Video Station and, unusually, an independent port of Serviio can use the HW transcoding ability, however, since the ram is so small and everything runs so slow it's useless. And I paid 2500E+ for the thing! (including the disks, which are okay I guess, I could get a new NAS and reuse the disks). The only thing is good for is as data storage for SBCs, i'm so glad I discovered them. echable's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=69542 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
"Maximum" means that LMS' database cache is set to grow to a maximum of 500MB. No, it's basically unlimited. -- Michael ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
echable wrote: Thanks for the tip on the update - how can I be automatically notified about these updates? Why isn't there a normal Synology package repository/ advice about the update showing up in package centre like with other packages! Synology doesn't allow me to push LmsUpdate to the Package Center. Would you be able to include a Slim/Utils/OS/Custom.pm file? This then could use LMS own update check mechanism in some way. -- Michael ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
> > Sandisk high-speed SD card on the XU4, those SD-card classifications are > so all over the place now that I can't remember but I think it is the > fastest category SD Card available. > It should be a A1 certified card (not A2, as they are not well supported on Linux, and are actually slower in practice) > > Disk usage during scan on NAS never went above 50% though when I checked > (only about 1000 times). > You should use something that can monitor and log the whole scan process, as the workload varies depending on the scan phase (see below) > > Both devices have Advanced - Performance - Database Memory Config set to > "Maximum (recommended for libraries with more than 50.000 tracks and > machines with 2+ GB RAM). Should that be an and or an or ? Meaning, > since the NAS actually only has 1GB memory, it would actually be > detrimental to set it to this setting ? > "Maximum" means that LMS' database cache is set to grow to a maximum of 500MB. However, I run it with this setting, and it allocates 170MB initially, and 280M after a couple of hours of using it. After several rescans (new & changed), and loading the metadata of ~6000 tracks, it's now 360MB. Even with heavy usage, I've yet to see it grow larger than 500MB (NB: numbers are for ARM64 (RPI3) and ARM (Odroid HC2) platforms) 28570 Breaking down your results: > > Media Scan Details > Discovering files/directories: /volume1/music (309595 of 309595) > Complete > NAS: 00:12:22 XU4: 00:26:16 > I/O (find tracks) bound (for empty library) or I/O (find tracks) and CPU (for new & changed). Some slowdown due to network drive might be expected, but if this was a clear/rescan, is's a lot. Maybe slow network or slow NAS share. btw, to improve XU4 network speed, see 'here' (https://obihoernchen.net/1416/odroid-xu4-tune-network-and-usb-speed/). May or may not be default for your distro. > > Scanning new music files: /volume1/music (280892 of 280892) > NAS: 15:45:26 XU4: 05:22:50 > Mixture of I/O (read tracks, write database) and CPU (database). Which one is the bottleneck will depend on your specific setup. You'll have to do some monitoring on your system. > > Building full text index (7 of 7) > NAS: 00:12:53 XU4: 00:05:06 > > Pre-caching Artwork (13096 of 13096) > NAS: 02:36:48 XU4: 00:32:16 > > Database Optimize (2 of 2) > NAS: 00:24:26 XU4: 00:06:50 > All of these are CPU-bound. Unless there's something weird going on on your NAS, my guess is that your NAS has a really weak CPU which is the bottleneck. While the Atoms are the slowest Intel CPUs, it's still surprising to see one with a lower single-core performance than an ARM design. However, the Atom CE5335 seems obscure enough that I can't even find a datasheet (it appears to be a design from 2011). +---+ |Filename: lms_mem.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=28570| +---+ 'Various SW' (https://www.nexus0.net/pub/sw/): Web Interface | Playlist Editor / Generator | Music Classification | Similar Music | Announce | EventTrigger | LMSlib2go | ... 'Various HowTos' (https://www.nexus0.net/pub/documents/LMS/): build a self-contained LMS | Bluetooth/ALSA | Control LMS with any device | ... Roland0's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=56808 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
Tried looking for scanner logs: Settings - Information - The two log files at the bottom. The NAS one was empty, because of the update I did earlier today I suppose, the XU4 one has identical info in both files and none of it to do with library scanning: [19-11-16 15:35:24.1341] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command. [19-11-16 15:35:24.1366] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:* [19-11-16 15:35:49.2650] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command. [19-11-16 15:35:49.2658] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:* [19-11-16 15:40:14.2886] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command. [19-11-16 15:40:14.2889] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:* [19-11-16 15:44:48.9692] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command. [19-11-16 15:44:48.9701] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:* [19-11-16 15:46:10.4443] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command. [19-11-16 15:46:10.4471] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:* [19-11-16 15:49:42.5407] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (615) Error: Connections require authentication, check login command. [19-11-16 15:49:42.5425] Slim::Plugin::CLI::Plugin::cli_process (616) Error: Disconnecting: 192.168.1.2**:* None of those ports, they're all different, are ports I've read about being used in connection with LMS before, I thought it was only 9000,9090, and 3483. I have UPnP turned off. echable's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=69542 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
echable wrote:
> Thanks for the tip on the update - how can I be automatically notified
> about these updates?
Why isn't there a normal Synology package repository/ advice about the
update showing up in package centre like with other packages!
Synology doesn't allow me to push LmsUpdate to the Package Center.
Therefore you only be notified by me on this forum or by checking the
download sites yourself.
Only for x86_64 nas I have recently added a package that bypasses the
Synology restriction, and after adding a respo, is shown in Package
Center.
-DS718+, RPI 2 ('myMPD'
(https://github.com/jcorporation/mympd)/'Squeezelite'
(https://sourceforge.net/projects/lmsclients/files/squeezelite/)),HifiBerry
Digi+ Pro, Aune S6 - Exposure 3010S2 - PMC FB1i-s
-'LmsUpdate '
(https://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?108960-Synology-7-9-2-packages)-
Updated and Cleaned up Logitech Media Server 7.9.2 for Synology.
pinkdot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34644
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
echable wrote:
> Hmmm, did manual install of the package, downloaded from your mirror for
> my ds415play, stopped and started package, LMS information still showing
> same version, 7.9.2 - 0028.1572699180 @ Sat Nov 2 14:19:59 CET 2019
Previous version was 0027.
-DS718+, RPI 2 ('myMPD'
(https://github.com/jcorporation/mympd)/'Squeezelite'
(https://sourceforge.net/projects/lmsclients/files/squeezelite/)),HifiBerry
Digi+ Pro, Aune S6 - Exposure 3010S2 - PMC FB1i-s
-'LmsUpdate '
(https://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?108960-Synology-7-9-2-packages)-
Updated and Cleaned up Logitech Media Server 7.9.2 for Synology.
pinkdot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34644
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
Hmmm, did manual install of the package, downloaded from your mirror for my ds415play, stopped and started package, LMS information still showing same version, 7.9.2 - 0028.1572699180 @ Sat Nov 2 14:19:59 CET 2019 echable's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=69542 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
Thanks for the tip on the update - how can I be automatically notified about these updates? Why isn't there a normal Synology package repository/ advice about the update showing up in package centre like with other packages! Otherwise, thanks again for the package, great work! echable's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=69542 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
echable wrote:
>
>
> Also, someone please friggin' explain the difference in number of files
> found between two LMS servers scanning the exact directories when NO
> changes have been (by me, maybe by LMS itself) made in between the two
> scans :)
>
> (BTW sorry if I'm messing up with the quoting and stuff, I think I did
> better this time than I've done before, but it's harder than I thought
> and I'm not quite there yet...)
Difference in scanned files could be a permission issue on the server.
So, check the top folder's permission and apply these setting to all
underlying folders. This can easily be done in Files.
If your nas is not comnnected to the internet, change the
Also, share your scanner log. This might reveal some issues that are
causing the difference.
You also might want to update your package to 0028:
https://pinkdot.myds.me/sspks/
- removed Audio scan from CPAN (duplicate).
-DS718+, RPI 2 ('myMPD'
(https://github.com/jcorporation/mympd)/'Squeezelite'
(https://sourceforge.net/projects/lmsclients/files/squeezelite/)),HifiBerry
Digi+ Pro, Aune S6 - Exposure 3010S2 - PMC FB1i-s
-'LmsUpdate '
(https://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?108960-Synology-7-9-2-packages)-
Updated and Cleaned up Logitech Media Server 7.9.2 for Synology.
pinkdot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34644
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
I should add: both the XU4 and the NAS had just been factory reset and had nothing but LMS installed on them. echable's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=69542 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
mherger wrote: > > RAM almost certainly won't be the root cause, LMS doesn't use that > much > > (~500MB for LMS should be ample. To make sure, check > > settings>performance if you even have enabled high memory settings, > and > > check actual usage with e.g htop), and for a scan, memory-based > caching > > is basically irrelevant anyway. > > Memory is super important during a scan. With a library the size of > echable's the difference between high and max can be massive. > > echable: looking at the scanner stats, how are those hours distributed? > > Is there one step which takes considerably longer on one system vs. the > > other? > Both devices have Advanced - Performance - Database Memory Config set to "Maximum (recommended for libraries with more than 50.000 tracks -and- machines with 2+ GB RAM). Should that be an -and- or an -or- ? Meaning, since the NAS actually only has 1GB memory, it would actually be detrimental to set it to this setting ? Also, as mentioned in other post, I changed NAS server scanning priority to "-6 above normal", but left it at default on the xu4. Here are the full scan stats from both devices: NAS: Media Scan Details Discovering files/directories: /volume1/music (309595 of 309595) Complete 00:12:22 Scanning new music files: /volume1/music (280892 of 280892) Complete 15:45:26 Discovering playlists: /volume1/music/[[PLAYLISTS]] (5 of 5) Complete 00:00:00 Scanning new playlists: /volume1/music/[[PLAYLISTS]] (4 of 4) Complete 00:00:04 Building full text index (7 of 7) Complete 00:12:53 Pre-caching Artwork (13096 of 13096) Complete 02:36:48 Database Optimize (2 of 2) Complete 00:24:26 XU4: Media Scan Details Discovering files/directories: /mnt/nfs_client/volume1/music (433803 of 433803) Complete 00:26:16 Scanning new music files: /mnt/nfs_client/volume1/music (280893 of 280893) Complete 05:22:50 Building full text index (7 of 7) Complete 00:05:06 Find updated coverart files (29930 of 29930) Complete 00:05:12 Pre-caching Artwork (12037 of 12037) Complete 00:32:16 Database Optimize (2 of 2) Complete 00:06:50 > > > One possible reason might be the write speed of the storage where the > > LMS databases are located. If e.g. they are on the EMMC storage on > the > > XU4 and on a slow HDD on the NAS, this will make quite a > difference. > > This is particularly true if you run low on memory. -- Michael Yes, as mentioned, the XU4 uses a high-speed SD-card, the NAS 5400RPM WD Red disks in RAID5. However, when scanning, the NAS never went above 50% in disk usage and never (approx) above 20-30% in memory usage. Also, someone please friggin' explain the difference in number of files found between two LMS servers scanning the exact directories when NO changes have been (by me, maybe by LMS itself) made in between the two scans :) echable's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=69542 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
Roland0 wrote: > RAM almost certainly won't be the root cause, LMS doesn't use that much > (~500MB for LMS should be ample. To make sure, check > settings>performance if you even have enabled high memory settings, and > check actual usage with e.g htop), and for a scan, memory-based caching > is basically irrelevant anyway. > One possible reason might be the write speed of the storage where the > LMS databases are located. If e.g. they are on the EMMC storage on the > XU4 and on a slow HDD on the NAS, this will make quite a difference. > Worst case is if they are on the same drive as the audio files. Sandisk high-speed SD card on the XU4, those SD-card classifications are so all over the place now that I can't remember but I think it is the fastest category SD Card available. NAS 4*6TB WD Red RPM: 5400. Disk usage during scan on NAS never went above 50% though when I checked (only about 1000 times). One difference in settings I did make: I set "scanner priority" to "-6 above normal" on the NAS. echable's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=69542 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
d6jg wrote: > Apologies. Where did I get the idea of a Pi from? No idea. > Ignore meDiet Pi was mentioned, maybe that was it.[emoji3] Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk slartibartfast's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35609 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
slartibartfast wrote: > He isn't using a Pi and the slow server is installed on the NAS. > > Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk Apologies. Where did I get the idea of a Pi from? No idea. Ignore me VB2.4[/B] STORAGE *QNAP TS419P (NFS) [B]Living Room* - Joggler & SB3 -> Onkyo TS606 -> Celestion F20s *Office* - Pi3+Sreen -> Sony TAFE320 -> Celestion F10s / Pi2+DAC & SB3 -> Onkyo CRN755 -> Wharfedale Modus Cubes *Dining Room* -> SB Boom *Kitchen* -> UE Radio (upgraded to SB Radio) *Bedroom (Bedside)* - Pi2+DAC ->ToppingTP21 ->AKG Headphones *Bedroom (TV)* - SB Touch ->Sherwood AVR ->Mordaunt Short M10s Everything controlled by iPeng d6jg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=44051 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
d6jg wrote: > As the library is on the NAS the bottleneck is probably the network > interface on the Pi > > Up until Pi4 the NIC was 100mb and shares the same bus as the USB ports. > It was the Pi's weakest point.He isn't using a Pi and the slow server is > installed on the NAS. Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk slartibartfast's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35609 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
As the library is on the NAS the bottleneck is probably the network interface on the Pi Up until Pi4 the NIC was 100mb and shares the same bus as the USB ports. It was the Pi's weakest point. VB2.4[/B] STORAGE *QNAP TS419P (NFS) [B]Living Room* - Joggler & SB3 -> Onkyo TS606 -> Celestion F20s *Office* - Pi3+Sreen -> Sony TAFE320 -> Celestion F10s / Pi2+DAC & SB3 -> Onkyo CRN755 -> Wharfedale Modus Cubes *Dining Room* -> SB Boom *Kitchen* -> UE Radio (upgraded to SB Radio) *Bedroom (Bedside)* - Pi2+DAC ->ToppingTP21 ->AKG Headphones *Bedroom (TV)* - SB Touch ->Sherwood AVR ->Mordaunt Short M10s Everything controlled by iPeng d6jg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=44051 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
RAM almost certainly won't be the root cause, LMS doesn't use that much (~500MB for LMS should be ample. To make sure, check settings>performance if you even have enabled high memory settings, and check actual usage with e.g htop), and for a scan, memory-based caching is basically irrelevant anyway. Memory is super important during a scan. With a library the size of echable's the difference between high and max can be massive. echable: looking at the scanner stats, how are those hours distributed? Is there one step which takes considerably longer on one system vs. the other? One possible reason might be the write speed of the storage where the LMS databases are located. If e.g. they are on the EMMC storage on the XU4 and on a slow HDD on the NAS, this will make quite a difference. This is particularly true if you run low on memory. -- Michael ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
echable wrote: > > Since the disk read speed logically can't be the bottleneck, it must be > the 1gb RAM on the NAS vs. the 2gb RAM on the xu4 that makes the > difference ? Or the LMS build ? RAM almost certainly won't be the root cause, LMS doesn't use that much (~500MB for LMS should be ample. To make sure, check settings>performance if you even have enabled high memory settings, and check actual usage with e.g htop), and for a scan, memory-based caching is basically irrelevant anyway. One possible reason might be the write speed of the storage where the LMS databases are located. If e.g. they are on the EMMC storage on the XU4 and on a slow HDD on the NAS, this will make quite a difference. Worst case is if they are on the same drive as the audio files. 'Various SW' (https://www.nexus0.net/pub/sw/): Web Interface | Playlist Editor / Generator | Music Classification | Similar Music | Announce | EventTrigger | LMSlib2go | ... 'Various HowTos' (https://www.nexus0.net/pub/documents/LMS/): build a self-contained LMS | Bluetooth/ALSA | Control LMS with any device | ... Roland0's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=56808 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
echable wrote: > Hey, GREAT tip about the 7.9.2 build! Thank you very much! I ended up > installing the one from the SynoCommunity repo and am now reinstalling > from scratch the pinkdot build. In the end, full library scan on XU4 took 06:38:30, on the DS415PLAY it took 19:11:59. And library is on NAS, the XU4 is reading it through an NFS mounted drive from the NAS. So I guess my 80E XU4 is three times (at least) faster than my thousand euro NAS Only difference is NAS is running Logitech Media Server Version: 7.9.2 - 0027.1571226194 @ Wed Oct 16 14:24:12 CEST 2019 (latest Pinkdot build) while XU4 is running Logitech Media Server Version: 7.9.2 - 1572699180 @ Sat Nov 2 14:15:45 CET 2019 (installed through DietPI OS software installer) echable's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=69542 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
mherger wrote: > > One setting up on a Synology DS415PLAY (Intel Atom Dual Core 1.6GHz, > > DDR3 1GB RAM, WD 4*6TB disks, Logitech Media Server Version: 7.7.6), > in > > about 12 hours it has scanned only about 6000 songs. This should be > > That certainly sounds wrong. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes. > > Please check your scanner.log and server.log files for any hint about a > > failure. > > (and then update to pinkdot's 7.9.2 build) > > -- > > Michael Hey, GREAT tip about the 7.9.2 build! Thank you very much! I ended up installing the one from the SynoCommunity repo and am now reinstalling from scratch the pinkdot build. echable's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=69542 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111206 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Extreme difference in library scan times between servers ?
One setting up on a Synology DS415PLAY (Intel Atom Dual Core 1.6GHz, DDR3 1GB RAM, WD 4*6TB disks, Logitech Media Server Version: 7.7.6), in about 12 hours it has scanned only about 6000 songs. This should be That certainly sounds wrong. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes. Please check your scanner.log and server.log files for any hint about a failure. (and then update to pinkdot's 7.9.2 build) -- Michael ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
