verypsb;648798 Wrote:
It looks like at least 2 problems need te be investigated resolved
before WAL can be included in a 7.6.1 release:
I think scanning time is going to have to be considered as well.
Although stability of the server is paramount, if scan times are
significantly longer than
I thought I'd post some real-world scanning times of 7.6.1 beta with WAL
and compare them to those of 7.5.6. These were run using my actual Flac
library of 32,746 Flac files, not a test library. 7.6.1 with MySQL
appears to no longer have a problem with pre-caching artwork, so I
could also compare
I've noticed the same - 7.6.1 with SQLite is now slower than 7.5.6 for me too,
but only just. I haven't tried 7.6.1 with MySQL - does it now work fine
without any tinkering necessary?
Any idea what music browsing performance is like between 7.5.6, 7.6.1 SQLite
and 7.6.1 MySQL?
Phil
Philip Meyer;648822 Wrote:
I've noticed the same - 7.6.1 with SQLite is now slower than 7.5.6 for
me too, but only just.
The scanning times were pretty consistent between the two runs and the
difference is dramatic on my system, as you can see.
I haven't tried 7.6.1 with MySQL - does it now
I'm reading the first time of 'LMP'.
Guess it's the Logitech Media Player.
Is this an App already published today on the Revue to access some
arbitrary UPNP source or is this App developed together with LMS?
--
bluegaspode
Did you know: *'SqueezePlayer' (www.squeezeplayer.com)* will stream
I'm reading the first time of 'LMP'.
Guess it's the Logitech Media Player.
Yes.
Is this an App already published today on the Revue to access some
arbitrary UPNP source or is this App developed together with LMS?
No, it's already in the existing firmware.
--
Michael
Some numbers from my small 3495 tracks FLAC library on Linux:
Summary:
- 7.5.6 r32834 with (MySQL 5.0.21): 03:22
- 7.6.1 r33045 with (MySQL 5.0.21): 02:27
- 7.6.1 r33045 with (SQLite): 01:45
I tried with 7.6.1 33020 and 330019(without WAL) and both performed the
same as 33045 in my small FLAC
I do not recall the exact numbers from last night
7.6.1 r33011 with SQLite #1 6:19 before WAL
7.6.1 r33011 with SQLite #2 3:59 before WAL
7.6.1 r33033 with SQLite #1 9:xx with WAL
7.6.1 r33033 with SQLite #2 6:xx with WAL
For me WAL adds 50% compared to 7.6.1-non-WAL.
But it is still much
CPU: Intel Core i7 920
RAM: 6GB
OS: Fedora 15
~39000 music files (mostly flac, 10% ogg mp3)
dbhighmem: 1
Version: 7.6.1 - r33044 @ Thu Aug 11 03:03:03 MDT 2011
Database Version: DBD::SQLite 1.34_01 (sqlite 3.7.7.1)
Scanning new files: /usr/share/music/slimserver (39004 of 39004)
Complete
The performance can be improved by enabling exclusive locking again,
I'll look at this once there are no other WAL issues.
--
andyg
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread:
erland;648846 Wrote:
Some numbers from my small 3495 tracks FLAC library on Linux:
Summary:
- 7.5.6 r32834 with (MySQL 5.0.21): 03:22
- 7.6.1 r33045 with (MySQL 5.0.21): 02:27
- 7.6.1 r33045 with (SQLite): 01:45
Ok, here are also the results from the 50 000 track test library:
- 7.5.6
andyg;648906 Wrote:
The performance can be improved by enabling exclusive locking again,
I'll look at this once there are no other WAL issues.
What was the purpose of introducing WAL ?
I thought the main reason was to get rid of the database is locked
issues ? Won't enabling exclusive
Both my systems are Linux based (Vortexbox and a Linkstation NAS). Using
both machines, the 33033 versions seem to function properly with one
limitation: When starting from no pre-existing database, I had to
restart SBS after the first scan in order to be able browse my
library.
If I didn't
Both my systems are Linux based (Vortexbox and a Linkstation NAS). Using
Is the VB running inside a VM or on hardware?
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17430
I've only seen this with slow systems or in a VM myself.
--
Michael
___
beta
7.6.1-r33044: I moved a bunch of albums from one directory to another,
and did a new/changed scan. First problem is it takes forever:
Code:
trauma% egrep 11-08-11 1[45].*Handling /var/log/squeezeboxserver/server.log
| head -3
[11-08-11 14:11:05.4472]
mherger;648950 Wrote:
Both my systems are Linux based (Vortexbox and a Linkstation NAS).
Using
Is the VB running inside a VM or on hardware?
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17430
I've only seen this with slow systems or in a VM myself.
--
Michael
I consider this
I consider this machine pretty decently spec'd for SBS usage (scans
8000 Flac tracks in 3 minutes). Is is a Vortexbox distro on bare metal,
with a dual core D510 at 1.66GHz.
Thanks. I added this additional piece of information to the bug report.
--
Michael
Btw, I installed Whitebear Media Server 2.1 on the same LMS test server
and I'm able to navigate the library and play tracks with WMP. With the
LMP in the Revue I'm also able to navigate the library and view album
covers and track info, but initially I was unable to play the tracks.
LMP gives the
mherger;648788 Wrote:
Revue 2.0 first...
Revue 2.0?
Does 2.0 mean existing hardware running Honeycomb? Ice Cream Sandwich?
New Hardware?
--
Mark Miksis
Mark Miksis's Profile:
i'm somewhat confused...
won't the revue get the 4.0 android update? thats supposed to come out
very soon:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/09/google_rushing_out_android_4_ice_cream_sandwich_to_counter_iphone_5.html
seems silly to put the revue on 3.x as 4.x comes out.
also, can
dsdreamer;648947 Wrote:
Is there something particular going wrong under Windows?
Yes, the corrupted database problem is only on Windows.
--
JJZolx
JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
I suspect the reason JJZolx sees bigger difference between 7.5.6 and
7.6.1 is because he uses a more optimized MySQL configuration then the
one selected with High in SBS Settings/Advanced/Performance which I
used. Or it could be related to that he used a later MySQL version than
5.0.21 which is
JJZolx;649004 Wrote:
Yes, the corrupted database problem is only on Windows.
Would this affect upgrading from 7.5.6 to 7.6.1? Should I still steer
clear?
--
MeSue
SUE
1 Duet | 2 Booms | 1 Radio | 1 Touch (beta) | 1 SB2
HP MediaSmart EX470 | Squeezebox Server 7.5 | iPod Touch w/ iPeng
MeSue;649008 Wrote:
Would this affect upgrading from 7.5.6 to 7.6.1? Should I still steer
clear?
Yes, I believe it would. I can't say whether it will happen on 100% of
Windows systems, but it might.
Would be nice, though, if you could test it and add another voice.
--
JJZolx
Not sure this version has WAL, but here's a data point. Just installed
on my work computer (newish dell desktop (intel i7 CPU, 8GB RAM,
WIN7(64) with SP1). Seems to be working well so far (tracks were all
there on very first clear and rescan, artwork all OK, etc.). Mixture
of FLAC, mp3, aac
Philip Meyer;649007 Wrote:
I suspect the reason JJZolx sees bigger difference between 7.5.6 and
7.6.1 is because he uses a more optimized MySQL configuration then
the
one selected with High in SBS Settings/Advanced/Performance which I
used. Or it could be related to that he used a later
great breakdown, thx. just fyi, everything i read says 4.0 is for ALL
android devices, ie. form factors. the rush behind it is so that
developers have one api to develop for, that works on all form
factors.
restricting the marketplace from the revue is one good reason its
failed so far! how
JJZolx;648814 Wrote:
The database memory configuration with SQLite was set to 'High'.
snip
MySQL is optimized by throwing a lot more memory at it than the High
memory config of the server run by SBS 7.5
meaning what? you edited the config files manually? what are the
differences
Nope. I'm wondering if it could be tagging related, since I tag every
track with both an ALBUMARTIST and ARTIST. This could lead to twice as
many db lookups for contributors as others' libraries, which looks like
it may be a problem for SQLite using WAL.
Maybe. I don't use ALBUMARTIST tags
Am I right in thinking that the schema hasn't changed at all between 7.5.6 and
7.6.1?
I'm wondering if there would be benefit in somehow comparing table content
between a 7.5.6 and 7.6.1 scan (ignoring primary/foreign key id's), to see if
obvious issues can be identified?
e.g. I have a
MrSinatra;649022 Wrote:
meaning what? you edited the config files manually?
The MySQL config files, yes. The server runs its own install of MySQL.
what are the differences between the SBS high setting and your edits?
Larger buffers mostly. A lot more memory given to the process.
is the
is the contention then, that properly configured, mysql will be better
and faster than SQLite?
Potentially; seems to depend on the size of the library more than anything.
The indication is that SQLite is better with small libraries, but MySQL better
with big libraries.
We don't know where the
7.6 has changed a bit, for example the artwork IDs are now hex instead
of integers.
--
andyg
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread:
Philip Meyer;649026 Wrote:
I'm wondering if there would be benefit in somehow comparing table
content between a 7.5.6 and 7.6.1 scan (ignoring primary/foreign key
id's), to see if obvious issues can be identified?
e.g. I have a problem with my No Artist album.
By comparing a list of
Philip Meyer;649026 Wrote:
Maybe as easy as exporting tables as CSV and then doing a file
comparison.
I need to find a new SQLite DB browser, as mine doesn't seem to work in
WAL mode.
If you just like to get some simple csv extracts you can use the
Database Query plugin, that will
Philip Meyer;649029 Wrote:
is the contention then, that properly configured, mysql will be better
and faster than SQLite?
Potentially; seems to depend on the size of the library more than
anything. The indication is that SQLite is better with small
libraries, but MySQL better with big
MrSinatra;649019 Wrote:
also, i wonder if SP-droid app will work or be included in the next
update?
Do you mean the Logitech Controller app for Android or real SqueezePlay
?
bluegaspode's SqueezePlayer app will probably work as soon as they open
up GoogleTV for Android Market, but that
erland;649039 Wrote:
Do you mean the Logitech Controller app for Android or real SqueezePlay
?
i thought they were the same? are they not?
erland;649039 Wrote:
Yes, I think a lot of people would love that, but apparently Logitech
management is prioritizing Windows and OSX for LMS, so
MrSinatra;649041 Wrote:
i thought they were the same? are they not?
No, the Logitech Controller app for Android is completely separate from
SqueezePlay. The Controller app doesn't support local playback and it's
built with completely different technologies.
MrSinatra;649041 Wrote:
JJZolx;649004 Wrote:
Yes, the corrupted database problem is only on Windows.
Could you inform us which virus scanner/security software you use?
I was wondering if it is possible that .db-wal and .db-shm files would
be treated as suspicious by some virus scanner e.g., using a heuristic
dsdreamer;649050 Wrote:
Could you inform us which virus scanner/security software you use?
I was wondering if it is possible that .db-wal and .db-shm files would
be treated as suspicious by some virus scanner e.g., using a heuristic
algorithm.
Just a thought.
At home MSE, at work
dsdreamer;649050 Wrote:
Could you inform us which virus scanner/security software you use?
I was wondering if it is possible that .db-wal and .db-shm files would
be treated as suspicious by some virus scanner e.g., using a heuristic
algorithm.
Just a thought.
There's no anti-virus or
MrSinatra;649041 Wrote:
exactly my point! the slim paradigm is outdated and dead. ipods are
self contained. the revue could be the home entertainment center ipod.
Eliminating the need for a computer to play videos, display pictures
and to a lesser degree to play music was one of reasons I
erland;649048 Wrote:
N
3. LMS on Windows
4. LMS on Linux
5. LMS on OSX
6. Others. Outsiders. Pariahs.
I love you, too.
--
pallfreeman
Please vote for bug #17411.
pallfreeman's Profile:
And MySQL configuration, because with the Normal and High
configurations bundled with SBS, SQLite is faster on any Linux machines
I've tried independent database size, I've tried with libraries up to
250 000 tracks.
I wonder if the MySQL configuration for High should be optimized some
other way
JJZolx;649011 Wrote:
Yes, I believe it would. I can't say whether it will happen on 100% of
Windows systems, but it might.
Would be nice, though, if you could test it and add another voice.
Didn't do anything special except make a backup of my 7.5.6 cache
folder in case I want to go back.
JJZolx;649090 Wrote:
Let it go. It will probably complete. When you're done, the info page of
the web interface may say 'No music library configured' and the main
window may have no 'My Music'. That's how you'll know.
Okay, thanks. Then how to recover after it's done (so I can have my
tunes
garym;649013 Wrote:
Not sure this version has WAL, but here's a data point. Just installed
on my work computer (newish dell desktop (intel i7 CPU, 8GB RAM,
WIN7(64) with SP1). Seems to be working well so far (tracks were all
there on very first clear and rescan, artwork all OK, etc.).
MeSue;649093 Wrote:
Okay, thanks. Then how to recover after it's done (so I can have my
tunes back)?
If you can't recover by running another clear rescan, there's no way
that I know to recover. You need to have a working database or the
server will do nothing.
But see the attached file
JJZolx;649102 Wrote:
If you can't run another clear rescan and get the server back, there's
no way that I know to recover. You need to have a working database or
the server will do nothing. If you see no progress on the information
page, then the database is corrupt and you should kill the
MeSue;649103 Wrote:
Thanks! I was wondering if it would also work to install 33011, let it
scan, then install 33044 over that.
I've been playing with the Windows build of Version: 7.6.1 - r33044. I
immediately ran into the corrupted database trap. I can get myself into
a runnable state by
dsdreamer;649109 Wrote:
I will point out there are some strange file names in 8.6 format in the
Cache
This has been pointed out before in this thread, but I wonder if it is
significant?
What's significant is not that there are different types of filenames,
but that the server and scanner
52 matches
Mail list logo
