pski;290150 Wrote:
dang: 3k bogos... that thing should be beyond flying.
It's a great solution for a large library, probably overkill for a
small one.
--
egd
Internet forums: conclusive proof depth of gene pool is indeed variable,
monkeys can be taught to cut code, and world peace is
pski;287946 Wrote:
While we're on performance, could you telnet to the Thecus and cat
/proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 13
model name : Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz
stepping: 8
cpu MHz
egd;289813 Wrote:
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 13
model name : Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz
stepping: 8
cpu MHz : 1497.625
cache size : 1024 KB
fdiv_bug: no
hlt_bug
egd;288313 Wrote:
thought this too, but not being a networking engineer I figured I'd stay
out of the debate. I don't even have two lots of CAT6 to try the
theory, albeit I'm going to be buying two reels for a roll-your-own
home wiring as part of a renovation I'm planning.
I'm not a
mherger;287366 Wrote:
Ok, NFS is known to be quit a bit faster than SMB/CIFS.
I'd be interested to see how it compares to your other systems (and
mine ;-)). I'd expect it to pretty fast too, as the slow network
transfer doesn't apply. Two things: 1) I presume I can force one Linux box
egd;288309 Wrote:
Two things: 1) I presume I can force one Linux box to mount another
Linux box using SMB - if so, how do I go about it? Would be
interesting to see the results. 2) How does it compare to yours?
Somewhere earlier in this thread (post #57) I reported on such a test.
Re
I'll admit to not having read the whole thread. But I have had similar
scanning problems when hitting links/shortcuts in windows.
check
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39296
Try dir *.lnk /s to find the link, it should be a very quick check.
Good luck and apologies if it has
egd;183029 Wrote:
I've just rebuilt a w2k3 machine and installed SlimServer 6.5.2 - 11509
- Windows Server 2003 - EN - cp1252. Accompanying it is
Perl Version: 5.8.8 MSWin32-x86-multi-thread and MySQL
5.0.22-community-nt
I have a large FLAC library (~50k songs) but damnit, it shouldn't
While we're on performance, could you telnet to the Thecus and
cat /proc/cpuinfo
?
What kind of bogomips is that puppy doing?
I'm running a Buffalo TS Pro II that's only doin' 498 and my speed is
wire-constrained... of course, I don't have any 100mb devices on that
segment (or my dlink
Just to add more data to this, I can scan the library on my N5200 with
my Windows HTPC over gigabit (and no, it's not Cat6, which is not
_required_ for gigabit) is roughly the same amount of time as the
SqueezeCenter module on the N5200 itself.
--
funkstar
Gplouffe;287219 Wrote:
Not certain if anything concrete came out of this discussion but I
recently took a 1.6mhz 500mb ram desktop and went from linux (debian)
to windows xp sp2. Under linux, performance was great. Note: Music is
located on a Buffalo Terastation NAS 50K songs. Went to XP
Gplouffe;287219 Wrote:
I tried the sql setting changes and did not notice any benefit. My gut
tells me it is IO related.
Any definitive answers on this?
No definitive answers, but MY gut tells me it's poor scheduling on
windows. The overall performance is MUCH worse on Windows,
Gplouffe;287219 Wrote:
Not certain if anything concrete came out of this discussion but I
recently took a 1.6mhz 500mb ram desktop and went from linux (debian)
to windows xp sp2. Under linux, performance was great. Note: Music is
located on a Buffalo Terastation NAS 50K songs. Went to XP
Windows results:
[image: http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~egd/CRTimings_W2K3_0-E.png]
Linux results:
[image:
http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~egd/CRTimings_Ubuntu_0-E.png]
Interestingly the library stafs also differ between SC flavours. I've
raised this before and still have no idea why,
Seeing this thread resurface reminded me I was going to run tests under
SC7 and screendump the results here. The Windows based scan of the
same NAS-based library (limited to the 0-E tree) is running as I type
this. If someone can tell me how to embed links to the full sized
images in a forum
Windows results:
[image: http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~egd/CRTimings_W2K3_0-E.png]
Linux results:
[image:
http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~egd/CRTimings_Ubuntu_0-E.png]
Are both using SMB? Do you have numbers scanning the same collection on the
Thecus itself?
--
Michael
mherger;287344 Wrote:
Are both using SMB?The Linux box has mounted the NAS share using NFS, I
presume the Windows
box is using CIFS?
mherger;287344 Wrote:
Do you have numbers scanning the same collection on the Thecus itself?Not at
the moment. To get that I have to kill my library and
egd;287347 Wrote:
Not at the moment. To get that I have to kill my library and then
rebuild it. I may do that later tonight and let it rebuild while I
sleep. Are the NAS' own timings relevant?
Should be in the reagion of 25minutes for a full scan on a N5200Pro. My
lat scan was about 22min
Are both using SMB?The Linux box has mounted the NAS share using NFS, I
presume the Windows box is using CIFS?
Ok, NFS is known to be quit a bit faster than SMB/CIFS.
rebuild it. I may do that later tonight and let it rebuild while I
sleep. Are the NAS' own timings relevant?
I'd be
I ran a clear and rescan on my NAS a few days ago (but without first
pointing the library to a single album and rescanning) and screendumped
the full library time. Those stats are 86,352 tracks in 110.63 minutes,
meaning a 0-E scan will take roughly 27.17 minutes. If I follow the
same approach
Michael, the above approximations suffice or would you prefer actuals?
That's ok. Thanks!
--
Michael
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
My dinosaur PC is currently in its fifth hour doing a scan of a local
USB drive. I know much of this discussion concerns NAS drives, but
hopefully this is appropriate here.
Otherwise, I'll open up a new thread and whine some more...
My computer crashed last week so I have had to reinstall
ceejay;287260 Wrote:
No definitive answer, but I wonder if in moving from Linux to Windows
you have changed the file sharing protocol, eg NFS to Samba? That
would make a difference, I guess.
Under windows I was using a windows share (SMB I believe??) and under
Debian I mounted CIFS if that
Sona;287534 Wrote:
I'm much less in the know about programming than many of you, but I
caught the reference about firewalls slowing the IO rate way down, but
this is simply assinine.
Firewalls slow network access down. Other users on this thread are
using NAS units, which are network
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
I just discovered the scanner.log file on one of the settings tabs and
viewed the contents.
I think I'm going to have to admit to being both wrong and right.
Right in that a directory scan took about 2 seconds (if the stats are
to be believed) and wrong in that perhaps there is something I
Not certain if anything concrete came out of this discussion but I
recently took a 1.6mhz 500mb ram desktop and went from linux (debian)
to windows xp sp2. Under linux, performance was great. Note: Music is
located on a Buffalo Terastation NAS 50K songs. Went to XP because of
another server need
jonheal;184325 Wrote:
Then if you have to open to whole file, you have to bring the whole file
over the network to load into memory. Using 10MB per file as an example,
it would take my NSLU2 85 minutes to send the files to the PC for
Slimserver to process -- which is more or less the time it
The other issue on speed is how MySQL is configured on Linux and
Windows. I guess at that point you may want to look at a single album
and see if it really is the NAS or some other component.
A direct file copy under the two OS may also give an indicative result
of OS perfromance.
--
Paul_B
Those are all fine suggestions about running netstat before and after,
MySQL configuration, and timing direct file copies. But someone else is
going to have to answer them. Sorry, but as I usually run slimserver on
my NAS (and occasionally under Ubuntu), the Linux/Windows scanning
questions just
Paul_B;184415 Wrote:
I have run the following command against my collection of 5,000 songs:
scanner --wipe --cleanup --d_info --d_server --d_scan
\\ip-address\public\music
I've used a similar approach along with the linux `time' command to
record scanning times under linux. Is there a
aubuti;184978 Wrote:
I've used a similar approach along with the linux `time' command to
record scanning times under linux. Is there a DOS/Win equivalent to
`time'? And no, I don't mean the DOS command that tells you what time
it is, but one that tells you how long it takes to execute a
Two options is run a from a batch file and echo time before and after.
If you aren't echoing anything to screen then you can change the
command prompt with:
prompt $T $P$G
--
Paul_B
Paul
~
Slimserver 6.5.1 on EPIA VIA EN15000 Mini-ITX running
jonheal;184335 Wrote:
My money is on similar times for both OSs.
Certainly not if count how long it took me to figure out how to get
slimserver on Windows read the library on my NAS!! But if you don't
count that, Win2K was about 40% slower to scan than Ubuntu.
Server hardware: Dell P3 500MHz
aubuti;184978 Wrote:
I've used a similar approach along with the linux `time' command to
record scanning times under linux. Is there a DOS/Win equivalent to
`time'? And no, I don't mean the DOS command that tells you what time
it is, but one that tells you how long it takes to execute a
It would be interesting to run netstat before and after a scan to get
TCP statistics to see if there is any significant difference in the
volume and/or type of network traffic between a Linux scan and a
Windows scan.
--
bpa
Doesn't running the scanner with --progress give you timing info for dos
and windows?
--
Triode
Triode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17
View this thread:
aubuti;185006 Wrote:
Certainly not if count how long it took me to figure out how to get
slimserver on Windows read the library on my NAS!! But if you don't
count that, Win2K was about 40% slower to scan than Ubuntu.
Server hardware: Dell P3 500MHz with 256MB RAM,
NAS hardware: Buffalo
Thanks for the timing tips under DOS. I was wondering if there was
something better than the [time / scan / time] batch file kludge, but
for these purposes that's good enough. Actually, the times I reported
above are the differences between the first and last lines that scanner
reports with
jonheal;185038 Wrote:
I guess I would expect it to be a little slower on windows since it's
dealing with a non-native file system. It would be interesting to see
if the difference is linear with larger collections.
The NAS is mounted on the Ubuntu system using smbfs, so there's still a
bpa;184254 Wrote:
The OP in post #1 said
It is not clear whether the Linux case is using local or NAS located
files. If the library is on a NAS in both cases and the only
difference is slimserver is running on Windows vs Linux - then it looks
like an Windows network or Windows/Perl
SteveEast;184323 Wrote:
The Infrant ReadyNAS NV does support NFS. It would be interesting to
install an NFS client on the Windows box and see if that made a
difference.
Steve.
If you know of one I'm happy to run this experiment
--
egd
Linux and loving IT!
egd;184561 Wrote:
If you know of one I'm happy to run this experiment
Microsoft seems to have one as part of Microsoft Windows Services for
UNIX 3.5.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/interopmigration/unix/sfu/sfu35int.mspx
Looks like you can download it (200+ MB) from:
egd;184558 Wrote:
To clarify for everyone, I am referring to the same ReadyNAS NV and
library connected via the same switch, cables IP addresses etc.
Running the scan from from Windows yields a very significantly slower
outcome compared with the same scan running the same PC under Linux.
jonheal;184597 Wrote:
So you've got a dual-boot PC (Windows/Linux)?
No, but I have run w2k3 and Ubuntu on the box on various occasions -
enough times to know that the performance difference was not a random
anomaly. I also have a 2nd box that I've tested in the same way and
achieved the same
SteveEast;184592 Wrote:
Microsoft seems to have one as part of Microsoft Windows Services for
UNIX 3.5.
Will attempt it over the weekend. Not sure you can force the ReadyNAS
to use NFS under Windows as it defaults to CIFS under Windows and from
memory CIFS cannot be disabled on the NV but
egd;184710 Wrote:
in fact there is no discernible audible difference under Windows between
the ReadyNAS being idle and performing a rescan. If it wasn't for the
blinking of the ReadyNAS HDD activity LED you'd think it was standing
idle.
That's pretty much the same thing I saw. There's an
egd;184710 Wrote:
No, but I have run w2k3 and Ubuntu on the box on various occasions -
enough times to know that the performance difference was not a random
anomaly. I also have a 2nd box that I've tested in the same way and
achieved the same outcome. Not that hard to do because I have in
jonheal;184034 Wrote:
Aren't most/all of the NAS devices people on these forums running one
flavor of embedded Linux, or another. In which case, they'd all be
using SMB from Windows, and experiencing the same issues/problems.
Yes. Probably a valid observation, but I wouldn't chalk it up
jonheal;184034 Wrote:
I always chaalked it up to either slow file performance on the part of
the NSLU2 or a lame implementation of SMB on the part of Windows.
I'm pretty sure this is actually the case. IMHO the NSLU has a
throughput of a few (well below 10) megabytes per second whereas todays
It could also be attributable to either ActiveState
Perl, or SlimServer's implementation under Windows.
Accessing files on a network share _is_ slower than locally (unless you
have high-end storage). And the NSLU isn't known as one of the better
performing devices on the market. This has
I've measured the NSLU transferring (download) at about 5MBytes/sec, ie
40Mbits/sec. This is not unreasonable on 100Mbits/s ethernet network.
--
Ramage
P2 266MHz,Linux ClarkConnect 3.2, SlimServer Version: 6.5.2 - 11354,
Alien 1.06, perl 5.8.8
P4 2.6GHz, Win XP, SlimServer Version: 6.5.2 -
I've measured the NSLU transferring (download) at about 5MBytes/sec, ie
40Mbits/sec. This is not unreasonable on 100Mbits/s ethernet network.
That's around my guess. But compared to local access on harddisk this
still is slow. Consider SlimServer fetching every single file of your x00
The OP in post #1 said
I have a large FLAC library (~50k songs) but damnit, it shouldn't take
hours to scan just because it is located on a NAS, especially not when
the same library scans in under 20 minutes under Linux.
It is not clear whether the Linux case is using local or NAS located
bpa;184254 Wrote:
The OP in post #1 said
It is not clear whether the Linux case is using local or NAS located
files. If the library is on a NAS in both cases and the only
difference is slimserver is running on Windows vs Linux - then it looks
like an Windows network or Windows/Perl
Reading some of the OP's other posts reveals that the Linux timings are
indeed using the NAS library. So the difference in performance between
Linux and Windows with the same NAS is indeed dramatic.
Steve.
--
SteveEast
SteveEast;184292 Wrote:
Reading some of the OP's other posts reveals that the Linux timings are
indeed using the NAS library. So the difference in performance between
Linux and Windows with the same NAS is indeed dramatic.
Are both systems accessing via SMB? Many NAS boxes support NFS...
mherger;184241 Wrote:
This has little to do neither with Windows nor Samba (the SMB server
used on Linux) but is just due to the NAS' limited CPU power.
A simple test would be: Run a SlimServer scan on a Windows machine
accessing files on the NAS. Then run it on Linux system accessing the
snarlydwarf;184308 Wrote:
Are both systems accessing via SMB? Many NAS boxes support NFS...It
may be that NFS provides faster access. (Which wouldnt surprise me at
all, less 'abstraction' going on, though the difference is huge and
that wouldnt explain it all unless SMB is really
jonheal;184318 Wrote:
Can you actually do that, only open/read a portion of a file? I'm just a
sorta programmer, but I am only aware of methods of opening an entire
file at once.
Well you open the whole file, but use lseek/fseek/whatever to seek to
the part you want.
Thats why id3 tags are
Ah found the SMB protocol specs:
Code:
SMB_COM_READ Client supplies TID, FID, file offset, and number of bytes to
read. Successful server response includes the requested file data.
That should allow random seeks, though there is still some
snarlydwarf;184308 Wrote:
Are both systems accessing via SMB? Many NAS boxes support NFS...It
may be that NFS provides faster access.
The Infrant ReadyNAS NV does support NFS. It would be interesting to
install an NFS client on the Windows box and see if that made a
difference.
Steve.
JJZolx;184317 Wrote:
A simple test would be: Run a SlimServer scan on a Windows machine
accessing files on the NAS. Then run it on Linux system accessing the
same files across the network on the NAS. If the scan on Linux system
runs considerably faster, then there's something wrong other
snarlydwarf;184320 Wrote:
Well you open the whole file, but use lseek/fseek/whatever to seek to
the part you want.
Thats why id3 tags are at either the beginning or end of the file: it
saves a ton of processing if you can ignore most of the file.
(There are two schools of thought on
JJZolx;184317 Wrote:
A simple test would be: Run a SlimServer scan on a Windows machine
accessing files on the NAS. Then run it on Linux system accessing the
same files across the network on the NAS. If the scan on Linux system
runs considerably faster, then there's something wrong other
aubuti;184326 Wrote:
Just yesterday I realized that my dual boot (Win2K / Ubuntu) box
accessing my music library on a NAS is perfect for just such a test.
But if I confirm a big difference in scanning times between Linux and
Windows, doesn't that still leave two possible explanations (at
jonheal;184325 Wrote:
Then if you have to open to whole file, you have to bring the whole file
over the network to load into memory. Using 10MB per file as an example,
it would take my NSLU2 85 minutes to send the files to the PC for
Slimserver to process -- which is more or less the time it
snarlydwarf;184338 Wrote:
open doesn't mean copy.
It just means find this file and return a 'handle' to it for later
operations.
Opening a file should take very little time (unless you have something
like a large directory where it can take time for the OS to find the
file in the
jonheal;184343 Wrote:
I can see how it might be possible for the OS to query the volume
directory about a file, and then get a response, Yes, we have that
file. This portion of it is on sector X of the hard drive, and that
portion of it is on sector Y ..., etc. And then with some
Just had a though on this subject. Is Windows woeful because of
anti-virus software? My setup is fast and has no performance issues.
However, I don't run AV software on my server because I am very careful
about what is installed and don't surf the Net. AV software causes no
end of problems as it
I have run the following command against my collection of 5,000 songs:
scanner --wipe --cleanup --d_info --d_server --d_scan
\\ip-address\public\music
The rescan took just over 30 minutes with the additional debugging. One
thing I did notice whilst using Perfmon is the disk queue goes high
MrSinatra;183535 Wrote:
how long would it take?
and wouldn't daily, automated, overnight [re]scanning do the trick?
again, i'm just curious.
Not sure, to be honest, but based on a brief experiment I did a while
ago my guess is = a day. My other big fear is that I get a repeat of
the box
egd;183920 Wrote:
Basically, IMHO I think home/SOHO NAS solutions are currently a joke and
cannot be relied upon for reliably storing data.
While something is definitely not right with your present arrangement,
imho condemning all home/SOHO NASs is a huge overstatement. My
experience (with
I see very slow scanning with my music on a different NAS device - a
Buffalo Terastation. Windows XPSP2. Fortunately I only have a few
thousand songs.
Steve.
--
SteveEast
SteveEast's Profile:
I have really slow scanning on my 2.0 GHz XP system. My library is on a
NAS controlled by a Linksys NSLU2.
I always chaalked it up to either slow file performance on the part of
the NSLU2 or a lame implementation of SMB on the part of Windows.
Aren't most/all of the NAS devices people on these
I wonder if it is possible to turn up debugging on the scanning process
or run scanner.exe in a verbose mode to see what is going on?
--
Paul_B
Paul
~
Slimserver 6.5.1 on EPIA VIA EN15000 Mini-ITX running Windows 2003 R2.
Remote storage
I wonder if it is possible to turn up debugging on the scanning process
or run scanner.exe in a verbose mode to see what is going on?
Run scanner.exe -h to get a list of available parameters. Try -d_info
-d_scan for a start.
--
Michael
egd;183029 Wrote:
I've just rebuilt a w2k3 machine and installed SlimServer 6.5.2 - 11509
- Windows Server 2003 - EN - cp1252. Accompanying it is
Perl Version: 5.8.8 MSWin32-x86-multi-thread and MySQL
5.0.22-community-nt
I have a large FLAC library (~50k songs) but damnit, it shouldn't
Is it faster if you run a PC with Linux and connect that to the NAS ?
Or are you just saying that SlimServer locally installed on the NAS
itself is faster ?
--
erland
Erland Isaksson
'My homepage' (http://erland.homeip.net) 'My download page'
(http://erland.homeip.net/download)
(Developer
My setup on Windows 2003 R2 doesn't cause any problems or performance
issues. It is wired from W2K3 server to QNAP NAS storage and SB3. A
complete rescan of my 5,000 tracks is fine. Any issues with NIC
settings on network speed and duplex? It is standard practice to always
force this rather than
JJZolx;183364 Wrote:
Do you mean has anything new emerged since you asked the same question a
month ago? Why not go back to running SlimServer under Linux?
I guess I was hoping that something would have changed in recent builds
of 6.5.2 for Windows. I would love to go back to Linux but had
erland;183398 Wrote:
Is it faster if you run a PC with Linux and connect that to the NAS ?
Or are you just saying that SlimServer locally installed on the NAS
itself is faster ?
In both Windows ans Linux I had/had Slimserver running on a PC. The
ReadyNAS NV would die a horrible death if
Paul_B;183399 Wrote:
My setup on Windows 2003 R2 doesn't cause any problems or performance
issues. It is wired from W2K3 server to QNAP NAS storage and SB3. A
complete rescan of my 5,000 tracks is fine. Any issues with NIC
settings on network speed and duplex? It is standard practice to
I'll do a rescan tonight (need to anyway to clear things up) and will
time the results to compare.
--
Paul_B
Paul
~
Slimserver 6.5.1 on EPIA VIA EN15000 Mini-ITX running Windows 2003 R2.
Remote storage QNAP(2.0.0)~(300GB WD)
SB3 (x1)
RIP -
i'm just curious...
but can't SS run on the NAS? or is it limited to just a select few NAS
boxes?
wouldn't it be neat if you had an all in one box solution, (ie, ss,
nas, sb = one box) and had a color remote to see what you were doing?
the only drawback there i think would be in routing the
How about what he wrote - The ReadyNAS NV would die a horrible death if
I installed slimserver to the nas and told it to scan ~50k files. ...?
--
tommypeters
SB3--Meridian G68--NuForce Ref8--Bc Acoustique ACT A3
i guess i just wanted that fleshed out a bit...
other people seem to have gotten their NAS to do it, altho i'm not sure
it was that many files...
my Q is, why can't his NAS do it? is it the hardware or the software?
just expound the reasoning a bit... i am thinking about a NAS setup
for
MrSinatra;183490 Wrote:
anyway, i'm just wondering why you aren't running SS on the nas. -mdw
I add albums and edit tag/artwork etc. regularly enough to make a
rescanning a regular necessity. With that many files in my library,
running a rescan on the NV is not feasible.
--
egd
Linux and
how long would it take?
and wouldn't daily, automated, overnight [re]scanning do the trick?
again, i'm just curious.
--
MrSinatra
www.LION-Radio.org
Using:
Squeezebox2 w/SS 6.5.2 (beta!?) - Win XP Pro SP2 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram
egd;183029 Wrote:
I have a large FLAC library (~50k songs) but damnit, it shouldn't take
hours to scan just because it is located on a NAS, especially not when
the same library scans in under 20 minutes under Linux. I'm annoyed
that I started a scan operation ovr four hours ago, came back
erland;183048 Wrote:
Do you have any playlists that might contain references to music files
that no longer exists or have been moved to another drive/directory ?
I'm afraid not. Thanks for the suggestion though.
--
egd
Linux and loving IT!
There were some posts in the past month or two about the same problem,
ie, appallingly slow scanning with Windows on a network drive. I can't
remember if it was scanning a NAS or just a drive on another computer.
I did a quick search for the thread and couldn't find it. You might try
a more
I've just rebuilt a w2k3 machine and installed SlimServer 6.5.2 - 11509
- Windows Server 2003 - EN - cp1252. Accompanying it is
Perl Version: 5.8.8 MSWin32-x86-multi-thread and MySQL
5.0.22-community-nt
I have a large FLAC library (~50k songs) but damnit, it shouldn't take
hours to scan just
93 matches
Mail list logo
