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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
