Robin Bowes wrote:
Can you show me where this claim is made? I'd be very surprised if this
is true. For a start, the wired port on the SB1 is only 10MB/s (I can't
find a spec. sheet to confirm this, but the last point here [1] says:
- faster 100Mbps wired ethernet interface
I do believe you're
How big is your library?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Karn
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:03 AM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] Slim Devices SB2 disappointment SB for sale.
Robin Bowes wrote:
Can you
Phil Karn wrote:
...
You're right, my skips *would* almost certainly go away if I transcoded
everything to MP3 over the LAN. And yes, I have enough server CPU cycles
to do that in real time. But that's a *kludge*, and I shouldn't have to
resort to kludges. The Squeezebox is advertised as being
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/23/05 10:40 PM
The problem with the existing server, just as you point out,
is that the real-time and non-real-time server functions are
bundled into the same tasks and threads, and insufficient
attention has been paid to meeting real-time-critical playback
I imagine he explains it by saying that each case is unique. It's
completely possible that even two people with comparable setups would
have different experiences.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:40:29 -0500, PAUL WILLIAMSON
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/23/05 10:40 PM
The problem
That's very true and especially so at the junction of digital music,
wireless networking, and cross-platform support. The level of quality of
our software and hardware in the end is not determined just by the
amount of testing we do in-house, but is a function of the number of
real-world users
Were you transcoding FLAC to uncompressed PCM?
Oh. Ah. Er. Ahem. Well, now I have to go home and try that, don't I?
Sorry.
Okay, I went home and tried it -- installed flac for RedHat 7.3 (and
libogg to match), unchecked flac-mp3 encoding (leaving flac-pcm
checked) and looped a 44100 stereo
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:46:10 -0800, michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Karn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jack Coates wrote:
You might want to do some research on modern virtual memory
management... swap is necessary no matter how much RAM you have.
I disagree. I see no reason for a
Jack Coates wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enlr=c2coff=1client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialq=linux+encrypted+swap+partitionbtnG=Search
I'm aware of the various ways to encrypt a swap partition. They are
obsolete in this age of cheap, large RAM modules.
Again, a fun
Phil Karn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jack Coates wrote:
You might want to do some research on modern virtual memory
management... swap is necessary no matter how much RAM you have.
I disagree. I see no reason for a swap partition when you already have
far more physical RAM than most swap
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Karn
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 12:19 AM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] Slim Devices SB2 disappointment SB for sale.
Jason wrote:
The overwhelming majority of users do not seem to have the problems
you have with the server
Phil, you CERTAINLY have enough hardware for this!
I'm running 5.4.0 and 5.4.1 just fine on much less hardware. No
hiccups, no crashes, it's the family music system. Just runs, like I
would expect for HiFi gear.
I suggest a test... Take one of your old machine, do a straight-up
default linux
Jack Coates wrote:
You might want to do some research on modern virtual memory
management... swap is necessary no matter how much RAM you have.
I disagree. I see no reason for a swap partition when you already have
far more physical RAM than most swap partitions used to be, and tasks
never fail
Jason wrote:
The overwhelming majority of users do not seem to have the problems you have
with the server crashing or grinding to a halt.
It sounds like it might be worth your time to try Slimserver on another
machine.
Perhaps I did overstate the unreliability of the 5.4 code. What I said
Same here... 5.4.1 on Mac OS X.
I want to say Thank you to the beta-pioneers.
-- Sally
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:52:13 +0100, Patrick Delamere
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd ditto that. My Slimserver runs flawlessly 24/7.
Patrick
--
Sally Shears (a.k.a. Molly)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -or-
Pat Farrell wrote:
The problem with open source is that the contributors want to
do the cool stuff, especially when it is pretty easy.
Redesigning the basic engine is hard, slow, and has zero sizzle
Well, most people would say the same thing about an operating system
kernel. Yet Linux routinely
The problem with open source is that the contributors want to do the cool
stuff, especially when it is pretty easy.
Redesigning the basic engine is hard, slow, and has zero sizzle
Well, most people would say the same thing about an operating system
kernel. Yet Linux routinely runs for months
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Karn
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:44 AM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] Slim Devices SB2 disappointment SB for sale.
Pat Farrell wrote:
The problem with open source
Danny Rego wrote:
Ummm...as does Windows XP (although the more geek-sided may refuse to
believe that)what's your point?
Slimserver is open source, so Linux is the closer analogue. Windows XP
is 1) proprietary and 2) owned by Microsoft, so it has its excuses for
being so unreliable.
Making
] On Behalf Of Phil Karn
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] Slim Devices SB2 disappointment SB for sale.
Danny Rego wrote:
Ummm...as does Windows XP (although the more geek-sided may
refuse to
believe that)what's your point
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:37:29 -0800, Phil Karn wrote:
v5.4.1 runs beautifully on my Windows XP machine...so on a decent linux
machine, I would only imagine how smooth it would run.
I see various nightly versions of 5.4.x, but nothing officially labeled
5.4.1.
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil Karn
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] Slim Devices SB2 disappointment SB for sale.
Danny Rego wrote:
Ummm...as does Windows
Ummm...as does Windows XP (although the more geek-sided may refuse to
believe that)what's your point?
Slimserver is open source, so Linux is the closer analogue. Windows XP is
1) proprietary and 2) owned by Microsoft, so it has its excuses for being
so unreliable.
The phrase unreliable is
.
It sounds like it might be worth your time to try Slimserver on another
machine.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Karn
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] Slim Devices SB2 disappointment
Yes. And eliminating playback interruptions is one of those
absolutely
basic functions, like not crashing, that ought to be given
high priority
in at least *one* code tree. The news headline crawls,
multiple browser
skins and spectral visualizers can wait.
Absolutely. Stability is
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 23:20 -0800, Phil Karn wrote:
Pat Farrell wrote:
But Phil, havn't you also complained that the SlimServer is not
stable enough?
Yes. And eliminating playback interruptions is one of those absolutely
basic functions, like not crashing, that ought to be given high
momerath wrote:
having odd problems connecting after power off, and, of course, pcm
streaming skips sometimes, even in situations I would have thought
would certainly work.
I think the PCM skipping (buffer underflow) problem could be
substantially improved if a little attention were paid to
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 14:14 -0800, Phil Karn wrote:
I think the PCM skipping (buffer underflow) problem could be
substantially improved if a little attention were paid to thread
priority and CPU scheduling in the server.
Of course, and using a faster CPU with more memory helps as well.
But
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:14:15 -0500, Aaron Zinck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to hear you've had trouble.
I'd still argue that 100mbps isn't necessary: the bandwidth available to
the
wired squeezebox shouldn't be affected by other network traffic as long
as
you're using switches rather than
Timothy Knight Nelson wrote:
As I suggested,
1) The units would have to be in essentially perfect condition: Slim
Devices could reject as necessary. Mine is pristine, as I would
guess most are: not a high wear-and-tear item (I usually leave mine
at home when I go rock climbing). A quick wipe
I think Timothy is talking about a 10Mb _network_, not only SB's 10Mb
interface connected to fast ethernet. If all the traffic is comming and
going to the same machine (running SlimServer) this could be a problem.
Ah, if that's the case then I'm in agreement.
Aaron Zinck wrote:
I think Timothy is talking about a 10Mb _network_, not only SB's 10Mb
interface connected to fast ethernet. If all the traffic is comming and
going to the same machine (running SlimServer) this could be a problem.
Ah, if that's the case then I'm in agreement.
Unless you have an
I kinda got screwed too. I checked this morning when I read about the
sb2, and I bought mine exactly one month +1 day ago:( I'm still
having odd problems connecting after power off, and, of course, pcm
streaming skips sometimes, even in situations I would have thought
would certainly work. I've
Quoting Timothy Knight Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mitch,
For the most part, I'm with you. However, I don't think what I am
proposing takes advantage of Slim Devices. With my proposal, they
lose little or nothing by consolidating the resale of returned,
original SB. All they need to do is
As I suggested,
1) The units would have to be in essentially perfect condition: Slim
Devices could reject as necessary. Mine is pristine, as I would guess
most are: not a high wear-and-tear item (I usually leave mine at home
when I go rock climbing). A quick wipe and this one could go back in
of course, pcm streaming skips sometimes, even in situations I would have
thought would
certainly work.
On the off chance that you're running SlimServer on Linux 2.4 - the default
disk scheduler is optimized for everything but streaming files, meaning I'd
often get skips even while only listing
Thanks for the thought, but I'm running 2.6.11 with cfq. I've tried
anticipatory and even a genetic algorythm patch for anticipatory.
I've reniced, run X-less, etc to no avail.
~Michael
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:55:13 +0100, Christian Pernegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of course, pcm streaming
Christian,
1) Yes, somebody always gets screwed: my use of the term doesn't mean
that I believe malice was intended.
2) If you are 100% satisfied, then of course you won't return and you
shouldn't: that is my point. I am 90% satisfied, with some issues that
the new unit addresses, and would
] Slim Devices SB2 disappointment SB for sale.
Mitch Harding said:
If you chose to buy a Squeezebox, I assume it's because you
thought it
would meet your needs. If you kept it past the 30 day period,
presumably that is because you were satisfied with the product. If
there were
Are you streaming lossless audio? The data rate for lossless is such
that it is close to the usable bandwidth for 10Mbps networking (10baseT
or 802.11b).
-Tim
On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:06 PM, Jason wrote:
And all of these problems being described by folks on this thread
sound
suspiciously like
Think of it like this. This (the SD operated mailing list) is a pretty
good place to put up a WTS notice for an SB1. In a way, this is
helping with the resale.
I just need to chime in an say that the resale of units is pretty steady.
After the production of SLIMP3s stopped and Slimdevices
Think of it like this. This (the SD operated mailing list) is a pretty
good place to put up a WTS notice for an SB1. In a way, this is
helping with the resale.
Indeed. If/when you post your SB for sale on eBay, please let the list
know and perhaps provide a URL -- I have no -need- for
I said I'd rather not get into it, but the reason is that I would like
the notebook not to have any wires hanging off of it; my usb sound
card broke one of my ports in the course of a normal day of hauling it
about. Right now I'm using a crossover to avoid dropouts, and I
believe the ethernet
Tom,
Thanks for having something constructive to say. I'll be giving it a
shot, and will post to this list when I manage to do it. At the
moment, life is so overwhelming (with new baby, job, house as
mentioned)... I need another project (even a small one like an ebay
sale) like a proverbial
Timothy Knight Nelson wrote
Are you streaming lossless audio? The data rate for lossless is such
that it is close to the usable bandwidth for 10Mbps networking (10baseT
or 802.11b).
-Tim
In the interest of accuracy it should be noted that raw pcm at 1.4mbps is
not really all that close to
Aaron,
Sorry that I was not more precise, but I was accurate.
It is true that wireless is closer to the edge. But, 5Mbps is about
all you can rely upon from 10baseT, and I have a *lot* going on in my
network so I do have dropouts even with a wired setup. Yes, when
trying with wireless, I
46 matches
Mail list logo
