Why is scanning so slow?

Discussion:

dean blackketter

2002-02-06 20:02:32 UTC

Well, it's one second for Bob, one second for Highway and 12 seconds
for all the tracks. Ick.

-dean

It's turned down to one item (directory or file) scanned per second.
That probably explains the speed issue. :-)

Bob Dylan -> Highway 66 -> 01_...
...
12...
Takes 12 seconds to scan? Or just one?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
Secure all your Web servers now - with a proven 5-part
strategy. The FREE Server Security Guide shows you how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/iWSNbC/VdiDAA/yigFAA/rIp0lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
slimp3-dev-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

John Ruttenberg

2002-02-06 19:46:49 UTC

Permalink

It's turned down to one item (directory or file) scanned per second.
That probably explains the speed issue. :-)

Does that mean that:

Bob Dylan -> Highway 66 -> 01_...
...
12...

Takes 12 seconds to scan? Or just one?

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
Do you need to encrypt all your online transactions? Find
the perfect solution in this FREE Guide from VeriSign.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vCuuSA/UdiDAA/yigFAA/rIp0lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
slimp3-dev-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

dean blackketter

2003-02-22 13:02:11 UTC

Permalink

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: [slimp3-dev] Why is scanning so
slow?</title></head><body>
<div>Well, it's one second for Bob, one second for Highway and 12
seconds for all the tracks.  Ick.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-dean</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>dean blackketter:<br>
> <br>
> It's turned down to one item (directory or file) scanned per
second. <br>
> That probably explains the speed issue.  :-)<br>
<br>
Does that mean that:<br>
<br>
    Bob Dylan -> Highway 66 -> 01_...<br>
           <span

</span
           <span
</span>         ...<br>

           <span

</span
           <span
</span>         12...<br>

<br>
Takes 12 seconds to scan?  Or just one?<br>
<br>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~--><br>
Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust<br>
Do you need to encrypt all your online transactions? Find<br>
the perfect solution in this FREE Guide from VeriSign.<br>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vCuuSA/UdiDAA/yigFAA/rIp0lB/TM<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<span </span>~-><br>
<br>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br>
slimp3-dev-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ </blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>

dean blackketter

2002-02-06 19:40:24 UTC

Permalink

I have a fast computer - p4, 1.8GHz, 133MHz ide interface, ddr memory linux
2.4.17. The whole 9 yards.
Nevertheless, it takes the server almost a full day to scan my music
collection. Why is this? My proprietary database oriented system does this
in less than a minute. And it's written in python, which usually has even
worse perforamnce problems than perl. Do we have some sort of a performance
bottleneck that could be fixed pretty easily?

It's turned down to one item (directory or file) scanned per second.
That probably explains the speed issue. :-)

The reason it's turned down is because we were getting complaints
that it was using too much CPU time when it was scanning at full
tilt. Which is correct, it was using as much as it could until it
was done and then settled down.

Personally, I think it's fair for it to use a bunch of CPU time when
it first starts up, but others may not.

Open to suggestions here.

-dean

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/nuyOHD/7.PDAA/yigFAA/rIp0lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
slimp3-dev-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

John Ruttenberg

2002-02-06 19:09:27 UTC

Permalink

I have a fast computer - p4, 1.8GHz, 133MHz ide interface, ddr memory linux
2.4.17. The whole 9 yards.

Nevertheless, it takes the server almost a full day to scan my music
collection. Why is this? My proprietary database oriented system does this
in less than a minute. And it's written in python, which usually has even
worse perforamnce problems than perl. Do we have some sort of a performance
bottleneck that could be fixed pretty easily?

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
slimp3-dev-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

dean blackketter

2003-02-22 13:02:13 UTC

Permalink

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: [slimp3-dev] Why is scanning so
slow?</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I have a fast computer - p4, 1.8GHz,
133MHz ide interface, ddr memory linux<br>
2.4.17.  The whole 9 yards.<br>
<br>
Nevertheless, it takes the server almost a full day to scan my
music<br>
collection.  Why is this?  My proprietary database oriented
system does this<br>
in less than a minute.  And it's written in python, which usually
has even<br>
worse perforamnce problems than perl.  Do we have some sort of a
performance</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>bottleneck that could be fixed pretty
easily?</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>It's turned down to one item (directory or file) scanned per
second.  That probably explains the speed issue.  :-)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The reason it's turned down is because we were getting complaints
that it was using too much CPU time when it was scanning at full
tilt.   Which is correct, it was using as much as it could
until it was done and then settled down.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Personally, I think it's fair for it to use a bunch of CPU time
when it first starts up, but others may not.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Open to suggestions here.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-dean</div>
</body>
</html>