Album cover speed up

[Barcrest]

I am currently optimising the code. Copying some test albums to my SSD didn't seem to make it much quicker than we have it so i didn't implement the cache system. I am however tidying up the code to make it as fast as possible, i have it running quicker now but before I make a beta i want to try something else. I have done something odd int he code and i need to see why I have done it the way I have because I have a faster way but i need to check it works first.

[Mark Norville]

Waste of time testing on an ssd  most will store on hdd possible commercial owners might  but in the future larger ssd will be the norm

[Barcrest]

Waste of time testing on an ssd  most will store on hdd possible commercial owners might  but in the future larger ssd will be the norm

I thought it was you that suggested caching the covers on the ssd? Well someone did so I achieved the same thing moving a small set of albums to the ssd and building the library on them. It didn't seem to page much quicker but I have managed a speed increase with some code changes.

[Mark Norville]

Oh god no, not me. It obviously came from someone who has no sense at all. I want to keep my covers in the directory of the albums, that would be mass storage on HDD rather SSD.

You would soon run out of room on a SSD drive so a waste of even trying to store on there, what people do not understand is the reason why a HDD starts to slow down for, is because it is on it's last legs.

After two years then you might as well start planning buying a new one before it is too late and you get a SMART error with the hard drive.

I tried to transfer MP3s on to my SSD but even on a 240 gig there was just not enough room, and I only have a small collection as still in the process of tidying everything up.

Totally a bad idea and shame on the person who actually thought about it, you have to keep going from one hard drive to another and keep making various calls, which is why it is probably slow.

Regards

Mark

[Barcrest]

No you missed the point. The suggestion was to cache the covers on the SSD. So I copied a test selection over to test it out. It was marginally quicker paging but not worth while adding support to cache them there. The improved code seems to work better anyway, new beta tomorrow to test it out. It is pretty much as fast as I can make it now.

[Novalak]

No sense at all LMFAO
It was me who request it. I don't want to store the mp3s there I want to store the covers there which I believe should speed up paging across the screens. I agree most mp3s are stored on a normal drive which is slower... or if my idea pans out you can store them on a network drive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark Norville]

All a waste of time to be honest, the reason why I am saying this is hard drives slow down after a period of time. I would recommend buying a new hard drive after every two years which would speed up the process. I have 7200 rpm hard drives and also an SSD hard drive, the SSD seems pretty slow and on the same par to the 7200 rpm.

However I would not use a 5400 rpm hard drive as that is obviously where you get the problems.

My SSD is 240 gigs and I am just running a search for JPG images on my jukebox hard drive, which is being set up at the moment so it only has a small amount of albums.

I have 3,290 jpgs at 1.76 gigs on a small SSD you are going to run out of room very fast. It might be ok if you have a dedicated SSD just for graphics, but then you are going into the realms of fantasy buying then.

One SSD for operating system, one SSD for mp3, one SSD for covers. It is beyond what most hobbyists would do.

It the wise words of Anakin Skywalker, it is over kill Master.

Of course this is my own point of view, and may not be shared with others, but a good 7200 rpm, and a fast enough computer and a dedicated computer, is good enough.

Regards

Mark

[Barcrest]

I couldn't see a massive improvement when i moved the test library across to my ssd.

[Novalak]

I couldn't see a massive improvement when i moved the test library across to my ssd.

What about compared to a network drive

[Barcrest]

I couldn't see a massive improvement when i moved the test library across to my ssd.

What about compared to a network drive

Well my usual drive is a USB 8TB drive, probably on USB 2.0 so certainly not as quick as connected drive. Just copy a small sample and try what i did and see if you notice any increase in speed. Did you try the beta i released?