NVME for emby metadata cache?

[kkhan 16]

I am using a fast ssd currently as my metadata cache for emby and browsing on emby is fairly speed except for a lag on building the home page.  As part of server rebuild I am wondering whether upgrading to a fast NVME (3000MB/s or faster) for the emby cache would make an appreciable difference or would that essentially be a waste of money.

Appreciate any real world experience in the community.

Thanks.

 

[GrimReaper 3308]

37 minutes ago, kkhan said:

I am using a fast ssd currently as my metadata cache for emby and browsing on emby is fairly speed

SATA or NVME? But regardless, I reckon you wouldn't see notable - or better phrased: worthy improvement investing in speedier NVME. 

Though maybe I shouldn't be the one to comment as I'm running complete cache folder (Win10 server) junctioned off of RAMDisk, as that's how I envisioned it to be the fastest possible (which by no means would mean it's a correct assumption) and/or for that placebo effect of believing it runs as fast as it can. Truthfully - it is somewhat faster than it was when running off NVME SSD but certainly not worth the extra investment if I didn't have extra RAM. Yeah, it's blazing fast, in 5000+ items library I cannot scroll fast enough for items not to populate fast enough or to ever see a blank poster, only if I change mouse-wheel mode to long-scroll, then I need to wait half a second or a second (imagine having to wait so long, God forbid ), and my Home Screen is practically instant, I'd call it half a second tops also, so I'm more curious about:

37 minutes ago, kkhan said:

except for a lag on building the home page

Have you tried to troubleshoot that, trace the underlying issue? 

Edited March 9, 2023 by GrimReaper
Typo

[Happy2Play 8296]

4 hours ago, kkhan said:

except for a lag on building the home page.

Not enough info as it could be restrictions on default settings.

What is the size of your library.db?

What is your database cache size set to? App Settings-Database

 

But overall, yes faster drives do make for faster response times but shall vary.

[kkhan 16]

Thanks.  Happy2Pplay: the size of my library.db is 981MB. Database cache size 96MB.

 

[GrimReaper 3308]

2 minutes ago, kkhan said:

the size of my library.db is 981MB

Have you tried vacuuming the database?

2 minutes ago, kkhan said:

Database cache size 96MB.

That's somewhat smallish for db of that size, you might wanna increase that value (according available resources). Have a read here:

 

[kkhan 16]

Based on previous post in the forum by softworkz, I will increase cache to 256MB as check.  I have 32GB of RAM so it should not be an issue.  Will check speed and if necessary increase to 512MB. 

 

[kkhan 16]

Yes, I have vacuumed the database; the current size is half what it used to be.  Thanks for the input.  Will make these changes and might test with an NVME cache drive if necessary as well.

 

[RanmaCanada 345]

I have mine on a SK Hynix Gold NVME SSD, and I notice no difference from when it was on a regular 2.5" ssd in my old laptop.   An SSD will be better than spinning rust, but there is currently no real world difference in load times due to bottlenecks in programing.  Even if you search youtube for SSD load times on games, you will notice there is pretty much no difference between SSD's, while spinning rust lags far, far behind.  In reality, I think the bottleneck we face is our network speeds to send out that information to our clients.  An SSD is already fast enough, and getting faster theoretical speeds won't matter if your network is only 1gbit (125 MB/s).