rainio 0 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Hi there, Is it normal for the MBS to take up half a gig of memory? Would the process use less memory? I'm running it on a 4gig windows 7 box, with utorrent using over 1 gig of ram itself, so memory is scarce. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14924 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 It is hard to say what "normal" is because everyone's environment is different. My production server takes about 200MB when not doing a scan but I don't have a huge library. With a large library, I'd say it wouldn't be completely surprising for the server to consume 500MB in some instances. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjaninja 537 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 im at 800,000KB so yes normal from my perspective... I think responsiveness is a big plus to user experience for a media app, so I welcome a large foot print application thats going as fast as it can....perhaps MB3 would benefit from switches/options to hold less in memory at the expense of performance. My Album artists on web client take 30 seconds to return 500...id give another 1GB to MB if it would enable it to go faster... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigjohn 656 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 My Album artists on web client take 30 seconds to return 500...id give another 1GB to MB if it would enable it to go faster... I was amazed at the difference switching to an SSD for the OS drive made in this regard. With two clients connected and playing movies (no transcoding) I was using 270MB of RAM for the server application. I started a scan and watched the RAM usage, never went over 300MB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainio 0 Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Thanks. I have around 1.5 tb of music and around 2 tb of music and movies as a test run, so perhaps this much media requires a larger footprint. Thank you for your thoughts. Ebr, you mention you have a 'production server'. Is that different from the typical MB server? Edited January 11, 2015 by rainio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14924 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Ebr, you mention you have a 'production server'. Is that different from the typical MB server? No, it just means I run multiple servers at my house for testing and development. My "production" one is the one we actually use for media access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyFr79 228 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 My Server which has 16GB of RAM is using just shy of 400MB of RAM for MB, collection is roughly 1400 Movies, & quite a few T.V. Shows. Around 14TB of data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjaninja 537 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I was amazed at the difference switching to an SSD for the OS drive made in this regard. With two clients connected and playing movies (no transcoding) I was using 270MB of RAM for the server application. I started a scan and watched the RAM usage, never went over 300MB. Thanks..im using last years generation of 256gb ssd...im looking forward to running mb3 on an sm951 with 2100 mb/s read and 16 thread @4.5ghz x99 soon. In this case (slow album artist retrieval) though the performance is limited by the coding of the application, not the hardware. The queue length and cpu never break a sweat as far as perfmon says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigjohn 656 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Thanks..im using last years generation of 256gb ssd...im looking forward to running mb3 on an sm951 with 2100 mb/s read and 16 thread @4.5ghz x99 soon. In this case (slow album artist retrieval) though the performance is limited by the coding of the application, not the hardware. The queue length and cpu never break a sweat as far as perfmon says. Hmm, I'm using a Samsung EVO 840 250GB drive, so not exactly the latest and greatest. I get 500 album artists back in under 10 seconds. Wonder what is different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjaninja 537 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Hmm, I'm using a Samsung EVO 840 250GB drive, so not exactly the latest and greatest. I get 500 album artists back in under 10 seconds. Wonder what is different? interesting, sounds like it is hardware limited thren. My SSD is one generation previous to 840 on Sata II. Good chance performance will improve then when i upgrade..thanks for feedback, Edited January 11, 2015 by ginjaninja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now