| 1 |
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 13:27:45 Alex Schuster wrote: |
| 2 |
> > On Monday 01 March 2010 18:08:05 Alex Schuster wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > On the other hand, from time to time I have show-stoppers, and then I |
| 4 |
> > > cannot use kmail, or no KDE4 at all. And have to invest time to solve |
| 5 |
> > > this. And there are these annoying things. Like Amarok being very |
| 6 |
> > > unstable, and taking 5 minutes to start. What the heck is it doing in |
| 7 |
> > > this time? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Fuck knows what amarok-2x does for the first 5 minutes. I think On my |
| 12 |
> > system it scans the music directory, presumably to find updates that |
| 13 |
> > happened when amarok was not running. Fair enough, can't argue that, |
| 14 |
> > but why is it so *slow*??? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Yes, it scans the collection, I just verified that by removing a folder |
| 17 |
> from my collection. Start-up takes 7 minutes, I guess this also slows down |
| 18 |
> my KDE4 start-up even further (strigi also scans some stuff for about a |
| 19 |
> minute, along this music files I did not touch in any way). So when I save |
| 20 |
> my KDE session I have to remember to quit amarok before that. Of course, I |
| 21 |
> also have to remember to start amarok some time after I logged in, so I |
| 22 |
> can play music when I want without having to wait 7 minutes first. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> This does not feel right... |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> BTW, a find /data/mp3 -type d takes about a minute. Checking the date of |
| 27 |
> the directories to verify they did not alter since the last scan should |
| 28 |
> not take that much longer. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Ah, I see the problem. It mainly scans /data/mp3/incoming, a directory I |
| 31 |
> have NOT selected as collection folder (but most other directories in |
| 32 |
> /data/mp3 are selected). Still, those files do not show up in my |
| 33 |
> collection, which is fine - some time ago amarok did index all in |
| 34 |
> /data/mp3, even if a directory was not selected. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I wonder if amarok would not be better off using the strigi/nepomuk indexing |
| 37 |
function, instead of trying to be real clever and doing it itself. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
OTOH, that might just resurrect the mother of all threads we had recently - |
| 40 |
the one about the pros and cons of nepomuk and semantic-desktop :-) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives