Go Back   Sonos Forums > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old Jun 6th, 2010, 06:49 AM
mdickson mdickson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9
Default Expand Music Library Size Limits

I have what Sonos calls a large music library.
(about 100k songs fully tagged). The Sonos library will only index less than half the music. For the price I (we) paid for these systems seems like a rather small limit. Would like to see this limit remove or at least expanded to something much larger.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Jun 6th, 2010, 07:20 AM
BarryM BarryM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 860
Default

You say that you can only index around 50,000 tracks. You should be able to get closer to the maximum capacity of 65,000 tracks.

There are plenty of threads discussing how to get the most out of the existing capacity limitation.

Here is one: http://forums.sonos.com/showthread.php?t=16284
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Jun 6th, 2010, 02:24 PM
aachrisg aachrisg is offline
Digital Expert
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36
Default size limitations - how hard is the sonos software even trying?

In that other thread, there is a discussion of saving memory to increase the # of available tracks when limited by storage of pathnames by using paths that result in shorter directory names.

If true, this makes me wonder a lot about how hard sonos has even tried to increase their limits. If the highly redundant directory and filename information is being stored without doing standard boring things like tokenizing the directory components, storing chars in <8 bits, etc, it implies that they haven't tried too hard to cut down on the memory usage for track data.

One thing I know from years of squeezing as much content as possible into the limited memory and media capacity of pc's and game consoles is that there's almost always a way to fit more in if you try.


love my system, but hate limitations like this,

Chris Green
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Jun 6th, 2010, 05:12 PM
BarryM BarryM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aachrisg View Post
In that other thread, there is a discussion of saving memory to increase the # of available tracks when limited by storage of pathnames by using paths that result in shorter directory names.

If true, this makes me wonder a lot about how hard sonos has even tried to increase their limits. If the highly redundant directory and filename information is being stored without doing standard boring things like tokenizing the directory components, storing chars in <8 bits, etc, it implies that they haven't tried too hard to cut down on the memory usage for track data.
I am confident that minimising file name lengths will increase the effective track capacity of your Sonos. The data in my tracks names is not that redundant, so tokenising may not be too effective with respect to tracks.

I wouldn't assume that Sonos are not all over this. I have been here for less than a year, so I don't know the details, but I think that the limitation has been significantly extended a couple of times without hardware change.

Even if they squeeze it for all it's worth, it will still be true that if you have normally descriptive track names, and then you move to a shorter track name scheme you will fit more in.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Jun 6th, 2010, 05:33 PM
buzz buzz is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: US
Posts: 14,227
Default

Short track names help.

65,000 is the hard limit, but long file and track names can reduce that number because they clog some resources.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Jun 7th, 2010, 01:10 AM
Clive.Thomas Clive.Thomas is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6
Default

Just my 2-cents worth. We are a software foundry and we specialize in databases. 65,000 is a ridiculously small limit, and the indexing service is also terribly slow. If Sonos were to talk to us we could provide them with a solution which would index 10 times that number of tracks in half the time, and would have a total workable capacity of at least 10,000,000 tracks on a halfway decent PC. But what do I know.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Jun 7th, 2010, 02:03 AM
Rhan Rhan is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 461
Default halfway decent PC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive.Thomas View Post
Just my 2-cents worth. We are a software foundry and we specialize in databases. 65,000 is a ridiculously small limit, and the indexing service is also terribly slow. If Sonos were to talk to us we could provide them with a solution which would index 10 times that number of tracks in half the time, and would have a total workable capacity of at least 10,000,000 tracks on a halfway decent PC. But what do I know.
If you even know how to do this without a halfway decent PC, but with the existing ZPs and their limited memory instead, then YES! Sonos should definitely talk to you!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Jun 7th, 2010, 03:54 AM
Majik's Avatar
Majik Majik is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 6,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive.Thomas View Post
But what do I know.
Not much, in this case, because Sonos isn't a PC.

It's an embedded appliance and it doesn't have anything like the processing power or memory of a PC, and it certainly doesn't have the capabilities to run any sort of real database.

Cheers,

Keith
__________________
Sonos customer (6 x ZP100, 1 x ZP120, 1 x ZP90, 4 x PLAY:5, 2 x PLAY:3, 5 x CR100, 1 x CR200, 2 x SUB, 1 x Playbar)
I am not affiliated with or representative of Sonos in any way. All opinions expressed are my own!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Jun 7th, 2010, 05:52 AM
Clive.Thomas Clive.Thomas is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6
Default

Just for what it is worth. The logitech music server (which, by the way, is pretty feeble in many ways and has very flawed software) runs a MySQL database wherever the server (indexing) software runs. With all its complications, this is still a far better option, with virtually no restrictions. Why, exactly, would you want to put the database in a microprocessor device? I for one do not know. To quote Alice to the Queen, from the famous book, "I did it in a much more complicated way."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Jun 7th, 2010, 06:11 AM
Majik's Avatar
Majik Majik is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 6,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive.Thomas View Post
Just for what it is worth. The logitech music server (which, by the way, is pretty feeble in many ways and has very flawed software) runs a MySQL database wherever the server (indexing) software runs. With all its complications, this is still a far better option, with virtually no restrictions. Why, exactly, would you want to put the database in a microprocessor device? I for one do not know. To quote Alice to the Queen, from the famous book, "I did it in a much more complicated way."
Because it's a much slicker experience overall, and doesn't require a server. The Slimdevices system requires a server to be installed and configured, and requires an extra PC hardware to make it work. This is one of the main usability challenges of that system.

It is also noticeably slower in operation because all index access needs to happen across the network to the server whilst it's all onboard with Sonos. I saw a comparative review of Sonos and the Duet about 2 years ago when it first came out. At thet point, despite running on a relatively pokey PC and having a "real" database, the Slimserver software took far longer than Sonos to do an initial index of the music collection.

The reality is, not many people have a legal music collection of that size. At today's rates it's somewhere between $50-100,000 dollars equivalent cost. And despite what some people try to claim there's not really any legally free sources of music that will fill your Sonos up that quick. Even if you record your own music, and you match the output of a typical medium-sized commercial recording studio it would take 40-50 years to fill Sonos.

Of course there are some people who have this much, but Sonos does cater to the vast majority within it's limits, and there's always the option of a WMP server for larger collections (far easier to set up and maintain than Slimserver), or using a music service if there is one in your region. I have something like 6 million tracks on my Sonos!

Cheers,

Keith
__________________
Sonos customer (6 x ZP100, 1 x ZP120, 1 x ZP90, 4 x PLAY:5, 2 x PLAY:3, 5 x CR100, 1 x CR200, 2 x SUB, 1 x Playbar)
I am not affiliated with or representative of Sonos in any way. All opinions expressed are my own!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:56 AM.