Sonos 'cache' size for music files..

[jgatie]

Originally Posted by ratty

In my opinion boosting the cache size would be tantamount to papering over the cracks. Even with a high bit rate stream such as FLAC/ALAC there's perhaps a 5 second reserve. If the wireless network is unable to deliver ~5MB once every 5 seconds (an average payload bitrate of 830kb + overhead) then there's something fundamentally wrong.

+1. I am in a townhouse, surrounded by at least 7 different WiFi networks. I have never had a dropout attributable to WiFi interference. If your WiFi has enough interference to fill up the (at a minimum) 5 second Sonos buffer, then something is wrong, and it should be solved via working with Support, not Band-Aid style fixes to software.

[sjw]

Originally Posted by ratty

In my opinion boosting the cache size would be tantamount to papering over the cracks. Even with a high bit rate stream such as FLAC/ALAC there's perhaps a 5 second reserve. If the wireless network is unable to deliver ~5MB once every 5 seconds (an average payload bitrate of 830kb + overhead) then there's something fundamentally wrong.

You can term it 'papering over the cracks' if you like - maybe other users living in less perfect situations than yourself could call it added resilience to less than ideal conditions or situations beyond their control - without having to continue to make logs of when it happened or use extra software to scan the airwaves and have to adjust setups because of intermittent neighbouring interference.?

Originally Posted by jgatie

I have never had a dropout attributable to WiFi interference.

How do you know for sure?

Originally Posted by jgatie

If your WiFi has enough interference to fill up the (at a minimum) 5 second Sonos buffer, then something is wrong, and it should be solved via working with Support, not Band-Aid style fixes to software.

I don't class an increase of buffer anything like a Band-Aid fix - just an increase in resilience.
Summary I suppose, I think it would be nice if Sonos could cope with a little bit more temporary short term interference - often beyond the users control - than it currently does. Others, on the other hand, unlike the hundreds+ that come here who do experience occasional issues, never get such issues so don't see it as a problem.

[jgatie]

Originally Posted by sjw

How do you know for sure?

How do I know for sure? Because the very, very few times I have had dropouts, it has been diagnosed as being something else. That's how. Maybe I'm lucky, but my WiFi is sufficient to stream HD video to my Blu-Ray player, so I hardly think streaming FLAC, even to all 5 of my zones, is going to cause a problem.

Originally Posted by sjw

I don't class an increase of buffer anything like a Band-Aid fix - just an increase in resilience.
Summary I suppose, I think it would be nice if Sonos could cope with a little bit more temporary short term interference - often beyond the users control - than it currently does. Others, on the other hand, unlike the hundreds+ that come here who do experience occasional issues, never get such issues so don't see it as a problem.

"Increasing resilience" in computer science is something which has to take into account the Law of Diminishing Returns. I for one do not see a huge outcry of persons suffering from WiFi interference which is not solved by a simple router reconfiguration; be it turning off turbo, changing the channel, etc. Matter of fact, the vast majority of dropout problems reported here are due to IP conflicts, which are easily cured by a simple system reboot. Do a search on the word "modem" to see how many times a reboot is suggested for, and subsequently cures, a problem.

[NoBoB]

Nobody is saying that a bigger buffer shouldn't be implemented, just that for the vast majority of users, it isn't necessary. It isn't a wise use of resources to devote time and energy to fixing a problem that only affects a very small number of users and can often be dealt with in other ways anyway.

Originally Posted by sjw

...other users living in less perfect situations than yourself could call it added resilience to less than ideal conditions

If your wireless environment is so bad that Sonos can't function on the existing buffer after you've implemented the standard wireless mitigation strategies (channel assignments, wideband settings, etc), I question whether wireless streaming is viable there no matter how much you buffer.

Originally Posted by jgatie

I have never had a dropout attributable to WiFi interference.

How do you know for sure?

I won't speak for jgatie, but I know for sure because I've never had one. Ever. Every once in a while an internet-delivered service will stumble, but that's far more likely attributable to the ISP/internet/connection load than wireless interference. The highest bandwidth stream -- and therefore most susceptible to buffer underrun -- is local FLAC, and that works without issue even with 7 different streams.

Of course, things change. Should the 2.4GHz wireless spectrum become even more crowded, this issue might have to be revisited, but for now, interference issues can almost always be mitigated, even if it takes a call to Support to do it.

[sjw]

Originally Posted by jgatie

Maybe I'm lucky, but my WiFi is sufficient to stream HD video to my Blu-Ray player, so I hardly think streaming FLAC, even to all 5 of my zones, is going to cause a problem

Sorry, I wasn't even aware that being lucky enough to have a wifi connection sufficient to stream HD was even relevant to streaming FLAC to 5 zones via Sonos?
nobob, I don't think my wireless environment is so bad at all - it all just started as a general question as to the size of the Sonos cache and whether 'resilience' to other interference not related to Sonos could be simply improved. As you said (and I also did), wireless devices are only going to get more common (despite increase of 5Ghz too) so I do think such issues will only get worse, not better.

[jgatie]

Originally Posted by sjw

Sorry, I wasn't even aware that being lucky enough to have a wifi connection sufficient to stream HD was even relevant to streaming FLAC to 5

Huh? My point was that since my WiFi connection is robust enough to stream HD video (average ~20-30Mbs), then 5 streams of FLAC (very rarely above 1000 kbps) via the more robust Sonosnet are not a problem. I don't know what you were gleaning from my post, but I hope this clears it up.

[frimp]

If you enlarge the buffer, synchronizing the zones in multiroom or party mode would be very difficult. I think that's the main reason for keeping the buffer small.

[ratty]

Originally Posted by frimp

If you enlarge the buffer, synchronizing the zones in multiroom or party mode would be very difficult. I think that's the main reason for keeping the buffer small.

Multi-room sync evidently uses very precise time coordination between players. The exact buffer depth shouldn't affect it so long as the buffers don't actually run dry.

[NoBoB]

Originally Posted by sjw

I don't think my wireless environment is so bad at all

Sorry, poor wording on my part. I was using 'you' in the general sense. I should have written something like "If one's wireless environment...", since you had already mentioned the HD video streaming performance, etc.

[jgatie]

Originally Posted by NoBoB

Sorry, poor wording on my part. I was using 'you' in the general sense. I should have written something like "If one's wireless environment...", since you had already mentioned the HD video streaming performance, etc.

Actually, I mentioned HD streaming. Sjw only remarked that he didn't know how being able to stream HD was relevant to streaming FLAC .