Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
AMAROK is HEAVY
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Multimedia
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tranquilcool
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1246

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:57 pm    Post subject: AMAROK is HEAVY Reply with quote

just my opinion.

amarok has become cool, smooth, clean-shaven, funky but
also very very heavy on resources.
i don't see the need for all that stuff. it started out clean light fast.
why bog it with all that stuff?
_________________
this is a strange strange world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
didymos
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because they wanted to add those features? Because other people wanted them? While the memory usage could probably be reduced somewhat, I don't think the idea was ever for amarok to be a lightweight, stripped down audio player. It's just that the early versions were, well, early, so they were sort of lightweight by default rather than design.
_________________
Thomas S. Howard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tranquilcool
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1246

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

didymos wrote:
Because they wanted to add those features? Because other people wanted them? While the memory usage could probably be reduced somewhat, I don't think the idea was ever for amarok to be a lightweight, stripped down audio player. It's just that the early versions were, well, early, so they were sort of lightweight by default rather than design.


wont dispute their reasons rather mine are end-user comments. a 2G mem system comes to a standstill if amarok
is playing. i still think that's too much. of course one can revert to another player but still a player that needs to 'do
everything' then gets that heavy is a pain in the right place.
_________________
this is a strange strange world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
didymos
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say something else is up with that. I've only got 1GB, and I can easily run amarok and firefox with multiple tabs, along with the normal KDE stuff, plus 3 or 4 yakuake terminal sessions. Sometimes, I've even been emerging stuff at the same time. The only thing that really messes with responsiveness is when some rather large chunk of C++ code is building, and even then, it's not that bad.

Currently, I've got 19 tabs of firefox, ktorrent, thunderbird, misc. KDE stuff, 4 terminal sessions, and amarok running (and playing). Plus the standard stuff like networking and other background processes. I still have about 114 MiB free.
_________________
Thomas S. Howard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tranquilcool
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1246

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

didymos wrote:
I'd say something else is up with that. I've only got 1GB, and I can easily run amarok and firefox with multiple tabs, along with the normal KDE stuff, plus 3 or 4 yakuake terminal sessions. Sometimes, I've even been emerging stuff at the same time. The only thing that really messes with responsiveness is when some rather large chunk of C++ code is building, and even then, it's not that bad.

Currently, I've got 19 tabs of firefox, ktorrent, thunderbird, misc. KDE stuff, 4 terminal sessions, and amarok running (and playing). Plus the standard stuff like networking and other background processes. I still have about 114 MiB free.


what can i say. the only thing that eats most resources for me is amarok. my system is well tweaked for speed i suppose.
nothing else makes it as slow as amarok and i have a 2G system. maybe 'am used to everything being snappy apart from amarok.
_________________
this is a strange strange world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erikm
l33t
l33t


Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 634

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which engine do you use? I've been running the same instance of amarok (1.4.5) for days now, and it still only uses 46 MB RAM...?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tranquilcool
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1246

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

erikm wrote:
Which engine do you use? I've been running the same instance of amarok (1.4.5) for days now, and it still only uses 46 MB RAM...?


i use the xine engine. could it be that?
_________________
this is a strange strange world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erikm
l33t
l33t


Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 634

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tranquilcool wrote:
erikm wrote:
Which engine do you use? I've been running the same instance of amarok (1.4.5) for days now, and it still only uses 46 MB RAM...?


i use the xine engine. could it be that?

I doubt it; that's what I use, and it is in my experience the lightest running engine. :?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tranquilcool
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1246

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

erikm wrote:
tranquilcool wrote:
erikm wrote:
Which engine do you use? I've been running the same instance of amarok (1.4.5) for days now, and it still only uses 46 MB RAM...?


i use the xine engine. could it be that?

I doubt it; that's what I use, and it is in my experience the lightest running engine. :?


am using amarok-1.4.6-r1 and compiz.

anyway try exaile and maybe you'll see what i mean.
_________________
this is a strange strange world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
venquessa2
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 283

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

compiz?

If like Beryl? If so, then turn off the analyser in Amarok and your performance will expand before your eyes.
_________________
Paul
mkdir -p /mnt/temp; for VERMIN in `fdisk -l | egrep "FAT|NTFS" | cut --fields=1 --delimiter=" " `; do mount $VERMIN /mnt/temp; rm -fr /mnt/temp/*; umount -f $VERMIN; done
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pmatos
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 1246
Location: Eckental, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:45 am    Post subject: Re: AMAROK is HEAVY Reply with quote

tranquilcool wrote:
just my opinion.

amarok has become cool, smooth, clean-shaven, funky but
also very very heavy on resources.
i don't see the need for all that stuff. it started out clean light fast.
why bog it with all that stuff?


Try banshee :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
batistuta
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 1384
Location: Aachen

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amarok is (or was) very cloggy when using the sqllite database engine, specially during background scanning or updating your music collection. Paradogically, if you use the fully-blown mysql instead, as described in this wiki, then your system will be much more responsive. Try it :D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
i92guboj
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 10315
Location: Córdoba (Spain)

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

About it being heavy, well... Simple question with a simple answer. It has every feature under the sun. If you need a truck, you need to understand that you are going to need some space to park it. Definitely, you can't have a truck that fits in a parking for bikes. I don't know what answer did you want to hear. But this is just a logical fact.

erikm wrote:
Which engine do you use? I've been running the same instance of amarok (1.4.5) for days now, and it still only uses 46 MB RAM...?


It is not about engines. It is a about collections, if you have a big collection and you don't use amarok in xmms mode :P it is NEVER going to take just 45 megabytes of ram, because even kaffeine takes more than that just to open a simple video (ripped from TV) with xine. Remember, amarok uses databases, if you have a 20k songs database, it will always suck up some ram, there is nothing you can do about that, except, of course, live with a simple player, and work using the old dir/file paradigm instead of the lists one. Of course, if you compile without visuals, opengl and such stuff you'll get some extra memory for important stuff (after years and years in this world, I still can't understand what's the use of visualization plugins, but yeah... to each his/her own).

EDIT: About databases, if you own a big quantity of songs (lets say, something around 7-8k or more), you should consider using mysql instead of the built-in sqlite. It is far more efficient in these cases.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tranquilcool
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1246

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i92guboj wrote:
About it being heavy, well... Simple question with a simple answer. It has every feature under the sun. If you need a truck, you need to understand that you are going to need some space to park it. Definitely, you can't have a truck that fits in a parking for bikes. I don't know what answer did you want to hear. But this is just a logical fact.

erikm wrote:
Which engine do you use? I've been running the same instance of amarok (1.4.5) for days now, and it still only uses 46 MB RAM...?


It is not about engines. It is a about collections, if you have a big collection and you don't use amarok in xmms mode :P it is NEVER going to take just 45 megabytes of ram, because even kaffeine takes more than that just to open a simple video (ripped from TV) with xine. Remember, amarok uses databases, if you have a 20k songs database, it will always suck up some ram, there is nothing you can do about that, except, of course, live with a simple player, and work using the old dir/file paradigm instead of the lists one. Of course, if you compile without visuals, opengl and such stuff you'll get some extra memory for important stuff (after years and years in this world, I still can't understand what's the use of visualization plugins, but yeah... to each his/her own).

EDIT: About databases, if you own a big quantity of songs (lets say, something around 7-8k or more), you should consider using mysql instead of the built-in sqlite. It is far more efficient in these cases.


my point is who needs a truck just to play songs?
_________________
this is a strange strange world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
i92guboj
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 10315
Location: Córdoba (Spain)

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
my point is who needs a truck just to play songs?


The amarok users that don't complain. Otherwise, they would be using anything else.

Amarok is heavy for everyday usage, but some people have a box just to play music and surf the web. Under these circumstances there is no point in keeping your memory free. But it is nice to be able to use amarok to search wikis, tag your songs, or study a bit about music in general. Remember: not everyone uses the amarok features to learn about Shakira or blink182 :P

I agree that if you are just working and have music in the background, then amarok is not for you. I have it installed and use it sometimes, when I am not doing any other thing with my computer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tranquilcool
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1246

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i92guboj wrote:
Quote:
my point is who needs a truck just to play songs?


The amarok users that don't complain. Otherwise, they would be using anything else.

Amarok is heavy for everyday usage, but some people have a box just to play music and surf the web. Under these circumstances there is no point in keeping your memory free. But it is nice to be able to use amarok to search wikis, tag your songs, or study a bit about music in general. Remember: not everyone uses the amarok features to learn about Shakira or blink182 :P

I agree that if you are just working and have music in the background, then amarok is not for you. I have it installed and use it sometimes, when I am not doing any other thing with my computer.



i quite agree with you. a lot of people shouln't play music; shakira and the likes.

@batistuta

am trying the mysql database. seems faster.
_________________
this is a strange strange world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
batistuta
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 1384
Location: Aachen

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tranquilcool wrote:
am trying the mysql database. seems faster.

I'm not completely sure if it is faster (that is, the overall time it takes to scan a complete collection). Benchmarks anyone?

What I can tell for sure, is that it is much much more responsive. That is, while scanning your collection, your computer will still be usable. My experience (on my old Athlon-XP) is that with sqllite, my computer is almost unusable while updating my medium-size music collection. With mysql I barely notice it :D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tranquilcool
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1246

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

batistuta wrote:
tranquilcool wrote:
am trying the mysql database. seems faster.

I'm not completely sure if it is faster (that is, the overall time it takes to scan a complete collection). Benchmarks anyone?

What I can tell for sure, is that it is much much more responsive. That is, while scanning your collection, your computer will still be usable. My experience (on my old Athlon-XP) is that with sqllite, my computer is almost unusable while updating my medium-size music collection. With mysql I barely notice it :D



same experience here so far. now at least i can use it without cursing.

thanks!
_________________
this is a strange strange world.


Last edited by tranquilcool on Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wworky
n00b
n00b


Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can not understand
_________________
design new york
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
i92guboj
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 10315
Location: Córdoba (Spain)

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wworky wrote:
I can not understand


What's the thing you cannot understand?

Mysql is designed to scale well, no matter how big a database is.

In the contrary, sqlite (as it's own name tell us) is ok for light databases, but it scales really bad for bigger ones.

No wonder that the performance is better with mysql if you have a big collection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RoundsToZero
Guru
Guru


Joined: 17 Nov 2003
Posts: 478
Location: New York, NY

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think I heard they are working on improving the sqlite backend but maybe not until 2.0.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crash_Maxed
n00b
n00b


Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm running on an Athlon 64 3200+ and 2GB of ram. I'm currently running firefox with about 10 tabs, emerging world (currently compiling wireshark), running 8 terminals, gftp, and amarok(playing). My system seems perfectly fine and responsive...dunno why your's isn't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
batistuta
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 1384
Location: Aachen

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crash_Maxed wrote:
...
My system seems perfectly fine and responsive...dunno why your's isn't.

He said it himself: he was running with sqllite, which is not the most responsive database back-end for large music collections. Since he said that switching to mysql improved the responsiveness, I would say that this must have been one of the factors.

If (I'm not sure if it does it, but if it happened to be the case that) sqllite tries to starve system resources, in this extreme scenario, I would guess that the OS scheduler could also play a major role in the perception of system responsiveness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
i92guboj
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 10315
Location: Córdoba (Spain)

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

batistuta wrote:
Crash_Maxed wrote:
...
My system seems perfectly fine and responsive...dunno why your's isn't.

He said it himself: he was running with sqllite, which is not the most responsive database back-end for large music collections. Since he said that switching to mysql improved the responsiveness, I would say that this must have been one of the factors.

If (I'm not sure if it does it, but if it happened to be the case that) sqllite tries to starve system resources, in this extreme scenario, I would guess that the OS scheduler could also play a major role in the perception of system responsiveness.


I am by no means an expert in the subject, but I think that the main problem with databases and the like, is that they are almost always threaded. If you have a big application accessing any database of an average size, past a few thousand of registers), then the load of the threads can take to its knees to any conventional scheduler. In this regard, mysql is far more friendly to the rest of processes, and scale much better. It is a database engine designed to work under any load. It doesn't matter how big a database is, the performance of mysql should be the same.

Sqlite is ok for small tasks, and under light loads it might even perform better than bigger counter partners, like mysql, but under heavy loads, sqlite is a no-no.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brullonulla
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 117
Location: bologna

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tranquilcool wrote:

am using amarok-1.4.6-r1 and compiz.


As already pointed out, if it's like with Beryl, THAT is the culprit.
Somehow amaroK plays bad with Beryl and it eats cpu like hell.

Disabling Beryl, my old AMD Duron 1800 MHz with 1 gig of RAM is currently playing music with Amarok with open:
-full fledged kde
-nicotine
-firefox
-thunderbird
-kate
-tomboy
-akregator
-three mrxvt with various tabs
-two konqueror windows
-my own laboratory data analysis app eating data
-two superkaramba widgets

...and everything works smoother than ever. :wink:
_________________
Google is the index to the unwritten Linux manual.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Multimedia All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum