I am about to upgrade my media PC to include an AMD Quad core processor. Is E-jukebox able to identify and utelise more than 1 core at a time?

Never mind. Windows seems to manage to thread the cores together. no probs.

Righto, sorry to bring this up again, but although Windows seems to manage the quad cores ok, E-Jukebox only seems to be able to fully utelise one core.

anyone know why?

Audiosoft???

Sorry, should have said that I notice this when I am adding a lot of songs at a time.

Try this...move the scrollwheel back and forth real quick over shelf3d and see if it goes over 1 core of cpu usage. I believe windows will split the cpu load over the 4 cores evenly unless you set the affinity in task manager. I don't think eJukebox will ever need to consume all of your cpu power at the same time because the cpus still need to ultimately wait for responses from the hard drive.

Cheers Audiosoft, but I don't have the shelf 3D in my EJ lite version now ( :-(

What it is, I was moving music from an old hard drive onto my new set up (around 3000 songs) and while it was adding them to the EJ Database, it kind of hung for a bit, then added them quite slowly. When I checked out the CPU usage, it showed one core maxed out and the others pretty much sitting idle. When I looked at the processes it showed EJ using 24-25% (equates to 1 core) of the total available.

thanks for the report i will look into this more. btw are you on 64bit windows?

RE: but I don't have the shelf 3D in my EJ lite version now ( :-(
Why not? You can still use shelf3d with Lite (just not the shelf3d options and fullscreen) if you have 5 beta.

nah, just 32 bit. I used a trial of the 64 bit and I couldn;t get all the drivers i needed, so I binned it! I might try it again at some point in the future though

As for the shelf 3d, I didn't realise it was only the full screen that was unavailable, I have just left it on the carousel. I will give that a go when I get home.

Pirk and Well_Jaggy please give beta 16 a try and let me know if it gets rid of the delays for you when adding songs.
http://www.audiosoft.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=2277

Audiosoft,

Wow!! Excellent work!
I've just added 4 new albums with covers to eJukebox using your beta 16: It added them in about 1 minute only! All is quite FAST now..

I don't know what you have changed or fixed? but it works good for me with my very large collection and only 1Gb RAM on Vista.

Thanks a lot.

no worries. Actually got all my songs loaded now, but I will remove a few albums and give it a go again.

Also, Shelf 3d is available in place of the carousel as you said! Cheers!

I am going to do a big test on this tonight. I will download the trial version and install onto my new Vista partition and add my 28k+ songs. I will let you know how long it takes.

Looking ok so far. 15 minutes in, and its added 5000 songs.

Still maxing out only one core of the processor though.

after an hour, its slowed down and has only reached a total of 7,700. Its kind of hanging on every song now and seems to be taking around 15 seconds for each song.

ok. now 6hours 25mins in, its only at a total of 9500. this means that after the first 5000 its only added 4500 in the last 6 hours.

Well_Jaggy was that with 5 beta 17 or 4.90?
Make sure to use the 5 beta 16 or later ejukebox.exe for the speed improvement.

Its Beta 17.

I checked the progress when I got up this morning, and at 7:20 am (UK time) 14 and a half hours later it had added 19911 songs. Hopefully it will have finished by the time I get home from work. which will be about 5:30 tonight.

just in from work and checked this. looks like the application has totally hung as it hasn't moved on from 19911 and is not responding. I have now gone to the add new music section and started adding the rest of the songs now. PC still runnig ok, just EJ that stopped.

The last of the songs finished updating around 40 mins ago, so that was 9000 songs in around 3 hours.

Don't know why it slowed down then stopped before though.

hmm what about antivirus software? If you have antivirus make sure it is not scanning the eJukebox database and slowing drive access during setup.

Already switched off Windows defender and AVG before I started it. no other AV running.

In order to test the eJukebox import files speed, I just tried to build a new database from another eJukebox install (v5 beta 17).

Verdict: 0.09 second / song. Which means a average of only one second for each album, cover included!!

I think it's a respectable performance! In particular because this import speed never slow down during the hour taken to scan all my files.

Nice work Audiosoft!

Thats fantastic Pirk!

how many songs did you import? I just wonder if its because I was trying to do so many at a time.

Well_Jaggy, The import took 65 min! Take your calculator please..
Otherwise during the import eJukebox was running almost alone. I think only IE was open at the same time, displaying a few web pages.. I've not turned off my antivirus (AVG). Vista 32bits, "Small" Dual Core, 1Gb RAM

just to make sure I worked that out right, 65 mins*60 (seconds) = 3900 seconds

.09 seconds per song

so
total time taken devided by time per song -

3900*.09 = 43,333 songs?

Thats a lot!

You are right, that's too much in fact.. but eJukebox digests good! It's just a shame that my PC becomes VERY slow (90% freezed) because of eJukebox each time I close the program: Endless database compacting................. It's the ultimate eJukebox annoyance!

Audiosoft, maybe could you speed up the "famous" database compacting too? Is it really necessary to do that??

Pirk,
Give beta 18 a try it is under Latest Updates.
See the end of the beta 18 updates log for new ejukebox.ini options to disable shutdown compacting.

Audiosoft,

Great! That's a radical option, but 100% efficient!! I think I will let this option always checked.. Unless it exists any drawback I'm not aware of:

-What is the concrete effect on the database of the compacting process at each shutdown?
-Maybe it is necessary to compact the database at least once after adding new songs??
-Is it possible that eJukebox becomes less efficient on the long run, or even damage my mp3s(!?) if I never or rarely compact the database?

Thanks a lot.

-Is it possible that eJukebox becomes less efficient on the long run, or even damage my mp3s(!?) if I never or rarely compact the database?

Hi Pirk, it will not damage any mp3s but it could become less efficient. Compacting makes the database file smaller and defragments it. This improves read and write performance after adding songs. You can try disabling compacting and see what happens after awhile. The database should still work good and will be a bigger file. Just in case the ejuke.bac file now gets created at the very end of every shutdown. If database gets corrupted it will try to repair and compact it automatically on startup. Only if that fails will it ask if you want to restore the backup.

[Shutdown]
NoCompact=1

It should be fine and not become corrupted with this option as I believe most database corruption reports where do to killing ejukebox in taskmanger during the compact operation. No compaction will take place with that above option. The only thing you should watch for is the file size of the ejuke.asn and ejuke.bac files. There is a 2GB limit. After adding allot of songs it is probably a good idea to let it compact on shutdown once so that it defragments the new data in the database.

Hi Audiosoft,

OK thanks, you reassure me. I'll disable compacting on a day-to-day basis, and I will only compact occasionally. In particular each time I just added a lot of new albums..

I think eJukebox should continue to work good because sometimes I use the Vista power saving mode daily during a week or two: In this case eJukebox and other programs are never closed and they continue to work good! Well some time..

Thanks again for this option. That will be very useful in case of a (too) large collection!

Yeah, I have added the "No Compact" too. Although it didn't take too long on my spanky new machine!