bliss should consume less memory
Currently for me, with a library of about 400 albums, bliss consumes around 120MB (Linux). It is similar in Windows. bliss should consume less memory, because larger libraries may struggle to fit in.
AdminDan Gravell
(Founder and programmer, bliss)
shared this idea
This work is now completed. An aim was to support 5000 albums, bliss should now comfortably support that many.
-
I should also have mentioned - this problem is also exacerbated when it takes a long time to perform the work of installing/resizing/looking up the art.
Two principle reasons for this may be:
1) Internet connection slowdown
2) If the music files are mounted over a network (depending on the network speed)We need to cope with both.
-
I've worked at creating reproducible tests for this over the past couple of days. I have found that memory is most compromised when there are directories with large numbers of tracks in them. bliss makes some attempt to parallelise work, but when there are directories with a lot of tracks there can be a BIG build up of work.
This is not the only cause, but it is the most significant I have found so far. I hope to have something to fix at least the above in next week's beta build (and in the release the week after that).
-
ianstephenson1980
commented
This is important for me and my Linux server