0Afinando Medios Performance Browser de nuevo

El año pasado he publicado acerca de mejorar el rendimiento de Media Browser.  En el extremo de que el intento arrojaron resultados decepcionantes. sin embargo, Recientemente he estado experimentando con diversas formas de mejorar el rendimiento como el tamaño de mi biblioteca aumenta.

• The sql­ite per­form­ance of Media Browser is now notice­ably bet­ter than when it was first enabled and I was very pleased with the res­ults I got from enabling it with the new 2.2.8 lanzamiento.
• I will be exper­i­ment­ing with the res­ult of mov­ing the sql­ite data­base file onto the RAM Conduzco Ya utilizo para mi WMP data­base y se actualizará de acuerdo con este post

The above changes have yiel­ded some bene­fits, but really I was in search of a bit more. Whilst bench­mark­ing a new USB Memoria USB I checked the size of my media browser image cache and noticed that it had grown sub­stan­tially — to over 600 y, with an aver­age image size of about 600k. Giv­en the typ­ic­al dis­play size of the images in ques­tion this seemed rather a lot and I wondered what else could be done. I remembered see­ing a post about redu­cing the image cache on TheHT­PC, which is one of the blog feeds I keep a half-eye on quite reg­u­larly and decided to dig the art­icle in ques­tion up. I was delighted to see that the author (otro Jon) has tried vari­ous of the things I had already done, and had some excel­lent advice for redu­cing image size.

• Recom­press all the JPEGs (en mi caso a 80%).  Esto ahorró más 350meg
• Res­ize all the movie cov­er images (I fol­lowed the advice to use 600×400).  This saved an addi­tion­al 230meg.

I would like to echo Jon of TheHT­PC in endors­ing Fast­Stone Image View­er for the above oper­a­tions. It was free and easy to use.

• I also decided to lim­it the num­ber of back­drops per movie to a max­im­um of 2. This saved an addi­tion­al (post com­pres­sion) 60meg. I con­sidered redu­cing the max­im­um to just 1, but this would only save an addi­tion­al 14mb — which I decided isn’t worth it for the moment.

In total I have reduced the num­ber of images by approx 250, y el tamaño total de 640mb.

• I also checked to see if any back­drops were lar­ger than 1920×1080 with the inten­tion of res­iz­ing any that were. Sadly (or sens­ibly) none were. But I was able to identi­fy 4 cor­rupt (1kb) back­drop files which I also removed.
• I have also switched off “use inter­net pro­viders” in the Media Browser con­fig (inside media cen­ter, not the start menu con­fig util­ity) altho I don’t expect this to have any effect as I already have com­plete meta-data that I man­age with Medios Cen-ter Maestro

Todavía tengo 189mb de PNG’s and decided to try com­press­ing them fur­ther with PNGOUTWin, which I selec­ted based on a com­par­is­on of vari­ous png com­pres­sion tools.  Des­pite the ori­gin­al com­par­is­on giv­ing PNGOUT rather unfa­vour­able per­form­ance in terms of time to com­plete, I found the win­dows ver­sion, which has been optim­ised for mul­ticore cpu’s, per­formed well, com­plet­ing most images in under 10 segundos, with an aver­age com­pres­sion to 94%. Extra­pol­ated to all my images this would save just 12mb. Sadly PNGOUTWin isn’t free, and I decided sav­ing 12mb just was­n’t worth pay­ing for.

Over­all I have now reduced the aver­age size of a file in my ImageCache folder to just under 220kb — only 37% the ori­gin­al aver­age. Once the entire cache is rebuilt I expect (y la esperanza) this will res­ult in a new cache size of under 250mb, which should offer a very sub­stan­tial speed boost.

Qué piensas? envíanos un comentario más abajo! Si desea suscribirse por favor utilice el enlace de suscripción en el menú en la parte superior derecha. También puede compartir esto con tus amigos mediante el uso de los enlaces sociales inferiores. Aclamaciones.