Opening files over SMB - 5 x slower than XBMC

[chrisHiggins]

I've searched but can't find a definitive answer to this.

I recently upgraded from XBMC running on an original modded Xbox to Boxee running on an Intel Mac Mini. Generally, I'm loving Boxee. The interface is great, last.fm is great and BBC iPlayer is great. But I have a problem opening videos on my local network.

All my media is stored on SMB shares on my iMac.

The network configuration is the same - wired connection into a Buffalo WHR-G54 running DD-WRT that wirelessly bridges to another where my iMac is connected.

On the original Xbox, opening a video file over the network takes around 10-20 seconds. On the Boxee Mac Mini, it is taking over a minute. Same files, stored in the same place, over the same network.

Internet media opens up and runs faster than the stuff on my own network.

I've tried replacing the references to SMB shares in Boxee with references to filesystem folders that are really links to the same shares but mounted already within the OS. No noticable difference in performance.

I've tried increasing and decreasing the cache in guisettings.xml. No difference.

Please don't tell me to switch to wired networking - it isn't an option, especially when I don't have the problems with an original Xbox using the same wirelessly bridged connection.

Is this a known issue with Boxee?

[marcel]

Did you add the source or are you playing it via the browse option (video>browse)..

[chrisHiggins]

Did you add the source or are you playing it via the browse option (video>browse)..

Hi Marcel, I've tried it both ways. The SMB share is a source and I can access the files via the db or I can browse to the filesystem (when I have mounted the SMB share at an OS level) or browse to the source and view the actual files.

Either way, it still takes an age to load the file - most of the time waiting it is the spinning gear in the centre of the screen and then the progress bar as (I imagine) the file is cached. Once the progress bar hits 100%, the video plays.

[chrisHiggins]

Just a little update..

I installed VLC and have tested opening the video files off the SMB share over the same wireless network and they open almost immediately. They do then stutter though as there is no caching in default VLC behaviour.

Doing the maths, a 54g wireless link should be capable of transferring 6.75MB per second. If you're viewing a 350MB video file that lasts 40 minutes, you need to achieve 6.85MB per second transfer. I'm assuming though that the bit rate is never constant given compression used in the video encode i.e. periods of less on screen activity reduce transfer requirements. And with a 4MB buffer, XBMC was able to achieve quick startup and stutter-free playback.

Based on this perfect world, a 16MB buffer/cache would only take 4 seconds to fill and provide protection against any network hiccups.

Not sure how any of this addresses the problem but it is helping me get my head around it and wonder how XBMC did such an impressive job for all these years. :confused:

[larna7@gmail.com]

Just a little update..

I installed VLC and have tested opening the video files off the SMB share over the same wireless network and they open almost immediately. They do then stutter though as there is no caching in default VLC behaviour.

Doing the maths, a 54g wireless link should be capable of transferring 6.75MB per second. If you're viewing a 350MB video file that lasts 40 minutes, you need to achieve 6.85MB per second transfer. I'm assuming though that the bit rate is never constant given compression used in the video encode i.e. periods of less on screen activity reduce transfer requirements. And with a 4MB buffer, XBMC was able to achieve quick startup and stutter-free playback.

Based on this perfect world, a 16MB buffer/cache would only take 4 seconds to fill and provide protection against any network hiccups.

Not sure how any of this addresses the problem but it is helping me get my head around it and wonder how XBMC did such an impressive job for all these years. :confused:

How did you come up with that math? 350MB file that lasts 40 minutes, that's more like 8.75MB per minute, and that's 0.145 MB per second.
That translates to connection speed of 1.16 MBits / sec. Wireless transfer rates should be more than enough for that kind of video transfer.

larna

[chrisHiggins]

How did you come up with that math? 350MB file that lasts 40 minutes, that's more like 8.75MB per minute, and that's 0.145 MB per second.
That translates to connection speed of 1.16 MBits / sec. Wireless transfer rates should be more than enough for that kind of video transfer.

larna

You're right - my math sucks! I just worked it out again here and got to the same 1.16MBits/sec - all that is required is a steady 1.16MBits/sec in order to startup and view the video file.

So having a 54MBit/sec capable link in place gives us a lot of spare headroom! Why is it then that it still takes a minute to start playing a video file?