Roon performance terribly slow since v 2 build 1221

Support
42

@benjamin - I am still trying to find enough time for the recommended process. To do so I do have one more question:
I’ve planned to create a new folder on the particular hard drive that hosts my library (and that is placed inside the Nucleus). However, given that less than 50% of the space is free, it’ll be impossible to copy all the artists’ files into the newly created folder…
How can I, alternatively, connect a hard drive that is OUTSIDE the Nucleus, say a hard drive I:\ that is connected to my PC?

Also, please allow me two more questions:

  1. I am wondering, if it makes sense and help the issue to replace the existing library hard drive in the Nucleus with a brand new SSD hard drive. If I’d do something like this, how do I do this without any problems?
  2. I am wondering, if it makes sense and help the issue to use the external meta data provide SongKong as the primary source for all track related “recording location” and “recording start/end date” data. Can you provide insights how I can do this?

Thank you
Michael

43

Hello @Michael_Putz ,

I am not support just a fellow subscriber.

How many folders do you have? Are all your artist folders in a single directory/folder? From one of your previous posts you already have 741 artist folders up to “Ci”. Difficult to say but you may have as many as +/- 8,000 artist folders. Is that about right?

Even if your folder count is only a sizable fraction of this it may be the root of your performance issues. There are reports in other threads of poor roon performance with very large, very flat directory structures. I have had this problem in the past myself and the solution is to subdivide your main directory. I do not know what the practical limits on folder depth are before roon runs into performance issues. Restructuring your library is obviously something you wouldn’t want to do unless absolutely necessary. Perhaps @benjamin can comment on what roon view as the practical limits to folder depth before they expect to see performance issues?

44

Thanks @tripleCrotchet !
I am using a structure as follows:
RoonLibrary/
—ArtistAa/
——Album1/
———Track1
———Track2…
——Album2…
—ArtistAb/…

Round about 4,500-5,000 artists (i.e. folders), and counting…

I do not have understood, however, exactly which kind of alternative structures might be better than this?

Also, @benjamin , whatever your thoughts you have on this, please share :slight_smile:

45

There is nothing wrong with the basic idea of your structure but beyond a certain folder depth roon runs into performance issues. Roon does not have many subscribers with large libraries so this issue has remained hidden for a long time. Other users have exactly the same symptoms as you where they have a very flat folder structure with thousands of folders in a single folder.

I have split my library into about 25 top-level folders that has grown organically over 7 disks each of which is subdivided by genre and larger directories arbitrarily split into five. Others have split their libraries alphabetically into 26+1 top level folders. For example you could sub-divide by genre or you could put all the A’s in a top-level folder, all the B’s etc. Anything more sophisticated is probably no longer a viable option for you.

As I say I don’t know what the practical limits to folder depth are for roon. The last user who had this problem had 16k artist folders in a single folder. It seems that your 5k folders may be a new ceiling but it would be better if @benjamin commented.

46

Thanks — do you know what happens with edits (hearts, picks, added information to tracks, albums etc.) if I would change the structure? Does roon keeps track so to speak?

47

I believe so. But don’t do anything until roon responds.

1 Like
48

@benjamin — wrapping up the past few days and main questions that [still] remain (so you do not need to scroll back/up):

  1. I am still trying to find enough time for the recommended process. To do so I do have one more question: I’ve planned to create a new folder on the particular hard drive that hosts my library (and that is placed inside the Nucleus). However, given that less than 50% of the space is free, it’ll be impossible to copy all the artists’ files into the newly created folder… How can I, alternatively, connect a hard drive that is OUTSIDE the Nucleus, say a hard drive I:\ that is connected to my PC?

  2. I am wondering, if it makes sense and help the issue to replace the existing library hard drive in the Nucleus with a brand new SSD hard drive. If I’d do something like this, how do I do this without any problems?

  3. I am wondering, if it makes sense and help the slow performance issue to use the external meta data provide SongKong as the primary source for all track related “recording location” and “recording start/end date” data. Can you provide insights how I can do this?

  4. Other members in the community gave me the hint, that the folder structure in my library might cause the immensely slow performance of roon. Do you have any insights on this to share?

Thank you
Michael

49

@benjamin , please answer at least Q1 in my post above so that I can move forward . Thank you

50

You can use Windows File Explorer to access the internal SSD on your Nucleus, and copy the files across to your PC.

In Windows File Explorer, access the internal storage of your Nucleus using \\NUCLEUS\Data\Storage\InternalStorage as the address

51

@Geoff_Coupe - thanks. However, the challenge in my case is setting up a fresh library that is connected to the Nucleus but the hard drive should not be the one placed inside the Nucleus. Adding folders to the fresh Nucleus library seems not to be possible from external hard drives connected to my PC…
That is as far as I understood the descriptions of @benjamin — @benjamin , where are you?

52

Why do you think that? I simply use Windows File Explorer to copy files and folders from my PC to my ROCK/NUC…

And @benjamin (along with the rest of the small Support Team) doesn’t work weekends.

53

@Geoff_Coupe it is complicated – maybe my key issue got lost in translation: I do want to use an external drive on my PC as the source for my Nucleus library (i.e. add folders that are on this drive). This hard drive is not the one already implanted in the Nucleus housing (because it is 70% full and I cannot use this to copy the same amount of music (140 % > 100 %). Sorry if I am unclear in my wording.
@benjamin didn’t respond for 15 days now (I do know that the team doesn’t work on weekends - but for me the only possibility to undergo these recommended processes is to to this on weekends). I am desperate for help. Sorry.

54

So it’s still not clear to me what you are trying to do.

I thought that you wanted to copy your music from the current Internal Storage SSD in your Nucleus across to the PC so that you could replace the SSD with a larger one; format it, and then copy the music back from the PC to the new SSD and then add to it further?

55

If all you want to do is to use a shared folder sitting on a drive in your PC as a Watched Folder in Roon, then the procedure is spelt out here:

56

I am trying to do what @benjamin described in his post on Mar 21
For this I am desperately trying to find time and nerves. Also I’ve misunderstood the to dos on the way. Nevertheless, I am trying to follow the steps. “Slowly adding to a fresh nucleus data base” (without touching the old one) would require enough hard drive space. Therefore, I would like to add an external hard drive to the nucleus network.

57

Thanks @Geoff_Coupe - this would be it (if only the help center procedure would be correct - it doesn’t work - at least not for me and my PC with Windows 11 Pro). Oh, dear… how will I ever get this sorted…

58

Well, if you could post screenshots of the Windows Shared Folder screens and the “Add Network Share” screen and the error messages that you are getting we could perhaps help you…

63

Hey @Michael_Putz,

Thanks for your patience while our team continues to investigate your issue. As a next step, we’ll need to get a copy of a recent backup / database for further testing. If you could please :+1:

  1. Zip up your RoonBackups folder (right-click it and select “Compress…”):
  2. Submit the .zip file to us through our Database Issues portal

That would be helpful. Outside of that, I, unfortunately, don’t have any other updates for you. The issue lies somewhere between your local library, its structure, as well as the tags you’ve applied to you library over time.

The only option that still remains is to keep testing your local library, and seeing how many tracks you can add to your Nucleus before performance starts to decrease.

Let me know if you’re able to upload a recent backup, and I’ll be on standby for your reply. :+1:

64

@benjamin - done that succesfully.
image

Also, I’ve successfully started a fresh library database for the Nucleus:

image
image945×373 49.7 KB

I’ve installed and formatted a completely new hard drive inside the Nucleus, run the process as you’ve decribed a few months ago, adding slowly the folders in alphabetical order.
[[ the “old” library hard drive is safe and secure outside the Nucleus - just in case ]]
[[ back-up done for status Sunday, 2nd of July and send to you - see above ]]
[[ connection to my TIDAL disconnected for the time being ]]

First folders added (450 tracks, 83 albums) → to filter and seach tracks (or albums) is running smooth.

Second and third number of folders (2273 tracks) → same, all quite smooth.

Fourth run adding folders (3545 tracks, artists B.B.KING → BOY) → not so smooth anymore: it takes roon to filter tracks about 1 to 1.5 estimated seconds to display (for a brief moment the list of tracks shows: track “unavailable”).

Fifth, sixth and seventh run adding folders (adding up to 8291 tracks on 730 albums in total in the library, artists BRAD → CURTIS HARDING) → about same as after the fourth run of slowly adding folders, but a tick slower (rather 2 seconds than 1.5).

8th run - DAFT PUNK → DIEGO, which are 2967 tracks → about same as after the fourth-seventh run, but yet again another tick slower (a bit more than 2 seconds).
It seemed to me that – folder after added folder – it took a little bit more time filtering tracks by name, year of release or other features.
Always and as of now, for a brief moment (the longer the more folders are added) the list of tracks shows: track “unavailable” in red letters.

9th run, +1002 tracks (DIETER ILG → EAGLES) &
10th run, +2760 tracks (EAVES → EURYTHMICS) → filtering tracks by name, date, genre et al. again takes a bit slower than before (roughly about 2 to 3 seconds).

11th run, +2362 tracks (EVA → GARDA) &
12th run, +1674 (GARY BARTZ → HOOTERS) &
13th run, +2274 (HOOVERPHONIC → JIMI HENDRIX) → as before, now rather >3 seconds than 2.5.

At this stage I’ve had 20,828 tracks and 1,744 albums in my fresh roon/Nucleus library. Something like 40-45% of the total size of the library.

At this point, I was sure that each run leads to the effect, that roon’s performance gets slower and slower, so I’ve decided to add a number of folders that’s a bit larger than the portions before:

14th run, +6316 tracks (JIMI PAGE → MAHAVISHNU ORCHESTRA). Took approx 1 hr to add… → filtering tracks takes something like 3 to 3.5 seconds, maybe a bit more.

15th run, +5864 tracks (MAISHA → NICO) → filtering tracks takes something like 3.5 to 4 seconds.

16th run, +2941 tracks (NIELS FREVERT → PHILLIP BOA) → filtering tracks takes around 4 to 5 seconds. Adding a new filter (e.g. producer), even more.

17th run, +644 tracks (PINK FLOYD) → filtering tracks takes >5 seconds. The more filters, the longer

The pattern seems clear to me:

The more folders I add, the longer it takes roon to display track filters.
My strong feeling is that a certain set of defect files is not the cause of the problem. It’s rather that simply the size of the library causes the issues (?). Also, my meta editing cannot be the reason, obviously, given that we are talking about a totally fresh set of data with no editing, whatsoever.

Weekend comes to an end now for me, and that’s the testing I have time for, for now.

I am sure that after all the rest in of the files will be in the fresh library, the performance will be as slow as I’ve experienced it before setting up the fresh database (i.e. more than 9 to 12 seconds depending on filter characters).

PLEASE HELP - looking forward to any advise…
Michael

65

Hey @Michael_Putz,

Thank you for the upate!

To confirm, which SSD did you install and format?

I’m sorry you’re still experiencing sluggish behavior after the time spent troubleshooting. This issue is certainly a tough one to pin down. I don’t have any next steps for you yet as our team will need to review fresh diagnostics for further investigation.

I will follow up with more information as soon as possible. Thanks!