Isn’t it ironic that you post this meme along with complex instructions to fixing a problem in jellyfin?
Selfhosted
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil.
-
No spam.
-
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
-
Submission headline should match the article title.
-
No trolling.
-
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
-
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
With great power come great .. uuh .. :D
Also the meme is just bait so you read abt the problem and see if you need to solve it for your setup.
complications 😅
Complications, yes!
Excellent bait
I run the DB on the SSD and media on the hdds and haven't had any issues, but I don't have a huge library though. However, things are generally speedy. I thought the higher record sizes were recommended for media, not the DB? but if it worked for you, that's good
64K is generally small recordsize. For media they recommend 1M. My db was sitting on the default 128K recordsize and perforned fine on 10.10. It doesn't matter much for reads because ZFS keeps it in RAM and if it gets evicted it goes into SSD cache (l2arc). But for writes the cache wouldn't help unless I disable sync which risks data loss. I don't think 10.10 did much writes during lib scan so write perf only mattered when something changed.
If you use folders a lot, the library will get faster with v12 https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/15141
OP said this didn’t improve their situation though.
Not sure if this is the problem I was hitting with my Home Videos library type. It's got directories with YouTube videos. I tried re-adding it in 12-rc3, which was released a month after the nightly mentioned in the issue thread. Still couldn't complete. I ended up re-adding the media as Shows library. Works okay with the directory structure I have.
The write performance was recorded without the problematic library (deleted).
How large is the database? Because there is a way to fully load SQLite into memory, which would speed everything up drastically for a scan. At the end of the scan, you could just write back everything to the disk, then it is just one blob of sequential write, which is fast enough on spinning rust.
Interesting, I figured people would use MySQL instead if possible.
600MB. Would that require changes to Jellyfin? They're on the path to introducing Postgres support.
I just checked the code and unfortunately, they do not support loading the SQLite file into memory yet. Even worse, the change would be substantially. It appears they currently abuse the database connection a bit. They basically create a new connection for each operation. This does not matter if you can read/write in parallel, but that’s only the case with NVMe and certain drivers. So all SATA (SSD and HDD) suffer from the current mechanic. So just loading it into memory is not going to solve the issue. Jellyfin needs to change architecturally, so that a database connection is reused. I don’t know why or who implemented the current logic, but it is clearly done by someone not understanding how databases work.
Depending on the mood and time, I will come up with a solution that is solid. For now, you are stuck with the current logic.
Hey not bad for the developer...he vibe coded it right
Just the desktop client. Not the server.
I've had initial scans take hours and scans afterwards usually also take some minutes. Why do you think that is an unreasonable amount of time to check all entries for updated metadata?
unending != 40 minutes.
That would be reasonable. I did repeated rescans and only counted subsequent rescans. For me the initial scan after upgrade took a bit more but not hours. Subsequent scans took less. E.g. 20min -> 13min for write-optimized filesystem. So that's reasonable, although 10.10 was way faster. Library scans are expected to get faster in 13 according to some Github threads I read.
When I had the broken Home Videos library I waited 3 days for the initial scan to complete and it did not. Repeated rescans did not seem to complete although I didn't wait 3 days for them. I'm not taking into account those scan times. Something was wrong with this library type on 10.11 and/or my media. Worked fine on 10.10.
Fair. I have never had a Home Video library, so I don't know how those are scanned or what they are looking for other than embedded metadata. But yes, sounds like that library type has some issues.
I've always kept my apps and databases on solid state media, putting them on spinning rust, even in a well tuned ZFS pool with lots of disks is way too slow for their (admittedly inefficient) database.
Thanks, will take a look a my setup