Subsonic Forum

Hi!
I have some trouble with the downloadspeed from SS v3.6. I can't download faster than 110 kb pr sec. I dont have any download limit, and from my FTP server I download with over 450 kb.

Any suggestion?

WinXP with SP2
Latest Java

have you tried another port?
I would try to set a limit of say 500Kb and see what happens
I have not had any download/streaming speed issues (unless BT is running on my local network)

I am having the EXACT same problem. I have a server on a 20MB Fiber line. When I download via FTP, I get a solid 1400KB, same if I download a file from web hosted on IIS (same box). When I try to download from subsonic, I get a solid 100KB. I've tried 5 different ports, reinstallation, etc... Cannot get past that.

Server is Windows 2k3 as VM on ESX 3.5. The host is Quad 6-Core Xeons with 128GB RAM, 16 1TB Hard drives in a raid 10. I don't see how it could possibly be related to performance. Everything else is very fast.


The second someone helps me solve this issue, I will donate to the project.!!

Thanks,
Mike

UPDATE: I uninstalled subsonic... Install Tomcat, dropped the war file in the webapp directory, and now i get 200KB... This is so weird.

What speed do you get if downloading on the LAN?

I've had similar issues with Jetty on Windows. I didn't really mind, since I was never doing anything but streaming, but I've always had poor bandwidth performance. Even when hosted on Linux.

This should maybe be in the faq or something if not tested more and resolved: it does not seem possible (at least to me) to get speeds greater than 100-200 KB/s no matter what your actual bandwidth is when using the windows installation which relies on Jetty. One solution seems to be using Tomcat instead.

braddyo wrote:I've had similar issues with Jetty on Windows. I didn't really mind, since I was never doing anything but streaming, but I've always had poor bandwidth performance. Even when hosted on Linux.

I'm running the standalone version on Linux. When downloading on LAN I get a good 1700Kb/s, haven't tried over the internet yet though.
Seems to me that it may just as well be an OS issue as a Jetty vs Tomcat issue.

I have set the download limit to unlimited as by default.

Jigsaw. I thing you are correct.

I have 2 Subsonics running. One is on Windows XP and the other is on Linux in standalone mode.

From the same PC on the LAN i can download from the Windows XP version at 200kbps max and from the Linux version I can get over 1MB.

My connection to both of them is the same and I turned QOS off on my router to be sure that wasn't impacting my results.

It seems this has been encountered before, not surprisingly.
The problem is the default setting for Jettys responseBufferSize on Windows, especially Win 2003 server.

The solution is to change it to 512b for optimized download speeds. Source: Codehaus.org

Hey Jigsaw, that great you were able to find that info.
Has anyone actually tested this? I'm having difficulties actually finding where to make this change. The default jetty xml files do not seem to exist.

Try this approach:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/JETTY/jetty-web.xml

If the file does not exist you can create it and it will be parsed after all other configurations.

I finally got a chance to try this out, but adding either a web-jetty.xml or jetty-web.xml file to the specified location with anything in it at all causes jetty to crash. This is in Win 2008 and 2003, both of which seem to be unable to get above the 120 kb/s or so transfer speed.

It's frustrating because I would gladly run subsonic on debian if I wasn't using other software that required windows, and I'm not to fond of tomcat in windows either.

I feel your pain. This has been a HUGE problem with subsonic for quite some time. I even offered to donate a good bit of of $$ if the problem was fixed, I was ignored.

guitargurus wrote:I feel your pain. This has been a HUGE problem with subsonic for quite some time. I even offered to donate a good bit of of $$ if the problem was fixed, I was ignored.

Actually not I asked a follow-up question (see above) that wasn't answered.

Anyway, I'll try to reproduce the problem on my system.