On Jan 19, 2008 12:32 PM, Michael Bennett Curtis <email@example.com> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008 9:24 AM, Jorg Schuler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:> Currently, I am using 60MB of art for 120GB of music. Before theWhat is more important than the total amount of data is the size of the individual thumbnail files. Any information on these?
> optimizations mentioned in this thread (only saving art for the first
> and only saving two versions of each image), I was using 2GB of art for
> of music (I never actually filled the iPod up to 120GB using this method,
> but I believe that it would have grown linearly -- I don't think the
> database is compressed, and it should just be a straight concatenation of
> thumbnails based upon the following post:
60MB, and about 1600 albums, so an average of about 40k per album. Since, unless I've made a mistake, each should be stored twice (one small, and one large), each image should be a bit smaller than that. So, 40k is an upper bound.
I would think that overall data is still important, since I would expect there to be a cache in RAM of album art that can fit only so much of the overall db. Then again, it probably only loads items from the db on demand, so caching probably won't buy you much under most circumstances (you don't revisit a track very often).
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger