<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Q1: <br>
<blockquote>
<p>35000 images<br>
550 albums<br>
Size of tables in MariaDB: 75MB<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Q2:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>That sort of goes to my question in the original post about
accessing the photos from multiple machines:<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>I reviewed the 2018 article "Use digiKam with a NAS and
MariaDB"
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.digikam.org/news/2018-10-20_digikam_nas_mariadb/">https://www.digikam.org/news/2018-10-20_digikam_nas_mariadb/</a>).
[NOTE: The link at "Continue reading ..." in the article is
broken, an archive copy is here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20191206193718/https://scribblesandsnaps.com/2018/10/19/use-digikam-with-a-nas-and-mariadb/">https://web.archive.org/web/20191206193718/https://scribblesandsnaps.com/2018/10/19/use-digikam-with-a-nas-and-mariadb/</a>]
The comment regarding splitting the thumbnails from the main
database from vlapla was interesting (more here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.vlado-do.de/pc-tips/digikam/">https://www.vlado-do.de/pc-tips/digikam/</a>), but is this prudent
when using multiple machines to access the photos?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Based on the tables in the MariaDB database, it appears the
database contains information like tags and stars about each
photo. If the database is on the local machine, any changes
made would not be visible when access the photos from another
machine. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>vlapla's commentary suggests moving the thumbnail database to
the local machine. This would be consistent with your results.
I read the bug report
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=297922">https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=297922</a>) referenced in his
post and picked a local folder for the thumbnails. Performance
has picked up significantly, but is still a bit slower than one
might expect. It might be that digiKam needs to finish
populating the thumbnails database. \</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I will send out an update once I gather additional data.</p>
<p>Thank you!</p>
<p>7mgte<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/27/2022 4:42 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:digikam@911networks.com">digikam@911networks.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20221227214231.6da74424@frogguski.911networks.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 16:14:29 -0500
7mgte <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:7mgte@miniblue.net"><7mgte@miniblue.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Are there any known issues or configuration recommendations for
using digiKam on Windows 10, the folder (album) structure on a
(Synology) NAS, and using the same NAS as the database (MariaDB)
server for digiKam?
digiKam is slow to open, and when I switch between albums it can be
nearly 30 seconds before any image data appears, then another 20-40
seconds for the thumbnails to actually appear. A very frustrating
experience! This is true whether I use a Windows 10 machine or
Fedora 36 workstation. It does not appear to be a resource issue
on the NAS based on observations of the resource monitor.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
1. You didn't mention the # of photos and size of the db files.
2. I used to have a very similar experience, but not anymore. I moved
the database, the '.db' fileS to the local drive and it makes a world
of difference.
All my images are still on the NAS, just the 4 .db are on the local
drive. But this means: separate backups and an rsync script...
This was not related to the speed of the network, my network speed is
the the full gigE. I copy files at 105 MB/s, that's megabytes not
megabits.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>