Hello,

I know this conversation speckles many forums on the web, but I thought I'd get an opinion from the source.

I have a laptop, which has my music files on another Partition (NTFS partition I use with Vista).  I am running Ubuntu 8.10 x64, I have a 2GHz C2D, 4GB ram, 250GB HD.

My music collection is 7-10K songs (can't remember off the top of my head).

If I go the MYSQL route, will I notice a drag on my system?  Basically, I want Amarok to be snappy when I navigate through my music, I really dislike non-responsiveness.  But it having a MYSQL server running all the time will cause my entire system to drag, I'm not sure it it's worth it. 

Basically, most feedback I've seen is the Amarok works best with MYSQL installed.  Is this true on a standalone setup, that does not have a remote location?

Thanks!

To be honest, I've not really noticed much slowdown with sqlite in recent Amarok 1.4 versions. I've generally used mysql as I've had it there for other things, but the effect is negligible. My collection hovers between 12-15k tracks across several nfs shares.
I think most of the impact you'll notice will be from reading off an ntfs partition.

So you think, b/c I'm reading off of an NTFS partition, MYSQL will be faster?

No, I think she meant to say that the bottleneck in your configuration might be NTFS, rather than the database. That may be true or not - I hear that the latest NTFS3G driver is pretty fast.

At any rate, as  rule of thumb we recommend using MySQL instead of SQLite if your collection size exceeds something like 20k tracks. So you should be just fine with SQLite.

snap yes, I did mean the bottleneck could be ntfs, although I haven't used it recently.