Debug log it is then.

Last night I ran the complete database optimization and closed out of MediaMonkey. I started MM again and the File Monitor took about 30 mins. I closed out of MM without running Maintain Library and upon restart the File Monitor ran VERY quickly, about 5 mins. to scan through 50K tracks. I figured that all of the library maintenance may have been causing the problems so I just went about my business and started the iTunes synch (playlist with 27K tracks).

This morning I found that MM ran out of memory 2/3 of the way through. Process monitor shows 1.5GB RAM used and no CPU activity; I'm running Win7 with 8GB RAM. The same thing happens with MM synch to iPod, I just terminate the synch when the memory utilization goes above 1GB. Either way, I closed out of MediaMonkey and did some other work. When I started MM again the File Monitor runs slow again, at least 45 mins to scan my library.

I'm willing to try defragmenting the database, but I don't really know how to do that. Is there anything else I can try or should I just get used to this in MM4? BTW, I'm very happy with multi-threading auto-synch performance (except for the memory leak issue) compared to MM3.x

Start with File > Maintain Library with complete database optimization. Also defragmenting the database file itself can help.

If that fails send a debug log to support: http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=69

I upgraded to MM4 last week and I have noticed that the File Monitor is much slower than previous versions that I have used. I have over 50,000 tracks on a Windows Home Server and the start up scan takes at least an hour. Previously it only took this long if there were a lot of changes; most of the time scans took a matter of minutes. I'm pretty good about maintaining the database (quick and full) and I have minimized the file types to monitor.

Is there anything that I can do to speed this process up? Would moving the database off of the system drive make any difference? I've thought about moving it to another internal drive or the Home Server; I realize that there will be network overhead by putting it on the server.