@ROSEHAN
My Rose Internal SSD is filled with exactly the same content as my external SSD connected to my Cambridge CXN-V2 and the difference of media library rescan is HUGE (minutes vs hours).
So the factor here is only due to the way Rose is dealing with DB… which means it must be solved from the scratch and not only improving the scanning speed 
1 Like
I had to reboot my router and the router gave my NAS a new IP-adress. That caused my media db on R150B not to recognize my NAS. I deleted the db and connected my R150B to the new IP-adress.
So I did a new scan on the R150B of my music (275 000 tracks) on my NAS and was prepared to have to wait 96 hours for the scan to end as I did last time.
To my surprise the complete scan this time took “only” 31 hours. So some trimming has been done.
I will later add a couple of new CD:s and do a rescan to see if the rescan will also take 31 hours.
I have about 52,000 tracks, approximately 1.5TB of FLAC music files saved on the Rose’s internal SSD and it used to take more than 3 hours for a full rescan of the Music Library.
After the last update, a full scan takes about 1 hour 40 minutes, so - although scanning time is still rather long - things have improved.
The scanning time and the fact that SMB1 must be activate are two issues for a lot of people. HifiRose, do something about this or you are going to loose a lot of market share!
1 Like
@Marc_62
I do agree with your opinion.
HiFiRose should be very concerned about customer satisfaction regarding these issues…
1 Like
Just to mention. I use Roon, my Files are all on my NAS. Roon and NAS are connected with a 10 GB/s LAN setup. It takes less than 1 minute to do a re-scan of 120000+ music files.
I don’t like the library in the Rose due to missing things, and the speed.
I only have some SACD Files on the internal SSD for testing things. Otherwise I prefer Roon, with the better performance and the extra of information like in a WIKI.
I also have Roon. The difference is that Roon is on my desktop computer with a poweful processor and a lot of memory.
I am beginning to believe that the lack of speed in scanning on my R150B is because it has a much less powerful processor and less memory. Thats why we will never see the same scanning time as Roon in the R150B. Any comment from HiFiRose would be grateful.
The only way to use the R150B with a large media library is to use the app in Folderview.
I agree.
or really just use Roon - and use the Rose as a player only. personally I don’t care about the internal library. my complete music collection would not fit anymore on a SSD - and you are right, its mainly a performance issue, and the lack that just SMBv1 can be used for the NAS connection (I would prefer NSF) - and the limits are given.
Hi Alessandro, I’m not clear on the effect of an internal Storage. Manny seems to say that with the internal SSD storage, he doesn’t need to rescan the DB after ripping a CD, to see and play it. Are you saying the opposite? I tried to rip a CD on a microSD card in the Rose, but I did have to rescan to see it… So is the SSD storage a solution to avoid rescanning? If so, I’d get one instead of playing my music from my NAS. Many thanks
The answer is no - I have to rescan the SSD and it takes over 7 hours which is ridiculous 
SSD internal storage is not the solution. (not if you have a media library that is 12 TB as I have)
The problem in my opinion is, as I said earlier, that my 150B has not enough processor and memory capacity to scan my media library in a reasonable time. That will never change because it is hardware dependent. They still can do some trimming and change SMB versions, but we will never get acceptable scanning times.
I would be happy if ROSE could clarify why the scanning time is so long if it is not hardware dependant.
1 Like
Maybe shoddy programming??
The initial scan takes the necessary time which can vary more or less by various factors both hw and sw. The problem is another one, that is, once the first scan has been performed, the next one should only consider the added or modified files. In practice it should very quickly scan (I would say check only) the ones already present and add only the new ones added. There is one way to do this and that is to index the files. A simple folder suffix example: [001] album title [002] album title etc etc. This way when it starts scanning, the system recognizes what has already been cataloged (so it just checks) and adds the suffix to the file not yet indexed. If this or similar solution is applicable on the Android operating system, it could be a way to solve, at least I think it is.It can also be called “incremental scan” to simplify the concept. And this is what happens in data backup storage.And this is what happens in data backup storage.
1 Like
Yes, I agree. That’s how Naim Core is doing it 
I don’t know who adopts this system but it is what happens in data backup storage. I just based it on that. I remain confident in the hope that a solution will be found, in the meantime I enjoy my rs150b which, musically speaking, sounds very good.
1 Like
I have had my 150B for more than 1.5 years and the scanning time have improved marginally. I complained about the scanning time for 1.5 years ago and nothing much has happend so I would not be so confident that ROSE will fix this.
I agree with Flash that if ROSE had some simple knowledge of database structure they would have fixed a incremental scan a long time ago which would have reduced the rescan to minutes instead of 24 hours which is my rescan time. But I think that the problem is a hardware problem in conjuntion with a bad database structure that don’t allow incremental scan.
Once again I would be happy if ROSE would comment on this. Last time they leaved a comment they told me to be patient. After 1.5 year how patient do I have to be. After all this is a product in the high end market (at least regarding to price)
Yes, it needs a rescan and for me (only a bit over 100000 titles on an internal 8TB SSD) it takes 23h with the current firmware.
Hello, we are aware that many people are inquiring about the scanning speed. We are making efforts in various ways to improve it, but due to the limitations and structure of the system, it is not an easy problem to solve. Thank you for your understanding.
Thank you for your reply.
Sadly it doesn’t please me that I was right about the limitations of the system stopping a satisfactory rescan time. The fact is that you (ROSE) will never come around the limitations of the system because it is hardware and database related. So we are stuck with those bad rescanning times.
The way I am solving this problem is by using Folderview when I select music to play and if I want information of artists and albums I use ROON (luckely i have liftetime membership)
I don’t store music on the Rose at all. I’m happy with Roon - and a Rescan of 125000 Tracks takes only minutes (if not seconds) in my Roon Setup. In addition, Roon offers much more information to the music. I had Roon before my Rose 150 came into my setup - its just my Player - and I’m still happy with it.
I can understand people who bought it for just having a standalone player. But hardware is given - and except some optimizations - Rose customers have to live with it.
This is not a good situation, neither for users nor for the reputation of the Brand - because, people these days just talk or write about what’s not so good.
1 Like