Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

by **Peke** » Tue Jan 20, 2026 10:16 am

MiPi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 1:54 pm The speed is slowed down most probably because you have a lot of artworks in external files, and new versions check these external files on rescan. But thanks for the log, I think I have idea how to speed it up (besides option to switch this check completely off), will try soon.

ruebennase56 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 12:06 pm A zip-file with my config-file and logs from rescans with build 3194 and 3203
https://1drv.ms/u/c/bae5db40241ac824/IQ ... k?e=lp7FP9

I use a SSD PCIe 5 as a bootdrive and a raid-drive for data, maybe thats the reason the scan with build 3194 is that fast.

Just wanted to confirm that external Artworks slows down rescan in 3203.

For me on 80k of tracks on NAS it takes average <5min, but I have 95% of tracks with Artwork saved to tags.

Wanted to thank you for persistence and good catch.

NOTE: This rescan check is added when we got number of reports that Album art fall back to default MM image when Art cache is deleted and external links gets not available.

by **MiPi** » Tue Jan 20, 2026 4:01 am

Fixed, in the next version rescans should be significantly faster even for libraries with many linked external artworks.

by **MiPi** » Mon Jan 19, 2026 1:54 pm

The speed is slowed down most probably because you have a lot of artworks in external files, and new versions check these external files on rescan. But thanks for the log, I think I have idea how to speed it up (besides option to switch this check completely off), will try soon.

by **ruebennase56** » Mon Jan 19, 2026 12:06 pm

Peke wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 9:22 am
ruebennase56 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 12:46 am I just timed it with 57.294 flacs:

Build: 3194
Time: 25sec

Build: 3203
Time: 45min
25sec for 3194, that seams impossible, I tested with Windows CMD DIR /S on my folder with aprox 80k and just listing took >1min.
Also can you please start re-scan on 3203 and leave it for 5min and save the log file. It should show us what MMW scanned in files and why even it is not complete.

I Started rescan of My NAS files that I know that are not changed and will see after three iteration an average re scan time.

A zip-file with my config-file and logs from rescans with build 3194 and 3203
https://1drv.ms/u/c/bae5db40241ac824/IQ ... k?e=lp7FP9

I use a SSD PCIe 5 as a bootdrive and a raid-drive for data, maybe thats the reason the scan with build 3194 is that fast.

by **Lowlander** » Mon Jan 19, 2026 11:01 am

Please include if you're doing an update scan or scanning in files for the first time and included scan settings, particularly your scan settings for files already in the Library and if you're analyzing for duplicates and if you scan file directories for Artwork.

by **Peke** » Mon Jan 19, 2026 9:22 am

ruebennase56 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 12:46 am I just timed it with 57.294 flacs:

Build: 3194
Time: 25sec

Build: 3203
Time: 45min

25sec for 3194, that seams impossible, I tested with Windows CMD DIR /S on my folder with aprox 80k and just listing took >1min.
Also can you please start re-scan on 3203 and leave it for 5min and save the log file. It should show us what MMW scanned in files and why even it is not complete.

I Started rescan of My NAS files that I know that are not changed and will see after three iteration an average re scan time.

by **ruebennase56** » Mon Jan 19, 2026 12:46 am

Peke wrote: ↑Sun Jan 18, 2026 4:23 pm
ruebennase56 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 17, 2026 11:58 pm I can confirm this. With around 60.000 files a rescan takes maybe 20min instead of 2-3min.
What MM version takes 2-3min to rescan 60k for you?

I just timed it with 57.294 flacs:

Build: 3194
Time: 25sec

Build: 3203
Time: 45min

by **Peke** » Sun Jan 18, 2026 4:23 pm

ruebennase56 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 17, 2026 11:58 pm I can confirm this. With around 60.000 files a rescan takes maybe 20min instead of 2-3min.

What MM version takes 2-3min to rescan 60k for you?

by **ruebennase56** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 11:58 pm

tmf wrote: ↑Wed Jan 14, 2026 12:31 pm Re-scans of folders with little or nothing changed since the previous scan used to be MUCH faster before the 3200 & 3201 releases. Which is when I first noticed the increased scan times. 3201 is much better than 3200, but still not like prior releases.

A first time scan used to take a while, as expected, but the re-scans were much faster before.

I can confirm this. With around 60.000 files a rescan takes maybe 20min instead of 2-3min.

by **SgtPepperman** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 8:34 am

tmf wrote: ↑Wed Jan 14, 2026 12:31 pm Re-scans of folders with little or nothing changed since the previous scan used to be MUCH faster before the 3200 & 3201 releases. Which is when I first noticed the increased scan times. 3201 is much better than 3200, but still not like prior releases.

A first time scan used to take a while, as expected, but the re-scans were much faster before.

I do agree with tmf. Scan was very quick before the update.

by **tmf** » Wed Jan 14, 2026 12:31 pm

Re-scans of folders with little or nothing changed since the previous scan used to be MUCH faster before the 3200 & 3201 releases. Which is when I first noticed the increased scan times. 3201 is much better than 3200, but still not like prior releases.

A first time scan used to take a while, as expected, but the re-scans were much faster before.

by **Peke** » Wed Jan 14, 2026 6:38 am

SgtPepperman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 9:50 pm Given the size of my collection (+100k tracks), it takes a while, but it reduced to about 45 min to 1 hour (which I personally think is still quite long), so definitely there's an improvement there on 3200.

For 100k I see that very reasonable. As it is dependent on storage speed where the file is and system resources. I dedicated 20 cores to Scan that speed things up a bit.

If you want compare MM speed test then Copy those 100k tracks to different folder on Same HDD and see how much it would take plain copy to work.

by **SgtPepperman** » Mon Jan 12, 2026 9:50 pm

Given the size of my collection (+100k tracks), it takes a while, but it reduced to about 45 min to 1 hour (which I personally think is still quite long), so definitely there's an improvement there on 3200.

by **tmf** » Fri Jan 09, 2026 11:52 pm

Yes, much improved.

Test folder contained 10,788 files and 3200 took 18 min 36 sec to scan. Same folder in 3201 now takes 3 min 28 sec.

The test folder is one I haven't changed anything in for quite sometime and the 18 min scan was a re-scan from a couple days earlier. I did not note the time on that first scan, but it's where I first noticed the scan time taking much longer.

by **rusty** » Fri Jan 09, 2026 4:13 pm

This should be resolved in build 3201. Can you confirm that it works for you?

-Rusty

Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]

Re: Initial scan taking too long [#21916]