INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?  (Read 6287 times)

rudyrednose

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • nothing more to say...

Greetings,

My main MC server for the house runs 24/7 and is also a workstation.  I generally do my library maintenance directly on it.

For several reasons, I would like to do extensive maintenance on a separate subset of the media files (a copy of those files), and I would like to run a different library, while the main library pursue its duties (among them OTA TV recordings).

The simpler solution of running a local library on a different machine is, for several reasons, not as convenient to me.

From what I know, I have two choices:
- allow multiple instances of MC21, each with its own library (one of them is also MC server), the second instance running a custom library.
- run MC20 with local library, while MC21 client+server keeps running as usual.

I have ample RAM on the machine (32GB), so no worries there.

So, which would be the better way ?  Why ?

Thank you,
'nose
Logged

Arindelle

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2772
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2016, 08:51:52 am »

well short answer don't mix version 20 with 21. They may or may not work. There may be changes you made in version 21 ath you forgot to port over, running mediaserver for 2 different versions will definately cause issues on clients ... am not even sure you can run two at once one the server PC regardless of running multiple instances of the main program. Last but not least ... they tell you not to  :D You can only "serve" one library at a time from the same machine

Don't want to steer you the wrong way, so before giving out any of my opinions, I think its necessary to indicate what you want to achieve. after you finish with the "subset" of files.

If it is to have a clone of your library, do lots of retagging and things to eventually sync it back together thats one thing. If you just want to use your actual library to record new TV shows while letting your family use your existing config, and adding that to your "new" library later, thats another.

Its how you plan to work and/or resync that is important to decide on first. Not knowing what you want to achieve at the end, and even though you say you have "several reasons", it might not be the best thing to use multiple instances of JRiver running at once. I do this very occasionally, but I'm always loading the same library.

could you tell us more?
Logged

rudyrednose

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2016, 10:12:18 am »

Thank you Arindelle,  I will be more specific.

Current config, computer is running MC21, and is the house MC server, also used as a MC21 client.  Single instance. Let's call it MC21-SC1 (for Server+Client instance 1).

Keeping MC21-SC1 running as is, I want to add a standalone MC, be it MC21 or MC20, and let's call this one MC2x-SA2 (for Stand Alone 2, MC2x for MC21 or MC20).  This additional standalone (NOT a server) will be used for extensive renames and retags on a copy of a subset of my audio files, using a custom local library

Afterwards, tags will be written back to the media files or sidecars, I will throw out the custom library, and import back the modified media files into MC21-SC1's normal library.

Because of the high risk of errors (extensive use of Rename, Move and Copy Files, temporary tags, Covers currently in wrong folders), I do not want to work live on the main library...

So the question is really : if I am going to run two intances of MC on the same machine, one of them being a MC21 Server+Client, the new instance being a pure local library MC, am I better off using 20 or 21 for the second instance ?

Cheers !
Logged

ferday

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1732
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2016, 10:18:44 am »

offically, JRiver supports running two instances of the same version.  many people have different versions running but probably best to keep within the supported framework

i agree with Arindelle i think you're over confusing the issue, but do what you will of course, that is the secret power of MC
Logged

imeric

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2016, 10:57:42 am »

This is a fairly similar request to what I posted here for TV:

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=102844.msg713820#msg713820

I've done limited testing last night on running two instances of MC21:  
1. One instance to record TV shows with ATSC capture cards. (Therefore needs to be setup as a server even though I wouldn't use library sharing from that PC)
2. One instance as a client to reach my main HTPC to watch a show on my Satellite box (w/Colossus)

My limited test did work however I had two servers running which might lead to conflicts or issues? (2 servers run because settings are shared bwn the 2 instances of course...)

I see a couple of options:

Option A: If we could install 2 separate entities of MC21 with their own separate configs (a little like having MC20 and MC21 co-exist which work perfectly with their own configs.  Never ran into issues with this but I agree with Arindelle that if you start sharing/exchanging libraries bwn the 2 you're looking for trouble..I'm not doing that...)

Option B (as per my other post): Have an OPTIONAL prompt on startup to either start as a server (Local Library) or as a client (Server connection to my HTPC rig).
Added suggestion to my other post based on my limited tests:
If the Client is chosen with Option B this would also trigger MC to ONLY start w/o the Server Service.

Option A might be more simple for the user but might be harder to implement...
Option B would be great to keep just one server running and load different libraries. Easier to implement? But there's a prompt required...
Logged

blgentry

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 8014
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2016, 10:59:22 am »

Some thoughts:

I think it would be smartest to do this "extensive work" on another computer.  Why?  To eliminate the possibility of confusion.  It's entirely possible that the two copies of media on the same machine might get mixed up.  Human error is a bit of a factor here.  If you did it on a separate machine, you'd have that extra level of isolation that would make the potential for human error less.  It would just be confined to when you did the merge of the edited media to the "live" library.

A question:  Why do you have a server and a client on the same machine?  Does the client talk to a server on another machine?  Otherwise, I don't know why you'd use a client against a local server.

Brian.
Logged

imeric

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2016, 11:12:17 am »

And I also agree with Brian...Personally I would do all this on a different machine.
Here's what I do when changing many things in my library.

I have mirror copies of all my music/videos on a couple of different PCs and external hard drives...Been burned in the past, it's not happening again!

The only thing I have to make sure of is when you connect to another pc with your media files, the drive letter should be the same.  (you can have MC find and replace but for simplicity it's easier to have the same letter for media files all across the different PCs)

Then you make a backup of your library from your main rig and restore it to your test PC with the external hard drive.  Once your happy with your changes you can restore back on your main rig...

But that brings something else I'd like to see in the backup restore portion of MC for this to work 100%:

Ability to separate: TV, Video, Images and Music + Settings in the Backup/Restore library section!!
Logged

rudyrednose

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2016, 11:23:46 am »

A question:  Why do you have a server and a client on the same machine?  Does the client talk to a server on another machine?  Otherwise, I don't know why you'd use a client against a local server.

Brian.

The MC21 house server nicknamed MC21-SC1 is a actually a workstation (very nice, with a 4K 40" monitor and good speakers), so I also use the MC21 client portion of the same instance, on the same shared library.  I run a single MC21 library that all house devices connect to.

I know that MC21 can run multiple instances.  What I have not found out is if the first instance can be a MC server also.  The second instance would be local only, media server would not be enabled (if possible at all).  THAT is why I ask if I would be better off using a different version for the second instance...

And I know that it would be trivial to do it all on a separate computer.  But this one is the nicest and most (geographically) convenient for me to use, hence the question ;-)

Quote
imeric : I have mirror copies of all my music/videos
Feasable for music, but not for multi terabytes video libraries...  Just cannot afford it ;-)

I think a lot of confusion comes from me being unable to name correctly my usage.  A standalone machine is a MC21 local, period.  How do you call a machine running MC21 locally, that also serve its library to other machines in the house (the media server part of it) ?

And I want to do it on the MC21-SC1 server, simply because it is the nicest machine of them all to do massive edition (really not practical on a HTPC, and way too slow on a laptop)...
Logged

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 72438
  • Where did I put my teeth?
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2016, 11:33:24 am »

I may not be following exactly what you're doing, but you can run MC as a server and still use it for playback on the server.  There is no need to keep the functions separate.
Logged

rudyrednose

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2016, 11:39:40 am »

I may not be following exactly what you're doing, but you can run MC as a server and still use it for playback on the server.  There is no need to keep the functions separate.
Jim, I just edited the post preceding yours to clarify...  Check the next to last paragraph.
Logged

imeric

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2016, 12:07:02 pm »

My main (HTPC) machine (in your case your work station) which I also use the most, runs MC both as a server and its own client within the same instance of MC.
ie, when I use it to watch tv or listen to music others throughout the house can access it and watch something else.
If you're afraid to screw things up when working on the library just do a backup first, make your changes and if things are screwed up just restore it.

You can also undo a change (or ctrl-z). This saves me a few times :)...

Ideally you would also have backup copies of your files somewhere else just in case your filenames were changed accidentally...

However it might be a little risky if you're doing major changes on your library while someone else is connected as a client...
Does that make sense?
Logged

rudyrednose

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2016, 02:04:21 pm »

Thank you all.  I fully appreciate the efforts and time all of you take to write follow-ups to my question.

But I need to clarify :
- Library to me is the JRiver database, otherwise I would say media files.
- I do not want to work directly on the main library (even through scope limited views).
- I do want the main library to be active all the time, so OTA-TV recordings and users are serviced as usual.
- I do backups of the main library almost daily.
- I have full backups of my photos and audio files.
- While the original blu-rays are available, I do not have pockets deep enough for a backup of my ripped movies (protected by Snapraid's RAID6 though).
- I will work on copies of the audio files, leaving the originals available to all users in the meanwhile.
- For me, the nicest machine to work on for that job is the aforementioned workstation/server.
- Whenever instance 2 (MC2x-SA2) is running, the original instance 1 (MC21-SC1) will only run media server, not the client part.
- I am not a newbie.  I have been using JRiver since MC9.
- At worse, if all else fails, I could launch another MC21 in a Hyper-V virtual machine, but thought the problem is interesting.

Some of you, well meaning, present me alternate ways that I am already aware of. 

I really want to run a second instance, personally I have never done so, but ask if it is feasable to do so when the first is also serving media to other computers, and ask for potential pitfalls / previous experience. 

It may be that I am the first to try this, and if I pursue that way will certainly follow up with what I found.

So, by all means, please keep the advices rolling, but within the bounds of my question  ;)
Logged

rudyrednose

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2016, 06:33:25 pm »

Just tested it.  Works brilliantly.

Two instances of MC21. 
Launched 1rst instance.

Launched 2nd instance.
Created a new library on second instance.
Import the work directories.
Work on my tagging and renaming.

All while on first instance I watch an OTA TV program in a detached window.
Client machines connect correctly to the usual server.

It took way less time to just do it then I took describing my intents today.

MC never ceases to amaze me  ;D
Thank you all.
Logged

imeric

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2016, 11:17:34 pm »

That's good to hear thanks for testing!!

Sorry for laying out the basics...You obviously know what you're doing :):) That's what's great about MC, you can tweak it the way YOU want.
Logged

Arindelle

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2772
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2016, 03:47:03 am »

Glad you are getting what you want.

Now, what I was interested in knowing is what you wanted to accomplish after you are finished. I'm assuming now that you want to completely retag/restructure your audio files. Then, eventually you want to combine your changes in the main library. Right?

If this is the case, you could:

- do what you are doing now working with copies of the orginal files. Creating a new library. Making sure all fields are being written to the file. When finished replace the original files with your new ones, and reimport.

- you could load the newly duplicate library created library (cloned) repointing this library's database  to your copies. When finished you could write back the tags to the original files

- you could also work directly from the original files, and choosing to either check all fields to not write to the files themselves (eg. the "new" library could be set to not write any tags to the files or vice versa ... in other words, only one library would be writing to the files. Eventually you could then write to the library from the file tags, or write the tags in the library to the files when finished.

The latter option could be interesting if you want to try and sync the other media type's metadata, with the newly changed Audio tags.  But I can see it could be a pain, and you'd have to be careful. The second, with a little planning, would have the benefit of keeping playback stats and other information that cna't be written to the files or modified.

The first option, which it looks like you are doing, is the simplest I guess, but your stats and calculated field data maybe would be lost. like date imported etc.  This info might not be important to you.  As it sounds like you really know JRiver, you probably are comfortable witht expressions and custom fields. Just wanted to point out that with an expression using the new Literal(...) function http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=86834.msg713807#msg713807 some of this information could be retained (sort of combining scenarios 1 and 2) by setting up a few custom fields, so this information could be written to the file. This would have to be done before you make copies of the files to work from (#1), or by loading a cloned library (#2). As this is really brand new (version39 I think?), just wanted to point this out

Of course this has nothing to do with your actual question about running multiple instances ... I didn't even think that the actual reason was so that you could watch a movie, while you are tagging  ;D I couldn't do that personally, I'm not focused enough  I thought you wanted to work on your views, and not changing them for general use until you were satisfied :P
Logged

rudyrednose

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2016, 09:01:19 am »

Thank you Arindelle, those are great suggestions.

My original intent is to totally clean up my audio files, which are not properly tagged and for most I do not even have covers.
I do not care too much for dates imported, apart from photos and videos (I like to peruse them from last imported).

To do so, I copy a bunch of audio files to the work location and import the bunch into instance 2.  After cleaning each album, I RMC it to a "cleaned" location and delete it from the 2nd instance library.  Rinse and repeat.

So far, I have started with a few files that were not yet part of the main library.

At the end, my intent is to delete all audio files from the instance 1 library, then import the updated ones back from the cleaned location.  The files and folders will have all the needed tags and covers.  Yes, I will lose the stats and calculated fields, but do not care too much about them. 

There is one playlist I do care about that I may have to be creative to edit in the new names/locations.  I may take the simple road of assigning a custom "track#" to the files member of the playlist before copying to the work location, make certain that the chosen field is really written into the files and then rebuild the playlist on the updated library.

But I will certainly explore in more details what you wrote about.  There are very interesting ideas.  Thank you !

Cheers,
Rudy
Logged

Arindelle

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2772
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2016, 10:01:20 am »

sure no problem Rudy

Happy Listening!
Logged

Vocalpoint

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2016, 11:13:56 am »

My original intent is to totally clean up my audio files, which are not properly tagged and for most I do not even have covers.I do not care too much for dates imported, apart from photos and videos (I like to peruse them from last imported).

This is how I tackle this. Here we have the HTPC running as an MC Server - which serves out to 3 client PCs and the HTPC itself - which is racked mounted in our media room. The HTPC has it's own library and points to our master audio/video shares on the home server for the house.

But over in my office - my own personal workstation has a standalone copy of MC 21 - with it's own unique library - but that library points to the same media share on the server as the HTPC does. No subsets or special groups of files. I see everything that the HTPC can see - in it's entirety.

This allows me to perform all my master updates to the master data store and then have the HTPC scanning the server media directories in real time picking up all my changes. This way - I can have unique playlists and other things in my library on my workstation - but have the "master data" for the rest of the house completely up to date with all the correct tags, album art, IMDB stuff etc etc.

Then when anyone logs into a MC client or wants to watch a movie in the media room - the media is right up to date.

This has way more flexibility that running as an authenticated "client" since I can use the entire MC toolset to do my thing.

Cheers!

VP
Logged

rudyrednose

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2016, 12:13:52 pm »

Nice, but with the extent of changes I want to do, i really do not want to work on the "live" shared data.
There would be potential for major goofs !
Logged

Vocalpoint

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2016, 12:55:41 pm »

Nice, but with the extent of changes I want to do, i really do not want to work on the "live" shared data. There would be potential for major goofs !

Just so I understand then - is the junk you need to fix already part of the "live" shared data?

If so - you might think about using a view to just carve out this stuff and get it into shape.

VP
Logged

rudyrednose

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Same machine, which is better : dual instance of MC21 or MC21 + MC20 ?
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2016, 03:13:50 pm »

Just so I understand then - is the junk you need to fix already part of the "live" shared data?

If so - you might think about using a view to just carve out this stuff and get it into shape.

VP

Yes, the junk is already in the live data.  The audio started not too bad, but through the years, a lot of additions were done "as is", without TLC,  leading to a big blob...

And I already mentioned not wanting a limited scope view.  The view might be limited, but the possible scope of a RMC will not be.  I really want to work on a separate dataset, and different drives.

I think the solution I arrived to is really the most convenient for the big job ahead of me, in my environment  8)

Cheers.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up