Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JC]

background:
Currently, I have two computers accessing the same folder of music and orgainizing the information in MC9. After making changes to my music files from one of these computers, I would like a one step solution to synchronize the changes to the other computer.

Now, I have to import from my music directory to catch any new additions. Then I have to update the library from file tags to catch any tag changes that may have occured on the other computer.

feature request #1:
It would be nice to setup "monitored" folders so I can update all files in this folder (adding new files, deleting files from the MC9 library that no longer exist, and updating the tag information) with one command. Automatic would be nice, but even a manually initiated 'monitor' would save me a lot of time (especially if we had a toolbar icon for it).

feature request #2:
Additionally, if following the 'monitor', a dialog displays the summary of imported files, updated records, deleted records, etc ... similar to the two summary windows now, but combined into one window.

This would add a lot to the software in my opinion, and put it further out in the lead. Currently, "supertagging" and "watchfolders" are the two main reasons I use MMJB. This will allow me to use MMJB even less ...

[LonWar]

hmm, That would be a great addition!

[_K_C_]

Agreed on the "watchfolders" idea.  It's something RealJukebox (or RealOne now) does and I found it very useful - basically the library was always up to date.

It's less of an issue for those who rip using MC, I guess, but - so far anyway - I don't.

[sraymond]

MC is currently weak in the multi-PC arena.  I know Mediaserver is supposed to remove the need to have two libraries, but I find the performance for video is unacceptable (I've pointed out a couple of times that the video doesn't "stream" - rather it downloads the entire file before starting to play).

Keeping two libraries in synch is too hard (currently)...  I wish MC would let two instances of MC share a single library in a nice way.  Of course, some people would prefer two synched libraries so that statistics are kept separately.

I would think monitored folders would satisfy everyone that stores their tags in the files.  So count me in as a supported of JC's request!

Scott-

[nila]

Hmm
this isa work around BUT:

U could do this - set your computers up so the music drive is the same on both of them - make them both say drive D - then just replace ur whole library each time.

If u do an update on computer A, just replace the library on Computer B with it, then replace it on A if u do updates on B etc.

If you created a .bat file that did this for u you could have it set up to do it all with just a single click.

It'd keep them TOTALLY syncronised

[JC]

Hmm
this isa work around BUT:

U could do this - set your computers up so the music drive is the same on both of them - make them both say drive D - then just replace ur whole library each time.

If u do an update on computer A, just replace the library on Computer B with it, then replace it on A if u do updates on B etc.

If you created a .bat file that did this for u you could have it set up to do it all with just a single click.

It'd keep them TOTALLY syncronised

This unfortunately looses any playlists I've created ... Additionally, recently played, etc ... reset to zero.

I do have my data on a shared slave drive (my two computers are actually two different bootable master drives in the same computer), and was importing all the files each time, but losing the information about recently played, etc ... really doesn't make this viable.



Unless I misunderstand your post, that is.

[nila]

hmm,
isn't all this information stored in the library??

If it is it would keep both libraries having EXACTLY the same info for these areas.

[JC]

hmm,
isn't all this information stored in the library??

If it is it would keep both libraries having EXACTLY the same info for these areas.

Okay ... I misunderstood you. I thought "replacing the library" meant deleting all the files from the library and reimporting them. I assume you are referring to replacing the library with a backup copy from the other computer.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[nila]

Its ok

Nah - I meant if they share they same music they must be networked so just create a batch file to do this:


Copy  C:\program files\j river\media jukebox\data\[library name]*.* \\Othercomputerprogram files\j river\media jukebox\data\


That should do it nicely wouldn't it?

[jj.oneil]

JC,

Why not move your library to the same disk as your music files then MC in both bootable images will use the same physical library?

JJ.

[JC]

JC,

Why not move your library to the same disk as your music files then MC in both bootable images will use the same physical library?

JJ.

This would work fine ... unless during the beta process of 9.1, I need to run two versions on the drives that have incompatible libraries. Not sure if this may happen, but might cause a slight issue. I suppose as long as I backup the library as I should, I should be okay.

Thanks!

[xen-uno]

> then MC in both bootable images will use the same physical library

The library is not a multi user database which is what it will become if both machines are running MC (if by mistake or otherwise). It still may work OK...or not.

10^-27

[JC]

> then MC in both bootable images will use the same physical library

The library is not a multi user database which is what it will become if both machines are running MC (if by mistake or otherwise). It still may work OK...or not.

10^-27

With my particular setup, this issue can never occur as I can't boot both master drives at the same time. However, if they were actually two computers, I see your point. Perhaps JRiver may implement monitoring to help us out???

[nila]

Or even better, just change it to be Multi User.

That'd be the most powerful solution - especially thinking long term.

We'd have a server with all our files on it with the library on it as well. Everyone can then just open up MC and create and modify files dynamically etc.

It'd be a very good plan for the long term.

[Kambriel]

Maybe be able to see what's on the server library AND your local library? Different icons/colors? You'd have to merge them in memory or something.

[johnp]

I like the single library multi user approach as well.  Should be simple enough to implement.  There would have to be a polling of the library so that changes made by another system would get updated, or perhaps if the library gets changed, there would be a daemon in the library that would notify all the clients that a change was made.  This would probably be more efficient.

JP

[AdamP]

Just wanted to add that some form of library synchronization would be a great feature.

Right now I have my music stored in a briefcase on my notebook that syncs up with my desktop music library.  This does a great job of keeping the various files in sync but there isn't a clean way (that I can think of) to keep playlists in sync.

An alternative would perhaps be to let a media center client edit playlists on the server (which can't be done right now, presumably due to security).

[Soundman]

Watch folders would be useful, but it would not provide a good means of library sychronization, in my opinion.  The reasons are:
1. Fields that are not stored in the library would not be propagated.
2. Playlist information not propagated.
3. It is much slower to scan all those files than to just copy the library over.

Right now, I manyally sync my library from different locations by copying it (usually a backup / restore, actually).  I have to remember which location has the "live" copy and only make changes there.

Within a single location, the networked computers all share the same library file directly.  This works OK when only playing music, but I have to shut down all but one instance if I want to make changes.  This limitation is cumbersome and will hopefully be overcome when they make the library multi-user.

That's my $0.02
Soundman