Print

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

[High-End]

My music files are located on a NAS. The MC DB is centrally located on the NAS, too.
I use a PC for working and a HTPC for playing music via a connected DAC. Both computers have MC installed.
The idea came to me the days: Why is there not the JR media server as a stand alone Synology / QNAP / Linux service, which would then run 24/7?
The clients would then only run the frontend, which accesses the central MC DB.
I would imagine, especially for a low power Linux client this could be a noticeable relief?
Would such a development be conceivable?

[JimH]

My music files are located on a NAS. The MC DB is centrally located on the NAS, too.

The database should be on a local drive.

Any low powered computer will work as a server.  NAS drives are computers but they run non-standard OS's.

Linux is a good choice for a server.

[High-End]

The database should be on a local drive.

It shouldn't, if you don't want to rebuild the local DB on every workstation if you change one file....

[zybex]

"Local" meaning on the same machine as the MC Server, with all other machines being clients. That's how many of us run it. Having the DB on the NAS with multiple MC instances using it is asking for trouble, as PC1 can change the DB without PC2 seeing it, and then PC2 can overwrite the changes. There should only be 1 MC server managing the DB files; all other machines should connect to that MC instance as clients without direct access to the DB files.

You're asking for a QNAP/Synology MC server version (which I think existed as some point), and Jim is pointing out that a QNAP is really just a non-standard linux machine. There is a Linux version of MC and you can have any generic low cost PC running linux and acting as an MC server, with the DB local to it (for performance), backups to the NAS if you wish. Even a Raspberry PI works, or a low-power NUC. Just not a QNAP or similar due to the non-standard Linux OS.

[mwillems]

"Local" meaning on the same machine as the MC Server, with all other machines being clients. That's how many of us run it. Having the DB on the NAS with multiple MC instances using it is asking for trouble, as PC1 can change the DB without PC2 seeing it, and then PC2 can overwrite the changes. There should only be 1 MC server managing the DB files; all other machines should connect to that MC instance as clients without direct access to the DB files.

You're asking for a QNAP/Synology MC server version (which I think existed as some point), and Jim is pointing out that a QNAP is really just a non-standard linux machine. There is a Linux version of MC and you *can* have any generic low cost PC running linux and acting as an MC server, with the DB local to it (for performance), backups to the NAS of you wish. Even a Raspberry PI works, or a low-power NUC. Just not a QNAP or similar due to the non-standard Linux OS.

This exactly.  I agree that having multiple instances directly access a library db without a server in the middle is asking for trouble.

I run MC on a headless Linux server as a pure server and then have clients throughout the house.  I've been doing it for years now and it mostly works great.  It's a little inconvenient that the MC server still requires a graphical environment, but that's easy enough to work around, and it's just as well because there are certain types of library changes that must be made on the server and can't be done through clients (e.g. cover art, renaming or moving files, etc.), so you need a way to interact with the server instance anyway.  I just remote in and do that maintenance every so often.   

I think the InstallJRMC Linux install script even includes a systemd service to autostart JRiver and keep it running on a server, as I recall.

[High-End]

"Local" meaning on the same machine as the MC Server, with all other machines being clients. That's how many of us run it. Having the DB on the NAS with multiple MC instances using it is asking for trouble, as PC1 can change the DB without PC2 seeing it, and then PC2 can overwrite the changes. There should only be 1 MC server managing the DB files; all other machines should connect to that MC instance as clients without direct access to the DB files.

This is not my experience.
The 1st MC which accesses the central DB writes a lockfile. Therefore the 2nd computer which wants to access the DB can only read it. Fine for me.
But I have only one (headless) HTPC which is responsible for the music enjoyment. The 2nd PC, my Workstation fulfils rather administrative tasks.

[Richard Martin]

My music files are located on a NAS. The MC DB is centrally located on the NAS, too.
I use a PC for working and a HTPC for playing music via a connected DAC. Both computers have MC installed.
The idea came to me the days: Why is there not the JR media server as a stand alone Synology / QNAP / Linux service, which would then run 24/7?
The clients would then only run the frontend, which accesses the central MC DB.
I would imagine, especially for a low power Linux client this could be a noticeable relief?
Would such a development be conceivable?

You could run the Docker image on your NAS as the server with your PCs as clients.  See https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,134133.0.html  That works fine for me and many others