Print

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

[maxxsid]

Maybe this was discussed before but "file" and "server" are too common to search for an answer..
I put together a file server which is basically a PC with a big harddrive connected to my home network - I wanna store all my media files on it and use it with MC11.
Which way would be the best:
- run a copy of MC on the fileserver and use its media server to serve the files to my desktop PC, or
- just create a library on the desktop with all the files located on the fileserver?
- any other ideas?

TIA

max

[skeeterfood]

If you want to be able to modify anything in the MC database (tags, smartlists, ...) from your desktop, running MC on the file server is probably not the way to go.  You can use remote desktop, or something like it, to get to the MC running on the file server and make changes, but why?  As I see it, the only reason to run MC's sever is to either feed multiple PC's/UPnP devices the same library.

-John

[Tor]

My input on the issue knowing that it does not answer your question:

I also puzzled around this issue, and in my configuration i had some annoying moments with respect of the interrupt to my living room and child rooom whenever the file server needed to be switched off in the evening or re-booted (used my home office PC sited in our bedroom as server at the time).

Looking at this in addition to the ever growing size of my library and backup issues created a challenge, and after some searching I ended up with a separate solution for network storage.

Have a look here:
http://www.linksys.com/hdd/

I have had this up an running for about three months now with no problems so far. The only bad thing to say about this product would be that it runs a propriataire file system.

-Tor-

[maxxsid]

Well,, basically that's what I have.. I have a "network attached storage" which I built myself. Currently it's 800Gb raid 5 and cost me about $300 (not counting old parts..) I only bought a RAID card and a 300Gb HD in addition to the 2x250Gb I already had.
After John's remarks I think it would be better not running a copy of MC there but just use the server as an external storage - I just need to figure out how to set the user permissions right...

My input on the issue knowing that it does not answer your question:

I also puzzled around this issue, and in my configuration i had some annoying moments with respect of the interrupt to my living room and child rooom whenever the file server needed to be switched off in the evening or re-booted (used my home office PC sited in our bedroom as server at the time).

Looking at this in addition to the ever growing size of my library and backup issues created a challenge, and after some searching I ended up with a separate solution for network storage.

Have a look here:
http://www.linksys.com/hdd/

I have had this up an running for about three months now with no problems so far. The only bad thing to say about this product would be that it runs a propriataire file system.

-Tor-

[hit_ny]

My input on the issue knowing that it does not answer your question:

Have a look here:
http://www.linksys.com/hdd/

I have had this up an running for about three months now with no problems so far. The only bad thing to say about this product would be that it runs a propriataire file system.

-Tor-

This looks like an easy setup. Are there any wireless links on ur network, cos im wondering what the response time is like.

USB HD -> Linksys Network storage -> wireless router ->  PC1, PC2....PCn

My solution to this dilemma is to keep a server running 24/7 without a monitor and remote desktop to it.  Remote desktop makes it faster, as MC is not really setup for remote upgrades etc. I have not looked at the UPnP solutions that MC has now, how well do they work ?

All the backups etc are done on the server and its wired to a hub.

[Tor]

This looks like an easy setup. Are there any wireless links on ur network, cos im wondering what the response time is like.

USB HD -> Linksys Network storage -> wireless router ->  PC1, PC2....PCn

I see it as well as an easy setup and each Linksys connects 2 USB drives. I do not use wireless, but have wired everything connected to 10/100/1000 switches. The response time i guess is good as I haven't seen any glitches during seeking or playback, and the only thing negative from my point of view, is as mentioned that the drives are formatted in a propriataire file system. This of course makes a time consuming task filling the drives from my PC over the network rather than being able to connect the drives directly to the PC using the USB/FireWire interface.
One of the more positive features are the user profiles and priveliges that can be setup so that it coordinates with the windows logon/password making it easy to assign permissions and read/write capabilities to the various drives.

-Tor-

[glynor]

I have all of my media files located on a headless Linux box with a RAID5 volume that is set up as a SAMBA share.  MC (obviously) doesn't run on the file server at all, but just serves the files which I then mount as a Network Drive on the machines that I run MC on.  The beauty of using a Linux box is stability, powerful user and permission management, low-power hardware requirements, and remote manageability (SSH to a POSIX shell can accomplish a lot before you need to resort to VNC). A few caveats:

1) Don't store the Library (MC's database files) on the Network Drive.  There are serious performance problems with this (at least last I checked there were).

2) If you don't need to be able to edit tags from more than one of your MC boxes, then take a look at the MC Library Server capability, otherwise, you may want a system like this.

[Shady Bimmer]

I follow a similar scheme as others.

Simple linux box (I'm using Fedora Core 3 for the moment, but any linux distro will do) using the native raidtools/md software raid.  I now have 3.5 TB on two RAID5 arrays shared via  Samba to my Win* boxen.

I'm using Active Directory for centralized user management but local users will work just fine.

My HTPC maps the media drives using an ID that does not have write permissions to those shares - this prevents any possibility for party folks to damage my library.

My other PCs map the drives as an ID that can write to those shares.  My library management is done entirely from one of these.

MC runs local on each when needed.  I'm careful to only run a single instance while editing.

My MC DB is also on a network share, but I haven't seen any significant issues that others have seen.  I do, however, have gigabit network connections throughout so perhaps this helps minimize those problems.

[maxxsid]

Glynor / Shady Bimmer
Thanks for sharing your system configurations..
A question to Linuxoids - is there a real advantage of Linux over Win XP Pro? I mean, XP would serve as good as Linux, right?
Thanks!

max

I have all of my media files located on a headless Linux box with a RAID5 volume that is set up as a SAMBA share.  MC (obviously) doesn't run on the file server at all, but just serves the files which I then mount as a Network Drive on the machines that I run MC on.  The beauty of using a Linux box is stability, powerful user and permission management, low-power hardware requirements, and remote manageability (SSH to a POSIX shell can accomplish a lot before you need to resort to VNC). A few caveats:

1) Don't store the Library (MC's database files) on the Network Drive.  There are serious performance problems with this (at least last I checked there were).

2) If you don't need to be able to edit tags from more than one of your MC boxes, then take a look at the MC Library Server capability, otherwise, you may want a system like this.

[glynor]

For me, the advantages of Linux over XP Pro are numerous.  Of course, I am somewhat experienced at using the Bash Shell (the Linux command line interpreter).

My Linux machine doesn't have a monitor, mouse, or keyboard attached and lives in a closet.  Realistically trying to do this with a Windows box would be almost impossible.  I also use Fedora Core 3 which was very easy to set up, and when I do need to actually log into the Linux box to do something (which is rare enough anyway) it is usually fast and simple to login using SSH from any computer I want.  Also, the scripting capabilities of the BASH shell make the windows command line look (and smell) like dog poo.  Plus, since Fedora Linux is free, buying a book to read to learn how to use it effectively is a small side cost!

Plus, my Linux box does other things for me as well.  It serves as a DNS for my little local network for example.

[Shady Bimmer]

I have a very mixed environment for several reasons.

I've been working with *nix-based systems since 1986 so it is completely natural for me.  Having the source has benefits for me - for instance I had two drives with unreadable sectors in two different locations.  I was able to manually recreate the missing data to recover the array while the same scenario using proprietary "hardware"-based raid would have resulted in a complete loss of the array.

*nix is more suited for services such as storage serving.  There's absolutely no need for a whole GUI front-end and it is far simpler (for me at least) to "minimize" the configuration and maximize security.

Many distributions provide tools to help folks new to Linux properly administer their systems and provide a not-so-steep ramp for learning.

[Mastiff]

My Linux machine doesn't have a monitor, mouse, or keyboard attached and lives in a closet.  Realistically trying to do this with a Windows box would be almost impossible.

Really? My carputer runs XP, has no mouse, keyboard or monitor and lives in a metal suitcase behind the back seat... 

[hit_ny]

Having the source has benefits for me - for instance I had two drives with unreadable sectors in two different locations.  I was able to manually recreate the missing data to recover the array while the same scenario using proprietary "hardware"-based raid would have resulted in a complete loss of the array.

How exactly do you read from an unreadable sector ? 

Increase read attempts (hey u got the source right) like a secure ripper might do and hope it comes through eventually.

[glynor]

Realistically trying to do this with a Windows box would be almost impossible.

(Boldface added for emphasis.)

And we all know that Mastiff regularly does the impossible with his Windows Systems (so I wouldn't necessarily judge that to be realistic).   

[Mastiff]

 

[runemail]

So we can agree that a windows or linux server does not need a monitor, mouse, or keyboard attached and can live in a closet.

Like my windows server in our big bedroom closet (doesn't even need a gfxcard).

The advantage of linux is that its a lot easyer on the hardware (less $$).
The advantage of Windows in this case is that it can run a MC server, and any other windows app.

Any fileserver will work just fine for serving files over the network.

I see no point in running raid5 on a home server, but I hear that a lot of people believe this gives them some  sort of added security against data-loss. 

raid5 does not eliminate the need for a real oldschool backup(but hey its not my data).

I run local copies of MC with their own librarys, but I map network drives to same driveletter on all my computers. I have a copy of Mc om my server so that I can stream to remote locations, but i always bring my iPod, so i never use it. But maybe in the future when I can stream to my mobile phone... or if someone comes up with a good cheap w-lan media receiver for my bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, etc.

[salsbst1]

I believe the best solution is to convince JRiver to implement a Library Server mode that serves the library, but not the media.  That way, clients would see the UNC path to your media files and access them directly from the file server, but still share the same libary (served up by the MC server).

I'm putting a Gbit crossover cable between my my file serves and my HTPC server (which runs MC and SageTV servers), at which point my concerns about network traffic will be minimal.

I do give points to Glynor's solution though ( http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=26442.msg184015#msg184015 ).  I may look into doing something along those lines to enable editing of the library from multiple machines.

1) Don't store the Library (MC's database files) on the Network Drive.  There are serious performance problems with this (at least last I checked there were).

Since J River fixed a bug (about a year ago) that was causing my screensaver never to kick in, I've never seen any problems (performance-related or otherwise) associated with running my library from a UNC path on a separate file server.  Maybe my library isn't big enough to exhibit them?

[Shady Bimmer]

How exactly do you read from an unreadable sector ? 

You don't.

I used the manufacturer's drive utlity to mark the physical sector bad and logically relocate.  Then back under linux I used the data in the other five columns to recreate the data on that new logical sector. 

Most raid implementations (including all raid-on-pci-card solutions) fail an entire column when one block read or write fails.  The problem is when a second column fails before the first is reconstructed.  In another thread I mentioned how this ultimately failed when two drives both failed their thermal calibrations (among other issues).  In this earlier case I manually recreated the data on the missing block in one column, then allowed the md driver to rebuild the other on its own.

The manual rebuilding of individual blocks is difficult if not impossible with "hardware"-based raid-on-pci-card solutions.

[Shady Bimmer]

I see no point in running raid5 on a home server, but I hear that a lot of people believe this gives them some  sort of added security against data-loss. 

raid5 does not eliminate the need for a real oldschool backup(but hey its not my data).

You don't use RAID to eliminate backups.

You use RAID for many other reasons:  Increase reliability; Increase performance; Combine physical storage to larger logical units.

In my case, I have over nearly 1TB of music cataloged in MC.  I have another 500GB waiting to be cataloged.  I have another 1TB of DVDs.

For my 3.5 TB in total storage space I currently have, I could simply assign a single Win* drive letter for each of the 12 drives (or otherwise create 12 shares accessed over the network solely by URIs).  This would be completely absurd.

I could simply create concatenations to create a larger logical volume, but any single failure would result in a complete loss of the entire volume.  If you use IDE drives and don't expect failures you are in for an awakening (FYI:  Network Appliance has storage solutions based on IDE drives and documents a failure rate more than 10X of SCSI drives).  Western Digital, IBM/HGS, and Maxtor have all had products that have experienced over 25% failure rates.

Using raid5 protects against single drive failures which WILL happen.  If you think re-ripping 1TB of music upon failure is acceptable then by all means forgo raid.  If you have an alternate "backup" solution that is more cost and time effective then by all means forgo raid.  My CDs are my backups but it is in my best interest to do what I can to minimize their need - the goal is to actually enjoy my library and not spend the rest of my life maintaining it. . .

If you only have one or two drives then you are much less likely to experience a problem, but if you have a half dozen  then you're six times as likely to experience a failure.  If you have a dozen you've got more than an order of magnitude greater chance for failure.

[glynor]

You don't use RAID to eliminate backups.

Here here!

Correct.  Not to eliminate backups, but to reduce the likelyhood that you will need them (among other things).  I have already had my RAID5 save me in a single-drive failure situation.  Now, of course, that wouldn't help in a multitude of other situations, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

* glynor runs to check the integrity of his off-site system...

[Mastiff]

I back up to my car system. Which is why I've got that in the first place. And then I also get some fun out of the backups. Ideal! 

[glynor]

Now that's an off-site backup!  (Except when the car's in the garage though...)

[Shady Bimmer]

I back up to my car system. Which is why I've got that in the first place. And then I also get some fun out of the backups. Ideal! 

. . .thinking of having mobile 3.5 TB media library. . . 

There's almost no reason to go home!

[hit_ny]

. . .thinking of having mobile 3.5 TB media library. . . 
/i]

Ahh.. but first you got to get perpendicular

[Mastiff]

I would of course be very annoyed if somebody got a bigger car library then mine... 

[glynor]

* glynor does his best extremely old guy impression...

I remember when all the media you could shake a stick at would fit on a simple 3.5 terabyte volume and you could carry it around in your car.  Now you young whippersnappers have all these perpendicular zettabyte and yottabyte arrays, and you don't even have cars...

Those were the days, my friends, those were the days.

[Bill Kearney]

I believe the best solution is to convince JRiver to implement a Library Server mode that serves the library, but not the media.  That way, clients would see the UNC path to your media files and access them directly from the file server, but still share the same libary (served up by the MC server).

Here, here!  I'll second that suggestion. 

I keep MC11 on one machine and ALL tracks on a different fileserver.  Most client machines that see the tracks don't have write access to it.  This helps avoid naive mistakes with ID3 tags or deletion of tracks accidentally.

If anything, switch to using MSDE for database handling and allow upgrading to using SQL server.  Take the multi-user issues out of MC's hands and let the MS code do the heavy lifting.