Print

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

[flac.rules]

I tried out the media network in MC 17 again, and it really has come a far way and works well, but it's still missing that very important thing (at least as far as I can see), beeing able to see all the libraries on the library server from the client, without changing the library on the server itself. I think this is a must for us using several libraries. Having a computer for every library isn't very practical

[Matt]

Our recommended approach is to use a single library.

You can use views to separate content when needed.

[justsomeguy]

Different views does seem the best way. I have noticed however that there is an option to allow multiple instances to run at one time under options>general>advanced. I have have never used it that way but maybe you could run multiple instances of MC on the one computer, each with a different library. In Media Network you'd have to set a different port number for each instance to work on a network.

No idea if this would work but maybe...

[flac.rules]

Our recommended approach is to use a single library.

You can use views to separate content when needed.

How would I use views to maintain to separate "libraries" for me and my wife?

[MrHaugen]

If you use the same media, this would be a problem. If you don't.... It can be done fine with some creative tagging. I do understand the problem, and I have the exact same one. I have 3 friends in my building who would love to use MC to play things and have their own play counters etc. This is not possible without much problems today. I have the library, so I get to have the tags. End of discussion. It's a shame non the less. I've had many tenants over the years, and with access to my rather huge library, and playback statistics, nice views, couch interface etc. I think I would have convinced many of them to purchase MC. Instead we've concluded that they have to stay away from my media and MC. Because you will not get any advantages, and the cost is not worth it when they have to play the movies from the shared folders in explorer anyway.

I think that adding several libraries would over complicate things. I'm convinced that the best solution would be to allow several users to have their own statistics as Number Plays, last played, number skipped and so on. this would allow ALL but the most anal people on the planet, to have one single library and share it with whoever.

In the beginning this system could be as simple as allowing us to add and delete User names on a user management page. Each new user added will add new user specific fields like the mentioned Play counters. Each field could be named "User1 Number Plays", "User1 Last Played" and so on. Each user is linked to a user number. Library fields is automatically added on the server (is server client setup) or on a single client. The library fields and data is synced between client and server in such a setup. This would require us to allow user switching. I would start by having this open at first. Without passwords. Have a "Change user" option under the File menu, and an option like "Change User" under Gadgets in Theater View.

After this was in place, we could start talking about how to evolve this even further. I would start with creating an Access Control List and add computers names as options to the management page. This way you could control who gets read and write access to the different Media Sub Types on each client. User changes have to be optionally password protected for more public usage of MC, and a touch screen for password would be needed in Theater View.

This things might be a bit work to achieve. But the possibilities would be endless. You could have clients in public spaces playing commercials and allowing user interaction, you can hide movies with certain ratings from your children, you can restrict certain computers to only allowing music playback and so on and so forth. This would open up MC to a whole new level of users. From students, to the professional household system fanatics to a huge range of businesses.

[flac.rules]

If you use the same media, this would be a problem. If you don't.... It can be done fine with some creative tagging. I do understand the problem, and I have the exact same one. I have 3 friends in my building who would love to use MC to play things and have their own play counters etc. This is not possible without much problems today. I have the library, so I get to have the tags. End of discussion. It's a shame non the less. I've had many tenants over the years, and with access to my rather huge library, and playback statistics, nice views, couch interface etc. I think I would have convinced many of them to purchase MC. Instead we've concluded that they have to stay away from my media and MC. Because you will not get any advantages, and the cost is not worth it when they have to play the movies from the shared folders in explorer anyway.

I think that adding several libraries would over complicate things. I'm convinced that the best solution would be to allow several users to have their own statistics as Number Plays, last played, number skipped and so on. this would allow ALL but the most anal people on the planet, to have one single library and share it with whoever.

I will check it out, but "creative tagging" sounds like a much much more labersome job to do exactly the same as several libraires. Are views saved? Do I have to remake them on every client? I will give it a proper try, but I must admit I am very sceptical that it will be a good substitue for libraries.

And I don't see the overcomplication. Several libraries is the norm already. You can have several local libraries, and you can have sever remote libraries. The only thing that is not implmented is several remote libraries from the same server. Alle other variants of several libraries are possible.

[MrHaugen]

I will check it out, but "creative tagging" sounds like a much much more labersome job to do exactly the same as several libraires. Are views saved? Do I have to remake them on every client? I will give it a proper try, but I must admit I am very sceptical that it will be a good substitue for libraries.

Views are saved on the library server, and changes are pushed from the server to the clients as far as I know. You don't have to be super creative for it to work either. You have two choices. The more manual way of tagging each media, or the automatic way with separate media. The easies would be if you and your woman have totally different taste in media Then you could have one or more folders with your stuff in it, and other folders for other people. That way you could turn on tagging on import on a per folder basis, and set a custom filled tag. Let's call this field "User" and you have the tags MyName and WifesName. This names can then be set under import. The problem here is of course that there can be some duplicates if you like the same things. If you don't care much about play stats on certain media types, you can import this and drop the tag, so it's shared between both of you.

After this is done, you'll have to create two sets of Views. One for you with your media, and one for your wife. The only difference here from normal views would be that you limit the media not to show media with the tag of the other person. That way you can see your media and the shared media. The other way is of course to manually tag this things. If you have all media stored in a common share. This is however rather time consuming.

And I don't see the overcomplication. Several libraries is the norm already. You can have several local libraries, and you can have sever remote libraries. The only thing that is not implmented is several remote libraries from the same server. Alle other variants of several libraries are possible.

You can have several libraries. That is not a problem. The problem is how MC and users interact with them. Loading several libraries at the same time would create some or lots of duplicates. It would be harder to process. Searches, view listing could be much slower than with one single library for all purposes. You could get conflicts with media. You'll need to enable sharing of some things between libraries so one changed thing does not screw up things in the other library. For instance renaming a file have to be passed on to another library somehow, so it knows that it's been renamed and not moved or deleted. Things like DLNA would probably be much more complicated. We don't talk about one machine, one library any more. We're talking about several potential instances on each machine. DLNA setup would be more complicated. Network options would be more complicated. There are probably lots of things that needs to be re-programmed and tweaked to make all possible configurations and scenarios possible. This is all theories, but I think that some or most of them could be a fact in some scenarios.

Allowing simple sync and more library fields in one shared library however, would suite most of us. And it would be pretty simple to implement. I hope so at least.

[flac.rules]

You can have several libraries. That is not a problem. The problem is how MC and users interact with them. Loading several libraries at the same time would create some or lots of duplicates. It would be harder to process. Searches, view listing could be much slower than with one single library for all purposes. You could get conflicts with media. You'll need to enable sharing of some things between libraries so one changed thing does not screw up things in the other library. For instance renaming a file have to be passed on to another library somehow, so it knows that it's been renamed and not moved or deleted. Things like DLNA would probably be much more complicated. We don't talk about one machine, one library any more. We're talking about several potential instances on each machine. DLNA setup would be more complicated. Network options would be more complicated. There are probably lots of things that needs to be re-programmed and tweaked to make all possible configurations and scenarios possible. This is all theories, but I think that some or most of them could be a fact in some scenarios.

Allowing simple sync and more library fields in one shared library however, would suite most of us. And it would be pretty simple to implement. I hope so at least.

Ok, so i have to manullay tag everything with the user. Hardly a very elegant solution unfortantly

I am not talking about loading several libraries at the same time, I am talking about being able to load the library of my choice from the server. You can have several remote libraries today without any of the problems you mention, as longs as they are stored on seperate computers. Or you can have several local libraries on a computer today without the problems. I just dont see how the complications you mentioned become any bigger than they are today.

[MrHaugen]

A thing like loading libraries on server from a client would certainly help in certain situations. Only real problem I can think of with this approach is security. It might be needed to have some control of who and what can load libraries remotely. The problem I see here is that the requests for library loading will not end here. There will still be those that want several libraries loaded at all times, to connect different clients. There's been several examples of it already. So I still think that there is a more elegant solution to this, that does not require so much work and can potentially create these problems.

If you give us more details of your media, which person have what media as well as what library field and data you use to create views and such, we might be able to help you with a solution that does not need so much manual tagging.

[JustinChase]

Sadly, this is still one of MC's weak points

There is no good way for 2 people to use MC simultaneously and have each user use a custom experience.  Any library forces the tags, ratings, views, etc on all users.  If 2 users have different ratings of music, there is NO way for them to enjoy MC at the same time.  Even with different views, "Enter Sandman" is a 5 star track for everyone using my library, no matter how they customize views.  My wife doesn't use MC for this reason

Until MC puts 'opinions about media' into a system that is tied to a user, and not a library, this will continue to be the case

The MC library should be like the public library.  i.e. it should only contain the media, but no opinions about it.  Each user should have a customizable experience, similar to the card catalog at the public library, but customized for the user.  Each user can have their own views and ratings of the media in the library, and they should all be usable at the same time.  i.e. my wife should have a 'card catalog' that sorts her music and shows one way, with her ratings, and my 'catalog' should sort that exact same music and shows the way I want them sorted and rated.  Both catalogs are just 'information about the media'.  The public library does not mandate that '"War and Peace" is a 5 star book in this library, and if you want to experience it another way, go to a different branch'.  MC should not force this on users either, IMO.

[MrHaugen]

Well put Justin. There is certainly potential for improvements her.

[Matt]

There is certainly potential for improvements her.

I see how you did that

I just hope Mrs. JustinChase doesn't see it.

[MrHaugen]

Those demanding customer...  Shame on you Elvis and Justin

[JustinChase]

There is certainly potential for improvements her.

I just hope Mrs. JustinChase doesn't see it.

No worries, her won't 

[MrHaugen]

Haha. I feel ashamed I did not see that one

[flac.rules]

A thing like loading libraries on server from a client would certainly help in certain situations. Only real problem I can think of with this approach is security. It might be needed to have some control of who and what can load libraries remotely. The problem I see here is that the requests for library loading will not end here. There will still be those that want several libraries loaded at all times, to connect different clients. There's been several examples of it already. So I still think that there is a more elegant solution to this, that does not require so much work and can potentially create these problems.

If you give us more details of your media, which person have what media as well as what library field and data you use to create views and such, we might be able to help you with a solution that does not need so much manual tagging.

If i don't misunderstand you, I can have several libraries loaded at the same time now too, with different clients. They might all point too the same shared resource too, just as long as they are on different computers. I understand the potential troubles in a completly flexible system, but I still cannot see what extra troubles there are compared too todays system with several shared libraries on one computer. Maybe there is a better way to do things, but if we accept todays limitations, why not accept the same limitations when you can share several libraries from the library server?

I dont have any particularity fancy views or own tags for views as of today. I have  large amount of music, my Wife uses a subset of that music in her library.

[MrHaugen]

Maybe there is a better way to do things, but if we accept todays limitations, why not accept the same limitations when you can share several libraries from the library server?

Why not take advantage of MC's true potential and turning it into a real multi user database media center which everyone could take advantage of? I would prefer that over creating a half decent and possibly handicapped system, just for those that insists on separating their media for (in my opinion) no good reason at all.

[lise]

just for those that insists on separating their media for (in my opinion) no good reason at all.

Ah, then you haven't encountered a couple of issues I've encountered.
I use MC for all my docs on my laptop. Those docs can't be imported from another computer, so that means my laptop has to be the "main" library for the house.

Problem is we can't listen to tunes from the main library or watch movies when the laptop is asleep or shut down.

So that is at least two databases: one on the laptop for docs and the other on either the living room or basement computer for tunes and movies.

Ok, great. But then where do you go to rip cds? And where do you go to tag? If the main database is in the basement, you need to access it to rip & tag. So it's back to the laptop, and if that's the main database and you want access to it all the time then you have to copy or restore it on the other computers.  Of course, then you lose all of your last played data, making your "movies I haven't seen" or "tunes I haven't heard in 5 months" smartlists useless.

So yeah, I'm all for one big database, if there is an option to auto-restore it to other computers without overwriting that computer's most recent play stats.

BTW, with regards to multiple users, I found a way around that. I created a Flag list field with items such as:
My fave tunes
My fave albums
J's fave tunes
J's fave albums
etc.

Works pretty well with views to show what each user wants.

[MrHaugen]

Correct. That's another problem with todays client and server setup. I just tend to forget about it because I've done all my ripping years ago, and I will never purchase a hard copy again. so I rarely see this problem. It would really help if things like import and rips could be done with a client as well. I don't see the big problem by allowing it, and syncing fresh media data to the server, as long as the importing and ripping is done from or to a resource that both server and client can access. I would much rather that, than to have multiple libraries.

One thing you might consider Lise, is the use of a service like dropbox. If you use this, you could then add the same service to your server, mirroring the content of f.eks. My documents. The documents will be uploaded from the client and within seconds they are downloaded on the "server" machine, and imported on the MC server. I'm not importing documents in MC my self, but this is at least how I plan to deal with document backup on my server.

[JustinChase]

I created a (very long) thread a while back with some ideas on how to solve all these network/client/server issues (and more), but it seems to have been determined to be too long to read/understand, and it got no traction.

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=57440.0

I think it's still relevant today, especially in how would resolve all the issues mentioned in this thread.  Maybe it'll be useful today  

I fully expect this won't be implemented for v17, but if my ideas are determined to be worthwhile, future development can be made with this end result in mind, for when it would be able to be implemented.   PLEASE!  

[lise]

I'm not importing documents in MC my self, but this is at least how I plan to deal with document backup on my server.

Shame. MC is perfect for documents, especially recipes (see attached screenshot).

Thanks for the tip re dropbox. I'll look into it.

[HTPC4ME]

i've wrote about this myself in great depth in the past...
My reasons why a media server should have multiple user accounts.(infinite would be stellar)
1. Keep my kids out of my adult life
2. be able to be on the road, and login and check out my adult life stuff, while allowing my son to be able to login , my GF, family members, friends etc... All At the same time, I dont want friends seeing my family member stuff, and visa versa
3. The HUGE one for me.. the ability to have a DEDICATED library for just work stuff, that i can totally customize with jrivers awesome taging system, and then be able to give that webgizmo link/S to customers to see our products lines, videos, slide shows etc. Basically one could just have a onenote of all Server libraries for all contacts/groups made that all had dedicated login credentials, with dedicated read/write access.... maybe in the future one could implement (if not already available) an upload option as well, customers could be given a link to webgizmo, then can have a look around, and upload files if need be. Or Friends family members, being able to login to your webgizmo, and upload there Spring break pics.vids right to the dedicated folder you have set from with jrivers settings, and then by using an auto tagging/Move folders system that watches for clients ip's or logn credentials it would transfer there files to the dedicated folders on the appropriate drives, And then jrier could be set to watch those drives and auto import them into the library with your set rules.

4. It's cheap in the long run, people dont need to buy multiple pc's, just buy hard drives. (who wants 10 pc in there house? who wants 4 virtual machines on one machine?)

5. you can charge extra for it.. I'd pay an additional $30 a yr to pay for that type of service, sell packages 3 year $80.00

another example of what I mentioned briefly above... the sharing option such as what Droid offers, be anywhere and just share your files, give someone your QR code from your droid for that dedicated Library/View.( ya could have them start out 5 layers deep, instead of having them goto the main directory (http://johnnystires.com::52199/library,) just send them a direct link for the keyword tagged (ip http://johnnystires.com:524578/Low Profile Tires/ Brands) that fits that person your dealing with.  The customer would then have access to the JRiver, goathead, johnnys tire, general mils, bestbuy, bob's bug collection library, Then they're could be an upload option available for them and they could upload any image from there phone directly to your library. so when ya get home it's already auto imported under the correct HDD/customer folder and library view, johnnys tires/ customers/ low profile customers uploads. 

I've went day dreaming again.. but those i feel are some good reasons to at least look into it.

'm not one to pretend i know what goes into doing this stuff, but i i used to use a program called easy file share web server, and easyfile share ftp server. and most of things i ve mentioned were doable then, the only kicker is there software wasnt a media player. But hey you guy got the media player and the server already started

i'm unsure of conflicts, code issues that may arise... But if do-able there would be some flexibility!

[JustinChase]

...especially recipes (see attached screenshot)...

NICE!!! I love that idea!!

[HTPC4ME]

The Ladies would love the recipes! Great idea!!!

[flac.rules]

Why not take advantage of MC's true potential and turning it into a real multi user database media center which everyone could take advantage of? I would prefer that over creating a half decent and possibly handicapped system, just for those that insists on separating their media for (in my opinion) no good reason at all.

Because its a lot of work? Don't misunderstand me, I would like a real multi user database as you suggest, but I would also be conent with "my" solution for the time beeing, which i assume can be implemented with a minimum of work and redesign, as basically all possibilities are covered (you can share several libraries, several clients can connect to the libraries), except a tiny detail (the several libraries much be on different computers). The "half-decent handicapped" system has alreadt been created

Having a seperate music collection for different people is a good reason IMHO.

[MrHaugen]

I can not understand how you see LESS potential problems by allowing multiple loaded libraries at the same time, rather than having one library with the additions of a few user specific library fields that is synchronized, and a user login function in standard and theater view. You'll have to explain that one. I've given several examples of what might go wrong with simultaneously loaded libraries. I'm not 100% sure if all of them will in fact be problematic, but it's a high chance that some of them will.

If you're talking about the possibility of loading remote libraries with clients however.... As I've said, I'm all for that. That could solve problems for people who today have to change libraries on the server manually when new users are using the clients.

I just think it's a bad idea to go around the problem like creating several libraries, instead of facing the problem head on and dealing with the underlaying problems that is user handling.

[flac.rules]

I can not understand how you see LESS potential problems by allowing multiple loaded libraries at the same time, rather than having one library with the additions of a few user specific library fields that is synchronized, and a user login function in standard and theater view. You'll have to explain that one. I've given several examples of what might go wrong with simultaneously loaded libraries. I'm not 100% sure if all of them will in fact be problematic, but it's a high chance that some of them will.

If you're talking about the possibility of loading remote libraries with clients however.... As I've said, I'm all for that. That could solve problems for people who today have to change libraries on the server manually when new users are using the clients.

I just think it's a bad idea to go around the problem like creating several libraries, instead of facing the problem head on and dealing with the underlaying problems that is user handling.

The work for the developers is far less. Already today you can do all the damage you describe by having multiple libraries using the same shared resource. If I just set up two computers, both with sharing the same resources, i could from my client choose any of the two libraries at any time. Because you already today can choose from multiple remote libraries on any client, just want to be able to choose from multiple remote libraries on the same server, instead of having several servers.

I think we are in agreement really. I would rather have the "perfect solution", but being able to choose between several libraries on teh same server would be a a perfectly adequate solution for me too, and probably a lot less work to implment for the devs.

[MrHaugen]

I just think you take far to lightly on the ramifications of running several libraries in MC at the same time. You say the system is ready for several loaded libraries in one MC instance at a time. How do you know this?
 
Resource usage is one point. I'm not thinking of the actual media and HD throughput. I'm talking about several libraries with perhaps much of the same content. How will MC prioritize jobs? Internal library handling in MC. Is MC programmed internally to handle several libraries at the same time at all? Much might be needed to handle this. Neither of us know this for certain. How many libraries will MC handle before it goes down? How is memory and CPU affected? Should all libraries be accessed with web, DLNA and so on? What ports should it use? Are the DLNA system prepared for this? How are the command line commands on a server tied to each library? Command language probably have to be modified to support commands to individual libraries? Imports are library dependent. How will it affect gizmo and the setup and ease of use? I'm sure there is lots of other things that neither I or you have thought of. A job have to be done here, no matter how trivial you think it is. I for one think it will be much more work than doing what will eventually be needed anyway; a simple user based system for play stats and simple access management.

I might be wrong, and so might you. Only Jim or Matt could say otherwise I believe.

[bwaldron]

The work for the developers is far less.

I think not!

[flac.rules]

I just think you take far to lightly on the ramifications of running several libraries in MC at the same time. You say the system is ready for several loaded libraries in one MC instance at a time. How do you know this?
 

The ramifications are already there. I can today, with this version of MC access several remote libraries. The only thing i need is for them to be on seperate computers (or I can have several local libraries, or a combination of any number of local libraries, and remote libraries, as long as I have many server-computers). Let me try to be as clear as possible, what i am proposing is exactly the same as you can do today, the only diffeence being that in addition too being able too choose from several remote libraries when they are on several physicval servers, I want to be able to choose when there is several libraries on the same physical server. To be frank, it seems that you are talking about somthing different than my suggestion.

[MrHaugen]

Having two MC's running with it's own library and being able to access this is FAR away from the same as loading multiple libraries simultaneously in the same MC and letting users interact with those at the same time.

With your explanation, I'm starting to believe that you're perhaps not talking about this. But rather a way of loading a library on the server remotely via a client. In that case, yes. This could be quite simple. But why have you not said so before? You mentioned this in a early thread and I agreed. And I've mentioned it once or twice after that as well. Oh, the confusion...

[ckewinjones]

This looks like the same feature request that I made (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=62517.0) a while back.  And I think the answer from JRiver is going to be essentially the same as it was to my request:  "We have considered adding user accounts for a single shared library.  It would be neat, but it's also a huge project."

What we need to do, of course, is to convince Jim, Matt, and company that it's not just "it would be neat" but also a big increase in usability and capability that will keep customers coming back and new ones coming in.  And, just as important, provide a clear and concise statement of what the requirement is so they have a clear target to shoot at.

I'm still an MC newbie, and there are a lot of its features that I don't use yet.  But to me its most compelling feature is "store the media in one place, but listen anywhere."  I love the fact that all my media files are on the unRAID server in the basement but I can listen to any of it through the MC user interface on my desktop system, on my high-end audio system in the living room through a DLNA-enabled A/V receiver, or on the road or at work using Gizmo on my Android phone.  And "store once" is just as important as "listen anywhere."  If I had to keep a separate copy of all of my media files on each device I want to listen on (and keep them all synchronized), "listen anywhere" would not be nearly as attractive.

But "store once, listen anywhere" breaks down once multiple users are involved.  Consider this use case:

I like rock, folk, and jazz, and I want to be able to listen using Gizmo on my Android.  My wife likes rock, jazz, and musicals, and she wants to be able listen using Gizmo on her iPad.  I want to see a library that excludes her show tunes, and she wants to see a library that excludes my folk songs.  And of course, even where we have albums and tracks in common, we want to have our own ratings, playlists, etc.

As MC is currently implemented, the only way I can figure out to do this is to set up two separate servers each with its own instance of MC running, and each MC instance serving media on a separate port number (each of which has to be punched through the firewall and port-forwarded).  That's complex enough for just husband and wife, but when you add in other family members it just gets worse (to say nothing of possible small-business scenarios).

That is why I would like to see MC expand "store once, listen anywhere" to "store once, view of the content tailored per user, listen anywhere."  That, and I want to wean my wife off of iTunes.

[JustinChase]

As MC is currently implemented, the only way I can figure out to do this is to set up two separate servers each with its own instance of MC running, and each MC instance serving media on a separate port number (each of which has to be punched through the firewall and port-forwarded).  That's complex enough for just husband and wife, but when you add in other family members it just gets worse (to say nothing of possible small-business scenarios).

It's also pretty difficult to keep the media in sync for both libraries.  If you update cover art, or a description in one library, you need the other library to become aware of and adjust to that change, but probably not always, depending on what is changed.  If you rate a track a 5, you don't want that to propigate to your wifes library, but if you import/update cover art for the album, you probably do want that to propigate.

The current system just can't handle some things it eventually needs to handle, no matter how you try to 'tweak' it.

I gave up trying to manage a library for my wife, so she doesn't use MC, except for watching TV episodes in TheaterView.

Hopefully v18 is when this finally gets tackled

Just in case I haven't said it often enough; facts about data need to be managed separately from opinions about data.

a track is 3:30 in length is a fact - the server needs to know and share this information to everyone

a track is 5 stars is only my opinion - each user needs to manage this information separately

[flac.rules]

Having two MC's running with it's own library and being able to access this is FAR away from the same as loading multiple libraries simultaneously in the same MC and letting users interact with those at the same time.

With your explanation, I'm starting to believe that you're perhaps not talking about this. But rather a way of loading a library on the server remotely via a client. In that case, yes. This could be quite simple. But why have you not said so before? You mentioned this in a early thread and I agreed. And I've mentioned it once or twice after that as well. Oh, the confusion...

Maybe I have to work on my english reading comprehension (or writing ) But yes, that is what I am suggesting, being able to load a library server via a client. Of course not as good as a well thought out multi-user system, but it should be pretty east to implement.