Print

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

[gvanbrunt]

My post was more of a jest about how people were complaining that v1 of linux wouldn't run on their NAS. Windows users have been asking for a "server only" service for years...

However, there is a real problem as well: MC's server portion isn't only a file server like xbmc or Plex. It does this, but it also does streaming and conversion. It has a web server. It has a dlna server etc. Just what parts should run on the NAS? Should it offer autoimport and meta data download? Should it do audio analysis?

There are many other aspects as well and I would guess that every user would have a different opinion of which was the correct way of doing it. It a pretty complex problem.

[csimon]

Well, you're right there!

[Matt]

It's a pretty complex problem.

Why does that keep happening?

[fitbrit]

My post was more of a jest ...

Some good points there, which I had not considered. For an unraid implementation, I'd be happy with:

1) A full MC - and I would upgrade my server's hardware to be able to run the program satisfactorily. I'd then only use the server functions.
2) A minimal server version (i.e. no playback capability) - as long as the libraries could be synced from a PC client.

[csimon]

2) A minimal server version (i.e. no playback capability) - as long as the libraries could be synced from a PC client.

Hate to bang on about it, lol!  But for a server version, there should be no need to synch. The clients should be accessing the data on the server directly. There should only be one database, which maybe holds several libraries. There should be no libraries held locally on each client which the client accesses, that's not what a client does, it would be behaving as a server!

"Client/server describes the relationship between two computer programs in which one program, the client, makes a service request from another program, the server, which fulfills the request."

The current synching process means that, after the initial loading of the library from the server, the server isn't actually serving anything at all when the client is being operated. The client is doing its own serving.

[gvanbrunt]

There should be no libraries held locally on each client which the client accesses, that's not what a client does, it would be behaving as a server!

Some would consider MC a hybrid design and doesn't separate client and server. Many programs work this way now. Just because a client consumes data from somewhere else, doesn't mean it has to be "dumb". Even Gmail offers a "client" with offline access. In fact most web applications are now evolving this way. The brains are moving from the server to the browser. The net result is quicker interfaces and more reliable operation.

MC's design actually has some advantages especially for clients connected over slow links. For example, I run MC at work over the internet. Having to fetch a portion of the library for every screen operation would make it slow and unreliable. Same goes for Android and Gizmo. In fact people even want part of the media synced for more reliable operation when service drops out.

[fitbrit]

All I meant was that the library could be maintained from a client. i.e. changes made on the client are made to the actual library. How else would one run the server headless?

[csimon]

All I meant was that the library could be maintained from a client. i.e. changes made on the client are made to the actual library. How else would one run the server headless?

That would require that the clients are fully operational with regard to library maintenance which currently they aren't. Possibly, it's the sync process and the pseudo client/server that is getting in the way of this as the clients are not directly attached to the server library, but I don't know, I've not seen a reason given so far as to why the clients are not fully operational.

[Matt]

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=82685.0