Print

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

[Acrid Avid]

Hello all.

Thanks to everyone contributing to these forums.  I have learned a lot already.

I am converting from an iTunes based music library to one using JRiver.  I have a home with both PCs and macs and a Netgear ReadyNas Pro with plenty of available space.  I'd like to store my music library on the NAS and have a single JRiver media library that could be accessed from all PCs and macs.  Are the mac and PC libraries cross compatible?  I'm guessing they may not be.  If the two libraries are not cross-compatible between PC and mac, I may just use JRiver on PCs and use VMware or bootcamp on my macs to access the PC version on the library.  Although I like the idea of HTPC, have used them in various ways in the past and am hoping to continue to use HTPCs in the future, if possible, I'd like to have my MC library available without having a single computer dedicated to always being online.  I'd rather just have a single library on the NAS that could be accessed or controlled by any of the PCs.  

Having read some of this forum, I've read about people saving their "library file" on the nas as well as their media on the nas.  Then mapping the networked drive to some letter like "M drive" on all PCs so all PCs that access the library file are using the same path.

I'm posting this on the "mac" side also in case anyone there is achieving anything like this using boot camp or VMware virtualized versions of windows7, but thought I may have just as good luck on this side of the forum--sorry for the double post.  Also wondering if anyone can comment on a way to have mac and pc versions of MC utilizing the same library or workflows to minimize work to have MC running smoothly on both platforms.

Any suggestions for workflow, directory structure, MC settings, etc. are much appreciated.

[glynor]

Are the mac and PC libraries cross compatible?  I'm guessing they may not be.

Well, kinda.

Accessing the Libraries directly on-disk is not cross-platform.  In other words, if you try to directly open a Windows MC Library using an OSX copy of MC (or vice versa) this will not work.

However, if you serve your Library via MC's built-in Library Server and connect to it from the other platform, this DOES work.  So, you could set it up so that the Windows copy is the "master server" and the Mac copies connect to this Library.  There are some downsides here.  Since the filesystem paths are very different between the two platforms, the connected Mac clients would always stream all files for playback, and can't access the files directly on-disk (via the network share).  This means some features that can work on connected clients (like drag-dropping files to the Desktop, and Right-Click > Locate > On Disk (External), for example) don't work.  Essentially, it means that MC works as it does when accessing a Library Server running "across the Internet" rather than "on your LAN" (assuming you have matching file shares).

Of course, the OSX copies don't support the full feature-set of MC yet (mostly video and images where the Library is concerned) so while doing the reverse and serving from a Mac copy to Windows works, I probably wouldn't recommend it.

[glynor]

I'll try to respond to other points later when I have more time, but read this thread for more of my thoughts generally:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=87788.0

[Acrid Avid]

Glynor,

Thanks so much for sharing your experience and wisdom on these topics.  I've been reading lots of your posts and always find them helpful.

One potential option I am considering is just storing all my music files on a particular folder on my NAS and then activating the option on all computers (be them mac or pc) to auto-import or monitor that folder.  I'm guessing with this setup, all my music would be available to all computers (mac or pc) and nothing would need to be streamed.  But then playlists or any custom modifications would need to be manually added or adjusted to all versions/computers to keep them with similar look/feel/playlists, etc.

My concern with having a single "server" or master version of MC that needs to always be running is that the most logical source for such a server would be a HTPC or some other computer that is always on and not doing much else other than serving MC.  My current setup is an iMac and a couple of macbook pros/airs between my wife and I, both of which are frequently also used to virtualize win7 for work related activities.  There is not really any one computer that is always on or idle most of the day.  And I'm split pretty evenly across the computers and OSs.  So I'm not sure which would be the best to host the library server if I went that route.  I guess I could potentially leave a virtual win7 always up and running on the iMac to function as the main library/server.

I think I'd rather, if possible, have the library file available on the NAS.  And then let whichever computer I am working on that day access that file as read/write.  then any other computers that I end up turning on as I walk around the house could access the library as read only.  then the next day, if I'm working at a different computer in the house first, that computer could have read/write control of the media library.    It sounds like the mac and PC libraries are not cross-compatible, but I think I could live with only using the windows version for the full features of MC, and then maybe just leave the mac versions of MC set to auto import my music but not really tinker with any customizations or playlists on mac.  The mac MC would really just be a way of accessing the music in a very generic/default way when I don't feel like booting into windows to access the windows MC.

Sorry if this is coming across like rambling.  I am still really new to MC and I'm realizing there are lots of options on workflow here.  I am hoping to develop a good strategy from the beginning without wasting a whole lot of time on trial and error.

Thanks again to anyone wiling to provide some guidance.

[csimon]

MC is not really there yet in terms of a central library. It can work, and many people use it that way, but it doesn't quite work as you'd expect. Yes, you'd need one instance of MC up and running all the time. Database management can be done to a certain extent from a connected client but there are limitations, e.g. you can't rip an optical disc from a client. Also, changes that are made to metadata on either client or server do not necessarily take effect on the other in real time but work in a similar way to a periodic cloud-sync service. What happens is that the client is not actually connected in real time to the server's database, it simply downloads a copy of the server's database locally when loaded therefore it keeps tracks of local changes made and sends notifications out to all other instances to make the same changes.

I find this too awkward for a smoothless workflow so for the moment (I have two media PCs - neither are on all the time) I have independant databases on both (with actual media files stored centrally on a NAS, which is on all the time) and make the same changes to views etc separately on both. I manage the database on one only (the one with the optical drive and a nice office chair and desk to sit at!) and then perform a manual import on the other.  If I had a third media PC, it might get to the stage when a central server might be less awkward than managing 3 independant databases.

My concern with having a single "server" or master version of MC that needs to always be running is that the most logical source for such a server would be a HTPC or some other computer that is always on and not doing much else other than serving MC.

A lot of us are calling out for a NAS-installable port of MC so that it can just sit there, on a low-power always-on device, serving data and media to clients. The team is already working on a Linux port, however it's too early to say whether there will be a NAS-installable version or whether it will be a server-only instance, serving the database only rather than being a media front-end, browser and player too, and whether it would solve the sync issues and whether there can be true client instances that connect to it - this in my opinion would require a change to its structure. At the moment, the focus I believe is on developing a port of the current desktop application, in its current guise, to Linux, so I feel a server-version of MC is still some years away.

[I've used the term "database" here to mean an MC library, to differentiate from the alternative meaning that is often placed on "library", which is the physical collection of media files on a disk]

[JimH]

The argument against leaving a PC on all the time seems weak to me. 

I have my PC set to go to sleep after 30 minutes of inactivity.  It turns itself on when TV needs to be recorded.  With Wake on Lan, it turns back on if I want to play music with Gizmo.

A NAS is also a computer.  It's just running a different OS.  Does it use significantly less power?

And in Minnesota, we can use all the heat we can get.

[csimon]

In my case, the PC that would be used as the server for library management (because it has an optical drive and has a proper desk and chair) is quite beefy, therefore uses a lot of power and it's quite noisy, it's a desktop machine, designed for desktop applications that require processing power. My NAS is a very low power and quiet device, and is left on all the time as it has several central services running for servicing several devices (e.g. file serving, CALDAV server, web server etc). It could also act as a media server (DLNA) but I use MC instead for its flexibility in cataloguing and indexing. My "HTPC", the living room PC where all media is played, is low power and silent with a mobile-level processor, it uses a max 26W at full load (not very often), about 11W when playing music via MC, and it just about manages ROHQ with some tweaks to MadVR. My NAS (currently a 2-bay unit with 2x 3.5" 4TB physical spinning drives in it) is about 19W at full load, 10W when idling.  Needless to say, my desktop PC probably uses more power than both combined. So Yes, to answer your question, NAS's generally do use significantly less power than an average PC, especially when you need two PCs switched on to use MC.  They have considerably less powerful processors and the fact that they run Linux helps to keeps the cost down and allows a less powerful machine than Windows would.

In order to play just one MP3 file, I would therefore need 2 complete PCs and a NAS switched on. This is not very good. Client/Server technology exists, for one reason, to make processing more efficient. Put processing power where it's needed, send processing the right place, use the right tool for the right job, use a PC with a beefy processor for number-crunching, a low-power machine for menial everyday continuous tasks, a device with decent graphics and audio for media playback.

Many, many people have requested a NAS-installable server version (look at the "Would you buy a Linux version" thread for a sample), it crops up quite regularly (see this thread, this is what the OP is basically getting at - his PCs are not left on all the time - "My concern with having a single "server" or master version of MC that needs to always be running is that the most logical source for such a server would be a HTPC or some other computer that is always on and not doing much else other than serving MC."), therefore demand is there and there's obviously a case for it. It makes a huge amount of sense, it's a server so put an MC server on it.  Leave the client bits to the clients.

It doesn't require much processing power to serve files and service database requests (in fact, it's what NASs are designed to do) therefore there is a huge argument against leaving a beefy PC switched on all the time just to do this.

I take your point about Minnesota - we have the same problem here in Wales.

[csimon]

It strikes me that MCWS could be a good vehicle if appropriate client apps were developed. If the Linux port can indeed be installed and run on a headless NAS then it could sit there and respond to MCWS requests. We already have Gizmo and JRemote running as MCWS clients on other devices that can directly control and manipulate MC in real time for browsing and playback purposes, playlist creation and limited metadata editing.

[glynor]

I have some more comments I'd like to add on this, but I'm too busy till much later to do it justice.

[Acrid Avid]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment.  I'm learning a lot.

My main reason for not wanting a single computer dedicated to serving the library is similar to one of the posts above.  If I were to use a HTPC in the living room or media room, then using it to rip and/or manage the library becomes a little cumbersome because that is not an area I work in a lot or would require turning on TVs/projectors, etc.  If I were to use my main computer in the study (iMac), then I'm scared I may have issues finding the virtual windows 7 within the iMac from other clients and also hate giving up some of my macs processing power and ram full time to a virtual computer.

I'd like to have a fully functional MC experience from a single library whether I am working in my office or up in a media room.  And in an ideal world, I'd be able to do that whether the computers were macs or PCs.  I realize that is not possible now, but I'm just wondering how to get closest to that experience.

Thanks again to everyone's comments so far.  And I'm hoping to hear more suggestions.  I will continue to tinker and if I come across a workflow that works, will be sure to share with you.

[csimon]

I will continue to tinker and if I come across a workflow that works, will be sure to share with you.

Yes, please do.