Print

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

[aoqw76]

Hi, I have in the last week put together a home made "NAS", by turning a desktop into a Ubuntu 12.04 LTS (desktop not server) machine (on a 20 gig hard drive) + 2 matching 1TB samsung drives. This was previously a Windows machine with Win7 sitting on one of those 1TB drives, but I had a 20 gig hd in my spares box from an upgrade way back when, so used it for the Ubuntu OS install. I haven't reformatted the 1TB drives so they are both in NTFS format. I have approx 200 gig of music files (mostly flacs, some alacs) on one of the 1TB drives. I have installed samba on Ubuntu so my Win7 laptop and another Win7 machine, both running JRiver MC19, both have "M:" drive mapped to the "nas", and initially I added a new library into MC19 (those 200 gig of music files also sit on one of the laptops) and pointed it at M:.
All fine and dandy, so either machine can refer to the same M: drive on my "nas".

A couple of nights ago I installed JRiver for debian on the Ubuntu OS, pointed it at the 200 gig of music (which is local), set this up as a library server, and set up JRiver on one of the laptops to use that library.

Now I think I know the answer here, but wanted some clarification from more experienced JRiver users.
From an end user perspective, there doesn't seem to be much difference between using a local library pointing at the shared M: drive versus using the library served from the Ubuntu box. With the 1TB being NTFS, JRiver for Windows is quite happy either way.

But if I extend that same music collection and want to use it on a 2nd machine in the house, if this also had a mapped M: drive then it has its own local library and therefore any local meta data changes would not reflect back to any other machine.

Is this the only difference?

I'm torn between:
1. JRiver for Linux serving the library, and any JRiver for windows using that library.
or
2. JRiver for windows using its own local library
I think I've answered my own question here, it's probably simpler to use one library and have it served up by JRiver for Linux on the Ubuntu box. And any changes I make on a client Win7 machine will sync back and therefore be visible everywhere.

(btw JRiver for linux might be an early version, I think I have 89 installed, but it does seem to work very well as a library server. Editing meta data has been a bit awkward, doesn't seem to work properly, so I've done that on a client machine and synced back).

Now to ripping. With the "nas" ultimately being headless and in a cupboard, local ripping on that machine is not going to be practical. And ripping on one of my laptops only works to a local library. So what's the best solution here? On my win7 laptop, I set up a temp library pointing to my shared M: drive, ripped a CD, the files landed on the "nas". I then removed them from the local temp library, logged on to the Ubuntu box via Tightvnc and resynced in JRiver Linux. Then when switching back to the served library on the laptop, the new album was there. Is there a more efficient/better way to do this?

many thanks for wading through this post!
regards, Robert

[csimon]

The way I do it is to have separate local libraries and doing all ripping and management on the PC that is most suitable. Then I log into each of the other PCs and make the same changes/perform an import/update libray from tags.

This is a faff, but actually in practice I find it simpler, more reliable, more "instant" and easier to get the head around than using temp libraries, disconnecting and reconnecting, authentication, library synching (automatic at unspecified intervals or manual), and keeping two PCs on at the same time.  If you're going to have to use a temp local library anyway and keep disconnecting and reconnecting and deleting things from it, you might as well keep permanent local libraries!

[aoqw76]

Hi, I guess it is convoluted, but as I am using 2 x client PC's + 1 NAS, and I only want to have 1 music library, there doesn't seem to be a better way.
So I rip direct to the NAS on one client pc (yes using a temp local library as I cant rip direct to the served library on the NAS, but at least the ripped flacs go to the right place!)
JRiver running on the NAS should pick up the new files, so when I switch to the served library on the client PC, the new rips are there. And when I use the 2nd client, that has them too.

I think my home made NAS is overkill, in that it's a "proper" desktop machine, with a full Ubuntu install, and probably more powerful CPU, definitely more memory than an Synology or what-have-you, but at least I didn't need to buy anything new to make it.

[Arindelle]

don't have the time to reply right this sec, but just out of curiosity can you get into the Ununtu machine from the clients using something similar to Remote Desktop in Windows?

[aoqw76]

That's the easy bit.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/ubuntu-remote-desktop-builtin-vnc-compatible-dead-easy/
Enable remote desktop in Ubuntu (as above link shows)
Install Tightvnc for windows and launch the Viewer. Enter IP address for the Ubuntu box and away you go. (if you dont know the IP, open a terminal in Ubuntu and type command ifconfig)

[MrC]

I'd use whatever box you want as the File Server for the media files, and let one of your Windows PCs act as the Library Server for the time being.  The nascent Linux port may not be quite ready for your needs.  Use mapped or UNC paths as necessary so that all MC's see the same Filename paths.

[Samson]

A little confusing for me but it seems that your "NAS" is not so much a NAS as a headless linux computer with locally attached storage for media files and a JRiver local library.You have two windows pcs each with JRiver installed and each with local libraries mapped to the media drive housed in the linux box.

JRiver on different machines will happily use local libraries pointed to a shared media drive (some prefer mapped,others UNC paths). This arrangement would lend itself to having media files on a nas tucked away in a cupboard with 24/7 operation, low energy consumption, and no big noisy "machine" sitting in the living room. Different family members can access the nas and keep separate directories on the nas and maintain their own local libraries for tagging and ratings etc if they want.Ripping is done on any local machine direct to respective folders on the shared media drive. Other machines pick up all or selected new media by doing an auto or manual import.They can also re-tag, re-rate if they want.

Using JRiver servers and synching is also an option. As discussed elsewhere on this forum the JRiver server/client arrangement is not a classic one and has some quirks/idiosyncrasies. It syncs some things but not others and sometimes the things it should sync doesn’t always go to plan in my experience. Its a matter of learning how it works and adjusting accordingly.

I opted for a  pc server/htpc with local attached storage/media drive (equivalent to your linux box ?). Its local library is the main library and  sits on the media drive along with cover art and thumbnails and caches, all in one place not scattered around AppData etc (thumbnail caches of cover art are officially recommended to stay on each local machine for reliable access but hasnt been a problem for me). It displays onto my plasma screen for watching video and directly into my HiFi for music. I can also operate it headless using VNC on my desktop in the study.

I use the study desktop in client mode to listen or watch media on the desktop and any minor tagging changes sync back to the main library. For any major work or configuring I use VNC to do it directly on the server library. I use my more powerful desktop to rip directly to the mapped media drive. Other family members pcs could access all media using mapped drives/local libraries or alternatively just operate in client mode.

The caveat here is as MrC said, the linux port may not be ready to use in this way.

[csimon]

I use the study desktop in client mode to listen or watch media on the desktop and any minor tagging changes sync back to the main library. For any major work or configuring I use VNC to do it directly on the server library. I use my more powerful desktop to rip directly to the mapped media drive.

Quick question for you here.  In client mode, the option to rip a CD is not available. So on your desktop PC, do you disconnect from the server library in order to rip and load its temporary local library insetad, specifying not to automtically add the ripped CD to the library, then VNC to the server and import it, then connect back to the server library from the client in order to do the tagging?

[Samson]

Quick question for you here.  In client mode, the option to rip a CD is not available. So on your desktop PC, do you disconnect from the server library in order to rip and load its temporary local library insetad, specifying not to automtically add the ripped CD to the library, then VNC to the server and import it, then connect back to the server library from the client in order to do the tagging?

Yes and no. So yes, it only takes two seconds to switch to the "main" i.e local library on the study desktop. I then rip media direct to the shared media drive on the server (and desktop local library).Still in the desktop local library I [edit- do a manual import and] I have recent imports displayed (separate library or smartlist). I tag here,get cover art etc. I make sure tags and cover art are incorporated into the actual files or where not possible, into the same folder as the files.I then switch back to VNC/server library and simply do a manual import of new media directly from the media drive complete with incorporated tags,art etc. Done.I sometimes do as you suggested but the only downside here for me is VNC can be a little slow for sampling video and there is no audio.Sometimes when the "tag on import rules" go astray I need to look and listen to the media to know what tag changes to make and of course you can do this on a local library.Either way works for me.

[aoqw76]

Hi, yes my nas = headless box with ubuntu 12.04 lts + 2 terabytes, with JRiver running as a library server.
So far it's working well. My ripping sounds very similar if not identical to yours.
Use JRiver on a windows 7 pc, rip to drive which = mapped drive on the ubuntu box. Tag locally. Wait and JRiver will insert cover art into the files.
Then I do nothing with JRiver running on the linux box, it will see the new files by itself and import into the library (it's not as instant as the windows version of jriver, and you can manually run the import if you are impatient.)
So when I flip back to using the served library on any windows machine (including JRemote on the ipad) the new songs are there.

It seems there are a couple of ways of configuring this set up, and jriver for linux appears to be stable enough the way i use it, so i'll stick with my current config.

[csimon]

If you need to do extra tagging, or the auto-tagging hasn't worked correctly, or the cover art hasn't worked or you wish to change it, where does these tagging changes fit into your flow? How long do you have to wait before you know if everything's worked?

[aoqw76]

For example, if I drop an image file called "folder.jpg" into the same folder as the flacs, and use the "quick find in file / cover art directory" opion, then JRiver will initially say the image file = "folder.jpg" and then it will gradually import that into each flac file. I guess it's all done in a minute or 2.
Tagging for the moment is much easier in win7; that I would expect that will get resolved in the linux version in time, so they will be on a par.

[csimon]

So basically you're switching the client machine from the server library to a local library, doing all tagging etc there and waiting for the server to import all changes that you have made to the shared files, then switching the client machine back to the server library?

[aoqw76]

Yes - only tagging in windows as that doesnt work very well currently on the linux version.

What I'm trying to ascertain are the pros and cons of using the linux box giving me a served library from its internal 2TB storage, versus win7 box just using a mapped drive which is the same directory on the linux box. (samba shares running on linux).
(so linux box "/media/Drive A/My Music" = windows "M:\")

Functionally, if there are only 2 machines involved, I cant see a difference.
However the con I think comes from using a 2nd win7 machine (in fact there are 3 in the house) which would in effect have its own library, being an exact matching set up as the first. And there's no point having win7 machine 1 serving to win7 machine 2 when the linux box is perfectly capable of doing the serving.
So my conclusion is to stick with the way I'm using it.
Unless someone can come up with a compelling reason not to. (other than linux jriver serving only audio in version 19)

[csimon]

I think you're probably right. I've only got two MC machines and it probably doesn't make a difference whether I make one a server or whether they have independant libraries looking at the same shared storage and I've chosen the latter over the former because I find it simpler myself to do it that way. But I guess with three MC machines it makes more sense to use the server approach, even though that's still a bit awkward in some respects.

[Samson]

Yeah,one of the joys but also challenges MC presents is, Choice. With choice comes decisions  . For me, it makes sense to keep all my media and the  library(database) with metadata and caches together.Where possible metadata in files or alongside. IF the client/server arrangement worked more traditionally I would then simply use all other pcs in client mode with any changes made refelected back to the server.You would still have the option of maintaining local libraries not in server/client mode for those that wish to keep independent libraries. The client/server thing in MC is a bit of a hybrid affair and its functionality confusing....there are separate threads on this topic. Ultimately listening and viewing works fine for me on a client and only maintaining one central server library where I can work on it directly (with VNC) or indirectly via various different local libraries mapped to the same media drive.