Topic: Windows server OS support (Read 6722 times)

flac.rules · « **on:** August 05, 2015, 10:52:27 am »

I would like the program to support windows 2012 server.Running a library server on the house-server is very useful.

Hendrik · « **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2015, 10:54:40 am »

Quote from: Elvis133 on August 05, 2015, 10:52:27 am

I would like the program to support windows 2012 server.Running a library server on the house-server is very useful.

This works if you install the "Desktop Experience" package.

However, due to the complexity of setting up a server completely, we do not officially recommend or support it - but I run it the same way, and I don't see why it would break.

PS:
Stay away from these audiophile ideas of a "Core" server without GUI though, that only leads to trouble.

JimH · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2015, 10:55:22 am »

We don't support and won't support the OS. It isn't intended for consumer products and it is inappropriate for such use.

JimH · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2015, 10:56:00 am »

Quote from: Hendrik on August 05, 2015, 10:54:40 am

Stay away from these audiophile ideas of a "Core" server without GUI though, that only leads to trouble.

This is good advice.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2015, 11:02:26 am »

Quote from: Elvis133 on August 05, 2015, 10:52:27 am

I would like the program to support windows 2012 server.Running a library server on the house-server is very useful.

Really no need to use anything but a stock Windows 7 or Windows 10 workstation install for your MC library server. Have had ours this way for years without a glitch.

VP

flac.rules · « **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2015, 11:09:31 am »

Quote from: Vocalpoint on August 05, 2015, 11:02:26 am

Really no need to use anything but a stock Windows 7 or Windows 10 workstation install for your MC library server. Have had ours this way for years without a glitch.

VP

I use my server for other things than just MC

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2015, 12:52:00 pm »

Quote from: Elvis133 on August 05, 2015, 11:09:31 am

I use my server for other things than just MC

Understood - but why would you run MC - on a Windows server?

We have a Windows 2008 Server as well - but its dedicated to doing what it was designed for - to "serve" things - like all our content. I would never run any apps like MC on it.

Then - to give all our MC "clients" what they need - I have a simple HTPC that runs a copy of MC in "library" server mode pointed directly to all the music and movie content stored on the Windows 2008 server. The HTPC has no local storage and does not need any.

Works perfectly. Granted you would need another box for this - but I find it best to keep true servers and workstations separated to the tasks their were designed for.

Cheers!

VP

Hendrik · « **Reply #7 on:** August 05, 2015, 01:29:33 pm »

Quote from: Vocalpoint on August 05, 2015, 12:52:00 pm

Understood - but why would you run MC - on a Windows server?

We have a Windows 2008 Server as well - but its dedicated to doing what it was designed for - to "serve" things - like all our content.

My Windows Server hosts all my storage, and as such its just natural for me to also run MC on it to "serve" this content and the library to the MC "clients" on the HTPC etc.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #8 on:** August 05, 2015, 01:36:03 pm »

Quote from: Hendrik on August 05, 2015, 01:29:33 pm

My Windows Server hosts all my storage, and as such its just natural for me to also run MC on it to "serve" this content and the library to the MC "clients" on the HTPC etc.

Each to their own I guess. I prefer my servers to be locked down with no access from any external source - especially running applications. The only thing any client PC ever sees is the shares it is allowed to connect to.

VP

flac.rules · « **Reply #9 on:** August 05, 2015, 01:44:58 pm »

Quote from: Vocalpoint on August 05, 2015, 01:36:03 pm

Each to their own I guess. I prefer my servers to be locked down with no access from any external source - especially running applications. The only thing any client PC ever sees is the shares it is allowed to connect to.

VP

As Hendrik says, the server has all the storage, it is quite handy to run a library server from the same machine the storage is on.

mwillems · « **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2015, 01:53:23 pm »

Quote from: Elvis133 on August 05, 2015, 01:44:58 pm

As Hendrik says, the server has all the storage, it is quite handy to run a library server from the same machine the storage is on.

I agree; and if you're really concerned about keeping the server "clean" you can run MC in a VM. My file server is a linux box and I run an MC server in a windows VM on the same machine. That config isn't officially supported either (I don't think), but it works a treat and provides a layer of insulation between Windows/MC and the fileserver, which is a "nice to have" and has been very good for fileserver uptime at my house.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #11 on:** August 05, 2015, 02:23:38 pm »

Quote from: Elvis133 on August 05, 2015, 01:44:58 pm

As Hendrik says, the server has all the storage, it is quite handy to run a library server from the same machine the storage is on.

Sure - but as stated MC is not supported(and never will be) on any server OS - so why invite trouble?

Just because someone has it working - does not mean we should all jump in.

And I am all about file server "uptime" as well. I treat my home servers like I do our work servers. Each has it's purpose and that's all it will ever do.

BTW - it's just as easy/handy to connect to the file server from a HTPC running MC Library Server anyway.

VP

flac.rules · « **Reply #12 on:** August 05, 2015, 02:47:43 pm »

Quote from: Vocalpoint on August 05, 2015, 02:23:38 pm

Sure - but as stated MC is not supported(and never will be) on any server OS - so why invite trouble?

Just because someone has it working - does not mean we should all jump in.

And I am all about file server "uptime" as well. I treat my home servers like I do our work servers. Each has it's purpose and that's all it will ever do.

BTW - it's just as easy/handy to connect to the file server from a HTPC running MC Library Server anyway.

VP

Your question was why I would wish to run the program on the server, I have answered that (local storage, and i guess you can add more uptime to it as well), and thus given the background for my request, as you asked for. I have gotten an answer from the devs about my request.

I was not advocating running it on a server when there is no support.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #13 on:** August 05, 2015, 02:58:04 pm »

Quote from: Elvis133 on August 05, 2015, 02:47:43 pm

I was not advocating running it on a server when there is no support.

You may not be. But others in here are clearly indicating that they go for it anyway - supported or not.

You could do the same if it means that much to you.

VP

rudyrednose · « **Reply #14 on:** August 06, 2015, 11:58:57 am »

One very good reason to run MC on a server (machine and OS) is household power efficiency, attained from a single powerful 24/7 machine in the house.

Personally, I run Windows Server 2012R2 on a purpose built Xeon E3-1246 with 32GB ECC RAM. This is the main file server for the house, and it carries additional duties.
This machine has one 480GB SSD for all OSes and small data, and several spinning disks for big data. (The movie collection files are on a separate Linux file server, fired up on demand through WOL).

As it is located in a small study in a central part of the house, it also does double-duty as a nice desktop with 3 24" monitors (running off the Haswell HD4600 integrated graphics), and runs one or more Hyper-V Windows 8.1 machines.

JRiver runs on the bare metal Server 2012 OS and serves all media (including OTA TV) to numerous client machines in the house.

When the hard drives are idle (we are not actively pulling music or video or recording TV) the machine runs on a cool 38 to 46W, as measured at the plug on a Kill-A-Watt. I rarely see it go beyond 80W.

thecrow · « **Reply #15 on:** August 07, 2015, 03:25:42 am »

Supported or not, I too run MC on Windows 2012R2 Essentials.

The server exists to provide central storage and client backups for my home network. Its uptime is managed by a program called Lights-Out which wakes and sleeps the machine on demand.

It seems crazy to me to buy another machine and run it 24/7 just to provide a MC server to my clients when I already have the Windows server.

I would be willing to pay for a separate MC server only version that ran as a service for this machine if it existed.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #16 on:** August 07, 2015, 09:28:53 am »

Quote from: rudyrednose on August 06, 2015, 11:58:57 am

One very good reason to run MC on a server (machine and OS) is household power efficiency, attained from a single powerful 24/7 machine in the house.

And what do you do if MC crashes? Or the Media Server component is simply not reachable? What seems crazy (to me) is having to restart your server whenever this happens.

I like others have had my fair share of "issues" with MC (running Media Server on the HTPC) "not being there" for one reason or another - just when we need it.

But there is no way I could be taking down our main file server down for a restart every time some oddball glitch happens. Our server usage IS 24x7x365 and is never taken off line unless it's for specific maintenance reasons.

With respect to the "power" thing - I once calculated the power used by all my machines - for an entire year - and that cost is simply not a concern.

Again - each to their own - but MC is not designed to be used on a "server" nor is it server class software. I see no reason the challenge that.

VP

Hendrik · « **Reply #17 on:** August 07, 2015, 09:39:04 am »

Quote from: Vocalpoint on August 07, 2015, 09:28:53 am

And what do you do if MC crashes? Or the Media Server component is simply not reachable? What seems crazy (to me) is having to restart your server whenever this happens.

I just remote in and fix MC when needed, although I can't say I had any real issues with it over the last couple years.
Don't think I ever had to restart the entire box for something MC did or didn't do.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #18 on:** August 07, 2015, 10:01:25 am »

Quote from: Hendrik on August 07, 2015, 09:39:04 am

I just remote in and fix MC when needed, although I can't say I had any real issues with it over the last couple years. Don't think I ever had to restart the entire box for something MC did or didn't do.

Must be me then

A while back we had several months of very strange problems - stemming from our HTPC copy of MC doing app updates in the background - and because the app was in Theater Mode all the time (we want MC "at the ready" when we switch to HTPC via our Marantz AVR) - MC would appear onscreen like it was draped in molasses - our remote would not work, button presses would make the screen take 10 seconds to change or it would simply be frozen - and no amount of "remoting" could get it to wake up.

Then trying to remote into the box would be pointless because even in RDP - this frozen theater mode was impenetrable - rendering the RDP session useless. The only way to get the box back in sync was to restart it.

Now - all updates are down manually on a set schedule and MC purrs along perfectly with no hiccups.

So - with things like this going on - having MC on my server would be a nightmare.

VP

Hendrik · « **Reply #19 on:** August 07, 2015, 10:04:41 am »

Well my server obviously doesn't go into theater view, so maybe that helps keeping it nice and clean.

flac.rules · « **Reply #20 on:** August 07, 2015, 11:34:27 am »

Quote from: Vocalpoint on August 07, 2015, 09:28:53 am

Again - each to their own - but MC is not designed to be used on a "server" nor is it server class software. I see no reason the challenge that.

VP

I don't see anybody challenging that MC as of today is not designed for a server OS?

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #21 on:** August 07, 2015, 11:57:48 am »

Quote from: Elvis133 on August 07, 2015, 11:34:27 am

I don't see anybody challenging that MC as of today is not designed for a server OS?

I guess you are missing my specific meaning then. There are at least 4 folks on this thread that seem to have little concern that MC is not supported on nor designed for use with Windows Server but choose to run it in that environment anyway. That to me is "challenging" MC to run without issue - in a unsupported environment.

I would think the fact that these guys are basically confirming your initial question would make you happy - thereby leading to an immediate install of MC on Windows Server at your place?

If they are doing it - why shouldn't you?

VP

flac.rules · « **Reply #22 on:** August 07, 2015, 12:07:41 pm »

Quote from: Vocalpoint on August 07, 2015, 11:57:48 am

I guess you are missing my specific meaning then. There are at least 4 folks on this thread that seem to have little concern that MC is not supported on nor designed for use with Windows Server but choose to run it in that environment anyway. That to me is "challenging" MC to run without issue - in a unsupported environment.

I would think the fact that these guys are basically confirming your initial question would make you happy - thereby leading to an immediate install of MC on Windows Server at your place?

If they are doing it - why shouldn't you?

VP

MC doesn't support server OSes, and I have had trouble stemming from that fact before. That is why i made my original request.

And if that is what you mean by "challenging" people have given many reason for why they run it on a server, those reason might not be important enough for you, but at least you can see them

AndrewFG · « **Reply #23 on:** August 07, 2015, 12:19:05 pm »

Of course it would be nice if mc.exe could run as a Windows Service application, (application that does not require a user to be logged in, and which therefore does not attempt in any way to interact with a non existing UI); but actually it cannot do that...

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #24 on:** August 07, 2015, 12:45:26 pm »

Quote from: Elvis133 on August 07, 2015, 12:07:41 pm

And if that is what you mean by "challenging" people have given many reason for why they run it on a server, those reason might not be important enough for you, but at least you can see them

It's not about their reasons or anything like that - what they choose to do is their own business.

I am just surprised to see people taking a chance with it - especially guys really close to it like Hendrik - when it's blatantly not supported. I have enough trouble getting things nice and stable - in the "supported" environments - let alone the unsupported ones

Obviously these guys are fine with whatever issues may come their way.

That said - even if MC was officially supported on Windows Server - I still would not install it on a server. I guess I am old school about keeping my infrastructure neat, tidy and separate.

VP

rudyrednose · « **Reply #25 on:** August 07, 2015, 03:49:39 pm »

Quote from: Vocalpoint on August 07, 2015, 09:28:53 am

And what do you do if MC crashes? Or the Media Server component is simply not reachable?

As I mentioned, my specific environment is fairly different from most as the server is also used as a centrally located workstation. I do not run a business on that machine, just the household...

Most of the workstation tasks are done in VMs, but I run MC on the bare metal OS (WS2012R2) simply because I do use the MC client part (in standard view), for tagging and library management, music and watching TV. Watching video in a VM is not a good experience.

On the (rare) occasions where MC crashed, I just killed the process and relaunched. The only reboots I have ever done were for planned Windows updates.

If I was only running the MC server, I would run it in a VM, as mwillems do.
There is just no good reason in our household to have more than one 24/7 machine, and I am very glad to achieve such low power operation from a powerful machine (the Xeon E3-1246 is i7-4790 class, plus ECC).

And I accept that JRiver will not support server OS operation, I am fine with that and would do exactly the same thing in their shoes

ldoodle · « **Reply #26 on:** August 11, 2015, 09:43:14 am »

Quote from: Vocalpoint on August 05, 2015, 12:52:00 pm

Understood - but why would you run MC - on a Windows server?

Because it then means only 1 machine that needs to be on 24/7, rather than a Server Server and a MC Server.

mwillems answer of using a VM on the Server Server is the best way, as you can have Windows client as a VM.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #27 on:** August 11, 2015, 09:51:57 am »

Quote from: ldoodle on August 11, 2015, 09:43:14 am

Because it then means only 1 machine that needs to be on 24/7, rather than a Server Server and a MC Server.

That's only applicable if you do not care about support (I guess)

Since MC is not (and never will be) supported on any Windows Server platform - in order to run things properly (here) and be properly supported (here) when I need to be - one must run a "server" server and an MC Server.

VP

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Windows server OS support (Read 6722 times)