MySQL vs UPnP sharing

  Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post Reply
PV_XBMC Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 132
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #16
Is possible use both MySQL sharing and also UPnP sharing together?

MySQL for local usage for several XBMC and UPnP sharing for outside usage in scenarios that I have described in previous post.
(This post was last modified: 2012-12-30 13:20 by PV_XBMC.)
find quote
Martijn Offline
Team Kodi
Posts: 11,891
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 170
Location: Dawn of time
Post: #17
Mysql will be dropped in time

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forums before posting.
Do NOT e-mail Team-XBMC members asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting, make sure you read this first

For your mediacenter artwork go to
[Image: fanarttv.png]
find quote
PV_XBMC Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 132
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #18
(2012-12-30 14:23)Martijn Wrote:  Mysql will be dropped in time

But now, MySQL is best sharing solution. I hope that MySQL will be dropped when UPnP sharing will have every feature of MySQL sharing like watched status, position in film and possibility install XBMC or some lite XBMC server version on NAS...
find quote
ijhammo Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #19
(2012-12-30 14:23)Martijn Wrote:  Mysql will be dropped in time

Can I ask how? As far as I am aware upnp doesnt support anything like the meta data that is currently stored in the XBMC library. if you have multiple players (as I do) MySQL is the only option.

Unless of course there is a plan for a Plex like media server (XBMS?!? Big Grin)
find quote
TugboatBill Offline
Posting Freak
Posts: 829
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 7
Post: #20
Nate(?) posted something about this a while back. IIRC the thought was to sync all the XBMC clients using something like upnp (no server). However if I have only one client running, partially watch a show, then turn it off, then later turn on a different client I don't see how that client would know where to start in that video. Huh
find quote
Ned Scott Offline
Team-Kodi Wiki Guy
Posts: 21,915
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 289
Location: Arizona, USA
Post: #21
MySQL is a long ways from being dropped at this point. We do want there to be the option of running some kind of server or headless XBMC, so that people can run the replacement setup from their NAS or other light server. UPnP A/V does support metadata, which is one reason why it's currently seen as the best option for a replacement right now (though many ideas are being looked).

You can make easy links to the XBMC wiki using double brackets around common XBMC words: [[debug log]] = debug log, [[Video library]] = Video library, [[SMB]] = SMB , [[userdata]] = userdata, etc
find quote
sirmeili Offline
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #22
(2012-12-30 14:23)Martijn Wrote:  Mysql will be dropped in time

Unless you plan on offering up a solution such as a "headless server" app that can run on a centralized server, I don't see the benefit it getting rid of mySQL. For instance, why should I have to have my main HTPC turned on in order to watch TV in my bedroom? If I have a nas with mySQL (or in my case a full blown server), I can just have mySQL installed and there is no need for other machines to be running. I actually preferred this method and with the current enhancements for the sharing of images, it works very well.

Granted, if you are going to be doing a headless server version of XBMC (Similar to plex), then I'm all for this. I personally prefer XBMC over Plex, but I like how they have a server service to maintain data. I would say, though, that you intend to move to only uPnP, you need to figure out a way to make it work more like the library. As it is now in Frodo, UPnP sharing is a joke if you really want all the features of the "library". I'm also not a fan of library "syncing" via uPnP, because that still requires you to have 2 xbmc machines running at once.

My ultimate, ease of setup suggestion would be to move all the code that maintains actual data into an more modern code style (event based) and keep the UI in the old style. Then if someone wants to run the 'server' code on a server, they can, but at the same time you can just install both on the same machine and not know the difference (it could just be an option at install...defaulted to installing both). I would also think this is just a tad more efficient code side. It would also allow a person to keep the service running while not keeping the UI up if they use their machine for other things (saving resources). I think that would be a huge overhaul, so for now, I think that off machine data storage (mySQL) is the best solution. There is no harm in having both, but I think getting rid of mySQL is a huge mistake for the power users that really leverage it the way it should be (though honestly, I'd rather see it go to MS SQL Server instead)

Just my $.02
find quote
Martijn Offline
Team Kodi
Posts: 11,891
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 170
Location: Dawn of time
Post: #23
There is definitely harm with having mysql because it's a pain in the ass for the coders.
Since there isn't a definitive design you are already shooting it down because every one is obsessed with mysql being the answer to everything. Who says the new design won't be able to run on a nas?
Besides isn't running a nas+device exactly the same as running device +device?
Wait with complaining till concept is done. Mssql will definitely not be an option.

Just my €0.02

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forums before posting.
Do NOT e-mail Team-XBMC members asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting, make sure you read this first

For your mediacenter artwork go to
[Image: fanarttv.png]
(This post was last modified: 2013-01-07 18:52 by Martijn.)
find quote
Skank Online
Posting Freak
Posts: 1,640
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 7
Post: #24
(2013-01-07 18:46)Martijn Wrote:  There is definitely harm with having mysql because it's a pain in the ass for the coders.
Since there isn't a definitive design you are already shooting it down because every one is obsessed with mysql being the answer to everything. Who says the new design won't be able to run on a nas?
Besides isn't running a nas+device exactly the same as running device +device?
Wait with complaining till concept is done. Mssql will definitely not be an option.

Just my €0.02

if i want to use mysql with 2 xbmc machines synced and only watching on one xbmc device -> i have to turn on unraid(+mysql) +htpc1 So 1+1=2
if i want to use upnp with 2 xbmc machines and want to watch on device 2 ->i have to turn on unraid(mysql) +htpc1 (upnp db) +htpc2 (to actually watch So 1+1+1=3 (one more device only to share through upnp)
find quote
amwebby Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 0
Post: #25
I read this thread with interest. I used to use MySql to use one library on my PC with my two instances of XBMC (both on Android set top boxes).

Now I've moved the data to my wireless box, which can act as a network server and a upnp avenue media server.

Currently I'm using the former and scratching my head over how to get MYSQL working on the wireless box. I tried accessing the upnp server from XBMC but couldn't establish a constant connection and, without XBMC able to somehow use the upnp server's media functions (like cover art) there didn't seem much point.

This thread seems to be all about using XBMC as a upnp server versus MySQL but what about support for third party upnp servers? My Samsung Smart TV works seamlessly with the wireless box's upnp server, why can't XBMC?
find quote
Martijn Offline
Team Kodi
Posts: 11,891
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 170
Location: Dawn of time
Post: #26
(2013-01-07 19:11)Skank Wrote:  
(2013-01-07 18:46)Martijn Wrote:  There is definitely harm with having mysql because it's a pain in the ass for the coders.
Since there isn't a definitive design you are already shooting it down because every one is obsessed with mysql being the answer to everything. Who says the new design won't be able to run on a nas?
Besides isn't running a nas+device exactly the same as running device +device?
Wait with complaining till concept is done. Mssql will definitely not be an option.

Just my €0.02

if i want to use mysql with 2 xbmc machines synced and only watching on one xbmc device -> i have to turn on unraid(+mysql) +htpc1 So 1+1=2
if i want to use upnp with 2 xbmc machines and want to watch on device 2 ->i have to turn on unraid(mysql) +htpc1 (upnp db) +htpc2 (to actually watch So 1+1+1=3 (one more device only to share through upnp)

Who the h*** is claiming that upnp won't be able to run on a nas.
1+1=2


And if you are so hogged up on saving energy throw out that power hungry unraid thing.
You can even use the r-pi as intermediate device and what does that only use on power.

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forums before posting.
Do NOT e-mail Team-XBMC members asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting, make sure you read this first

For your mediacenter artwork go to
[Image: fanarttv.png]
(This post was last modified: 2013-01-07 19:20 by Martijn.)
find quote
Skank Online
Posting Freak
Posts: 1,640
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 7
Post: #27
(2013-01-07 19:18)Martijn Wrote:  
(2013-01-07 19:11)Skank Wrote:  
(2013-01-07 18:46)Martijn Wrote:  There is definitely harm with having mysql because it's a pain in the ass for the coders.
Since there isn't a definitive design you are already shooting it down because every one is obsessed with mysql being the answer to everything. Who says the new design won't be able to run on a nas?
Besides isn't running a nas+device exactly the same as running device +device?
Wait with complaining till concept is done. Mssql will definitely not be an option.

Just my €0.02

if i want to use mysql with 2 xbmc machines synced and only watching on one xbmc device -> i have to turn on unraid(+mysql) +htpc1 So 1+1=2
if i want to use upnp with 2 xbmc machines and want to watch on device 2 ->i have to turn on unraid(mysql) +htpc1 (upnp db) +htpc2 (to actually watch So 1+1+1=3 (one more device only to share through upnp)

Who the h*** is claiming that upnp won't be able to run on a nas.
1+1=2


And if you are so hogged up on saving energy throw out that power hungry unraid thing.
You can even use the r-pi as intermediate device and what does that only use on power.

wow calme down
im just saying that how the situation is now, for me...
if we get a headless server version of xbmc, it would solve the issue
if upnp will be able to run on unraid for ex, all ok

where did i say upnp wont be able to run on a nas? nowhere, im just saying how it is now...
unraid isnt that power hungry either
All my data is on unraid, so its just useless to run a third machine just for library sharing...(how it is right now)
find quote
wimble Offline
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 0
Post: #28
(2013-01-07 19:18)Martijn Wrote:  Who the h*** is claiming that upnp won't be able to run on a nas.
1+1=2
And if you are so hogged up on saving energy throw out that power hungry unraid thing.
You can even use the r-pi as intermediate device and what does that only use on power.

Well, it won't run on my NAS. I've got two Thecus 4100+, which are obsolete, but, in my experience, have been absolutely rock solid. The only reason I'm considering replacing them is because I need more capacity. There is a Twonky Media Server plugin for it, which I *think* is UPnP, but the metadata it was presenting was so poor that I went back to NFS sharing, and a separate media player (with its own metadata). Unless you're going to write me a UPnP module, then, as Skank says, I'll need to be running a separate machine to host a good UPnP server.

Alternatively, I could throw away my existing storage systems, and replace them with a Power Hungry unraid machine, which also has the power to run the UPnP server itself. But that's an either/or: do I want a powerful central storage, or "barely sufficient" energy concious one? Telling people they're going to have to fork out for new *hardware* due to changing designs in XBMC isn't going to go down well, unless there are clearly end user advantages to doing so. And, I'm sorry, but "it's hard for the developers" isn't an end user advantage. Unless, of course, the removal of MySQL means that other features get more attention, which might be the case. But I honestly have no idea, because I don't know how much effort MySQL support takes. I should hope that it's barely more than SQLite, with the possible exception of the upgrade code.

And actually, yes, I do already have a Raspberry PI, which an always-on network controller (DHCP, DDNS, Postfix, and dovecot). So I'm fine, and can just put XBMC on that (as long as it's not going to clog up my existing configuration). But, even amongst the people who've got shared XBMC installations, I'd expect that those with the luxury of an "always on" server are in a minority.
find quote
sirmeili Offline
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #29
(2013-01-07 18:46)Martijn Wrote:  Since there isn't a definitive design you are already shooting it down because every one is obsessed with mysql being the answer to everything. Who says the new design won't be able to run on a nas?

You'll notice that I did say it would be ok if it had a server options (headless with no gui) as that would fill the needs of everyone. As to your suggestion that I should keep my living room HTPC on full time, I don't think that's a great solution for everyone. I was trying to offer up a solution that would fit all needs without necessarily having to go with uPnP (though that could be the technology that is actually used to tied it all together in a server (headless)/client setup.

Just for clarification, here is the first sentence of my comment:

sirmeili Wrote:Unless you plan on offering up a solution such as a "headless server" app that can run on a centralized server, I don't see the benefit it getting rid of mySQL.

I'm sorry if it came across as I was putting down the solution, I was just offering up a different one. And yes, Device + Device is different than Device + Nas as a nas could use less power and those that use Device + Nas would now have to use Device + Device + Nas if they still choose to store their files on the Nas.

I'm probably in the oh so very small minority there, but I will still hold on to the believe that splitting the app into a Client GUI and a Service that handles data would ultimately be the best solution as even a single machine could just install both and run as a singleton. This of course might mess with the ease that the code is compiled for multiple different operating systems, so don't think it will ever happen. Due to this, just having the option to run XBMC without the gui loaded would go a long way and as long as the UPnP solution allowed me to maintain my content like it is a library now, I could accept that.
find quote
Zernable Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 132
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 5
Post: #30
A headless "server" version, as has been mentioned already in this thread is one of the future directions that is already being looked at and worked on. See the development thread for more details. It's also been stated that MySQL isn't going to disappear overnight and won't be removed until there is another working solution in place.
(This post was last modified: 2013-01-07 23:02 by Zernable.)
find quote
Post Reply