Login at Kodi Home

xeonicxpression · 2008-05-08, 00:06

I'm looking to build a media server for my house. Currently I use VMC with my movies to catalog and watch, so I was going to go with Windows Server 2003 or 2008 for the OS. I already know Windows and can diagnose any problems I have. Linux on the other hand I don't know a thing about. Once XBMC matures a little more, I would like to switch over to it since even in the early stages I can't find anything that can compare to it. Will I have any issues with XBMC accessing files over a network using UNC paths on a NTFS file system? I would consider using linux for the server if Windows computers could still access the data with ease(read and write over the network), the distro was relatively easy to setup and maintain (I don't mind doing some grunt work upfront as long as it isn't overly complicated and a hastle to maintain), and has good support and reliability for whatever raid card I end up going with. It makes me nervous trusting an OS I know nothing about with TBs of data. So if you could give me some pros and cons I would appriciate it.

rodalpho · 2008-05-08, 00:43

XBMC for linux is nowhere remotely near ready for your level of technical comfort. Your choices are:

1) Wait a year+ for the mythical bootable LiveCD, also peace in the middle east, dogs and cats living together, and driving your personal hovercraft to work
2) Wait a couple of months for XBMC/windows to come up to rough parity with XBMC/linux. Keep trying it out every so often until it does what you want.
3) Buy a mac mini and run OSXBMC

**BLKMGK** · 2008-05-08, 01:21

For a server I'd look at unRAId from Limetechnologies. It's plenty fast enough for serving HD video and is expandable. It's pay for play but there's active development being done and once setup it's pretty much an appliance - I use two of these servers. It's Linux based but not something you have to learn the guts of Linux to use. UNC paths are no issues - it plays fine with XBMC.

As for setting up XBMC - try it. I'm no Linux pro either but I can get around in it and XBMC has allowed me to learn more. If you've got hardware that you can play with just try setting it up and see how it does. The Wiki gives good instructions for pulling it down from source or you can use the packaged version and skip the learning to compile stuff - for which there's a script available anyway. If you like to tinker and enjoy playing with computers go for it, if nothing you will have learned something and can repurpose the hardware if yuo get frustrated.

**sho** · (This post was last modified: 2008-05-08, 01:57 by sho.)

Samba on Linux will be just as good if not better as a media server than any Windows.
(not to mention that it needs less resources and will probably be more stable)

My background is in Windows, yet my media server has been FreeBSD and now Debian for n years. Never have to touch the blasted thing.

If you have absolutely no Linux skills, you will have to weigh it for yourself (I have good access to a Linux expert).

"UNC paths on a NTFS file system", i.e. SMB/SAMBA/CIFS is probably the best supported media sharing protocol for XBMC, at least for the XBox clients.

bmfrosty · 2008-05-08, 02:04

That unRAID server sounds dead sexy, but I think I would want something that could do a more vanilla raid 6, especially with 15 drives. I'm going to investigate this further for when I want to replace my ReadyNAS-NV devices. Raid 6 with 14 drives plus a hot spare just sounds unbeatable to me.

ooh.

although spending $3300 on drives might be a bit much.

ejcdke · 2008-05-08, 04:49

bmfrosty: I'm setting up an unRAID system right now, but while researching various options I came across Openfiler http://www.openfiler.com/. That might be what you're looking for. I haven't tried Openfiler, but it seems like a good option for a RAID 6 setup.

Jezz_X · 2008-05-08, 05:22

rodalpho Wrote:XBMC for linux is nowhere remotely near ready for your level of technical comfort. Your choices are:

1) Wait a year+ for the mythical bootable LiveCD, also peace in the middle east, dogs and cats living together, and driving your personal hovercraft to work
2) Wait a couple of months for XBMC/windows to come up to rough parity with XBMC/linux. Keep trying it out every so often until it does what you want.
3) Buy a mac mini and run OSXBMC

seriously 3 is terribly wrong the linux version is still ahead of the osx version even if only slightly the only benifit the osx version has over linux is its lots easier to install and run. Which linux version will be soon anyway

so if you think 3 is a viable option then 1) is completely wrong and is also a viable option

bmfrosty · 2008-05-08, 05:49

I've got to admit, the linux version was very easy to set up. I haven't played with linux since about 2003 (and before that I was a slackware guy) and I kind of dreaded the idea of getting back in. I found that Ubuntu was dead easy to set up. Setting up XBMC was as easy as running apt-get, and then upgrading to the latest SVN version was almost as easy as learning to download via SVN and running the build script. The only snag I ran into were some problems with my xorg.conf.

Really, if you're building a HTPC for the purpose of running XBMC, it should come down to two easy choices:

1. Run the linux version - the hardware is cheaper, and it's easy to stay on the bleeding edge via SVN and build.sh.

2. Buy a Mac Mini - the hardware is small, quiet, and is fairly low on power consumption. It's also dead easy to set up.

rodalpho · 2008-05-08, 06:06

Yes, it's easier to install and run, which is what this guy needs, really.

**natethomas** · 2008-05-08, 06:22

It's funny how the definition of "easy" changes, person by person.

Ubuntu, for me, is anything but easy. I accept the fact that I have to use Terminal. Also, I can deal with typing commands word for word. But the second I have to start trouble shooting or making things work on my own, I feel like I've stepped into some foreign language world. I mean, I used to think DOS was tricky, but DOS makes xorg look like a random series of 1s and 0s.

I guess I've just spent too much time in the world of windows. I, and I'm guessing the majority of people, will be ready for XBMC on linux on the day that the only thing I have to type in to make it work is a username and password during install (and maybe an area code for weather). I don't want to touch Terminal. I don't want to type -fs. I don't want ever have to type any of the following letters: dpkg, sudo, get, apt, or install. And I DEFINITELY want never to try to understand the word "bash."

With all of that said, I do trust all you XBMC guys. Having had a modded xbox for a year now, I believe guy all can do just about anything you set your minds to. And I know the ultimate goal of this project is to make linuxbmc as easy as I've described.

Anyway, here ends my definition of "easy."

xeonicxpression · 2008-05-08, 07:42

rodalpho Wrote:Yes, it's easier to install and run, which is what this guy needs, really.

Damn man, take a chill pill. I have no problem learning new things. All I was saying is when it comes to storing up to 24tb of data, I don't want to just toss it on anything and hope everything works flawlessly. Since I don't know the inner workings of Linux I don't want my whole server to be down for weeks while I try to figure out what command of random letter I need to enter to fix my problem. Finals are over tomorrow for me and then I'm going to have a week to tinker with getting XBMC running better before back I go back to class. Yes, I do have XBMC installed already on ubuntu 8.04 Shocked

. Not sure what put you in such a crappy mood today but just sit back and chill. Life really isn't that bad.

Now, back on topic. Like natethomas, my definition of easy is not having to mess with the terminal constantly. I want anyone to walk up to the computer and instantly be able to run with it. My parents should be able to run the thing without me explaining myself 20 times(ok well I'll settle for my girlfriend being able to use it, but you get the idea). When it comes to the server, I just want a nice GUI for monitoring the raid and not have to use the terminal constantly. I checked out that OpenFiler and it looks interesting. From the quick glance I took, it doesn't seem to have support for much hardware though. I was looking at adaptec cards, since they seem to have good linux support. From what I've read here, Linux reading files off a window server shouldn't be a problem so I'll probably still go the windows server route. The server will be built with all new parts so the overhead of windows really isn't an issue. Like bmfrosty, I plan on having many hard drives. I plan on starting with 10-12 with room to expand to 24. unRaid does have some nice features, but I just need that extra bit of safety with so many drives. Spinning up 12 drive to play one movie does kind of suck though. I just can't wait to see how XBMC-Linux progresses. I tried the Aeon skin and it didn't play nice with xbmc. I didn't get the IMDB lookup working. Infact it totaly messed up my XBMC install. I would launch XBMC and then it would kill about 5 seconds later!

bmfrosty · 2008-05-08, 08:08

Let me put forward what I'm doing. I have 2 readynas units (4 500 gig drives each) set up. They are currently only reachable via smb, and I have an account that has R/W access, and an account that only has read access. Most of my computers, including HP slimline on top of my TV, only have read access to these. I don't trust user-centric operating systems and applications to not trash my files. This is also why I don't like the idea of using windows as a basis for a server. I've had too reformat windows installations too many times over the years.

If I were to ever build a large NAS to serve media off of, it will be run on either Linux or BSD, and it will be dedicated to serving files with no other functions. The operating system would be on a different raid than the media files. Possibly two compact flash cards in a Raid 1.

If the slimline I have on top of my TV decided to up and die, I'd replace it with a mac mini, because the only areas that it looses to the slimline are in initial cost (and cost/performance ratio) and ease of staying at the bleeding edge for XBMC.

hazeh · 2008-05-08, 11:21

I've tried unraid (no trust in it), very briefly tried openfiler (required another machine running), setup my own simple servers (.) and I've used a readynas (haha) - and have stuck with and use freenas for storage.

No time to elaborate more atm. My reading of this thread was completely blinded by some silly posts, if you are actually planning on storing 24tb of data you obviously will be doing some research and testing.
Personally I think the idea of running windows, running apps on the same machine and letting parents/girlfriends control it is completely nuts.

rrambo · 2008-05-08, 15:50

hazeh Wrote:I've tried unraid (no trust in it), very briefly tried openfiler (required another machine running), setup my own simple servers (.) and I've used a readynas (haha) - and have stuck with and use freenas for storage.

No time to elaborate more atm. My reading of this thread was completely blinded by some silly posts, if you are actually planning on storing 24tb of data you obviously will be doing some research and testing.
Personally I think the idea of running windows, running apps on the same machine and letting parents/girlfriends control it is completely nuts.

I built a CHEAP nas using an old via mini-itx mobo with a 600mHz processor and 128MB ram.. I installed freenas.. It just RUNS... I never have to touch it for any reason.. it barely utilizes the already limited power of the hardware... it serves up video and audio to my whole house over cifs and upnp with no problems streaming video to 3 rooms at once (haven't tried more than 3).. it has been running 24/7 for about a year now and did I mention I NEVER have to touch it?

bmfrosty · 2008-05-08, 17:19

Of the three software's I've seen in this thread at this point, I think I like freenas the most. Might be time to think about doing something with it.