View Full Version : Network Storage Server for XBMC?
xeonicxpression
2008-05-08, 01:06
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, 01:43
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
For a server I'd look at unRAId from Limetechnologies (http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php). 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.
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, 03:04
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.
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.
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, 06:49
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, 07:06
Yes, it's easier to install and run, which is what this guy needs, really.
natethomas
2008-05-08, 07:22
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, 08:42
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, 09:08
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.
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'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, 18:19
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.
xeonicxpression
2008-05-08, 23:11
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.
Not sure if you thought the data would be stored on the same computer as the HTPC, but they are seperate. My parents wouldn't actually use it:laugh:. I just was trying to say it would be nice if someone that totally technologically inept could use the system. I only have about 2.3tb of data right now so I wont be filling it up instantly. With the ever expanding availability of HD content 24tb wont really be that much space.
I'll have to look closer at FreeNAS, it looks interesting. I was thinking of using the server to re-encode dvds to H.264, but that was just a thought. FreeNAS would kind of mess that up, but I guess it wouldn't be a big deal. I could just keep them in Video_TS folders and skip the re-encoding. It looks like a lot of people have some interesting setups and ideas.
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.
I tried freenas once it was major league slow in samba sharing do a google for freenas slow and you you will find plenty of people saying it
Silly thing to say?! You're using what? I've done some incredibly anally retentive bandwidth testing with a fair few systems btw. I could google a million problems for a million people running a million apps that were caused by a million reasons, what what that show?
With unraid you're using an 'unstable' software raid (I could suggest a fair few things to google that are slightly more concerning than samba speed issues on old versions of freebsd), with freenas you can use a 'stable' software raid, hardware raid or neither. I'm using some cheap hardware (its still a relatively modern skt939 system) for my main storage machine and have absolutely zero issues with stability. I've got a mix of IDE and sata drives, I'm not using raid and realworld performance over a cheap gb network is limited by each disks throughput.
Read the hcl, use intel network cards and consider things like bus limitations to get an idea what to expect in theory. I'd like to see any out of the box system work 'perfectly' with samba over a gb network without editing the conf.
I was thinking of using the server to re-encode dvds to H.264, but that was just a thought. FreeNAS would kind of mess that up, but I guess it wouldn't be a big deal. I could just keep them in Video_TS folders and skip the re-encoding.
You can make any of these systems do whatever you want with varying degrees of difficulty. Defeats half the point in them I guess, whats a server whats a nas blablablaba
I think you should experiment with everything to achieve what you want, google only tells you so much and there's often all sorts of misleading info. If you havn't got the time or patience to play around maybe a commercial solution is what you're after. Annyways, the difference between 20 and 100MB/s might not be as big as it seems.
hazeh you seem a little too upset over a personal obsevation of mine :\
Last time I used free nas it was at least 20% slower in file transfers to and from it than a windows box with an extra HDD in it shared. Thats all I said
Yeah, you should see me banging my desk with my bright red hands and screaming at the screen :)
Not a fan of any mis/un/informed opinions to things like this where there is any 'right' answer or solution . Human nature to justify purchases and choices and things, I try and encourage everyone to try things for themselves. Thats all I meant
It might look like quality retarded babble, but I'm english
If you want to simply store data to be accessable from the network I would go for the Conceptronic C3SNAS (http://www.conceptronic.net/site/desktopdefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=200&Cat=60&grp=6030&ar=452&Prod_ID=2054&Prod=CH3SNAS). It comes without any driver and costs about 125 Euro.
You can put discs of any size in it (SATA), has a Gbit ethernet connection, uses about 7 watt under load and 4 watt idle, can be configured in two disc usage, single disc usage RAID and JBOB. The admin interface and firmware are solid and it's running Linux which creates te ability to install funplug and thus install Linux software. I'm using two 1GB discs. Performance is superb. I have a 100Mbit network, but I've read that people with a Gbit network can write to the disc with up to 20MB/s, when jumboframes are enabled (this can be done from the configuration interface).
Why do all that??
I have the perfect solution... and I use it!
MyBook! It's an external NETWORK hard drive. I have the 500GB edition, but they also come in smaller and up to 1TB. Just hook it up to your router, and bingo!
I use it with my XBMC to watch movies over the network (no lag what-so-ever), and I have a 50ft. ethernet cable from my router to my xbox.
You can use it on any PC/Mac (Windows, Linux and MacOSX all see it). Right now, I have over 300 movies, and I can play every one of them on XBMC, on my HDTV, and they look BEAUTIFUL!
Silly thing to say?! You're using what? I've done some incredibly anally retentive bandwidth testing with a fair few systems btw. I could google a million problems for a million people running a million apps that were caused by a million reasons, what what that show?
With unraid you're using an 'unstable' software raid (I could suggest a fair few things to google that are slightly more concerning than samba speed issues on old versions of freebsd), with freenas you can use a 'stable' software raid, hardware raid or neither. I'm using some cheap hardware (its still a relatively modern skt939 system) for my main storage machine and have absolutely zero issues with stability. I've got a mix of IDE and sata drives, I'm not using raid and realworld performance over a cheap gb network is limited by each disks throughput.
Read the hcl, use intel network cards and consider things like bus limitations to get an idea what to expect in theory. I'd like to see any out of the box system work 'perfectly' with samba over a gb network without editing the conf.
What's "unstable" about unRAID exactly?
I LIKE the fact that unused disks can spin down, that my parity isn't striped, that losing more than one disk doesn't mean I lose it all, I like not having to have hotspares, I like that I can use normal recovery tools on a drive if I must. I like being able to buy whatever disk I want on sale and slap it in when I run low on space but still have parity protection. Best of all I like not having to screw with it all the time.
It's NOT the fastest setup for writes but it's plenty fast for reads. I run two unRAID, one is 12 drives and the other 8. Together this is pushing something North of 8TB. Uptime is regulated pretty much by how often I have extended power outages. Don't use it if you don't want to but try to be factual when you criticize something you've obviously not used.
This is fun!
I put it in quotes a for a pretty valid reason in my mind. If you think I'm lying about trying, testing and using unraid then why are you replying? I didn't have any problems with stability, but I did take the time to look at what actual software it is running... I could go on and on, but you've said in previous posts that you're not the biggest nix guy and maybe you're not familiar with the historys of various filesystems, softraid implementations etc.
I'd hoped that it might spur anyone interested in data storage into doing lots of reading, better than writing random defensive posts. I'd still call zfs "unstable" but I love it and use it and tell people about it.
It seems like you would LIKE every single storage product with more than a single disc in it btw.
I'd rather a slow system that I didn't have to crc check every 5 mins than a fast one :)
unraid is fine, maybe I should have just listed freenas, unraid, nexenta, flexraid, openfiler, clark connect, suriyan, opene, naslite, whs, etcetcetc as alternatives that are already done for you.
Why do all that??
I have the perfect solution... and I use it!
MyBook! It's an external NETWORK hard drive. I have the 500GB edition, but they also come in smaller and up to 1TB. Just hook it up to your router, and bingo!
I use it with my XBMC to watch movies over the network (no lag what-so-ever), and I have a 50ft. ethernet cable from my router to my xbox.
You can use it on any PC/Mac (Windows, Linux and MacOSX all see it). Right now, I have over 300 movies, and I can play every one of them on XBMC, on my HDTV, and they look BEAUTIFUL!
I've bought three of them. One for myself and theother two for my sisters (all 500GB). Mine had a hardware problem and the orher two software problems, as it seems. The software is terrible. Very slow and unstable. All three are back at the shop I've bought them. They are tested and marked as doa. I got a refund. I've hacked one of them (linux is running on it) to install funplug but I was unable to make the drive faster and more stable.
Check the reviews about the WD MyBook World edition, they are not! good. Trust me...sped 100 euro's more and you'll be happy with the CH3SNAS for quite a while (also check the reviews about this solution!).