Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    164

    Is QNAP still supported?

    As there has been no input from Progressive for the last few weeks, does anyone know if QNAP is still officially supported.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    754
    Well, the Qnap version of Slimserver is still up to date and the last plug-ins update was posted only three weeks ago, so I wouldn't panic just yet. I had an email from Paul just the other day (not Qnap related) so he's very much still around at Progressive. Have you tried contacting him through the on-line support function on the Cooltopia website?

  3. #3
    Senior Member happyfishman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    171
    I was starting to wonder too... I haven't yet made the leap to SS6.5 because of the possible memory issues (and and a disasterous wireless router failure, but that's another story), but I would like a little reassurance that we will be able to operate our squeezeboxes at the same or better level of functionality with future SS updates, though.

    That said, I'm not overly concerned about the silence from Paul/Progressive... yet...

  4. #4
    Senior Member Seineseeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    254
    Well its been a few weeks without a word. And there's the memory issue, the disk spinning down issue, not to mention the patch to use slave drives.

    Either Paul is busy working on these issues, or Progressive have pulled the plug on the QNAP for SS! Let's hope its the former.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerryacg View Post
    As there has been no input from Progressive for the last few weeks, does anyone know if QNAP is still officially supported.
    So, to respond to my own question ... Considering the lack of response from Progresive, It would appear that the answer is No. I would now, respectfully request that Progressive post a statement on the forum regarding the support issue. True, the latest SS is on the upgrade page, but it dosn't work. This was acknowledged by Prog at the end of last month. If, as suggested a fix is being worked on, can someone from Progressive take a minute to post a message letting us know.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerryacg View Post
    So, to respond to my own question ... Considering the lack of response from Progresive, It would appear that the answer is No. I would now, respectfully request that Progressive post a statement on the forum regarding the support issue. True, the latest SS is on the upgrade page, but it dosn't work. This was acknowledged by Prog at the end of last month. If, as suggested a fix is being worked on, can someone from Progressive take a minute to post a message letting us know.
    What doesn't work in the latest SS? Mine's ok.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Seineseeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    254
    Well lets not jump to conclusions. They are still selling QNAPs with SS installed for one thing. I hope the patch for the slave appears at some point, otherwise I am scuppered when my 300GB is full!!! I am still using 6.3 and it all works very nicely for now.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    485
    Mine works with 6.5. Disk spin down remains erratic but that is the only problem - and do I care - no!

    Any problems with 6.5 (slow browser) are also apparent on my ReadyNAS NV and in fact the TS-101 is slightly quicker even though the NV has 1Gb of memory (hint: slow browser response may not be memory related). Paul has a business to run, we had an update three weeks ago so I think we are being a bit naive to expect they regularly read these forums. They are also dependant on the manufactuer in Taiwan or wherever so delays are to be expected.

    Paul has my order for a Transporter so he has a financial incentive to continue support but I am not about to hassle him for it even though I am looking forward to getting it.

    I have to admit the Infrant guys get involved on their forum but despite many posts they are no further forward in resolving the SS 6.5 issues than Qnap.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Paul_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    345
    Slimserver 6.5 is usable on QNAP, the only issue is using the web interface. I have just purchased a 1.5GHz VIA based system with 1GB memory running Windows 2003 and SS6.5 and watching the CPU activity and performance stats from the SS the web browsing interface takes 0.5 seconds to complete and CPU usage hits 100% for the same period. So no surprise a 233MHz system with 64MB takes longer.

    As for disk spin down I am not convinced this is solely down to SS. My disk spindown has been very erratic since I first bought the QNAP and running SS < 6.3. Only way to work out what is causing this is a better event log on the QNAP where diagnostic logging can be increased.
    Paul

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Squeeze Server 7.6 on Windows 2008 R2
    SB3 x1, SBB (Squeezebox Boom) x1, SBR (Squeezebox Radio with battery) x1, SBT (Squeezebox Touch) x1
    RIP - dBpowerAMP R13 to FLAC
    ID3 Tags - MP3Tag v2.41 and Discogs
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Shrewsbury, UK
    Posts
    336

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul_B View Post
    Slimserver 6.5 is usable on QNAP, the only issue is using the web interface. I have just purchased a 1.5GHz VIA based system with 1GB memory running Windows 2003 and SS6.5 and watching the CPU activity and performance stats from the SS the web browsing interface takes 0.5 seconds to complete and CPU usage hits 100% for the same period. So no surprise a 233MHz system with 64MB takes longer.

    As for disk spin down I am not convinced this is solely down to SS. My disk spindown has been very erratic since I first bought the QNAP and running SS < 6.3. Only way to work out what is causing this is a better event log on the QNAP where diagnostic logging can be increased.
    I totally agree with the above. SS 6.5.0 is operating very well, Web interface I find pretty responsive apart from a couple of tabs which take a few seconds to refresh, but what the hell - it's only a Qnap not a super fast PC.
    I love my Qnap, so much in a little box & at a good price.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •