Running Squeezebox Server on a NAS vs. a PC ???

[gweempose]

I haven't really been keeping up with NAS technology. Are any of the newer NAS units a viable alternative to running Squeezebox Server on a PC? Perhaps something like this:

http://netgear.com/products/home/sto.../RNDP600E.aspx

I would definitely consider going this route, but I don't want to take a performance hit vs. a PC based solution. I see that the newer NAS units have much faster processors than they used to, so my hopes are high.

[fphredd]

Many will chime in with less expensive alternatives. As to the ReadyNAS you're looking at, I've set up 3 for this purpose (and other storage) and haven't had a hiccup (actually the business edition, but same processor, just some different features and longer warranty).

[iPhone]

Many will chime in, so here goes. Depending how large your library is, how many plugins you use, and looks like you have a few players, I highly recommend building a purpose built Music Server. It will cost half of the price of an NAS and be 2 to 4 times more powerful. One thing to remember, when it comes to using an NAS to run SBS, NAS stands for Not A Server. An NAS is not designed to run programs, it is designed for Network Attached Storage. Will they work, sure, but all are poor replacements for a dedicated purpose built Music Server in my opinion. I have owned a Thecus N5200 Pro dedicated to running SC and wish I had been steered away from using an NAS.

My Atom Server runs circles around most NAS, cost half, and uses less then 25 watts! I now only build dedicated Music Servers for my relatives, friends, and myself. RAID is not a reason to use an NAS with SBS as RAID is NOT backup. In a Music Server, all RAID does is waste disk space, increase the amount of energy used and run up the cost with unnecessary additional drives. Large USB drives are cheap as well as REAL backup.

Just my thoughts after first having a ReadyNAS NV+, moving to a N5200 Pro, then using low end PC or Atom Motherboards for a dedicated Music Server (also does video).

[JJZolx]

I would definitely consider going this route, but I don't want to take a performance hit vs. a PC based solution. I see that the newer NAS units have much faster processors than they used to, so my hopes are high.

Dollar for dollar you _will_ take a performance hit. There are many NAS these days that are based on more powerful processors, but they're much more expensive than putting together a bare bones PC with the same specs. One of the things you'll be paying for in an NAS, which man people believe that you don't need (or even want) in a Squeezeox Server is RAID, whether you use it or not. And if you do use it you'll be paying for at least one additional hard drive and still won't have a sound backup of your music library.

There's a lot more value to be had if you can do a little research and put a little work into assembling your own server and installing the necessary software. Look into SlimNAS.

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31861

[hvb83]

One issue everybody fails to see when preaching DIY in comparison to a NAS is, that some people don't have the technical knowledge to build and maintain a server themselve, or have the time or patience at hand to do so. I did find much fun in building my own computer when I was 16, but now that I have a job, a family and time becomes scarce, I need to spent time wisely.

I've bought a Synology DS210+ for about $350, which isn't exactly very cheap, but at the same time I'll never have to worry about updates as the manufacturer takes care of this very nicely. I'm not a computer novice, but with Linux I see myself searching Google for a few hours everytime a problem arises. Now I just download the updated firmware and know my system will be up and running again within 15 minutes. It runs reliable 24/7, my girlfriend can go through it while knowing the system won't pose any problems. Ofcourse this might apply to DIY-rigs too, but most of the times there is a certain time involved in finetuning the system and solving any problems that come up (but for most guys that's part of the fun too, I realize that...) and time is just too precious for me to waste on playing around with a server.

I can't speak for 50000+ size collections as I don't have any experience with those, but for any sub 50k collections, a somewhat more powerful NAS will do just fine. It's fast enough, it's reliable and it doesn't consume much power.

[Nando1970]

My Atom Server runs circles around most NAS, cost half, and uses less then 25 watts! I now only build dedicated Music Servers for my relatives, friends, and myself.
[...]
Just my thoughts after first having a ReadyNAS NV+, moving to a N5200 Pro, then using low end PC or Atom Motherboards for a dedicated Music Server (also does video).

iPhone would you point me to resources to build such a server?

I'm using an old QNAP 409-PRO with SBS (few plugins) and I am quite satisfied. I know its limitations (it can't trascode m4a) but it's ok for a 50k+ collection of MP3 and FLAC

Anyway I would consider a more powerful server to which I would offload other processes beside SBS, especially if it could run Windows. Or is it SlimServer the way to go?

thank you

[toby10]

One issue everybody fails to see when preaching DIY in comparison to a NAS is, that some people don't have the technical knowledge to build and maintain a server themselve, or have the time or patience at hand to do so. I did find much fun in building my own computer when I was 16, but now that I have a job, a family and time becomes scarce, I need to spent time wisely.....

Good point, but the same can be said for people not having the time or interest in learning a whole new OS.
For what one would spend on a decently powered NAS one could buy a more powerful used laptop or desktop to perform the same function but with a familiar OS and no special audio codecs to download or maintain.

But to each his own. SqueezeBox is so broadly supported across so many platforms it offers many choices to many different user comfort levels.

[hvb83]

But to each his own. SqueezeBox is so broadly supported across so many platforms it offers many choices to many different user comfort levels.

And that’s the beauty of it. It offers enough handles even for the most technically challenged users to be able to use it without any problems. For the tweakers amongst us, it is so flexible that you can tailor it to suit your needs and use whatever hardware and OS you like.

Btw, if you mean learning a whole new OS for NAS, I can’t speak for other makes as I don’t have any experience with them. But as far as Synology goes, SBS-implementation is all there and no learning-curve in the OS, no command line, no codecs to be installed. If you can work windows, you’ll know your way around the GUI of the NAS.

But you’re right, everyone has his own reasons for choosing a certain route. Mine were reliability, low power consumption, working out-of-the-box and speed. In that order. Other people will have other reasons or different priorities. Not saying mine is the best option, but it certainly isn’t the bad solution some people are trying to make it look. Thereby making it unnecessarily unattractive for many people to even consider a Squeezebox, as “you have to do all kind of difficult stuff in order to make it work”. That would be a shame for all of us in the end, as we will eventually all benefit if the system becomes more popular.

[iPhone]

One issue everybody fails to see when preaching DIY in comparison to a NAS is, that some people don't have the technical knowledge to build and maintain a server themselve, or have the time or patience at hand to do so. I did find much fun in building my own computer when I was 16, but now that I have a job, a family and time becomes scarce, I need to spent time wisely.

I've bought a Synology DS210+ for about $350, which isn't exactly very cheap, but at the same time I'll never have to worry about updates as the manufacturer takes care of this very nicely. I'm not a computer novice, but with Linux I see myself searching Google for a few hours everytime a problem arises. Now I just download the updated firmware and know my system will be up and running again within 15 minutes. It runs reliable 24/7, my girlfriend can go through it while knowing the system won't pose any problems. Ofcourse this might apply to DIY-rigs too, but most of the times there is a certain time involved in finetuning the system and solving any problems that come up (but for most guys that's part of the fun too, I realize that...) and time is just too precious for me to waste on playing around with a server.

I can't speak for 50000+ size collections as I don't have any experience with those, but for any sub 50k collections, a somewhat more powerful NAS will do just fine. It's fast enough, it's reliable and it doesn't consume much power.

Just can't agree with that premise. Where and what is the difference between not being able to maintain a DIY Server VS an NAS? What I am saying is if you can't maintain a DIY Server then you can't maintain an NAS either. The NAS is actually harder because its not designed to run programs and probably has RAID enabled. And just wait until its time to update the SBS version on an NAS. One can go to Best Buy, Micro Center, or the Internet and buy todays $249 barebones PC special and be up and running in 15 minutes or less with loads more power then an NAS and $100 left over to buy more CDs or downloads.

As an example, one could have bought a Vortexbox Appliance for $369 and been ready to go out of the box with only the need to transfer files to it or start feeding it CDs that it will auto-rip. And a VBXA runs circles around a Synology DS210+.

And yes, part of performance depends on number of players and what they are doing, number of active Plugins used, and library size with what file format.

[iPhone]

iPhone would you point me to resources to build such a server?

I'm using an old QNAP 409-PRO with SBS (few plugins) and I am quite satisfied. I know its limitations (it can't trascode m4a) but it's ok for a 50k+ collection of MP3 and FLAC

Anyway I would consider a more powerful server to which I would offload other processes beside SBS, especially if it could run Windows. Or is it SlimServer the way to go?

thank you

Not trying to be a smart ass, but the Internet is your friend. Does the OS have to be Windows? I strongly recommend running Linux on a Server. Vortexbox OS is free and once installed one has an Audio and Video Server running in 15 minutes with auto CD ripping.

Look for a case for mini-ATX that has a 30 to 60 Watt power supply. Buy an Atom Motherboard (newer ones don't use a fan and draw less watts and make less heat), I like 2GB of RAM, and a proper size SATA hard drive. Only install an optical drive if plan to use the Vortexbox Auto ripping feature or rip with whatever OS you install. Yes while building it and the case is open one needs an optical drive to install the OS, but it can be removed before one buttons it up for full time use if not ripping on the box. There are tons of Internet PC parts sites to order from. I live close to MicroCenter and also watch the specials at Fry's.

I would build Music Servers myself, but one can build one without much trouble for only $10 or $20 more then my cost with smart shopping. A good example of bang for ones buck is the Vortexbox Appliance for $369 from Small Green Computer is hard to beat especially since it is ready to go out of the box IE turn key music/video server.