PDA

View Full Version : Slimserver inside Squeezebox?



marc1966
2005-09-02, 14:24
Hi music friends,

I've got 2 SB1 and I love them! What I do not like very much is the dependency on a running server with the slimserver software on it. The costs for a Mac or PC which is active all over the year are pretty high. Furthermore I'm a lazy bastard. So I don't want to boot and shut down my server every day.

Those network harddrives which you find in the meantime on every corner could be a cheaper solution. Wouldn't it be a great idea to built the slimserver software inside the SB so it could access the music simply on a network drive? Maybe it could be realised with some low-cost flash ram?

Kindly excuse my bad english. I'm a german boy who's out of school for decades! Maybe there was already posted such a suggestion. I didn't find it. Sorry.

Best regards
Marc :)

jth
2005-09-02, 15:15
You can run slimserver on some NAS storage devices (Linksys and Buffalo come to mind). I also saw that an interesting new NAS,
the ReadyNAS - http://www.infrant.com/ comes with slimserver
support as a downloadable package.

marc1966
2005-09-03, 01:44
Hi jth,

thx for your reply! I think this solution is pretty clever. But it is not really cheap. Today you can buy some simple network drives for about EUR 150.- (for example the Linksys NSLU2 as you mentioned). But it is very difficult for a normal user like me to make such a system run.

In my opinion the Squeezebox should be able to access those drives by smb or enabled Windows network drives. That would be the easiest way. Do you agree?

Regards

Marc :-)

kolepard
2005-09-03, 06:34
>In my opinion the Squeezebox should be able to access those drives by
>smb or enabled Windows network drives. That would be the easiest way.
>Do you agree?

No. Not even a little.

Kevin
--
Kevin O. Lepard
kolepard (AT) charter (DOT) net

Happiness is being 100% Microsoft free.

jth
2005-09-03, 06:42
It might be the easiest way for Windows users, but not necessarily
the easiest way for other operating systems.

Each product from Slim Devices has gotten increasingly
sophisticated on the inside - I'm sure the possibility
of running slimserver on the squeezebox has crossed their
minds. It should also reduce development and support costs
for slimserver to have only one supported platform. I'm happy
as long as I can play music. :-)

Jacob Potter
2005-09-03, 07:28
On 9/3/05, jth <jth.1usckz (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> It might be the easiest way for Windows users, but not necessarily
> the easiest way for other operating systems.
>
> Each product from Slim Devices has gotten increasingly
> sophisticated on the inside - I'm sure the possibility
> of running slimserver on the squeezebox has crossed their
> minds. It should also reduce development and support costs
> for slimserver to have only one supported platform. I'm happy
> as long as I can play music. :-)

Not just lower development and support costs, but fewer units shipped
would result in a drop in manufacturing and shipping expesnses as
well. A win all around, no? :)

- Jacob

marc1966
2005-09-04, 01:41
Hello,

I think the more easier it is to run a squeezebox at home, the more squeezeboxes could be sold. Which home user without knowledge of server technologies wants to run a real hardware server? It is expensive, (often) loud, unhandy and full of risks. But the use of those music devices must be comfortable and worth the money.

Yesterday I thought about running a server like a Mac Mini all over the year, just to have a comfortable access on my music everywhere in my home. The costs for power would be about 150.- Euros minimum per year!!! A simple networkdrive would be much cheaper in purchase and in running costs.

Don't get me wrong! I don't want you to kill the server-mode as it is running at the moment! But I think for a lot of people it would be a great thing running squeezeboxes without a real server.

I hope you can understand my broken english ;-)

Marc

Milhouse
2005-09-04, 08:13
I'm about to submit an enhancement request to have SlimServer support my two-slot toaster.

Come on guys, there's a limit to what is and what is not supported by SlimServer, surely? The fact that NSLU2-type devices are capable of running SlimServer is great, but SlimServer is designed to run on kit with a minimum level of horsepower - something like a Pentium/2 with 128Mb RAM - and expecting SlimServer to run on the Squeezebox itself is pretty unrealistic.

Building a low cost, quiet PC is not a big deal these days and try SlimCD (http://www.herger.net/slim/detail.php?nr=763&kategorie=slim) if you want minimum hassle.

I don't want future SlimServer functionality to be curtailed because SlimDevices are attempting to support devices with only slightly more computing capacity than a pocket calculator. Just because it can, doesn't mean it should.

:)

PS. Wake-on-LAN functionality is being added to the Squeezebox firmware for a future release which should mean it's no longer necessary for you to leave your SlimServer PC switched on 24x7.

jth
2005-09-04, 08:41
I'm sure the possibility of running slimserver on the squeezebox has crossed their minds...
Just for the record, I was thinking about Squeezebox Next Generation, not the current Squeezebox2.

marc1966
2005-09-04, 09:08
Sorry for thinking out of the box.

stinkingpig
2005-09-04, 12:16
marc1966 wrote:

>Sorry for thinking out of the box.
>
>
>
>
just don't let it happen again :-)

In all seriousness, there's nothing wrong with thinking up different
ways to do things. There is a lot wrong with acting like a kicked puppy
if your idea isn't immediately accepted as a blinding ray of light from
the heavens. If you look through the archives, you'll find that this
particular idea comes up every six months or so, and has yet to be
greeted with angelic trumpets. It's not an unfamiliar concept.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org : It's a Scientific Venture!
"I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin,
so across the Western ocean I must wander." -- All for Me Grog, traditional

marc1966
2005-09-05, 00:16
Sorry for acting like a kicked puppy. But look at the replies and you'll see that this is no discussion. Just making fun on me. Maybe it is my bad english? What the hell... Bye.

stuorguk
2005-09-05, 05:18
Building a low cost, quiet PC is not a big deal these days and try SlimCD (http://www.herger.net/slim/detail.php?nr=763&kategorie=slim) if you want minimum hassle.



Alternatively, pick up an old Pentium computer, and use that. My old dual celeron server pulled on average just 56 watts, and that was with 4 hard drives installed. So a single processor, with one HD should be a lot less! Couple that with Wake-On-Lan, and the yearly power consumption will be very low.

I'm now using an old dual PIII (2x1Ghz) linux box, with RAID1, and it uses 1.77Kw a day. Don't assume a computer with a 300w PSU is going to draw anything like that.

S.

Michaelwagner
2005-09-11, 08:40
Sorry for thinking out of the box.

Actually, you were thinking inside the box.


Sorry for acting like a kicked puppy. But look at the replies and you'll see that this is no discussion. Just making fun on me. Maybe it is my bad english? What the hell... Bye.

Your English is fine. By the way, there is also a forum for German speakers if you think your English is a problem. But at least this time your English was fine.

The idea of adding more hardware to a squeezebox comes up all the time. The two most requested things are
(a) add an amplifier (the squeezebox boombox) and
(b) add a server

Those are strategic directions not perhaps best addressed in this forum.

What would be really cool would be matching form factors and stacking, so that you could buy the squeezebox server and sit it right underneath a squeezebox and they'd match and look like they belong together.

The problem is, both the squeezebox server and the squeezebox amplifier would be bigger than the squeezebox. ... oh, well.

Michael

pfarrell
2005-09-11, 11:15
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 08:40 -0700, Michaelwagner wrote:
> The idea of adding more hardware to a squeezebox comes up all the time.
> The two most requested things are
> (a) add an amplifier (the squeezebox boombox) and
> (b) add a server
>

> The problem is, both the squeezebox server and the squeezebox amplifier
> would be bigger than the squeezebox. ... oh, well.

More importantly, the point of slim devices is to have small, slim
boxes that do a few things well.

Once you start adding amplifiers and servers and speakers,
you would have to change the name of the company to FatDevices
or even ObeseDevices. And getting the stickers off of Sean's
Mercedes would be hard.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

Marc Sherman
2005-09-13, 06:58
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 08:40 -0700, Michaelwagner wrote:
>>
>> The idea of adding more hardware to a squeezebox comes up all the
>> time. The two most requested things are
>> (a) add an amplifier (the squeezebox boombox) and
>> (b) add a server

(c) and a pony.

Pat Farrell wrote:
>
> Once you start adding amplifiers and servers and speakers,
> you would have to change the name of the company to FatDevices
> or even ObeseDevices. And getting the stickers off of Sean's
> Mercedes would be hard.

Of course, it would be easier if he'd put the stickers on a pony. He
could just shave them off. And as we've already discussed, it would be
easier to park.

- Marc

kolepard
2005-09-13, 08:07
>On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 08:40 -0700, Michaelwagner wrote:
>>>
>>>The idea of adding more hardware to a squeezebox comes up all the
>>>time. The two most requested things are
> >> (a) add an amplifier (the squeezebox boombox) and
>>> (b) add a server
>
>(c) and a pony.

They've already shipped ponies, so you can cross that one off your list. ;-)

Kevin
--
Kevin O. Lepard
kolepard (AT) charter (DOT) net

Happiness is being 100% Microsoft free.