View Full Version : NAS JUST for file storage?

2006-01-08, 03:22
Hallo and Happy New Year to everyone.

I read all the posts about the problems users have using NAS Storage with Slimserver. However they were all refering to using NAS for RUNNING Slimserver. I would like to ask if a different approach would be possible. That is, using NAS just for storage, and run slimserver on another networked PC (a small touchscreen PC for example).

From the touchscreen PC I'm only interested in sending CLI commands to the squeezebox. Like "add file xxx.mp3 to the queue". Since I have my own database I don't care about the database features of slimserver. What I do care about is that the file go directly from the NAS to the squeezebox and not through the touchscreen PC. That way I can even shutdown the PC after loading a playlist and music would keep playing.

Would something like that be possible (with maybe nslu2)?

sorry for the long post


2006-01-08, 05:48
Happy New Year to you too!

I think you misunderstand the architecture of the Slim products.

The "Slim" in slim devices comes from the concept of a slim or thin client, a music player that contains only the bare minimum needed to get the job done. Everything else is on the network, meaning it profits from economies that come down the pipe in later years without locking you into the ones in the client. For instance, cheaper hard disks, etc.

In practical terms, what that means is that the squeezeboxes contain very little.

They have the hardware and firmware to
play music from the network,
display text and graphics on the display,
receive remote control codes and send them up the network.

Now, there is also limited firmware to display messages during client bootup, to handle network setup, and to handle a few remote codes (like reboot the client). But it's pretty limited.

So when you send CLI messages, you are sending them to slimserver, who interprets where they need to be sent, and sends them there.

That's why all those people were looking for NASes that could run slimserver. Because it has to be running *somewhere* just to work at all.

There is also slimnetwork, where a web site on the internet substitutes for slimserver and sends you music (but only from internet radio stations, not songs on your own hard disk).

There is a project under way to break up the slim server code into several smaller pieces. Because I think most people recognize that the low level stuff that keeps the boxes supplied with audio and display stuff is quite different in nature (and dispatching priority) than the stuff that scans your music library and handles the web interface.

Then the different pieces could run at different priorities in the same processor, or on totally different processors (if they communicate via a network protocol).

Some people, like me and I gather you, want to actually drive the music selection in a different way or by using different software. Then we could leave some pieces of the supplied software out and substitute for them ourselves.

2006-01-11, 05:43
thank you for your responce

so I'm gonna have to install slimserver on a NAS. There seems to be no way round it, since I'm not willing to use a PC as a Server.

after reading the posts about installing and using slimserver in NAS boxes, two things are unclear to me:

- do the speed problems that other users have refer just to the building of databases, or after it too? If it was just the database build it wouldn't bother me, but how is control through another PC (web interface or CLI) after that?

- what's the most suitable NAS solution for the job? I like the linkstation but is ReadyNAS faster? (nslu2 seems to be too slow).

By the way, the friendly community here is definitely a buying reason for the squeezebox.