PDA

View Full Version : options setting up slim server



tucson5
2006-10-10, 19:59
I am just starting and am trying to figure out my options for using the squeeze box. I see three options but wanted input on each. I have a buffalo gigabit link station, 2 computers on a lan and 1 laptop with wireless.

Options
1. slim server on desk top computer, music on NAS connected to LAN then squeeze box.
Advantage, easy setup
Disadvantage: computer needs to be on for music
Slows down computer performance

2. slim server and music on NAS connected to LAN and then squeeze box
Advantage: works all the time
Disadvantage: more difficult to set up especially with newest upgraded software
Questions: How difficult is this? I like projects like this, but have never played with linux.

3. slim server on separate computer (old junky one) that is used solely for slim server software and could use for print server
Advantage: always on
Disadvantage: have to hide computer so it is not eye sore and is loud
Questions: how much power does a computer have to run slim server. Is a p3 fast enough?

I really want access to the music at all times. I think this means option 1 is out. I am finding it difficult to decide between 2 and 3. What are others thoughts between 2 and 3?

Thanks
steve

Mark Lanctot
2006-10-10, 20:08
I would go for option 3. It's easy to set up - in fact, no setup at all with SlimCD: http://www.herger.net/slim/detail.php?nr=763&kategorie=slim

Or you could install Linux on it - Ubuntu went like a breeze on similar hardware for me and SlimServer installed painlessly.

How much RAM does the old box have? That's probably more important than the processor. At least 256 MB.

pfarrell
2006-10-10, 20:14
tucson5 wrote:
> Options
> 1. slim server on desk top computer, music on NAS connected to LAN then
> squeeze box.
>
> 2. slim server and music on NAS connected to LAN and then squeeze box
> Advantage: works all the time
> Disadvantage: more difficult to set up especially with newest
> upgraded software
> Questions: How difficult is this? I like projects like this, but have
> never played with linux.
>
> 3. slim server on separate computer (old junky one) that is used solely
> for slim server software and could use for print server
> Advantage: always on
> Disadvantage: have to hide computer so it is not eye sore and is
> loud
> Questions: how much power does a computer have to run slim
> server. Is a p3 fast enough?

I ran for years on a P3-500 with 384 MB of ram. The later versions take
more, but I would expect a P3-750 with 512 to do well.

How difficult depends on a lot of things. Are you geeky at all?
Is the old computer a spare?

One possible approach is to start with the SlimServer on your main
desktop, and then use the old clunker to play with. That way you don't
care if it takes a day or a week.

If you use a "live CD" you can play with Linux without doing anything to
the hard disk. It will be slower than a real install, but that is
usually a worthwhile tradeoff. There is a Live CD with Slimserver, you
can load it and go.

Something like DSL-N would work well on an old box, and I think there is
even a SlimServer kit for it.

I strongly recommend not setting yourself up to get frustrated if it
doesn't work! right!! now!!! If you are new to Linux, just allow proper
time.

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

mherger
2006-10-11, 01:21
> If you use a "live CD" you can play with Linux without doing anything to
> the hard disk. It will be slower than a real install, but that is
> usually a worthwhile tradeoff. There is a Live CD with Slimserver, you
> can load it and go.
> Something like DSL-N would work well on an old box, and I think there is
> even a SlimServer kit for it.

Assuming you were talking about SlimCD in the first paragraph: it is based
on DSL. I wanted to move to DSL-N for better hardware support. But DSL-N
seems to have died within the first few weeks of its existence :-(

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a CD
http://www.herger.net/slim - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR

tucson5
2006-10-11, 09:50
All i have is time and i love tinkering and am geeky. Why is it better to set up the extra computer with slim server using linux as opposed to windows? i am asumming linux would run faster for the limited resources of the computer?

thanks for the info. the ready install cd seems like a great idea. can't wait to start. i was pretty sure i did not have to reinvent the wheel. i knew some else would have looked into this.

steve

hirsp1
2006-10-11, 10:01
I've got an old dual PII (233) box setup with Kubuntu and slimserver. The only thing I don't like about it is the extra power it draws. Otherwise, it serves 2 SB3s and a couple of squeezeboxes without problems (FLACs and MP3s).

And I really love the Weathertime plug-in... It's worth it just for that!

jeffluckett
2006-10-11, 10:09
I've got my SlimServer running on a headless Win2k3 box with an 800Mhz PIII and 512mb RAM.

OS choice was simply because I got Win2K3 free with a MSDN subscription at work, and I'm familiar with it. I plan on doing a *nix (probably Ubuntu) setup eventually when I've got a little tinkering time.

I like the "dedicated box for slimserver" option primarily for the flexibility it affords me. Very easy to add/remove plugins and muck about with the internals when I feel the whim.

I also run MusicIP mixer on this box, and have SQLyog installed so I can play around with the database when I feel the need. These things would be more challenging to do if I were to run a NAS.

Mark Lanctot
2006-10-11, 10:24
All i have is time and i love tinkering and am geeky. Why is it better to set up the extra computer with slim server using linux as opposed to windows?

Well:

- it's free

- it's fun

- you learn something

- Linux is generally more stable than Windows. Note the term "generally", it's not as bulletproof as the myths would have you believe. However my router and my SmoothWall (http://www.smoothwall.org/) run Linux and both are very stable.


i am asumming linux would run faster for the limited resources of the computer?

Yes, Linux generally runs better on older hardware than Windows. Depends on the distro though, the aforementioned Ubuntu isn't all that resource-light, but it still runs well on my 1.2 GHz AMD Duron PC with 256 MB of RAM.


thanks for the info. the ready install cd seems like a great idea. can't wait to start. i was pretty sure i did not have to reinvent the wheel. i knew some else would have looked into this.

Yeah, the live CD uses Damn Small Linux (DSL) so it'll give you an idea if your hardware is compatible. Linux has gotten over most of the hardware incompatibility issues anyway.

The speed won't be an indication - the OS is contained on the CD so the speed will be dependent on your optical drive. Linux installed on a hard drive will be much faster. But it will give you an idea, and once up and running it should be fast.