PDA

View Full Version : Slimserver 6.5 on Infrant ReadyNAS NV



whanafi
2006-10-17, 20:43
Just took delivery of the Infrant bundle to add to my existing Squeezebox 3 and SliMP3. I was disappointed to find that the NAS is only running 6.3.1 and that the firmware in my Squeezebox downgraded as well.

I have been bouncing back and forth between the forums here and on Infrant, but I can't get a clear answer as to why the inability to run the latest release of SlimServer. There is talk of a change in the database model, the need for more memory, the futility of more memory, and the possibility of having to run beta code from now on.

Does anybody have a definitive answer as to what is going on? I like the NAS, like the Slim products, despair over the lack of documentation for the combination.

sammie
2006-10-17, 21:42
This doesn't help you out right now, but I called Infrant today to discuss the problems folks have been reporting regarding running SS 6.5 with the Ready NAS systems. The guy I spoke with was clueless and assured me there should not be any problems, although I insisted there were problems based on reports read here and on Infrant forums. He suggested contiuning to scan the Infrant forums and await invovlement by Infrant tech people. My guess, you're stuck with SS 6.3 for the time being -- at least until the issues pop up on Infrant's radar and they work towards a fix, whatever that may be.

Heuer
2006-10-17, 22:01
SS 6.5 is available on the NV as part of a Radiator Beta. you can download the firmware from the Infrant site (go to Beta forum) and you will be away. I have been running this for the last week with no problems other than the slow browser issue but as I rarely use that feature it is not an issue. Everything else works fine.

jeffmeh
2006-10-18, 02:07
I have had the ReadyNAS X6 since January and aside from a few initial start-up problems it has been working well. I pretty much accept the fact that I am going to be running whatever version of the Slimserver that Infrant supports, and that will usually be a version or 2 behind the most current production one. That works for me because at this point I value the stability of the system over the latest features. I do occasionally lust after a plug-in, though, lol.

whanafi
2006-10-18, 11:05
The funny thing is, I had a whole bunch of problems with 6.3.1 running on a normal desktop PC under Windows. The 6.5.1 release seemed to clear all that up and it ran better for me. So being a couple of releases behind on the NAS isn't really that attractive.

What scared me off the beta was the message from the guy who seemed to blow his entire NAS during the firmware upgrade. I am sitting in Singapore, and an RMA shipment is not really on the cards. I imported the unit from the US and can't really afford to have it turn into a boat anchor.

Heuer
2006-10-19, 01:00
Seems to be an exception - as long as you download the firmware to your desktop and do a local update it works fine.

However I would not bother with 6.5 on the NV if you want to use the web interface - it is unusable (e.g. 35 secs to display 'Albums'). SS 6.5 has been developed by, and for, people running it on a very fast PC with lots of memory. Obviously never occurred to anyone to test it on a NAS. An example of 'bloatware' I am afraid coming from those who decry Microsoft and champion Linux!

Perhaps Logitech will pull people back to the core SS values of speed and simplicity.

aubuti
2006-10-19, 02:02
However I would not bother with 6.5 on the NV if you want to use the web interface - it is unusable (e.g. 35 secs to display 'Albums'). SS 6.5 has been developed by, and for, people running it on a very fast PC with lots of memory. Obviously never occurred to anyone to test it on a NAS.
Maybe the problems are something peculiar to the NV? Of course, that would be odd for the only NAS that has a bundle deal with SB, but stranger things have happened. I've been running 6.5 on a cheap NAS for a couple months, and while it won't win any races, the delays are nothing like your example. And performance is certainly as good or better than it was on 6.2 (I never tried 6.3). My NAS is a LinkStation HG running debian, with only 128MB and a lowly 266MHz PPC processor.

Heuer
2006-10-19, 02:54
I have a 2Tb NV with 1Gb of memory, 8,000 FLAC tracks, 1650 albums. I also have a Qnap TS-101 with 500Gb and the same music library. Both are abysmally slow when using 6.5 but performance was reasonable with 6.3.1. Oddly the Qnap is a few seconds faster than the NV in my 'display Albums' test despite having the stock 128Mb of RAM.

I see that the Synology Diskstation returns resonable performance using 6.5 so no idea where the problem lies. I would go back to 6.3.1 but I have a Transporter coming.

Strange that although SD endorse the Infrant products the performance has been allowed to deteriorate so badly. I would strongly advise anyone who is considering a NAS (Qnap or Infrant at least) to look elsewhere or build their own RAID fileserver. Alternative is to run SS 6.5 on a PC and just use the NAS for secure storage. Far from the dream, but so it goes.

egd
2006-10-29, 06:19
I have a 2Tb NV with 1Gb of memory, 8,000 FLAC tracks, 1650 albums. I also have a Qnap TS-101 with 500Gb and the same music library. Both are abysmally slow when using 6.5 but performance was reasonable with 6.3.1.

<snip>

Strange that although SD endorse the Infrant products the performance has been allowed to deteriorate so badly. I would strongly advise anyone who is considering a NAS (Qnap or Infrant at least) to look elsewhere or build their own RAID fileserver.

<snip>

Heuer, have to say I agree wholeheartedly re building your own RAID fileserver. I own two NV's (purchased together) and with the benefit of hindsight I'd definitely opt for a RAID fileserver - would have been a hell of a lot cheaper too.

I've been using my FLAC Audio NV in conjunction with slimserver running on a Linux box and am now considering slimserver on the NV itself. With close to 2700 albums, comprising some 38,000 songs by over 1000 artists do you think I should even attempt this or will I likely be dead and buried by the time the NV has been able to build a database of all that?

Heuer
2006-11-03, 03:43
First of all you may as well try running SS on the NV, if performance is slow you can always revert to your previous setup.

With SS 6.3.1 on the NV the browser response is fine but the music rescan can be a pain. Takes ages to run and makes using the SB, whilst it is doing so, very difficult (stuttering, poor remote response).

With SS 6.5 the scanning is not a problem and runs happily in background without compromising SB3 performance. Browser performance is intolerable though.

Running 6.5 on my Dell PC with the library on the NV I can get the Album list up in about 1 second. With 6.5 on the NV it takes 45 seconds.

As we tend to leave the SB3 running on random play (this has its own issues of course!) there is seldom the need to access the library via the browser so we run SS on the NV permanently. I only upgraded to 6.5 as I intend to get a Transporter. Had I not been doing so I woulds have revereted to 6.3.1

Perhaps you fancy having a go at running the two versions of SS on the NV and report back on the performance hit. Could be interesting.