PDA

View Full Version : search on NAS-based slimserver



eblantz
2007-03-28, 20:25
i recently "upgraded" to an infrant readynas that came bundled with slimserver. I finally got all my music copied over from a quickly failing HD and MOST of my music now shows and plays. unfortunately, whereas when i ran the server on my pc I used to be able to search for music and browse directories (etc.) fairly quickly using the web interface, the new setup is pathetically. simple searches take many minutes and the server often stalls out. this is true whether i'm connected wirelessly or over 100 mbps ethernet. interestingly, the squeezebox interface works ok. Any ideas??

Thanks in advance,

Eric

sander
2007-03-28, 20:40
Well, I think you experience is fairly typical on the ReadyNas. The interface is great via the device, but lacking via the NAS. From what I've seen the Thecus is the only NAS that's sufficiently fast enough CPU-wise, but that and all the others are lacking in RAM.

The only solution is to move it the actual SlimServer to another box or buy some theoretically faster NAS in the future.

Slim and ReadyNas are both working on performance, but the reality is, from what I understand, that the ReadyNas CPU doesn't have floating point instructions which is crucial for certain elements of the SlimServer.

Simon Still
2007-03-29, 01:54
On 3/29/07, sander <sander.2o6u501175139902 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
> The only solution is to move it the actual SlimServer to another box or
> buy some theoretically faster NAS in the future.
>


That's answered my queries about a NAS for slimserver. back to the drawing
board.

aubuti
2007-03-29, 16:06
interestingly, the squeezebox interface works ok. Any ideas??
Uh, use the squeezebox interface instead of the web ui? I'm only being half-facetious here. Using the SB remote and the Lazy Search plugin works quite quickly even on my Buffalo Linkstation NAS (128MB RAM, 266MHz PPC processor).

agentsmith
2007-03-29, 18:04
I said this before and I am trying to catch some attention again.

For gamers or people who wants cheap blu-ray out there in the community, note that the Sony PS3 is potentially a killer Linux server that should be millions of times more powerful than the NAS boxes.

The PS3 allows you to:
1. Swap in bigger nard disks seamlessly
2. Install Linux as dual boot
3. Plug in USB hard disks (there are 6 USB ports)

In terms of quietness, the PS3 is normally noiseless until the fan kicks if the machine starts to overheat. That happened to me after I left it on all night in a closed cabinet.

I have a PS3 but do not have the Linux skill to install Slimserver on it. So I will have to bribe a Linux friend to do it for me sometime in the future.

Pellicle
2007-03-29, 20:51
The N5200 NAS by Thecus is a suitable NAS for slimserver. It has a pentium M for a CPU and is basically a Linux PC with a custom Linus distro for this purpose.

I run SS on this and have no performance issues. I expect Infrant will come out with a unit competitive to this but for now it appears the N5200 or a roll your own is the way to go.

Hamlet
2007-03-31, 01:57
I'm a bit unclear on this issue: where exactly is the speed bottleneck? You can connect the squeezebox to either the slimserver running on the NAS or to a slimserver running on a pc (still your music is on the NAS). By connecting to the server on the pc, do you overcome the speed issue because the slowness is due to the server itself being run on the NAS, or not, because the slowness is due to slow access to the files on the NAS?

ceejay
2007-03-31, 02:34
I'm a bit unclear on this issue: where exactly is the speed bottleneck? You can connect the squeezebox to either the slimserver running on the NAS or to a slimserver running on a pc (still your music is on the NAS). By connecting to the server on the pc, do you overcome the speed issue because the slowness is due to the server itself being run on the NAS, or not, because the slowness is due to slow access to the files on the NAS?

I think the main issue is that some (most?) NAS devices have only enough computing grunt to be able to pick a file off the disc and serve it to the network, which is after all what they were designed for. Running a relational database and PERL is a bit tougher, especially on memory but also pure CPU.

Ceejay

Hamlet
2007-03-31, 02:59
I think the main issue is that some (most?) NAS devices have only enough computing grunt to be able to pick a file off the disc and serve it to the network, which is after all what they were designed for. Running a relational database and PERL is a bit tougher, especially on memory but also pure CPU.
Ceejay

Then avoiding using SS on a NAS and instead running it on a pc with the NAS strictly serving files overcomes the speed issue (this is what I have been doing anyway, never tried SS on NAS).

Since the speed issue is so easily overcome and avoided, I do not understand why many complain about the slowness of using a NAS.
Am I missing something?

mherger
2007-03-31, 03:11
> Then avoiding using SS on a NAS and instead running it on a pc with the
> NAS strictly serving files overcomes the speed issue (this is what I
> have been doing anyway, never tried ss on NAS).

....and introducing a new one: network traffic. Accessing a NAS over the
network is easily 5-10x slower than local disk access. This is mainly an
issue during the scan.

> So if the spead issue is so easily overcome, I do not understand why
> many complain about the slowness of using a NAS. Am I missing
> something?

These NAS devices consume much less power, make less noise, are smaller
etc.

--

Michael

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

Hamlet
2007-03-31, 03:22
> Then avoiding using SS on a NAS and instead running it on a pc with the
> NAS strictly serving files overcomes the speed issue (this is what I
> have been doing anyway, never tried ss on NAS).

....and introducing a new one: network traffic. Accessing a NAS over the
network is easily 5-10x slower than local disk access. This is mainly an
issue during the scan.


Hello again Michael. Which is the lesser of the two evils than? Is using the pc SS with NAS file serving faster than using the NAS for both? Would using Gbit networking between the NAS and pc resolve the second issue?

mherger
2007-03-31, 03:36
> Hello again Michael. Which is the lesser of the two evils than? Is
> using the pc SS with NAS file serving faster than using the NAS for
> both?

I'd imagine the PC+NAS solution as it's only slow during scanning, not
during interaction. But then you could simply use external disks as well
(would be faster!).

--

Michael

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

Hamlet
2007-03-31, 04:14
I'd imagine the PC+NAS solution as it's only slow during scanning, not
during interaction. But then you could simply use external disks as well
(would be faster!).


Thanks Michael, that all makes sense and it seems there are solutions for someone not happy with speed using SS on a NAS. I have no speed issues using a pc based SS with NAS. The OP complains of slow scanning speed and stalls using the browser interface, which means he is sitting at his pc, so maybe he ought to just point his SB to his pc SS (he didn't mention if he tried that).

jeffmeh
2007-03-31, 04:19
Michael is correct. One may overcome the CPU limitations by running SlimServer on a separate box, but file transfers will be slower from a NAS than from a local disk.

I think the cause of the disgruntledness for many NAS owners is that they bought the NAS with the expectation that it would work fine. Certainly, I was under that impression when I bought my ReadyNAS X6, and my expectations were met until SS 6.5. Scanning was always sluggish, but the web UI and remote responses were OK. As of 6.5.1, I see better scanning performance, the remote response is OK, but the web UI is very, very slow.

Admittedly, I knew that would happen before I went to 6.5, but I chose to upgrade anyway. I rarely use the web UI and I can live with it for now. Incidentally, I have 1GB of memory in the ReadyNAS.

Eventually, I may take an old laptop and use it for SlimServer with the files on the NAS.

In my opinion, SD should either address the problem, or they should put some serious disclaimers on the ReadyNAS bundle (or stop selling it).

Hamlet
2007-03-31, 04:49
In my opinion, SD should either address the problem, or they should put some serious disclaimers on the ReadyNAS bundle (or stop selling it).

I can see your point. I think that a big factor in a SB/NAS owner's satisfaction level has to do with his expectations. In your case, you may have seen the marketing of the two together and/or that the NAS came ready to use with SS, and rightly assumed that they would function satisfactorily together. I bought my NAS strictly for all-around file serving and later got a SB as an unrelated purchase (I had already had an audiotron and roku), so I had no expectation of even having an option of running SS on the NAS. As it turns out, I am quite satisfied running SS on a pc and see the advantages as being well worth it.
They should indeed show a prominent warning that running SS on the NAS may not yield the scan/search performance of running it on a pc.

Pellicle
2007-05-01, 07:43
Just to note - The Thecus N5200 NAS can run 6.5.0 now and has no issues with performance. I went this route rather than the Infrant due to input form these forums concerning the CPU demand of the recent versions of Slimserver. I did not want ot have an extra box running if possible although this is a reasonable alternative. The Pentium M CPU on the Thecus gives good performance for the NAS as well as Slimserver. I upgraded RAM to 512mb and bumped the processor speed to 800Mhz although this may have not been required.

Web interface performance with album graphics is fine and normal operation through the SB3's is very responsive.

It may be out of budget for some but if you have to buy/build another box and add a NAS it may be a resonabl alternative. For myself I needed the high network transfer speed and storage space allowed by the n5200 and the ability to rumn SS witout another box is perfect.

Maditude
2007-05-02, 21:57
Pellicle, can you tell us how much noise the Thecus box puts out? Also, does it have a telnet/ssh interface, and can one install any old software one wants on it? (ie, imap+postfix, apache, etc)

rmcubed
2007-05-04, 17:36
[QUOTE=Pellicle;191259]The N5200 NAS by Thecus is a suitable NAS for slimserver. It has a pentium M for a CPU and is basically a Linux PC with a custom Linus distro for this purpose.

I thought that sounded great, until I checked the pricing. I could pick up a fanless linux box and add disks to it for a lot less...

Pellicle
2007-05-06, 05:35
Pellicle, can you tell us how much noise the Thecus box puts out? Also, does it have a telnet/ssh interface, and can one install any old software one wants on it? (ie, imap+postfix, apache, etc)


Yes there are intallable modules which enable SSH. I am using this very succesfully.

In terms of installing software it depends on what you mean. There is a module cabability where user defined capability can be added. So for Slimserver there are two modules the Perl module and the Slimserver module which users have constructed to allow simserver to work. The SSH is another module.

The OS is Linux but is a trimmed down version for the application.

willroberts
2007-06-09, 13:53
Well I have my thecus 5200 now (upgraded RAM to 512MB) - bought primarily for other reasons but with 30,000 tracks flac and mp3 and wma it is so much faster to scroll through the menus than my qnap ts-101 was - much less embarrassing when your trying to show off - now i just have to get the carpenter to come and build me a cupboard for it.

Will