PDA

View Full Version : External Hard Drive Help?



stlblue
2008-11-01, 15:44
Any help on how to get my SB3 to read an external hard drive is greatly appreciated. I did a search, but couldn't find anything...thanks.

badbob
2008-11-01, 15:49
You need slimserver installed somewhere, either a PC or NAS. You cannot just plug a Squeezebox directly into a "dumb" USB, SATA or Firewire hard drive.

If the USB HD is just another HD in your PC, set that path in Slim center, or create a short cut in the main directory to your USB HD path.

stlblue
2008-11-01, 15:54
You need slimserver installed somewhere, either a PC or NAS. You cannot just plug a Squeezebox directly into a "dumb" USB, SATA or Firewire hard drive.

If the USB HD is just another HD in your PC, set that path in Slim center, or create a short cut in the main directory to your USB HD path.

Appreciate the reply. Sorry, I should have been more specific. I use (and love) my SB3 w/ my PC's hard drive. I've outgrown it and want to expand to an external hard drive. Thanks.

JJZolx
2008-11-01, 16:59
Appreciate the reply. Sorry, I should have been more specific. I use (and love) my SB3 w/ my PC's hard drive. I've outgrown it and want to expand to an external hard drive. Thanks.

Depends on whether you want to use only the external drive to store all your music, or you want to use it in addition to another folder to store your music.

If it's all to be on the external drive, then go to Settings > Basic Settings and change the Music Folder. Either type it in or browse to the root folder where you have music stored on the external.

On the other hand, if you want to use more than one location for your music then you'll need to use at least one Windows shortcut. If you can find your current music folder, create a shortcut there which points to the external drive. What I recommend, though, is to use an empty Music Folder (create one somewhere) and then place shortcuts in that otherwise empty folder that point to each of the music locations. This way it's a little easier to manage and you don't lose a shortcut in some huge folder full of files and other folders. You want to avoid circular references when using these shortcuts, so losing a shortcut in your Music Folder can be a pain and cause unexplained scanning issues.

stlblue
2008-11-01, 19:24
If it's all to be on the external drive, then go to Settings > Basic Settings and change the Music Folder. Either type it in or browse to the root folder where you have music stored on the external.

AWESOME! Done and working perfectly. Thanks guys!!!

Nonreality
2008-11-02, 00:04
Depends on whether you want to use only the external drive to store all your music, or you want to use it in addition to another folder to store your music.

If it's all to be on the external drive, then go to Settings > Basic Settings and change the Music Folder. Either type it in or browse to the root folder where you have music stored on the external.

On the other hand, if you want to use more than one location for your music then you'll need to use at least one Windows shortcut. If you can find your current music folder, create a shortcut there which points to the external drive. What I recommend, though, is to use an empty Music Folder (create one somewhere) and then place shortcuts in that otherwise empty folder that point to each of the music locations. This way it's a little easier to manage and you don't lose a shortcut in some huge folder full of files and other folders. You want to avoid circular references when using these shortcuts, so losing a shortcut in your Music Folder can be a pain and cause unexplained scanning issues.

Thats the way I do it. I just create a folder on my computer called slimmusic and put shortcuts to the lossy and lossless folders on my firewire drive. I also have another external firewire drive that backs up my main external library. Works great even through a crash last week.

Dragon13
2008-11-02, 10:54
Im looking at getting the SB Duet and because I don't have room on my PC for lossless audio files, I was going to get a decent size external HD to rip/store my music to FLAC or similar and running them through the SB. Can you guy's let me know if that would work and is a good solution?

JJZolx
2008-11-02, 11:27
Im looking at getting the SB Duet and because I don't have room on my PC for lossless audio files, I was going to get a decent size external HD to rip/store my music to FLAC or similar and running them through the SB. Can you guy's let me know if that would work and is a good solution?

Yes, it works well, but if you have the room for another internal drive, it's generally faster when doing library scans.

Dragon13
2008-11-02, 11:57
Yes, it works well, but if you have the room for another internal drive, it's generally faster when doing library scans.

no can do, its a laptop. I have an itunes account that i use to manage my ipod and mp3's, so I will continue to run that on my local C drive. Does that mean I will need to use something like media monkey to manage all my FLAC's? thanks.

Goodsounds
2008-11-03, 14:43
no can do, its a laptop. I have an itunes account that i use to manage my ipod and mp3's, so I will continue to run that on my local C drive. Does that mean I will need to use something like media monkey to manage all my FLAC's? thanks.

I'm not sure what "management" tasks you have in mind, but one can certainly use different programs (at different times, to avoid problems) to access a particular data file folder, whether that folder has music files or anything else. You'd run Squeeze Center, pointed at your music folder or folders as discussed above, to use your Duet to play your music.

Goodsounds
2008-11-03, 14:53
Yes, it works well, but if you have the room for another internal drive, it's generally faster when doing library scans.

I agree that the data throughput for the typical "external" drive connection, USB, is going to be slower than for an internal one. But other than when initially loading up that external drive, for what other functions do you believe that speed difference is going to make a relevant difference? I don't see how it really matters, especially since most drives from any supplier could realistically be configured internally or externally anyhow. For scans and the onesy-twosies of newly ripped CDs, the small amount of data isn't going to take very long whether the connection is fast or slow. Am I missing something?

badbob
2008-11-03, 15:10
Data integrity. I would not trust my music collection on a USB HD, many people including myself have suffered corrupt files, directories and to some people complete partition corruption. It's rare, it's only happened once on my USB HD (directory disappeared) but it's enough to stay away from it. I'd use a dedicated low power PC or Linux box, or a NAS with SS. Or if you don't mind a bit more power consumption, a HTPC that's the music storage/SS.

JJZolx
2008-11-03, 15:18
I agree that the data throughput for the typical "external" drive connection, USB, is going to be slower than for an internal one. But other than when initially loading up that external drive, for what other functions do you believe that speed difference is going to make a relevant difference? I don't see how it really matters, especially since most drives from any supplier could realistically be configured internally or externally anyhow. For scans and the onesy-twosies of newly ripped CDs, the small amount of data isn't going to take very long whether the connection is fast or slow. Am I missing something?

Didn't I say for library scans? That's not a small amount of data or a small number of files being accessed. A new/changed scan should always be much faster than a clear/rescan, so the time difference won't be as significant.

I have an external USB drive that I use for music library backups that is otherwise idental to the internal drive on which I store my library. Maybe I'll run a quick test to see what the scan time difference is between using that drive and the internal one.

Goodsounds
2008-11-03, 16:32
Data integrity. I would not trust my music collection on a USB HD, many people including myself have suffered corrupt files, directories and to some people complete partition corruption. It's rare, it's only happened once on my USB HD (directory disappeared) but it's enough to stay away from it. I'd use a dedicated low power PC or Linux box, or a NAS with SS. Or if you don't mind a bit more power consumption, a HTPC that's the music storage/SS.

Help me if I'm missing something, but I think in many cases these are the same drives no matter where located or configured. I believe people who have "external" drives are mostly using either the popular all-in-one package, which are 2.5 inch drives (also used internally in laptop PCs, Ipods, etc)just in a different package, or they are using a desktop "internal" drive with one of those connection box do-hickies. Same manufacturers, same drives. Seagate, Toshiba, WD, etc.

If my understanding is right, why would you think there would be a difference (in reliability) based on the physical configuration?

If my understanding is wrong, thanks in advance for setting me straight.

Nonreality
2008-11-03, 20:35
no can do, its a laptop. I have an itunes account that i use to manage my ipod and mp3's, so I will continue to run that on my local C drive. Does that mean I will need to use something like media monkey to manage all my FLAC's? thanks.

All depends on you. You can do it all in explorer manually or with Mediamonkey and let it organize your files. Or you can do a combo. I use mp3tag and dbpoweramp mainly but I like Mediamonkey for taking a look at all my library and fixing a bunch of stuff when needed. It's a great player too for you laptop. I feel you would be a lot better off with Mediamonkey than itunes especially with an external drive. Way faster, more power tools and way more features. Itunes is a bit prettier though. :)

radish
2008-11-04, 10:38
If my understanding is right, why would you think there would be a difference (in reliability) based on the physical configuration?

It's not really the drive itself (although small enclosures can run hot and increase thermal issues). Many of the external boxes use extremely cheap & nasty USB/SATA controllers which can cause all kinds of problems. That aside, you also have less reliable cabling (more connections + more movement = more errors) and a higher likleyhood of accidents like power disconnections or physical shocks.

Goodsounds
2008-11-04, 13:56
Sorry if you've had bad experiences, but I must say some of your comments sound like urban legend type hearsay.

Having worked for many years in Silicon Valley with drive and component companies, my experience has been that the mainstream companies put extreme emphasis on quality and do not mess around with inferior parts that are cheaper or cost savings approaches that jeopardize reliability. The damage caused by problems will never justify a cost savings. Of course manufacturers will negotiate hard for lower prices, but not at the sake of quality.

You are right in saying that electronic devices are most vulnerable to heat and shock, and nothing more so than an electro-mechanical drive. They fail, and the best way to deal with that is to buy them two at a time and keep two copies.

But, I think there's no reason for some of the other posters to scare someone away from an external drive. Buy a mainstream brand and you'll be fine.

DeVerm
2008-11-04, 13:59
It's not really the drive itself (although small enclosures can run hot and increase thermal issues). Many of the external boxes use extremely cheap & nasty USB/SATA controllers which can cause all kinds of problems. That aside, you also have less reliable cabling (more connections + more movement = more errors) and a higher likleyhood of accidents like power disconnections or physical shocks.

Why would one buy a good and reliable internal system and a cheap/nasty external one? I mean, you can buy good/reliable external drives too. Most problems occur when one buys a separate external enclosure and puts a drive in themselves. I agree that most of those enclosures are bad. But an external WD "book" or even "passport" is good. If you want just as fast, try to find an "external SATA". For maximum compatibility, use "external firewire", for maximum $$$, use "Serial Attached SSCI" or even fibre channel. But I think that even USB cables are reliable. Accidents is the same thing, if you're careless and throw drives off the table, sure it'll probably be messed up. But when you install a fibre-channel enclosure in a 19" rack it'll be way safer than an internal drive. And somewhere between these two extremes is a nice option that's just as good as internal.

My advise: if you want maximum capacity for the cost: http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-Essential-External-Drive/dp/B000VZCEUI/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=pc&qid=1225831944&sr=1-5

if you want more reliable (= less capacity): the 750 or 500 GB versions.
if you want small & USB powered: http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-Passport-Essential-WDME3200TN/dp/B0012GQZZU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=pc&qid=1225831944&sr=1-2

stay away from separate/empty enclosures and put it somewhere safe.

cheers,
Nick.

badbob
2008-11-04, 16:41
Help me if I'm missing something, but I think in many cases these are the same drives no matter where located or configured. I believe people who have "external" drives are mostly using either the popular all-in-one package, which are 2.5 inch drives (also used internally in laptop PCs, Ipods, etc)just in a different package, or they are using a desktop "internal" drive with one of those connection box do-hickies. Same manufacturers, same drives. Seagate, Toshiba, WD, etc.

If my understanding is right, why would you think there would be a difference (in reliability) based on the physical configuration?

If my understanding is wrong, thanks in advance for setting me straight.

I've already given an explanation- it's down to USB chipset in your computer, drives, and USB chipset in the HD enclosure itself. It's not just on my system but certain USB controllers and USB chipsets. I've had lots of problems with 2 types of Prolific enclosures, yet another enclosure with Prolific of another model has been fine. Still I know there was a directory, I waited until files where written, safetly disconnected, moved to another PC connected and the directory was gone. Also sometimes the HD is not detected, sometimes it works fine for ages and another time it took dozens of times to detect the drive. Plugged into another computer and worked fine. USB ports working in both computers.

Bloody rubbish, so decided to move to NAS's for data storage. I would not trust important data on a USB HD.

Firewire was just as bad, again not detecting itself.

Goodsounds
2008-11-04, 18:34
My knowledge is limited, but I haven't heard of this supplier. There's a lot of garbage in the computer retail market, sorry to hear that you may have had the bad luck to run into some of it. Stick with the better known names, I think you'll have a better experience.

badbob
2008-11-05, 04:12
There's a huge thread on rpc-1 forums on that chipset. Just because it's a branded unit doesn't mean it's problem free. I'd rather not waste my time, money and data with USB/Firewire again. I only use it for copying when there is a copy left on another computer. For my LAN I stick to internal drives, or if I need hot swop I'd look into hot swappable bays/cartridges. Main storage is on the NAS's.

DeVerm
2008-11-05, 23:26
Firewire is used in the professional environment (sound-studio's, DVD-robots etc. etc.) and is very good, plus it never needs drivers for the standard supported devices like videocamera, hard disk, CD-drive etc. because the devices are part of the firewire specification.

So, when you connect an external hard-drive with firewire to your computer but it isn't recognized, the external device is broken. I see that the external device was a separate enclosure so this is another example that these are bad. I have used many external DVD-drives and hard-disks with firewire and never had a problem. I tried an external enclosure once and it didn't work.

cheers,
Nick.

pfarrell
2008-11-06, 09:22
DeVerm wrote:
> Firewire is used in the professional environment (sound-studio's,
> DVD-robots etc. etc.) and is very good

Except that its dead. USB has gotten so good, and so cheap, that
Firewire has seen its day. New Apple boxes don't include it.

Call it SCSI of the 21st century.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

DeVerm
2008-11-06, 11:54
Except that its dead. USB has gotten so good, and so cheap, that Firewire has seen its day. New Apple boxes don't include it.

Call it SCSI of the 21st century.

Probably true, I agree. But I still don't like to connect my videocamera with USB at all while firewire works great and faster. I actually think they started adding USB ports to the camera's because computers started dropping firewire ports, not because USB is better.

I have nothing against USB for external HD/DVD etc. My comments were in the context of "internal HD superior compared to external". I only see transfer-speed as a possible reason for that.

cheers,
Nick.

Nonreality
2008-11-07, 04:21
DeVerm wrote:
> Firewire is used in the professional environment (sound-studio's,
> DVD-robots etc. etc.) and is very good

Except that its dead. USB has gotten so good, and so cheap, that
Firewire has seen its day. New Apple boxes don't include it.

Call it SCSI of the 21st century.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

So once again Apple dictates what we use and don't use. Just great. :(

pfarrell
2008-11-07, 09:59
Nonreality wrote:
> pfarrell;357305 Wrote:
>> Firewire has seen its day. New Apple boxes don't include it.
>>
>> Call it SCSI of the 21st century.
> So once again Apple dictates what we use and don't use. Just great. :(

That's not what I said.

First, I said that USB 2.0 is acceptable for mass market needs.
[BTW: And USB 3.0 will be mass market and way cooler.]

Second: I said is that Apple, who was firewire's only mass market
supporter, has decided that new USB are suitable replacements.

It was a niche product, great if you needed it.

The "professional environments" that DeVerm mentioned were never "mass
market" and there are always folks who support professional niches.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

DeVerm
2008-11-07, 11:34
It was a niche product, great if you needed it.

The "professional environments" that DeVerm mentioned were never "mass
market" and there are always folks who support professional niches.

I think it was a little more than niche. Mass market video camera's used to have no USB, just firewire. Now we have both and let's see what happens:

I run around with a friend and my videocamera. We see something really strange flying through the air and I manage to capture it on video. We decide we must put it up on youtube right away and as the friend lives close by, we rush to his house. Now we split to 2 scenarios:

1. Friend has firewire. I connect my camera, stream the video to some MS or Nero standard software, edit a bit and upload to youtube.

2. Friend has no firewire. I connect my camera with USB and windows asks for the driver CD. End of adrenaline rush, ready for a single malt, downloading drivers from the net instead of editing video.

see what I mean? The fact that firewire *knows* DV and every camera without the need for drivers is what makes it nice and not just niche.

I had to make sure and checked the new MacBooks and indeed Pat is right, no firewire. May be I missed something and USB now supports DV, at least on Mac's?

cheers,
Nick.

pfarrell
2008-11-07, 11:43
DeVerm wrote:
> I think it was a little more than niche. Mass market video camera's
> used to have no USB, just firewire. Now we have both and let's see what
> happens:

"used to" is the operative phrase.
Cameras seem to be Kleenex products these days, not like when I got my
Nikon F (which I still have) where you would use one for decades.

Now, they change models and features every year or two.

> I had to make sure and checked the new MacBooks and indeed Pat is
> right, no firewire. May be I missed something and USB now supports DV,
> at least on Mac's?

I don't know what you mean by "DV" here. Images, photos, songs, tunes,
etc are just wads-o-bits

In the early days, USB 1.0 was too flakey for even audio, Firewire had
the chops to do realtime streaming. But USB has had the specs for
isosynchronous transfers for a long time, and these days, it works.
Modern USB is plenty fast enough.

Part of what makes modern OS such bloatware is that they already contain
all the drivers in the world, so USB is just plug and play.

Altho if you really care about your external disk drive, you would use eSATA

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

DeVerm
2008-11-07, 12:14
I don't know what you mean by "DV" here. Images, photos, songs, tunes, etc are just wads-o-bits
ast enough.

Part of what makes modern OS such bloatware is that they already contain
all the drivers in the world, so USB is just plug and play.

Altho if you really care about your external disk drive, you would use eSATA

DV = standard for Digital Video. It's not just streaming, but also controlling the camera's functions from the software (i.e. play, pause, ff etc. for automatic transfer, like ripping a CD but "takes" instead of "tracks") On most camera's, it's just called the DV port. I think all new camera's have the port too and you can connect all of them to your computer and use them without installing drivers. This is not so for USB: each camera that has USB comes with drivers and they need to be installed/upgraded before Windows will work with the camera. XP has no drivers for it, but may be Vista does? So it's not about speed, connectors, controllers etc. but it's the build-in peripheral support.

For external drive: yes, eSATA is it. When SATA showed up I wondered why they didn't have eSATA because it was my wish for too many years using external SCSI with 8+ disk-systems.

cheers,
Nick.

JJZolx
2008-11-13, 15:34
I have an external USB drive that I use for music library backups that is otherwise idental to the internal drive on which I store my library. Maybe I'll run a quick test to see what the scan time difference is between using that drive and the internal one.

I just realized that I ran the test but never followed up on this. The topic came up in another thread, which reminded me.

A full scan of my 22k track all Flac library takes about 28:00 on my P4 3.0GHz Win2k3 Server machine with the library on an internal 7200 RPM SATA drive. With the library on an external USB drive (using the same model hard drive in a USB enclosure) the scan took about 28:20.

So there's no appreciable difference, which really surprised me.

egd
2008-11-14, 03:18
I guess that means that a USB connected drive has no issues keeping up with the scanner code.

Phil Leigh
2008-11-14, 08:31
I guess that means that a USB connected drive has no issues keeping up with the scanner code.

That's been my experience too - it's the code, database engine and the server hardware that are the constraining factors.

Nonreality
2008-11-14, 10:28
Nonreality wrote:
> pfarrell;357305 Wrote:
>> Firewire has seen its day. New Apple boxes don't include it.
>>
>> Call it SCSI of the 21st century.
> So once again Apple dictates what we use and don't use. Just great. :(

That's not what I said.

First, I said that USB 2.0 is acceptable for mass market needs.
[BTW: And USB 3.0 will be mass market and way cooler.]

Second: I said is that Apple, who was firewire's only mass market
supporter, has decided that new USB are suitable replacements.

It was a niche product, great if you needed it.

The "professional environments" that DeVerm mentioned were never "mass
market" and there are always folks who support professional niches.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
Pat I never said you said that. It was an observation and a comment. Mine alone.

Goodsounds
2008-11-14, 10:45
That's been my experience too - it's the code, database engine and the server hardware that are the constraining factors.
I don't agree, weren't these things constant for this test?. This was a datapath test. The drives were the same, the task was the same, running on the same host, so the main variable would be the speed of the data path. Unless I'm missing something. I don't think a SC scan moves much data, and so should not place much demand on the data link.

Read or write a mountain of data from/to a drive - very different story.

DeVerm
2008-11-14, 11:08
I don't agree, weren't these things constant for this test?. This was a datapath test. The drives were the same, the task was the same, running on the same host, so the main variable would be the speed of the data path. Unless I'm missing something. I don't think a SC scan moves much data, and so should not place much demand on the data link.

Read or write a mountain of data from/to a drive - very different story.

I agree. However, most people compare data-transfer speed by looking at the differences between USB, Firewire, SCSI, SATA etc. without looking at the drive's sustained transfer-rate specs. You might need a whole bunch of disks in raid config to fill up the controller bandwidth. The only significance of this for SB/SC is when making a back-up of the music. During regular use of the products, any interface will do.

cheers,
Nick.