PDA

View Full Version : Does SC run smoothly on an Asus eee Box?



nicoleif
2008-11-03, 00:18
Has anyone tried the Asus eee Box as music server for the squeezebox?

nicoleif
2008-11-03, 01:20
Nobody has experience with this?

peter
2008-11-03, 01:21
nicoleif wrote:
> Has anyone tried the Asus eee Box as music server for the squeezebox?
>

Well, it runs XP, has 1gb of RAM, Wifi-N, gigabit ethernet, uses only 20
watts and it's quiet. It should be the perfect answer to those who are
too cheap or green to run a real big ass server on their network. ;)

Be advised that it's always a good idea to connect your server to your
router with a real physical ethernet wire.

Regards,
Peter

Bryan Jan
2008-11-03, 01:40
I did try running the Squeezecenter 7.1 on Asus Eeepc 901 with all the music in the NAS.

You will only want to use it if it is connected the network by wire.

I can tell you I have uninstalled the Squeezecenter, I guess it tells you how I feel.

Bryan

nicoleif
2008-11-03, 01:48
Maybe I should have explained my setup. I plan to use the Asus eee Box with the Squeececenter installed and with my music collection on a USB ext hdd connected by wire to the Asus eee Box! Thus I hope I won't run into the problems with having to access the music wireless on a NAS!?

peter
2008-11-03, 01:49
Bryan Jan wrote:
> I did try running the Squeezecenter 7.1 on Asus Eeepc 901 with all the
> music in the NAS.
>

I wouldn't put my music on a NAS in that scenario. Use an external USB
disk instead.

> You will only want to use it if it is connected the network by wire.
>

Of course.

> I can tell you I have uninstalled the Squeezecenter, I guess it tells
> you how I feel.
>

An EeePC is not an Eee Box, though...

Regards,
Peter

nicoleif
2008-11-03, 02:08
Does the Asus Eee Box have a better performing PCU than the EeePC?

swayzak
2008-11-03, 03:11
I too am interested in this, being fed up of requiring my energy-hungry P4 3.06 machine to be on all the time (when I use SB).

But then I think, if I'm going to spend a few hundred quid on a stripped down laptop, why don't I just spend a few hundred more and get a decent laptop instead.

Presumably a "conventional" laptop would also use less energy / less noisy (my P4 sounds like a bloody helicopter, although it is in a different room) if left on for long periods ?

badbob
2008-11-03, 11:01
Or you could just buy a NAS with slim server installed, yes you can use a laptop and external drive but that still uses more power than a NAS. And you still have the drawbacks of a host PC.

Mark Lanctot
2008-11-03, 11:12
I too am interested in this, being fed up of requiring my energy-hungry P4 3.06 machine to be on all the time (when I use SB).

P4s are notoriously power-hungry - "Netburst" architecture.


But then I think, if I'm going to spend a few hundred quid on a stripped down laptop, why don't I just spend a few hundred more and get a decent laptop instead.

Depends, do you want to use it as a conventional laptop too? Otherwise save some money and buy a cheap desktop or better yet, save an old desktop from going to the landfill - provided it does not also use a P4...


Presumably a "conventional" laptop would also use less energy / less noisy (my P4 sounds like a bloody helicopter, although it is in a different room) if left on for long periods ?

Just about anything would use less power than a P4.

The Intel Core 2 Duo architecture is particularly power-efficient and also very powerful. Overkill for an SC server, but it does come in handy for media encoding. Any current Celeron or "Dual Core Pentium" (not old style) will do.

peter
2008-11-03, 11:41
badbob wrote:
> Or you could just buy a NAS with slim server installed, yes you can use
> a laptop and external drive but that still uses more power than a NAS.
> And you still have the drawbacks of a host PC.
>

I've been reading this list for quite a while and the word drawback is -
to my mind - most often associated with the NAS acronym.

Regards,
Peter

nicoleif
2008-11-03, 12:32
Still no conclusion on whether the eee Box is powerfull enough (using an usb hdd) to run SC?

klgray
2008-11-03, 14:56
I believe the short answer to the question of whether the Asus EEE Box is sufficient to run SqueezeCenter is yes, but there are several caveats that I'll get into below (somewhat long).

I own an Asus EEE Box, not the netbook, and it's generally for my wife's use. It's darn cute and quite small (no optical drive). She rarely boots it into WinXP, but instead typically uses the browser in ExpressGate for web-based e-mail and light browsing. And for this it works very well (you can have the browser window open in about 18 seconds). Shortly after unboxing the EEE I thought of using something like it for a SqueezeCenter server. Toward that end I bought an MSI Wind barebones instead of buying another EEE Box. It's somewhat comparable to the EEE Box (Intel Atom N270 running at 1.6 GHz, a similar Intel chipset, gigabit Ethernet, four USB ports, etc.), but it's in a bigger box that can accommodate a full-size optical drive. The MSI Wind is sold as a barebones box, so it's initially cheaper (about 135 USD now instead of about 300 USD for the EEE Box) but you have to add your own memory, hard drive and OS and I put in an optical drive as well. The MSI Wind does have a mini-PCI slot so you can add a wireless card if you want to. I didn't bother because it's going to be connected it to a wired network and I don't use the 802.11 wireless in the EEE Box, either. The MSI Wind is quiet, but not quite as quiet as the EEE Box. There is a fan in the EEE Box, but I don't hear it at all. The MSI Wind has a 60 cm fan on the back which I can hear, but again it's quite quiet.

The MSI Wind also allows me to install the OS of my choice, although I could have repartitioned the EEE Box hard drive to do the same. In fact, the 80 GB hard drive in the EEE Box came with two partitions out of the box, C: and D: NTFS partitions. But I've never run SlimServer or SqueezeCenter on anything other than a Linux distribution, with Fedora being my current choice. Right now I'm running SqueezeCenter on a Shuttle small-format PC with a socket 478 2.4 GHz Intel Celeron with Fedora Core 6 and my music on an external drive connected via eSATA. I think the MSI Wind box is the equal, if not the better of my current set up when it comes to performance.

An interesting thing about the MSI Wind is it has a CompactFlash slot. Somewhat less interesting about this slot is you have to remove the motherboard to actually install the CompactFlash. Initially I put in a CompactFlash instead of a hard drive and installed Ubuntu 8.04 i386 on it. It ran just fine, but the CompactFlash I used was recognized as a PIO mode drive, so it was somewhat slow to write. After playing with that a bit I added a hard drive, a 40 GB SATA laptop drive I had laying around, and installed Fedora 9 x86-64 (I was reasonably sure the Atom architecture is 64-bit compliant). I later found that by installing Fedora I somehow messed up Ubuntu installation on the CompactFlash and I couldn't boot it anymore (and I never bothered to try and fix it). I installed a SqueezeCenter 7.2 daily in Fedora and it comes up just fine. I set up a mini-network with one wired player and a few MP3s installed on the hard drive and everything worked just fine. The only oddness with this set up is Fedora doesn't boot from start-up every time. It's not unusual to get 2 or 3 kernel panics before it finally boots from a cold start. I don't know if this is related to having the 64-bit version of Fedora 9 installed; I didn't have this problem with the 32-bit version of Ubuntu. I'm not particularly worried about this because once I get Fedora 9 booted it will run for several days with no problems. The up time on my SqueezeCenter boxes is typically measured in months and sometimes exceeds a year; in other words I rarely shut it down.

Granted the tests I've done so far are limited, but I plan on making the MSI Wind box my next SqueezeCenter server. I plan on replacing the mechanical hard drive with an SSD, as they continue to drop in price. I'm also awaiting the release of Fedora 10 as that isn't far off (although I may hedge my bets and install the 32-bit version). Lastly, I probably will connect the external drive with the music via USB instead of eSATA. The MSI Wind only has two SATA interfaces and they're expected to be used by the hard and optical drives. I don't expect any problems with the USB interface, but if I do I'll remove the optical drive (primarily there to install the OS) and use that for an eSATA connection to the external drive.

Ken

nicoleif
2008-11-04, 01:30
I believe the short answer to the question of whether the Asus EEE Box is sufficient to run SqueezeCenter is yes, but there are several caveats that I'll get into below (somewhat long).

I own an Asus EEE Box, not the netbook, and it's generally for my wife's use. It's darn cute and quite small (no optical drive). She rarely boots it into WinXP, but instead typically uses the browser in ExpressGate for web-based e-mail and light browsing. And for this it works very well (you can have the browser window open in about 18 seconds). Shortly after unboxing the EEE I thought of using something like it for a SqueezeCenter server. Toward that end I bought an MSI Wind barebones instead of buying another EEE Box. It's somewhat comparable to the EEE Box (Intel Atom N270 running at 1.6 GHz, a similar Intel chipset, gigabit Ethernet, four USB ports, etc.), but it's in a bigger box that can accommodate a full-size optical drive. The MSI Wind is sold as a barebones box, so it's initially cheaper (about 135 USD now instead of about 300 USD for the EEE Box) but you have to add your own memory, hard drive and OS and I put in an optical drive as well. The MSI Wind does have a mini-PCI slot so you can add a wireless card if you want to. I didn't bother because it's going to be connected it to a wired network and I don't use the 802.11 wireless in the EEE Box, either. The MSI Wind is quiet, but not quite as quiet as the EEE Box. There is a fan in the EEE Box, but I don't hear it at all. The MSI Wind has a 60 cm fan on the back which I can hear, but again it's quite quiet.

The MSI Wind also allows me to install the OS of my choice, although I could have repartitioned the EEE Box hard drive to do the same. In fact, the 80 GB hard drive in the EEE Box came with two partitions out of the box, C: and D: NTFS partitions. But I've never run SlimServer or SqueezeCenter on anything other than a Linux distribution, with Fedora being my current choice. Right now I'm running SqueezeCenter on a Shuttle small-format PC with a socket 478 2.4 GHz Intel Celeron with Fedora Core 6 and my music on an external drive connected via eSATA. I think the MSI Wind box is the equal, if not the better of my current set up when it comes to performance.

An interesting thing about the MSI Wind is it has a CompactFlash slot. Somewhat less interesting about this slot is you have to remove the motherboard to actually install the CompactFlash. Initially I put in a CompactFlash instead of a hard drive and installed Ubuntu 8.04 i386 on it. It ran just fine, but the CompactFlash I used was recognized as a PIO mode drive, so it was somewhat slow to write. After playing with that a bit I added a hard drive, a 40 GB SATA laptop drive I had laying around, and installed Fedora 9 x86-64 (I was reasonably sure the Atom architecture is 64-bit compliant). I later found that by installing Fedora I somehow messed up Ubuntu installation on the CompactFlash and I couldn't boot it anymore (and I never bothered to try and fix it). I installed a SqueezeCenter 7.2 daily in Fedora and it comes up just fine. I set up a mini-network with one wired player and a few MP3s installed on the hard drive and everything worked just fine. The only oddness with this set up is Fedora doesn't boot from start-up every time. It's not unusual to get 2 or 3 kernel panics before it finally boots from a cold start. I don't know if this is related to having the 64-bit version of Fedora 9 installed; I didn't have this problem with the 32-bit version of Ubuntu. I'm not particularly worried about this because once I get Fedora 9 booted it will run for several days with no problems. The up time on my SqueezeCenter boxes is typically measured in months and sometimes exceeds a year; in other words I rarely shut it down.

Granted the tests I've done so far are limited, but I plan on making the MSI Wind box my next SqueezeCenter server. I plan on replacing the mechanical hard drive with an SSD, as they continue to drop in price. I'm also awaiting the release of Fedora 10 as that isn't far off (although I may hedge my bets and install the 32-bit version). Lastly, I probably will connect the external drive with the music via USB instead of eSATA. The MSI Wind only has two SATA interfaces and they're expected to be used by the hard and optical drives. I don't expect any problems with the USB interface, but if I do I'll remove the optical drive (primarily there to install the OS) and use that for an eSATA connection to the external drive.

Ken

That's what I was looking for. People who has actually experienced with low performing PC's and SqueezeCenter. The MSI Wind isn't currently sold barebones in Denmark and the Windows version is 1/3 more expensive the eee Box, so I will go with the eee Box. The eee Box has the advantage of the preinstalled wireless card and I an to connect the eee Box to the internet it will be wireless (I actually consider NOT connecting to the internet if it means that the eee Box will then run SC smoother?!). The music storage will be a USB hdd (maybe one without seperate power suplly , eg a WD Passport 500 GB). I will start with the preinstalled XP and if this doesn't work switch to Linux. But bottom line the Asus eee Box has a good chance of working!

ajkidle
2008-11-04, 07:00
I'll throw my two cents in and day that I'm almost positive an EEE Box would work find for a SC server. I've not used an EEE Box, but am running Squeezecenter on a very underpowered rig: mini-ITX platform with a VIA Eden fanless 600mhz CPU, 256mb RAM, WinXP, and a ton of hard drive space. Performance with a Duet bundle has been generally fine, as long as you don't need to use the web SC interface. At times (not often) the Controller is slow to respond or bring up a sub-menu, but I expect that given the architecture.

As I said, I'm using this to run a Duet bundle currently, but intend to expand with an additional SBR and Boom in the near future. I worry that syncronizing and streaming to multiple players will be too much of a strain for this little server, and am considering an EEE Box as a longer term solution. If a VIA Eden, which is a 5 year old low-power design, can run one player fine, the modern Atom platform should be more than sufficient for any SC needs.

Mark Lanctot
2008-11-04, 07:22
The eee Box has the advantage of the preinstalled wireless card and I an to connect the eee Box to the internet it will be wireless

While the eee Box may work fine for SC, having an SC machine connecting wirelessly to your network may cripple it if the SB player is also wireless because you'll have two wireless hops. In other words, your hardware might be fine but your network might not.

It works sometimes but if you have marginal wireless performance, all bets are off.

You would be much better off wiring the box to your network, then running the SB player wireless. Or wiring the player and having the box wireless, either way - just not both.

nicoleif
2008-11-04, 07:57
I see your point. The problem is that both the eee Box AND the squeezebox is placed in the room next to my router! A way around it could be to totally avoid internetnet connection by connecting the eee Box directly to the Squeezebox by using af LAN Patch cable! Offcourse one would loose the advantage of web interface. Has anyone tried this?

syburgh
2008-11-04, 08:01
I also have an MSI Wind PC that seems to be the best SC7 server I've had. It has the same basic hardware as the Asus PC (no wireless, larger footprint). I run CentOS Linux and have it configured to automatically suspend during inactive periods (uses only 2-3W when suspended) and resumes when SB player sends a WOL packet (<10s from WOL packet to usable SC navigation). Here are my setup notes (http://wiki.syburgh.com/audio0-local).

This is a fairly powerful machine, but the SC7 web interface could be faster (it's about 1000ms per page when browsing the Album list, 6.5.4 interface didn't have album art and seemed faster). They seem to be improving the web interface's latency with 7.2.1, and I hope to see further enhancement over time.

Mark Lanctot
2008-11-04, 08:07
I see your point. The problem is that both the eee Box AND the squeezebox is placed in the room next to my router! A way around it could be to totally avoid internetnet connection by connecting the eee Box directly to the Squeezebox by using af LAN Patch cable!

This works! However, I believe setting up the Duet this way is a little complicated. The SB Classic should work without a hitch this way.

See http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/NetworkDesign , the section on bridging, and note:

"Installing SqueezeCenter on the bridged device may at first seem a little circuitous and convoluted but Slim Devices' CEO and chief Squeezebox designer Sean Adams confirmed it should work well here. The Squeezebox is not merely a simple wireless bridge, it recognizes traffic destined for itself originating on the wired side and will process them. This is an interesting option: the Squeezebox can take advantage of the vast, reliable bandwidth between it and SqueezeCenter offered by the wired ethernet link, yet still have wireless remote access to SqueezeNetwork and the rest of your network."


Offcourse one would loose the advantage of web interface. Has anyone tried this?

As the above section states, you would not lose the connection to the rest of the network (and the Internet), it should be bridged through the Squeezebox.

I've never tried this, but the Squeezebox designer Sean Adams says it will work, and I believe a few people on the forum have a setup like this.

Try your two-hop wireless setup first - it works for some people and it may work for you, especially since your router is only in the next room. Bridging is a little more complicated, investigate it if you get problems.

nicoleif
2008-11-04, 09:54
If I decide to go with bridging will it then still be possible to make playlists remote using the web interface? I plan on no screen connected to the musik server pc!

Mark Lanctot
2008-11-04, 09:56
If I decide to go with bridging will it then still be possible to make playlists remote using the web interface? I plan on no screen connected to the musik server pc!

Yes, if successful, everything will work as normal.

Did you read the wiki article? Bridging uses the SB to connect to your router, and everything connected to your router will therefore be connected to the SB and any devices bridged from the SB (i.e. the SC server box).

nicoleif
2008-11-04, 11:14
Yes, if successful, everything will work as normal.

Did you read the wiki article? Bridging uses the SB to connect to your router, and everything connected to your router will therefore be connected to the SB and any devices bridged from the SB (i.e. the SC server box).

Yes I did read it but I am still not sure if I will be able to do the things with this setup that I desire. I plan to bridge an Asus eee Box (with the music on an external usb hdd) with my SB3 Classic. And when creating playlists and altering the settings I plan to use another pc on my internal network using the web interface. Thus I won't have to connect a screen to the Asus! Will this work?

Mark Lanctot
2008-11-04, 11:30
Yes I did read it but I am still not sure if I will be able to do the things with this setup that I desire. I plan to bridge an Asus eee Box (with the music on an external usb hdd) with my SB3 Classic. And when creating playlists and altering the settings I plan to use another pc on my internal network using the web interface. Thus I won't have to connect a screen to the Asus! Will this work?

Again, it should as the article explains.

nicoleif
2008-11-04, 11:49
Thanx a lot. By the way why are you using an SB2 instead of an SB3 with your Transporter?

tedfroop
2008-11-04, 11:52
Have a look here too: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41722

Mark Lanctot
2008-11-04, 11:57
Thanx a lot. By the way why are you using an SB2 instead of an SB3 with your Transporter?

Don't mean to offend any of the developers but...my SB2 gets better wireless reception than the SB3 I had for a while. It has an external antenna in addition to an internal antenna, the SB3 has two internal antennas.

Don't get me wrong - the SB3 still connected and played fine but it was replaced with a Transporter. When it came time to sell one of the players, the SB3 was the one to go. I understand it's still going strong as is the Duet - the same person bought both.

nicoleif
2008-11-04, 12:01
Thanx a lot. By the way why are you using an SB2 instead of an SB3 with your Transporter?

florca
2008-11-04, 12:14
Does the MSI Wind Box come with a power supply capable of working with 240V? Anyone know if there's any intention of making them available in UK / Europe any time soon?

Brgds
Phil

DeVerm
2008-11-04, 13:26
I successfully use a VIA PicoITX motherboard that's the size of a passport. It has a 1 GHz VIA CPU and use < 10W idle and heatpipe cooling without fans. 1 GByte RAM. Internal harddrive is 160G laptop-type.

SC runs great on it but the web-interface is sluggish. I now use Google's Chrome browser and configured it for SC as an "application-icon". Chrome is twice as fast as Firefox.

To the poster writing "too cheap or green to buy fast server": even with a fast server I feel the web-interface is sluggish and I read others with fast servers complaining about it too. Also, you should buy hardware appropriate for the task. I use my Pico for SC, playing DVD, Internet browsing and email. It would be stupid to use my gaming-rig for SC because you don't need those video-cards, 4GByte RAM, Gigabit ethernet etc. It's a waste of both money and energy to use a high-performance rig for SC and it doesn't give you much in return. I didn't even use a different/older/faster skin for SC because with Chrome it's just fine on the PicoITX.

cheers,
Nick.