[T800]

It did seem daunting until I had done it once, now it's pretty simple.

[tjcinnamon]

v12 now handles thumb sync automatically. We're also headed in the direction of a MySQL replacement (most likely in the forum of the evolved UPnP server) that will be a lot easier than how MySQL is set up now. Basically, all the same features, but where any XBMC instance can become the server itself, and other XBMC instances can automatically discover that server. That's the direction we're working towards now.

Library sharing over UPnP is a feature now, actually, but lacks the ability to share watched and resume statuses and integrate with the internal library. It's still not a bad option, and loads easier than setting up MySQL. It's just that a lot of people don't seem to know about the feature.

If UPnP plans on taking over MySQL how will that work with a NAS. I like MySQL because it can be hosted on a NAS and I don't need host computer that needs to be left on.

[TechLife]

If UPnP plans on taking over MySQL how will that work with a NAS. I like MySQL because it can be hosted on a NAS and I don't need host computer that needs to be left on.

I was just about to ask the same thing as I run a linux server that I really don't need xbmc running on...

[jompan87]

If UPnP plans on taking over MySQL how will that work with a NAS. I like MySQL because it can be hosted on a NAS and I don't need host computer that needs to be left on.

I was just about to ask the same thing as I run a linux server that I really don't need xbmc running on...

http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=132919

But I think this should come with xbmc by default (eg perhaps applying an --headless to the binary which would fire up only services need for a server)

[Jimmer]

If UPnP plans on taking over MySQL how will that work with a NAS. I like MySQL because it can be hosted on a NAS and I don't need host computer that needs to be left on.

I was just about to ask the same thing as I run a linux server that I really don't need xbmc running on...

http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=132919

But I think this should come with xbmc by default (eg perhaps applying an --headless to the binary which would fire up only services need for a server)

See, this sounds great. But most NAS's (like my 64-bit qnap, for example) run a hamstrung bastardized version of linux that's and absolute pain-in-the-arse to compile any complicated project on (try compiling mythtv on a 64-bit Nas, or compiling 64-bit kernel modules with the 32-bit version of gcc available from ipkg......). I'm sure someone will do it when the option to run headless becomes mainstream, but it's not quite the slam dunk that mysql (which is easily installable on all servers/NAS's) currently proves to be....

[jmarshall]

mysql is only easily installable because someone has done that work. It's not magic.

[jompan87]

I was just about to ask the same thing as I run a linux server that I really don't need xbmc running on...

http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=132919

But I think this should come with xbmc by default (eg perhaps applying an --headless to the binary which would fire up only services need for a server)

See, this sounds great. But most NAS's (like my 64-bit qnap, for example) run a hamstrung bastardized version of linux that's and absolute pain-in-the-arse to compile any complicated project on (try compiling mythtv on a 64-bit Nas, or compiling 64-bit kernel modules with the 32-bit version of gcc available from ipkg......). I'm sure someone will do it when the option to run headless becomes mainstream, but it's not quite the slam dunk that mysql (which is easily installable on all servers/NAS's) currently proves to be....

Not to be perky, but you can always crosscompile on a more robust platform

[Jimmer]

I totally agree you can cross-compile. I have the appropriate toolchain on one of my boxes and I'll probably have a bash at it myself when it becomes the "official" way to share a library (i.e. has the features and robustness of the current mysql implementation and --headless is the "in thing"). I also realise that mysql has already been compiled for you and there is no "magic" involved. It's just widely used, widely available, easy to install, works perfectly out of the box, etc, etc....

I'm not whining that mysql is sooooo perfect and should never be replaced by anything else. I also realise that people involved in this project aren't massive fans of the current mysql sharing option. Just sayin' that upnp is not, as it currently stands, a drop in replacement. Post Frodo, when it receives more work, it may well be.....

[tjcinnamon]

However, the libraries are shared they should be easily sharable via a NAS (i.e. a low power 24/7 availability solution).

Thanks,
JOe K.

[gibxxi]

From a personal perspective, I have two media center capable PC's, but neither of them host the media I am accessing. This resides on the NAS. A ReadyNAS Ultra 4 to be exact. The same NAS also hosts the MySQL server that's powering my XBMC installs on both clients.

With news that uPnP may "replace" MySQL, this is deeply troubling for me. Both Media Centres are on Wireless. Large transfers of data at my location need to be kept at a minimum, due to interference I can't control (channel congestion) and want to manage and administer my media collection on the NAS, which is the central location, and next to the main PC which does have a dedicated (Gigabit) ethernet connection directly to the NAS.

The other concern, aside from traffic congestion over the wireless network is the fact that in order to use either of the Media Centre PC's, both would need to be on in this scenario. That's is against everything i'm trying to achieve from my network and setup, not to mention wasteful on the energy costs. I don't mind a replacement for MySQL becoming the "de-facto" standard, but please don't remove MySQL functionality for those of us whose configurations / setups / circumstances depend on it being available.

You could say run independant DB's on each machine, but again, that's duplication I'm attempting to avoid. The version of Linux on the ReadyNAS is old, and isn't likely to be upgraded. It's not going to possess the grunt to run an XBMC server unless it's pretty stripped down, and having little linux knowledge, I doubt I'd go down that road anyhow. If MySQL support is removed, i'll have to look at alternatives to XBMC that will ruin the experience, and work I've done to automate my media library to be optimized for the way things are now (over the past few years of using it) on this excellent media center.

I concur with Jimmer's first post on this point.

[jmarshall]

What is to suggest that UPnP would use vastly more data than a database connection to mysql?

Logic dictates that it's the same data, thus any differences in bandwidth are minimal (due to the transport).

[Ned Scott]

ReadyNAS Ultra 4 has a 1.66 GHz Atom D510 (dual core) processor, 1 GB of RAM, and seems to have come out in 2010. It's a very powerful NAS, and I would be very surprised if a headless version of XBMC couldn't be made to work for it.

[gibxxi]

ReadyNAS Ultra 4 has a 1.66 GHz Atom D510 (dual core) processor, 1 GB of RAM, and seems to have come out in 2010. It's a very powerful NAS, and I would be very surprised if a headless version of XBMC couldn't be made to work for it.

On it's own maybe. But who runs a NAS without other add-ons too? I'm running over a dozen add-ons on this setup. I did try Plex, but it simply couldn't handle the load with all the other stuff I have running on there.

As for bandwidth, my requirements are kept low by the fact that i'm only ever streaming data over the network once. Not two two systems at the same time. My media will never be anywhere but on the NAS. Having to send one set of data to a server, only to have to reroute it again over uPnP to the second, just for the purposes of sharing a DB / library seems like a backwards step to me.

The setup I have now means I only need the NAS and one of the other (Media center) PC's running. Going down the uPnP route would mean having three devices running any time I wanted to run XBMC, again, this seems like a backwards step. I can see this being a good idea for some people, just not everyone.

Finally, I don't want to have to manually install an XBMC server on the NAS. All the add-ons running on the NAS, are proper add-ons. With monitoring / installers visible in the default OS on the box. Not keen on doing a ton of hackery just to go down this road personally. Like I say, i'm not against it's coming... Just not keen on being forced to use this method because MySQL, the most popular open source, multi-seat DB server in existence, is suddenly removed from XBMC.

My 2p.

[Martijn]

Why are you guys judging and discarding it before anything has even be made yet.

It seems you have no idea what you are talking about. Why would UPnP not be able to run on the same NAS as you now have mysql.

If you can afford all that equipment why complain about running some more devices?
The whole idea of using mysql is sharing amongst multiple devices and if you have those you have nothing to complain about if you need to run another device

This is my $1.000,- instead of just 2p

[edrikk]

Why are you guys judging and discarding it before anything has even be made yet.

People who have a LITTLE technical knowledge but THINK they know a lot tend to do that. It's like junior developers who are "good enough to be dangerous"...