[sukelis]

I've just recently learned that you can have multiple paths/locations in a single source. I've been doing it as multiple but separate sources (set to the same type). I've been trying to find out what is the upside/downside of each method but I'm just not clear on it. It seems to me that it's just 2 ways to do the same thing. Is that right? Or am I missing something?

To illustrate:

disk1:\lib1\ added as source lib1, type movies
disk2:\lib2\ added as source lib2, type movies

vs

disk1:\movies added as source movies, type movies
disk2:\movies added TO source movies, type movies

In the first method (separate sources, which is what I've been using) everything gets merged together in library view but remains separate in file view. Also, if a source fails, those particular shows just disappear, but everything else is fine.

In the second method - which I have no experience with - I would expect file view to merge as well as library, correct?

But what happens if one of the parts of a single source fails, ie, does it just "fall out" or does it take the whole source with it?

Does either method have an advantage when using smb network shares?

Is there any other advantage or disadvantage to one or the other?

I've searched through the forums without finding answers to these last questions, other than forming the opinion that it's just a matter of preference. Which makes me suspicious of my understanding.

I'm in the middle of transferring my files to a new system, so I'd kind of like to figure this out. Unfortunately, I didn't think about this until after I'd taken the old system apart...

[WayneFlix]

Depends on whether you want to access them via Library or as the movie view. As the movie view, it doesn't matter. For Library access, it might make more sense to break it up.

All in all though it is personal preference.

[eg4190]

I have multiple shares combined into each source for TV and Movies. I have had one HD failure, and the media on that volume just disappeared from the library (i.e., it didn't take the whole library with it -- just the stuff in Movies3).

The benefit of combining multiple shares into one source is that if you're trying to track down anything in file view, you don't have to remember whether the movie is in Movies2 or Movies8. All of those folders are combined into one set of folders. By putting each share as a different source, you're making things more complicated than they need to be in my opinion, although there could be upsides in certain cases (i.e., people who want to separate out a genre like Anime without making playlists or whatever).

[aaronb]

I used to do the same thing, but then I started using Flexraid and it pools your drives into one big drive (but you can stop using it at any time and all of the data is still on each individual drive). The problem with doing it that way is if you ever need to move files around to different drives to reorganize or something, the path for the library will change. Having a bunch of drives that appear to be one you can have

disk1/movies
disk2/movies

show up to xbmc (in both library and file mode) as

flexraiddrive/movies

You're also getting parity protection for your data

[PatK]

As your collection grows, you could split multiple paths to separate drives... e.g. Classics, B&W, Oldies under one source, as the collection expands and listings become quite long, you might separate these paths. I keep a kind of generalized genre source and a few custom, makes it pretty easy to add drives , shuffle folders and do maintenance. Listing & populating large folders beyond a certain point can loose that snappy feeling.

As others have said, when the source is unavailable, the library will still list; great for when you're searching within XBMC, but will be unavailable and unseen in file mode.

[sukelis]

Thanks everyone for your replies! Some really good points to think about, and I'm especially glad to have confirmation that a failed disk won't take down the whole source. I would never have even considered that situation if I hadn't been completely surprised one day to find that my xbmc was just not loading... turned out that the mysql server system was powered down (I'm paranoid, I don't have my boxes reboot after power failures, but I hadn't been home when the power went out so didn't know the server was down). Having it in a perpetual hang state waiting for the database makes sense, but it got me thinking about all these other network dependencies.

I'm nearly done with my file transfers. I had pulled the HDD's out of the old server so I could transfer using a usb 3.0 dock on the new server - my first experience with usb 3.0. I had not realized how much faster it is. It's been chewing through that 3TB like a dog with biscuits... crunch, crunch, crunch, give me another one! crunch, crunch, crunch, give me another one! Seems to be about 4 times faster... definitely worth the trouble of pulling the disks out!