[tential]

This thread has got me thinking. Sure, there's some awesome stuff coming in XBMC's future that will actually do this, allow you to take part of a library and go mobile and then mesh it back with the main library, but I like the challenge of figuring out how to do something close for the meantime

Elaborate.... Please......

[Ned Scott]

This thread has got me thinking. Sure, there's some awesome stuff coming in XBMC's future that will actually do this, allow you to take part of a library and go mobile and then mesh it back with the main library, but I like the challenge of figuring out how to do something close for the meantime

Elaborate.... Please......

The hopeful replacement for MySQL. It uses a combo of UPnP and some other stuff to allow XBMC instances to "mesh" with each other and have real library syncing. The feature is so awesome that a new XBMC release will occur as soon as its ready. Either it or RetroPlayer (maybe both?) will likely be the highlight feature of v14.

Pieh started work on it for Google Summer of Code in 2013 and Montellese is continuing it from there to make it a fully functional setup: http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=165024 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQTGclBfpY

From what I've had explained to me, it could also be setup in a way that would allow someone to go mobile with a portion of the library and then mesh back with the library, regardless of where exactly the files are (or if the files are both on a mobile device and on the home network).

[tential]

Had to check and make sure it wasn't April 1st. That sounds amazing. Finally I have a reason to want 64 GB of storage on my phone/mobile device.

[bossanova808]

As a fan of the one master server for all media model, with clients just acting as clients, I have yet to really see a good reason for the UPnP approach. But maybe this is it.

However...I'd still want the media on my main client - so I am not quite seeing how this would work really. I guess you'd just have duplicates going on and the UpnP stuff would work out they're the same thing and consolidate them? So when I watch on the holiday machine and bring it back it would sync that change I suppose?

I know MySQL is not popular with the devs....but it's quite simple and work crazily well with a multi-client system. It seems like any syncing approach, as opposed to client/server, will always have a lot more potential difficulties. But, I presume, plenty of pros as well...it's just I am not seeing them yet since I have such a nice centralised server system approach going on.

I do see the argument for a headless xbmc master on the server more and more though.

Anyway, I have refined my copier so that it works now for me - 604GB of unwatched media auto-copied to my NUC overnight, identical uinwatched list on my main machines as the holiday machine. So that's good - and my tests with manually syncing trakt after watching something seem to work properly too. So basically I am there I think...just need to test it once (next trip is in early April) - than all going well I will write it all up properly for others. In the meantime clean up my copier code to get it to a point where at least with minor work it might work similarly for others.

(Very impressed with the little NUC - it was cheap, it's cool and quiet (if not fanless) - works perfectly with a Harmony, and even with a 5400rpm 1.5TB hitachi HD boots in seconds and is very repsonsive. And Gotham is looking very nice too!!)

[Ned Scott]

As a fan of the one master server for all media model, with clients just acting as clients, I have yet to really see a good reason for the UPnP approach. But maybe this is it.

What we're doing with UPnP is really both approaches. A single XBMC instance can be master/host/server, and everyone else can be the slave. Or there can be multiple hosts. Basically, XBMC is a client that comes with a built-in host. Plus, UPnP will be supplemented with other things like JSON-RPC and other ways to communicate, so even natural limitations of UPnP shouldn't negatively impact the future XBMC approach.

However...I'd still want the media on my main client - so I am not quite seeing how this would work really. I guess you'd just have duplicates going on and the UpnP stuff would work out they're the same thing and consolidate them? So when I watch on the holiday machine and bring it back it would sync that change I suppose?

It's one of the things that should be possible with this setup. UPnP itself also has the ability to sync actual files, rather than just "host" then. Being able to handle duplicates is also something that will be added as a result of this work, and that will benefit more than just library syncing/sharing.

I know MySQL is not popular with the devs....but it's quite simple and work crazily well with a multi-client system. It seems like any syncing approach, as opposed to client/server, will always have a lot more potential difficulties. But, I presume, plenty of pros as well...it's just I am not seeing them yet since I have such a nice centralised server system approach going on.

Flipping a switch inside the XBMC GUI with nothing else to setup or install also seems quite simple and works crazy well :)

I do see the argument for a headless xbmc master on the server more and more though.

A headless version or "mode" for XBMC is the only way I can see us ever justifying the actual removal of MySQL. Even then, it will probably stay around until it gets in the way of other code/ maintenance. Also, several Team XBMC devs really like MySQL too, so they'll have to be won over as well.

[bossanova808]

Good info, thanks!

[Swifty]

Out of interest (may be too early to say), but will the UPnP library solution 'cache' the library to the client (in a persistent way) in the master / slave scenario you mentioned above?

Otherwise, I could see bad times when XBMC crashes on the server and then there is no library until it's restarted.

[tential]

UPnP works very well for me. All my XBMC devices use UPnP to play content and it works. I just wish all the watched status would go to the main PC rather than that device.

[N to the M]

Sorry to but in on your discussion, just joined the forum and was reading with interesr about the up UPnP thing. Prob a total noob question, but is it possible to stream xbmc on phone to other devices using UPnP and if so how? Sorry if not relevant to your discussion. Thanks in advace to any answers.

[Kib]

UPnP works very well for me. All my XBMC devices use UPnP to play content and it works. I just wish all the watched status would go to the main PC rather than that device.

If using Gotham they are supposed to, but it is a confirmed bug that it is not working.

[rterblanche]

UPnP works very well for me. All my XBMC devices use UPnP to play content and it works. I just wish all the watched status would go to the main PC rather than that device.

If using Gotham they are supposed to, but it is a confirmed bug that it is not working.

UPnP Watched status work sort of in Gotham. My config is a main setup that acts as a NAS and
RPi's on all the other tv's.

Def some bugs still in the implementation but I have been using it for the past year.
Bugs : Watch status doesn't show on RPi directly after watching, but show when you reboot an on central instance. Number of unwatched
episodes not correct on RPi (Show as unwatched but when you enter folder, everything is watched). Shows the wrong number of episodes
(How I met your Mother show as 30 episodes on the RPi). When you hide as watched on RPi it hides all shows that you have started watching and
not just the ones that has all episode watched.

Must say also very interested in the taking my library offline. I do a few business trips a month
and taking my unwatched stuff with me is better than sitting on the plane or hotel room an having nothing
to get me to sleep.

Is the script ready for release ?

Would be nice to be able to have it as an addon where you can setup devices on the network.
Show a list of unwanted stuff and the send it to a device without exiting XBMC.
And these devices can be a Media Player or external drive or just a folder.

[bossanova808]

No the script is not ready for release...I need some time to clean it up and make it less me specific.

I'll get there, but I am fighting various gotham and addon related bugs at the moment too, plus busy at work...

But for now it will definitely be external to xbmc. I see why an addon might be useful but I think it would take too long myself - tying up an xbmc machine while it copies gb upon gb to another point. For me, this is something I want to run on the main server for speed reasons, but hopefully someone will get inspired by the idea and do something similar as an addon.

[rterblanche]

Thought about keeping the interface tied up with copying.

Maybe one can do it async in the background like library update

[bossanova808]

Script should be along soon in some vaguely usable form. Well, usable by me - it will definitely be a Proof of Concept for others really, although I have tried to generalise it a bit. Hopefully someone will run with it once it's on github

[tential]

UPnP works very well for me. All my XBMC devices use UPnP to play content and it works. I just wish all the watched status would go to the main PC rather than that device.

If using Gotham they are supposed to, but it is a confirmed bug that it is not working.

I'm a retard. I use SMB. I have used UPnP though and had it running on my laptop back when I was doing library tests.

I use SMB now so that my brother/sisters watch statuses don't mess up mine. XBMC is efficient either way though. UPnP requires XBMC to be open though. Which is why XBMC Server would be nice =D.

SMB works so well though and I'm very very very happy with Gotham currently.