[poofyhairguy]

If I use the mac mini or mac book as a SAMBA server until I can buy a NAS would that work fine?

My main server for over a year was a hackintosh. I used it to serve files to my XBMC Live box right to its end. One problem I had was I had to use 10.5 and not 10.6 as 10.6 has a TERRIBLE SAMBA issue that gives it fits with XBMC Live. Since I switched away though the problem has been solved for Snow Leopard. Here is how to make your Mini a good SAMBA server:

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?s...2135148675

Also is there a way I would be able to read and write to the external HDS if I plug them into my htpc I am going to build.

Any disk that is HFS+ NOT JOURNALED can be read and written to by Linux. So when you format the drive on your Mac, avoid the Journaling.

Also would you be able to recommend me a NAS that isnt to much? I am just trying to weigh my options before purchasing anything

Personally I am a build it kind of guy, so I replaced my Hackintosh server with an Unraid server. If you are going to be really serious about this (aka rip every Blu Ray your can get your hands physically on) then nothing beats an Unraid server.

But if you don't need that much space, I have heard GREAT things about these NASes:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...6822122010

[ion_man]

Here is your basic problem OP:

It is just a BAD idea to put your XBMC install on your media drive.

Why?

Because they need different things. Your media drive is best off being one of the above drives (aka a Samsung or WD green drive) as they are more than enough to playback even the meanest HD files but they run cool (compared to 7200 RPM drives). Hot drives over time die.

But if you install and run XBMC from these drives the experience will be far more sluggish (because of the green drives) than if XBMC ran from a 7200 RPM drive or a SSD.

I don't agree. Yes in an ideal world using separate drives for the OS+XBMC and the media would be best, but in practice when money is tight installing the OS+XBMC on the same physical disk as the media is not as bad as you make it out to be.

XBMC Live might take slightly longer to boot up but once it's running you won't notice any difference compared to a faster drive.

You can't compare a minimal OS install with XBMC on top with a full blown desktop, a desktop machine benefits noticeably from a SSD or a 7200rpm drive but a XBMC install only very little.
I have tested this myself a few times.

The important thing to do is to install the OS+XBMC on a separate partition at the beginning of the disk (10GB is more than enough) and then have a second partition for the media files.

A pen drive can be ok, but you have to buy a fast one from a good brand (Transcend, Kingston) because cheap noname pen drives are quite slow and will die very quickly when you run a OS off them (due to cheap quality flash chips that survive only few writes).

[ion_man]

Thanks I think I will do this since its in my budget and I can always upgrade to an SDD drive later. Is theit a drive you would prefer over another one, since there was that review pointed out on a previous post?

Actually I will have both those drives in the next few days and I'm planning to write a comparative review of them for Linuxtech.net. I hope to have the review online by next weekend.

[Tbtf]

My main server for over a year was a hackintosh. I used it to serve files to my XBMC Live box right to its end. One problem I had was I had to use 10.5 and not 10.6 as 10.6 has a TERRIBLE SAMBA issue that gives it fits with XBMC Live. Since I switched away though the problem has been solved for Snow Leopard. Here is how to make your Mini a good SAMBA server:

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?s...2135148675



Any disk that is HFS+ NOT JOURNALED can be read and written to by Linux. So when you format the drive on your Mac, avoid the Journaling.


And thanks ION man I will be on the look out for that review. I am going to purchase everything except the HD for now



Personally I am a build it kind of guy, so I replaced my Hackintosh server with an Unraid server. If you are going to be really serious about this (aka rip every Blu Ray your can get your hands physically on) then nothing beats an Unraid server.

But if you don't need that much space, I have heard GREAT things about these NASes:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...6822122010

Uh-o they are already journal ed and have a bunch of data on them so cant reformat. Any solutions for that.. and thanks for the help

[poofyhairguy]

I don't agree. Yes in an ideal world using separate drives for the OS+XBMC and the media would be best, but in practice when money is tight installing the OS+XBMC on the same physical disk as the media is not as bad as you make it out to be.

XBMC Live might take slightly longer to boot up but once it's running you won't notice any difference compared to a faster drive.

You can't compare a minimal OS install with XBMC on top with a full blown desktop, a desktop machine benefits noticeably from a SSD or a 7200rpm drive but a XBMC install only very little.
I have tested this myself a few times.

The important thing to do is to install the OS+XBMC on a separate partition at the beginning of the disk (10GB is more than enough) and then have a second partition for the media files.

A pen drive can be ok, but you have to buy a fast one from a good brand (Transcend, Kingston) because cheap noname pen drives are quite slow and will die very quickly when you run a OS off them (due to cheap quality flash chips that survive only few writes).

Yes, you are right that XBMC can run from a Green HD. My AppleTV taught me the interface is much more RAM restricted rather than being HD restrictive (which is why I hate the AppleTV, but that is another thread). You are again right that partitioning a different root partition than data partition in XBMC Live can fix the issue.

You are technically right- a Green drive will run XBMC as speeds most would deem acceptable (not me, spoiled by SSDs). The problem with this technically right solution is it leaves little room for growth.

It is smart to separate XBMC and data because in the long run the best solution is not only when they are on different disks, but different machines. If OP doesn't waste the space partitioning the data disk today, then he/she has the whole disk to use when its gets put into a server....

Basically I would only advice someone go the "install XBMC on your data drive" if they think that 2TB will always be enough for them (and even then I would say use the 7200RPM Hitachis over a WD Green). Anyone who has messed with HD media knows that not only is 2TB not enough, 10TB is not enough.

I would prefer recommending a path with a better upgrade plan, as I have cut conners before on my progress to my final solution and each time I did that it cost me in the long run.

[poofyhairguy]

Uh-o they are already journal ed and have a bunch of data on them so cant reformat. Any solutions for that.. and thanks for the help

You can read the data then in Linux, just not write to the data.

The long term solution?

Move the data on the old HDs to a new HD before you start filling the new HD. Then reformat the old HDs without journaling and move the data back.

Or just forget writing to the drives from your Linux HTPC, and use your Mini as a central server (aka instead of getting a 2TB internal drive for your HTPC, get a 2TB external to add to your Mini to be served).

[Tbtf]

Hey guys I decided to use a thumb drive to run XBMC live, use my external drives since it will be able to read them, and evnentually build a NAS. I am about to buy a thumb drive and here is what I was thinking on getting just need to know if it is sufficent to run XBMC live.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...6820220252