Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
With a Gigabit network, the network speed isn't the bottleneck. The CPU processing speed of a NAS device is. I'll bet any decent Linux server will beat any NAS device on speed. Jim forgot to mention that NAS doesn't mean low power neither. You can buy NAS devices running dual core dual xeons, serving terabytes of storage. Your decent Linux machine must be pretty high end to beat this. Unless you call that NAS a decent Linux box :-). -- Michael - http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a CD http://www.herger.net/slim - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
aubuti wrote: Peter;193768 Wrote: NAS's are usually run by people who don't want to run a real 24/7 server, for whatever reason. Perhaps we should make a poll of it but I'm betting the majority of NAS users are not running Windows. Well, that's to be expected, but I'm betting it will be even less. People by a NAS because they don't want to run a server. People who run Linux usually don't have such qualms. Sounds like a variant on the bizarre definition that JJZolx mentioned. Is a NAS not real server because it (typically) only runs Samba, and doesn't run Apache, sendmail, nfs, etc.? I would venture that people buy a NAS because they want to run smbd and nmbd, although that wish might be expressed as I want everyone in the house to be able to access the music files. A NAS is a server, that runs the daemons one set of buyers wants, and is less expensive to buy and run than real server, especially at the consumer-grade end of the NAS market. Exactly mate. A NAS is a server just like my PS2 is a real PC. BTW, my Asus wireless access point is a real PC too (even runs Linux) and so is my cell phone ;) Sometimes it really gets bizarre without bizarre definitions like 'real server'... Regards, Peter ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
Michael Herger wrote: With a Gigabit network, the network speed isn't the bottleneck. The CPU processing speed of a NAS device is. I'll bet any decent Linux server will beat any NAS device on speed. Jim forgot to mention that NAS doesn't mean low power neither. You can buy NAS devices running dual core dual xeons, serving terabytes of storage. Your decent Linux machine must be pretty high end to beat this. Unless you call that NAS a decent Linux box :-). That's true of course. But usually consumer grade NAS boxes are built for low energy comsumption and have just enough power to serve files decently. Regards, Peter ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
I've tried some searches in the forums, but didn't find the thread I was looking for. I realize the difficulty of doing so on different hardware, but has anyone done comparative performance benchmark testing of a recent Slimserver version running on, say, a Mac Mini, a Linux box, and a Windows XP box, with the music files on external storage (e.g., NAS volume)? I've seen several reports of significant performance increases when moving from XP to Linux, but I'm very curious as to whether Mac OSX performance is closer to the former or the latter (or superior to both). On a related note, are Slimserver plug-ins all OS-agnostic, or will some only work on one OS platform or another? I've noticed that some are packaged as ZIP files, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Thanks! -- Balthazar_B Balthazar_B's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7366 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34325 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
Some plugins come in separate Mac/Linux and Windows versions. I think that most (maybe all) Linux ones will work on Macs as well. -- danco danco's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=210 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34325 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
Thanks. BTW, to add to my original message, the kind of operations interesting to compare across the various platforms include web interface, library scanning/rescanning, track changing, etc. -- Balthazar_B Balthazar_B's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7366 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34325 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
I posted some Windows 2K vs. Linux scanning results in this thread http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33041page=6. In each case the server (an older Dell Pentium III) was accessing music files on a NAS (Buffalo LinkStation). Bottom line was that Win2K took 40% more time to scan than Ubuntu did, with a library of around 4000 tracks. -- aubuti aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34325 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
Bottom line was that Win2K took 40% more time to scan than Ubuntu did, with a library of around 4000 tracks. As I could not believe these numbers I just did a test myself. SlimCD run in a virtual machine is scanning _faster_ than scanning the same collection over the net on the Windows host itself... I would never have expected such a difference! -- Michael - http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a CD http://www.herger.net/slim - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
Balthazar_B;193694 Wrote: Thanks. BTW, to add to my original message, the kind of operations interesting to compare across the various platforms include web interface, library scanning/rescanning, track changing, etc. There are definite performance issues associated with SlimServer on Windows accessing files on an NAS. Nobody has pinpointed exactly what the problem is - perhaps a Windows/Linux issue (most consumer NASs run some form of Linux), or maybe something with ActiveState's Windows Perl, or something with how SlimServer itself is implemented on Windows. Calling it low priority would be an understatement. The main thing it affects is scan times. The web and remote interfaces' performance shouldn't be impacted much, if at all, since SlimServer primarily interacts with the database once a scan has completed. Browsing the music folder could also be affected. -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34325 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
JJZolx wrote: Balthazar_B;193694 Wrote: Thanks. BTW, to add to my original message, the kind of operations interesting to compare across the various platforms include web interface, library scanning/rescanning, track changing, etc. There are definite performance issues associated with SlimServer on Windows accessing files on an NAS. Nobody has pinpointed exactly what the problem is - perhaps a Windows/Linux issue (most consumer NASs run some form of Linux), or maybe something with ActiveState's Windows Perl, or something with how SlimServer itself is implemented on Windows. Calling it low priority would be an understatement. I guess most people using a NAS would be running Windows on the PC that runs slimserver. Accessing a fileserver over the network slows things down. I use Linux as my 247/7 up server OS, which makes a NAS rather useless, external firewire disks are much faster. The main thing it affects is scan times. The web and remote interfaces' performance shouldn't be impacted much, if at all, since SlimServer primarily interacts with the database once a scan has completed. Browsing the music folder could also be affected. Makes sense. Regards, Peter ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
Peter;193756 Wrote: I use Linux as my 247/7 up server OS, which makes a NAS rather useless Why? If you need network accessible storage, you need network accessible storage. Doesn't matter what operating system(s) you're running. The term NAS has taken on a bizarre definition in these forums to mean something like a box that runs SlimServer so I don't have to have a computer running. It means network attached storage, and that's all. A (usually) quick and easy to configure device that adds file storage to a network. external firewire disks are much faster. Not necessarily. Internal disks are almost certain to be faster, but external firewire or USB disks should be slower than accessing files served over a Gbit network from a good file server. Depends on the file server and depends on the client implementation. The client implementation appears to be the problem with SlimServer-on-Windows connecting to an NAS. -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34325 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
JJZolx wrote: The term NAS has taken on a bizarre definition in these forums to mean something like a box that runs SlimServer so I don't have to have a computer running. It means network attached storage, and that's all. I agree, it is most strange that NAS has taken such a strange definition. the box is a computer. It has an operating system. Lots of boxes are computers and have operating systems, including cell phones, digital cameras, routers, etc. I find this all amazing, there is not much difference in any of them. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
JJZolx wrote: Peter;193756 Wrote: I use Linux as my 247/7 up server OS, which makes a NAS rather useless Why? If you need network accessible storage, you need network accessible storage. Doesn't matter what operating system(s) you're running. NAS's are usually run by people who don't want to run a real 24/7 server, for whatever reason. Perhaps we should make a poll of it but I'm betting the majority of NAS users are not running Windows. Well, that's to be expected, but I'm betting it will be even less. People by a NAS because they don't want to run a server. People who run Linux usually don't have such qualms. The term NAS has taken on a bizarre definition in these forums to mean something like a box that runs SlimServer so I don't have to have a computer running. It means network attached storage, and that's all. A (usually) quick and easy to configure device that adds file storage to a network. Agreed, but plugging a USB/FW/SATA drive into a server you already have running is faster and cheaper. external firewire disks are much faster. Not necessarily. Internal disks are almost certain to be faster, but external firewire or USB disks should be slower than accessing files served over a Gbit network from a good file server. Depends on the file server and depends on the client implementation. The client implementation appears to be the problem with SlimServer-on-Windows connecting to an NAS. With a Gigabit network, the network speed isn't the bottleneck. The CPU processing speed of a NAS device is. I'll bet any decent Linux server will beat any NAS device on speed. Of course, FW is fast, but with a 'real' server there's no reason you shouldn't just use a SATA disk. Linux people who run their own servers will usually keep their music on the local machine and therefore will not run into problems with slow NAS networking. A percentage of the Windows problem cases will even be running slimserver on a laptop while accessing a NAS and streaming music over wifi. Oh the horror... ;) Regards, Peter ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
Peter;193768 Wrote: NAS's are usually run by people who don't want to run a real 24/7 server, for whatever reason. Perhaps we should make a poll of it but I'm betting the majority of NAS users are not running Windows. Well, that's to be expected, but I'm betting it will be even less. People by a NAS because they don't want to run a server. People who run Linux usually don't have such qualms. Sounds like a variant on the bizarre definition that JJZolx mentioned. Is a NAS not real server because it (typically) only runs Samba, and doesn't run Apache, sendmail, nfs, etc.? I would venture that people buy a NAS because they want to run smbd and nmbd, although that wish might be expressed as I want everyone in the house to be able to access the music files. A NAS is a server, that runs the daemons one set of buyers wants, and is less expensive to buy and run than real server, especially at the consumer-grade end of the NAS market. -- aubuti aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34325 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows
The thread's getting a little off-track, although the discussion of content access locally vs. over the net is interesting. For the record, I'm running an Infrant NV+ box (which is basically a linux-based multiprotocol file server with several additional daemons for print services, etc.). My workstations are mostly XP at this point, although I'm strongly considering adding a Mac Mini as a Slimserver host (which prompted my original question). If anyone is running SS6.5x on a Mini and accessing large libraries (approx. 70K tracks, give or take) and could pass along their experiences, I'd be most grateful. Thanks! -- Balthazar_B Balthazar_B's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7366 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34325 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
