What's the current "standard" for a media server setup these days?
-
PLEX all the things.
-
@wirestyle22 said in What's the current "standard" for a media server setup these days?:
I've never set up a Plex server to be played directly through HDMI but I know people do it.
I use my Plex through a roku, but I know you can do it through raspberry pi, too.
-
@Grey said in What's the current "standard" for a media server setup these days?:
@wirestyle22 said in What's the current "standard" for a media server setup these days?:
I've never set up a Plex server to be played directly through HDMI but I know people do it.
I use my Plex through a roku, but I know you can do it through raspberry pi, too.
Yeah I'm using a Roku 3 personally.
-
I don't care if I play things through Plex or Kodi.. but I need a good server side setup. Just a NAS and let Kodi connect direct?
Setup Plex on a box and put the media local to it?
Really need some thoughts on the whole infrastructure. not a plex vs kodo player debate.
-
I have a CentOS 7 VM running on XenServer with Plex installed. It can be a little bit of a pain to deal with the way CentOS handles the partitioning but in my experience runs much better than the windows variant.
-
I'm running Plex as a Ubuntu VM on Hyper-V. It stores no media. Simply network access to a Dell R510 where I keep the media. The Plex VM is running on a different host because I wanted to leverage the all SSD setup. The only data on the Plex VM is the library metadata. Everything else streams over the network. It's absolutely rock solid. Transcodes X265 and X264 rips effortlessly on as many as 4 simultaneous local clients as well as 2 to 3 remote clients for family. The local playback devices are all currently Roku 4s while the remote devices are Roku 3s and Smart TVs with built-in Plex.
-
Umm, I have a stock branded one that came with the single bay Zyxel unit I bought. Seems alright.
-
@NashBrydges said in What's the current "standard" for a media server setup these days?:
The Plex VM is running on a different host because I wanted to leverage the all SSD setup
Meaning you wanted more "SSD HD Space" for storage of the media?
-
@wirestyle22 No, meaning I wanted all transcoding to happen on the SSDs. Had I installed the VM on the R510, I would have had the VM's vhdx on rotating platters in RAID6 so I didn't want that to get in the way of potentially resource intensive activity like transcoding. By placing the VM on the host with the SSD array, I'm leveraging that additional speed without worrying about transcoding running into some bottleneck.
-
@NashBrydges said in What's the current "standard" for a media server setup these days?:
@wirestyle22 No, meaning I wanted all transcoding to happen on the SSDs. Had I installed the VM on the R510, I would have had the VM's vhdx on rotating platters in RAID6 so I didn't want that to get in the way of potentially resource intensive activity like transcoding. By placing the VM on the host with the SSD array, I'm leveraging that additional speed without worrying about transcoding running into some bottleneck.
That's an interesting solution to that problem
-
@wirestyle22 I even tossed around the idea of setting up a ramdisk on that host and use the ramdisk mapped to the Ubuntu VM to handle transcoding. I knew I might run into problems based on the x265 transcoding and the number of concurrent clients. But so far, that hasn't been necessary.
By comparison, I had a similar setup but running on a windows VM and it wouldn't transcode anything beyond 2 streams without a 40GB ramdisk. It would stutter all over the place.
-
@NashBrydges said in What's the current "standard" for a media server setup these days?:
@wirestyle22 I even tossed around the idea of setting up a ramdisk on that host and use the ramdisk mapped to the Ubuntu VM to handle transcoding. I knew I might run into problems based on the x265 transcoding and the number of concurrent clients. But so far, that hasn't been necessary.
By comparison, I had a similar setup but running on a windows VM and it wouldn't transcode anything beyond 2 streams without a 40GB ramdisk. It would stutter all over the place.
What about SSD Caching?
-
@wirestyle22 The problem is that while transcoding, the CPU is working hard to stay ahead of the stream. So it wasn't a data access problem. Even the x265 encodes run around 35-45Mbps at most and that's easily accomplished just readin the data from the R510 as it's simply acting as network storage. But the Linux VM does the brunt of the work after that as it converts the media stream into a usable format for the player. For most setups, using standard disks would probably work fine. But throw in multiple x265 and x264 conversions and your VM will crap all over itself if it doesn't have fast media to write to...it won't be able to stay ahead of the playback streams.
Edit: fixed spelling
-
@NashBrydges That's actually the reason I try to stick to native formats. No transcoding means very little overhead
-
@wirestyle22 That works well if you can control your playback devices. I didn't have that luxury. So transcoding is a necessity. Even if I want to stream to my laptop while on layover or at a hotel, transcode is necessary. I could store multiple versions of the files but I've already got many many TBs or mkv containers at x264 and x265. Don't have the space for all the potential versions that natively play on so many players.
I have 4k TVs at home but my brother in law doesn't so if he is watching the same movie I am, it can play natively via Roku 4 for me but it can't for him.
-
@NashBrydges said in What's the current "standard" for a media server setup these days?:
@wirestyle22 That works well if you can control your playback devices. I didn't have that luxury. So transcoding is a necessity. Even if I want to stream to my laptop while on layover or at a hotel, transcode is necessary. I could store multiple versions of the files but I've already got many many TBs or mkv containers at x264 and x265. Don't have the space for all the potential versions that natively play on so many players.
I have 4k TVs at home but my brother in law doesn't so if he is watching the same movie I am, it can play natively via Roku 4 for me but it can't for him.
Basically what I did was just buy a Roku 3 for every person I wanted to share it with. Takes care of a christmas present and I get control
-
@NashBrydges said in What's the current "standard" for a media server setup these days?:
I have 4k TVs at home but my brother in law doesn't so if he is watching the same movie I am, it can play natively via Roku 4 for me but it can't for him.
Yeah I don't yet but I can see where that would be frustrating
-
I have an old 2950 in service running a 2008 server for my file access (primary file storage & print server) with a couple other VMs on the host. One of those other hosts is the Ubuntu Server 14.04 (if I recall correctly) with plex on there, using smb to mount all of my movies and other media. All of my media is on DAS, internal through the perc. As I stated above, I use a roku3 to watch everything. The only problems I have is that the 2950 is underpowered and if a tv show or movie isn't encoded in a ready-to-play format, then I need to prepare to watch that show by telling plex to transcode it for watching in advance. I'm planning to upgrade to a 510 or something as soon as I have a couple grand just doing nothing. Mostly, I just want more storage.
-
It seems Roku and Kodi are not really friends.
For the sake of conversation, we should consider them as completely separate things, not links in a chain.Ideally it would be nice to watch anything from any source using a single interface. Right now we have our PS3 which we use for Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and DLNA from Win10.
If I got a Roku, then it would seem Kodi is not the best bet, Plex is where it's at.
-
Our Roku 3 works flawlessly with Plex!
