While you can obviously copy to the Nucleus/ROCK internal storage folder using a network share, it would be far more efficient (and cleaner) to have an rsync daemon running on the Nucleus that you could connect to “directly”, and that was already configured to point to the internal storage.
This would ensure intelligent processing of updates and new copies given the server on the far side, and would avoid the necessity of mounting the deep-path storage location.
The point of the Nucelus/ROCK is to be locked down. That is one of the design points and I doubt it will change. If you want to modify your system, then the best option is to use a linux distro like Ubuntu, Mint, etc.
However, if you want to suggest that Roon adds/enables the rsync daemon in Nucleus/Rock OSs, then the post should be in Feature Requests and I’d be happy to move it there.
Well, except, of course, it isn’t locked down, since it provides SMB/SAMBA access to its storage. I’m simply suggesting another service alongside that, to provide exactly the same access, but via a more efficient interface.
You don’t have to run the sync application on the Nucleus/ROCK.
Run it on the destination computer/server/NAS or on any other computer/server/NAS in the network.
I realize that, and said so in my original message. The reason to run the daemon on the Nucleus/ROCK is that talking to the daemon optimizes the transfer far more than copying to SMB (and also ensures you don’t have a mount where things can go wrong).
I fully agree here. I use rsync between all my Linux boxes. I am not yet a Rock user, but run Roon Core on Linux. Rsync as a selectable service on Rock/Nucleus would be very helpful. Should be easy - a simple tick box somewhere in the web management to enable/disable the daemon. Maybe even limit access to the same folders shared through SMB
Sorry, I originally was asking as as support question, since I couldn’t figure out how to connect to it, and thought it was there. When I determined it wasn’t, I edited my in-process post, and I was already in Support, and didn’t think twice about it…
I edited it a little. I don’t think it has to be user-disableable, since the SMB sharing isn’t controllable, and this would just be the same type of access using a slightly different (and very standard) protocol.
I’ll plus+1 this too. It’s been a while. But my remote disks (in another house, via site-to-site OpenVPN so basically on another VLAN but far away) mounted on Synology feels like it’d really benefit from the efficiency of acting like an rsync destination itself. Will also ask for this in the “what else do we want to see in RoonOS 2.0” thread).
Notice there are zero votes for this… do people still want it or have they decided they’re cool with mounts?