Minimum RoonServer Hardware Requirements?

Support
1

I’m a big one for the search function, but have not been able to adequate info on the practical minimum hardware for a RoonServer. By “practical” I mean able support a single zone, modest sized (1,500 album) library, and not become obsolete quickly.

Brian from Roon Labs gave a good write-up of Roon hardware requirements here. But that’s the full blown Roon application, not RoonServer. So except for knowing that there should be no graphics requirements for RoonServers, what else can we back off on? Specifically, does a RoonServer (for a small music library) still need:

  • 8 GB RAM? Flash/SSD storage?
  • 2 GB disk storage per 1,000 albums?
  • CPU cache beyond what’s found in a Celeron or Atom?
  • Is Intel Core i5 still really needed?
  • And are Windows 8.1 and OSX 10.10 still recommended?

Thanks for the help.

1 Like
2

You can probably get away with less ram, and you can drop the GPU requirements, but the rest were mostly backend suggestions already.

The OS recommendations were because they are significantly faster operating systems than their predecessors.

If you go with slower CPU or less cache or non-SSD, things will run fine, but everything will feel sluggish. Doing a focus, visiting a new browser, loading a details screen of any type, searching, etc… it’s all going to be slower. Importing will be significantly slower, as will audio analysis.

The storage requirements do not change at all.

3

Danny,

Thanks for the fast - and detailed - reply. :smile:

First I’ll sum up what I understand now as minimal requirements for RoonServer:

  • Graphics processing is a non-issue: no requirements.
  • Windows 8.1 and OSX 10.10 remain the recommendation because of their speed. So… that’s not a requirement, per se, but a recommendation.
  • 2 GB storage per 1,000 albums is a requirement. I’ll modify that with the my understanding that over time - as Roon software/capabilities change over time - that will creep up a bit. So I assume that’s a minimum. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
  • If you are not willing to accept slower background processes - specifically importing and audio analysis - then the Core i5 (fast and significant cache) and SSD recommendations still hold. Otherwise, maybe not. See the next bullet…
  • Dropping down to non-SSD, or lower cache/slower CPU than core i5 is fine, as long as you are willing to accept less than optimal performance on focus, visiting a new browser, loading a details screen of any type, searching, and more.

Cool.

So what about RAM? For my OP requirement of 1,500 albums, what do I need for a server running the recommended OS’s?

Thanks. :smile:

1 Like
4

[quote=“scolley, post:3, topic:3450”]
So what about RAM? For my OP requirement of 1,500 albums, what do I need for a server running the recommended OS’s?
[/quote]Presently Roon being a 32 bit application is limited to using 2 GB of RAM however there has been discussion on moving to a 64bit build. On that bases I would install 8 GB of RAM, it give the OS space to breath and a little contingence for the future.

Another comment: Windows 10 is also fine, in fact gives slightly better performance that Windows 8.1.

Hope that helps.

5

Carl - Thanks for the info. :smile:

Knowing that Windows 10 is even better than 8.1 is good to know. But under my OP request for reasonable minimum RoonServer requirements for a 1,500 album library, I think the minimum remains at Windows 7. It works. Now we know that 8.1 and 10 are even better, but do not know how much that “bump” really matters.

As to memory… I did not realize Roon was a 32 bit app! That implies a lot. So while I will not disagree that having 8 meg would be good for future proofing - should Roon be rebuilt at 64 bit AND if Roon is modified to take advantage of the addition address space - I’m going to fall back on my OP: reasonable minimum requirements. And that sounds like 4 GB to me. Here’s why…

Roon (not server, but the more demanding full app) runs just fine in 2 GM of shared application address space (memory) today. I’ve not seen posts about it falling over when you hit 10,000 albums. So it sounds like it runs just fine in that space, no doubt more so for the modest 1,500 album library that I’m asking about. So until we begin discussing future proofing, the answer to minimum RAM is 4 GB. Could be less actually, but we know 4 works.

As for future proofing, unless things have changed since I was coding, taking a 32 bit app to 64 bit AND changing the app to take proper advantage of additional memory is usually a pretty substantial change. It’s something you have to be motivated to do. And given that Roon works fine now with total RAM at 4 GB, I’m hard pressed to see that work as compelling.

So I appreciate the advice, but I’m inclined to think that 4GB is going to remain enough memory for quite a while. For a 1,500 album library that I’m asking about, that might never change.

Please feel free to disagree. Thanks for the help. :smile:

PS - All the above rationalizations fall apart if Roon is using PAE - or some other method - to break out of the 4 GB limit now. Does anyone know if that’s happening?

PPS - Please note that I’m trying to establish minimum requirements. If you are buying hardware for a ROON server, the “you may as well buy more than you need while you are buying” is another conversation entirely.

6

Hi again,
You did say …

IMHO 4GB RAM is not enough.
On my office laptop (Win 7) I’ve just shutdown all applications and started Roon with 100 Albums.
The machine is using 3.8GB of the available 8GB RAM, there needs to be some headroom to minimise paging.

7

[quote=“scolley, post:5, topic:3450”]
As for future proofing, unless things have changed since I was coding, taking a 32 bit app to 64 bit AND changing the app to take proper advantage of additional memory is usually a pretty substantial change. It’s something you have to be motivated to do. And given that Roon works fine now with total RAM at 4 GB, I’m hard pressed to see that work as compelling.
[/quote]The 32 bit application has an library size limit, to go beyond this limited a 64bit app is required. Also having more addressable memory will enable Roon to utilise faster DB loading and analysis methods. The methods have been developed but are presently on hold until the app moves to 64GB.

You are trying to second guess where Roon is going … I’m not a Roon developer however being close to the Roon team (alpha tester for over a year) I have some insight and have given my advice based on this.

8

Carl - I appreciate the input. On your test of 4GB with no other apps running (simulating a dedicated machine), were you running Roon? Or RoonServer? But even then the fact is that - unless the Roon developers have gotten past the 4GB limit - Roon is working fine now in a 4 GB space for modest sized libraries. So for now, 4 GB appears to be enough.

As for future proofing, based on the feedback you’ve received, it sounds like they are indeed preparing to make the 64 bit leap. Excellent. However, to REQUIRE more than 4 GB for modest libraries in the 64 bit world is not just a technical issue, it’s a marketing decision. It will impact their business. So now I think we need to hear from Roon.

Thanks.

9

It was Roon (not RoonServer) but there’s not a lot of difference in main memory requirements between the two, it’s the graphic memory usage that differentiates them.

[quote=“scolley, post:8, topic:3450”]
However, to REQUIRE more than 4 GB for modest libraries in the 64 bit world is not just a technical issue, it’s a marketing decision. It will impact their business.[/quote]I don’t believe so, the price difference 4GB vs. 8GB of RAM is around the cost of one music album … I would suggest it is immaterial. I don’t understand why you want to run with the absolute minimum of hardware … surely it’s not just cost … is there some other reason?

In another topic Danny said this about a MacMini, but that was back in April.

[quote=“scolley, post:8, topic:3450”]So now I think we need to hear from Roon.
[/quote]Yes I agree @Danny I’ve given as much input as I feel comfortable with can you comment further?

10

Happy to discus “why” I care after we get an answer. What the minimum requirements are (with some future proofing) for a small library is a totally independent question than why I want to know. So I’d rather not go go off topic on a “why does that matter when the cost is so low” discussion until we bottom out the minimum requirement question.

11

Thoughts about a NAS build using the Atom c2750 CPU/SoC, with an SSD boot drive?

Ideally, RoonServer would be able to run very well on this sort of setup. If there are limitations (on say the CPU), perhaps there are ways to tweak your software to minimize that?

12

I have been reading this thread but am not sure about one thing:
if I go with a roonserver headless setup on a NUC, will I be able to control and configure it via the remote app on my tablet? Or do I still need the roon software on a client PC to configure roonserver on my NUC?

13

Configuring with RoonRemote on a tablet is fine.

14

Hi Kian,

I am running RoonServer on a BRIX (similar to a NUC) and run Remotes on a PC and on an iOS tablet. The short answer to your question is “Yes” in that a tablet can completely configure RoonServer.

The longer answer is that having some access to the desktop/filesystem on the NUC (which can be done from a tablet but is more convenient from a PC with RDP) is often useful. It lets you restart RoonServer, backup/copy the database or flush the Tidal cache. These may not be things that you do every day, but it can be convenient to be able to do them easily when needed.

1 Like
15

Hi Andy,

fair point. But then I could solve this with a remote desktop app. As I am using a chromebook I could install chrome remote desktop app and control the NUC.

How is the performance of the brix? I have roundabout 12.000 tracks and am thinking about a suitable NUC/BRIX setup. I am just not sure what I need to run a smooth RoonServer and to control it via my Nexus 9 tablet.

I read about i7 setups and 8gb RAM but I really am not convinced that this is the recommended requirement. It is just insane HW setup for a software. I mean, I am not using photoshop or playing games with the nuc. Its sole purpose will be to run Win10 and RoonServer.

1 Like
16

Hi Kian,

Yes, I think a remote desktop app that allows access to the file system on the NUC would be exactly the same as an RDP PC.

I’m using a BRIX S GB-BXi7H-4500u which has a dual core Haswell (4th generation) processor (1.8/3.0 Ghz) with 8Gb RAM. The OS (Server 2012r2) and RoonServer are on a 128GB mSATA SSD and the music (16,806 tracks) is on a 1 TB SATA SSD.

This is certainly more performance than RoonServer requires, but I am planning on running HQPlayer on it when integrated with Roon to upsample Redbook, including Tidal, and possibly also use the convolution engine for Room EQ. That real time processing is the reason for the higher spec and hopefully might be done without turning on the fan (remains to be seen).

Brian’s news that HQP need not be on the same machine as the Roon Core is very interesting and opens up more flexibility of architecture.

1 Like
17

So- what did you do?

I am scheming an Intel NUC 5CPYH 8GB RAM and SSD with an AudioQuest Jitterbug (USB conditioner for noise) connected to my USB DAC.

Of course I would run RoonServer Headless with an iPad Remote and a “ZFS based” Network Attached Storage using an iSCSI initiator for storage.

Other stuff: ~50,000 .FLAC track library and Tidal Integration.

18

Bill - if that question was for the OP, I got an Intel NUC, Core i5 4250U4, 8 GB RAM1, SSD, Windows 10 with Fidelizer - and - QNAP TS-451 NAS, 4 bay (3x WD Red 3TB NAS HDDs1, 1x Kingston 240GB SSDNow V3001 SATA 3 SSD).

And I’ve got a Jitterbug too. But not for my RoonServer. I do NOT want my RoonServer in my audio rack, so am connecting over wired Ethernet to a Cubox-I running the Squeezelite Squeezebox emulator. That little network connected box has the Jitterbug and the connection to my DAC.

I’m sure the NUC is overkill for my meager digital music collection, but I don’t have to worry about upgrades either. HOWEVER…

My heretofore undisclosed motivation for posting was not to decide what Intel platform to buy. I was really trying to figure out if we would ever see RoonServer on an ARM based Linux platform which - at the time of the OP - were typically limited to 2 GB RAM.

1 Like
19

Cool! That’s a neat trick with the squeeze lite emulator- I forgot about that!

You hit the nail on the head, I really don’t want a “noisy” computer in my system, yet I don’t what to make of the RAAT or Roon Ready device.

Right now, I have an Apple Airport Express (AAE) connected over wired Ethernet using AirPlay transport protocol. The AAE has a mini toslink/Analog output port. I run a mini toslink to optical cable into my DAC’s optical port.

The AAE works with CD Audio rips and it generally noise free with the wifi antenna turned off.

Looks like using the setup you have is great! Thanks!

20

Bill,

I’m going to continue OT for a moment, to close off on this tangent. Since you are connecting to an endpoint over a wired network connection, then…

You’ve got an AAE, and I’ve also got a Aurelic Aries Mini that’s also an AirPlay device. So I don’t need to tell you that it sounds pretty good, but is limited to 16/44.1. My Cubox-i (and some Rasberry PI’s and other ARM devices) running Squeezelite get past that and can run Hi-Res content, including DSD using DoP (providing your DAC supports it). However, all of those solutions are now bested by this little device, that’s really a Cubox-I running RoonReady software. So you’ll get RAAT and - someday - possibly MQA support. And it comes with a low-noise linear power supply, likely putting it sonically ahead of my Squeezelite Cubox-i solution.

BUT before you run out and buy a Sonicore SonicOrbiter SE, please note that Sonicore has announced a follow-up product to the SonicOrbiter SE. Can’t recall the product name, but they have gone on record saying that they will discontinue the SonicOrbiter SE once the new product is released. Just as the Cubox-I is arguably sonically superior to a RPi due to the former being hardware designed from the ground up as a multimedia device, the new Sonicore hardware will be designed from the ground up as a Roon device (only). Thus arguably sonically superior to the SonicOrbiter SE.

Decisions, decisions…

NICE to have options now! :smile:

1 Like