Roon for Linux [done in 1.2]

Are you going to provide a package for Synology?

1 Like

I’d like to support Synology, but they are famous for making their NAS spec’d exactly at what it takes to do the job of a NAS, and not much more. QNAP is known to overspec their boxes, so they can run other beefy things.

The QNAP TVS-x71 line, for example, is the ideal NAS for Roon. It is very overpowered for a NAS. It’s like having a (not-top-of-the-line) NUC in a NAS form factor.

I cant find a comparable NAS by Synology. They are all weak Atom CPUs I wouldn’t recommend for any decent sized library.

1 Like

Qt or GTK? Have you seen our UI?

My big bad boy QNAP is hungry for Roon Server :wink:
It would be the perfect solution for me.

Let’s just say that I would be more than happy to see how my DS415+ and DS411+II would hold up.
On my NUC, in normal operation, I hardly touch more than 1% CPU with Roon. And don’t mind if (re-)scanning takes some time in the background (used to that with ie LMS). Of course I only have 16,5k tracks, so rather small library I’d guess.

Beats the effort and cost of switching to QNAP. I might not be the only one, as I believe there is a quite equal following for both brands (which both have pro’s and con’s).

Anyway, happy to try if that would help (as, given your remark, I can imagine there may not be many synology NAS devices within Roon).

I’m having great success with my Celeron based QNAP which uses the J1800 CPU.
See [How To] RoonServer on QNAP NAS

On this basis, I think the more up to date Synology boxes would cope.

Mind you, I’ve just been browsing their products page. They really do use some low end CPUs, don’t they?

My Synology DS1815+ has an Atom C2538 64-bit quad-core 2.4ghz with 6gb RAM. I’d say it’s hardly underpowered. It absolutely loafs along most of the time even running Minimserver (for Auralic) rescans. I’d certainly welcome the chance to try Roon core on it any time.

Yes, of course I could run a vm, but that comes with a significant (maintenance, etc) overhead. I prefer a native package or (if it must be a vm) a docker style setup.

Maintenance of what? Nobody is suggesting a native app isn’t the best solution, but while there’s a bit of a performance knock, there’s no maintenance.

Recently, I’ve been pondering doing away with NAS’s altogether and just building a liinux file server / roon core. To me, one box which can serve both is better than having two separate entities. That way I can put in a good quad core i7, 16 GB of RAM and RAID a bunch of TB SSDs, run linux Roon Server and be done with it.

the DSx15+ series is their best line it seems. That said, I wouldn’t run an Atom for my library. The Atom CPUs have very bad CPU cache, which has a big impact on performance. If you have 1000 albums or so, nothing really matters, but many users have 10k+ albums, and I wouldn’t run that size of library on an Atom.

I wouldn’t either. But as my humble collection is a factor smaller (and not expanding very fast anymore due to Tidal)…
:sunglasses:

A core i7 will be pushing 60w at idle.

What you’re suggesting would be quite expensive and is overkill for file serving, and Roon.

[quote=“Rugby, post:101, topic:2116, full:true”]
Recently, I’ve been pondering doing away with NAS’s altogether and just building a liinux file server / roon core. To me, one box which can serve both is better than having two separate entities. That way I can put in a good quad core i7, 16 GB of RAM and RAID a bunch of TB SSDs, run linux Roon Server and be done with it.
[/quote]That’s pretty much where I’m at - dedicated i3 with 16GB ram running Arch. Its only purpose in life is to serve audio. Roon’s Linux based server will live on the same machine, just like LMS did before it.

Yep. That’s the conclusion I reached for my SlimServer (or Squeezebox or Logitech or whatever) server a few years back.

I wanted better bandwidth between the music server software and the files, but more importantly I wanted to take better control over the resilience of the music library data in the face of disk rot - so I set up a Linux server using ZFS for the big volume of music data, and of course for ZFS to really live up to its potential for data security it should be running on a system with ECC memory. So the music library is in a ZFS pool on a Linux server with Xeon processor and ECC RAM. And it actually has unnecessarily much RAM, because I was considering playing around with ZFS deduplication.

It’d be lovely to run RoonServer right there on that box - which is generously specified for the job, and also already exists and is already on 24/7.

RoonServer treats the actual music files as strictly read-only, right?

Yes, RoonServer does not touch the actual files unless you use an “organized folder” which I never suggest anyone use.

[quote=“Jeffrey_Moore, post:106, topic:2116”]
RoonServer treats the actual music files as strictly read-only, right?
[/quote]That’s correct for Roon watched folders, but not for Roon orgainised.

1 Like

You can have Roon delete files… To prevent mishaps Roon will only have Read access.

Is this true, and true even for “watched folders” rather than “organized folders”? And on delete does Roon reach out and delete the underlying file, rather than only mark it gone in the database?

I suppose that whatever Roon’s behavior, the sensible thing for me to do to avoid having to have a further thought about this issue would be to make sure the files in question are read-only to the user RoonServer is running as.

1 Like