abeloin 27 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 However, I do not follow your second statement. Can you elaborate on "processed via samba(cifs-client->samaba->cifsclient)"? Also, does this suggest any way that MBS could be improved to work better with a linux Samba fileserver, so that the workaround I am using is unnecessary? Recursive notify should work for all changes that come in via other cifs clients(ie Samba processed the request). Anything else: local changes, nfs, ftp, ... is limited to the root share via inotify. There is not much MBS can do to help with this. I would say use the Linux but looking at your previous post it's no go. Wild guess, mount your share locally in fstab and point sickbeard to it !? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwill 28 Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Recursive notify should work for all changes that come in via other cifs clients(ie Samba processed the request). Anything else: local changes, nfs, ftp, ... is limited to the root share via inotify. There is not much MBS can do to help with this. I would say use the Linux but looking at your previous post it's no go. Wild guess, mount your share locally in fstab and point sickbeard to it !? Interesting idea. I guess that workaround could work, but for now I guess I will just stick with my current workaround. Thanks for the explanation and clarification about how inotify and recursive notify work for CIFS clients versus local changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwill 28 Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 By the way, sickbeard has notification capabilities for several other programs such as XBMC and Plex. Is there any MBS reason why sickbeard could not be improved to include MBS notification capabilities? In other words, does MBS have the necessary capabilities to receive notifications of new content from a program like sickbeard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37086 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 there is no reason. go over there and ask them to work with us on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14917 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 That could certainly be done but, if the content is moved into an area monitored by MBS then that is going to cause a notification. Do you not automatically move your content? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwill 28 Posted January 19, 2014 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 That could certainly be done but, if the content is moved into an area monitored by MBS then that is going to cause a notification. Do you not automatically move your content? Huh? Did you forget what this thread is about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14917 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Huh? Did you forget what this thread is about? LOL. I read a lot of threads rapidly, sorry... Are you envisioning this "notification" to kick off a library scan? We could end up with double scans in that instance (caused by this notification and then also by our watchers when they do work). BTW my server always sees new content right when it is added. The MB server is running on the same machine as the content but it references it via UNC shares via FlexRaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwill 28 Posted January 19, 2014 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 (edited) Are you envisioning this "notification" to kick off a library scan? We could end up with double scans in that instance (caused by this notification and then also by our watchers when they do work). BTW my server always sees new content right when it is added. The MB server is running on the same machine as the content but it references it via UNC shares via FlexRaid. Ideally it would be a limited library scan. Presumably the notification would include the full path to the new file(s), so MBS would only need to scan one particular subdirectory. You should read this thread back a few posts. There was a post by abeloin where he explained exactly why I am having this problem with MBS and a linux samba fileserver. Edited January 19, 2014 by jwill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14917 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Yeah, I saw that but I never had this problem when I had an UnRaid server either but it must've been one of those situations that he said does work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwill 28 Posted January 19, 2014 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 (edited) Yeah, I saw that but I never had this problem when I had an UnRaid server either but it must've been one of those situations that he said does work. I am seeing exactly the behavior that abeloin explained. MBS does detect new content as long as it is in the root of the media folder. For example, if I add a new folder (and files within) for a movie, MBS detects it. But for TV shows, where the show folder already exists, and sickbeard just saves a new file into a season subdirectory of the show folder, MBS does not detect it. As abeloin explained, inotify is not recursive when the files are added locally from the linux host. If I had sickbeard running on a Windows computer (and saving to the linux fileserver), apparently that would work with MBS (which is also running on a Windows computer). But my current setup of running sickbeard on the linux fileserver and MBS on a Windows computer does not allow detection of new content below the root of the watched media folder. Edited January 19, 2014 by jwill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37086 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 and that's why we have the periodic polling with the library scan. it will catch anything the real-time watcher is unable to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwill 28 Posted January 19, 2014 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 and that's why we have the periodic polling with the library scan. it will catch anything the real-time watcher is unable to. But with a delay. Obviously it is much better to have it detected immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14917 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Ah, yes, jwill - that is the difference. My Sickbeard implementation back when I had an UnRaid server, was on my desktop (a Windows machine). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now