Emby Server on Powerful Routers

[Max 0]

Hi All !!!

 

Being the fact that today's routers already have USB3 and capabilities to handle local storage (also "more" memory, with 512 MB), and there're several projects for linux-based Open SW on those routers (DWRT, Tomato, Padavan...), I was thinking if it would be possible to develop an Emby Server (w/o Transcoding) for such devices...

 

Honestly, as time goes on I see less reasons why to invest in a powerful NAS (HD can be connected to router, and for critical data that really requires backup you have Cloud services), but Routers are becoming the "center" of the home network.

 

What do you think? Is this something that has been discussed before? Is in any long-term roadmap? (unfortunately I'm not a programmer myself)

 

Kr

 

Max

[JeremyFr79 228]

Honestly you may think consumer routers are "powerful" but they're not, they're still devices made with lousy hardware, expected to perform way too much work with buggy software. And then you want to throw (even without transcoding) the load of Emby on one??? I'm sorry that's just comical!

[Luke 37191]

I do think he raises a good point though, as hardware gets cheaper and devices get more powerful, you have the ability to make them do just about anything you want. for example, it would not surprise me if we have the full emby server running on windows phone by the end of the year.

[JeremyFr79 228]

I do think he raises a good point though, as hardware gets cheaper and devices get more powerful, you have the ability to make them do just about anything you want. for example, it would not surprise me if we have the full emby server running on windows phone by the end of the year.

I get that, but consumer routers (no matter how expensive/powerful they are) are notoriously buggy and un-reliable.  They cram too many devices into one as it is by trying to have one box act as a router/AP/Switch/Firewall/& more  I just don't see any good in throwing yet one more thing into the mix when they're already asking way too much to begin with.

[Max 0]

Hi Jeremy

 

Well, for sure seems that you've had bad luck with your routers :-) Mine is very stable (ASUS w/open source SW) even when I also use it for other stuff on top of AP/Router/FW (such as media storage for a Kodi instance running on a Nexus Player)

 

But yes, actually I've no idea how much resources a barebone instance of Emby will require. Maybe now is not the time, but with powerful & low-energy CPUs getting in all devices, maybe this is something that should be considered for the not so distant future...

 

Think about this: how many users do invest some bucks on getting a better-than average router, vs how many users invest on a powerful NAS ?? (and how that tendency will evolve, now that cloud storage is getting cheaper each year)

 

But anyway thanks for taking some time to consider this and provide your feedback

 

Kind Regards

 

Max

Edited April 11, 2016 by Max

[Luke 37191]

average Joe buys whatever router is cheap and then gets a NAS because it most likely never occurs to them that the two can be combined. I think the real answer is that even the middle of the road devices nowadays are fairly powerful, and yes, supporting them is a good idea.

[thefirstofthe300 291]

I am not sure that putting software on a router is a good idea from a security standpoint.  Your router is your gateway to internet and putting Emby on your router just opens up one more potential security hole for the router to get hacked.  On top of that, Jeremy is right in my opinion.  The average router, even the more expensive ASUS Nighthawks, cannot consistently saturate a 1 Gbps port due to a lack of CPU (got this info from one of the Jupiter Broadcasting podcasts and these guys know what the hell they are talking about, being systems administrators, network engineers, and even a BSD dev).  In addition, consumer routers tend to have less than a gig of RAM and I would imagine an OS + Mono + Emby = more RAM than that.

 

As for putting the server on a Windows Phone, I find it impractical but more than likely possible to actually make it work as your average phone has as much as 4 times the CPU power of your router.

Edited April 12, 2016 by thefirstofthe300

[Max 0]

I am not sure that putting software on a router is a good idea from a security standpoint.  Your router is your gateway to internet and putting Emby on your router just opens up one more potential security hole for the router to get hacked.  

 

 

Yes, in general terms. But if the SW is designed carefully so it ONLY binds to a local (LAN) IP address, that threat could be solved. In most routers, you have to explicitly create a rule to allow WAN-LAN connections started from the WAN side.

 

  In addition, consumer routers tend to have less than a gig of RAM and I would imagine an OS + Mono + Emby = more RAM than that.

 

 

Well, before posting the topic I checked the minimum specs of Emby (2014 post, so maybe are not up-to-date), and it says 512 MB for Linux. I agree that there're only very few/very expensive routers with 512 MB today... but again, this is a forward-looking idea. Today even "factory" firmwares run download managers, and keep on claiming DLNA and other less used protocols. Some people even runs an Asterix (PBX) on their Routers (OK, those are not the "normal" people)

 

In any case, I have the feeling that Google (and a little bit Amazon too) are finally putting pressure on the router industry. Also, due to economy of scales, keep on using "old" chipsets like ARM A9 (Broadcom BCM 4707) sooner rather than later will become more expensive than using mass-factory ARMs CPUs also used on phones.

 

Dreaming? Maybe. Although I'd prefer to call it "Moonshot Thinking". But if HW is still not "up to the challenge", maybe the best is to park this idea until the right time comes.

 

Also, another good question if such idea would get some support from router manufacturers. Running on a open-firmware SW will leave this once again as a nice toy for IT-Savvy users. But with the acknowledge of a "Open source friendly" manufacturer such as Buffalo or ASUS (that could brand their routers as "Emby ready"), this could really reach mass-market.

 

Kr

 

Max

Edited April 12, 2016 by Max

[thefirstofthe300 291]

As I am genuinely curious about what the effects of running software on the router would be just from a theoretical standpoint, do you have any idea what running a server like Emby would do for network performance?   Would it significantly hurt it?  Would you still get 1 Gbps speeds on the LAN on better routers?  I am genuinely asking here as I have no idea.  It seems like most of the switches that run PFSense on the PFSense store have beefy CPUs and a decent amount of RAM for a router.  These routers are ONLY running PFSense. 

Edited April 12, 2016 by thefirstofthe300

[Deathsquirrel 741]

Adding extra complexity to the software securing your network is a moderately awful idea from a security point of view.  Less testing, more bugs, and more exploits.

 

I assume it will happen and be wildly successful from a commercial standpoint.  Not so successful from a security standpoint but why should that sway marketers and average consumers?

[NomadCF 15]

Add to the fact the FCC has all but outlawed custom firmware on routers and our options of how we can/could run emby starts to become more and more dismal.

 

 

As I am genuinely curious about what the effects of running software on the router would be just from a theoretical standpoint, do you have any idea what running a server like Emby would do for network performance?   Would it significantly hurt it?  Would you still get 1 Gbps speeds on the LAN on better routers?  I am genuinely asking here as I have no idea.  It seems like most of the switches that run PFSense on the PFSense store have beefy CPUs and a decent amount of RAM for a router.  These routers are ONLY running PFSense. 

 

The answer isn't completely cut and dry, but it does work out like this. If you "over tax" any network device it will show/result in lower performance as the device can not process (inspect) it's incoming packets, decide  what actions to take (or not take) (filter) on said packet and then finally send (or not)  the packet on ward. In anything we would consider "real-time". We see this all the time  with overloaded switches, access points, routers, firewalls and even server.

[JeremyFr79 228]

Hi Jeremy

 

Well, for sure seems that you've had bad luck with your routers :-) Mine is very stable (ASUS w/open source SW) even when I also use it for other stuff on top of AP/Router/FW (such as media storage for a Kodi instance running on a Nexus Player)

 

But yes, actually I've no idea how much resources a barebone instance of Emby will require. Maybe now is not the time, but with powerful & low-energy CPUs getting in all devices, maybe this is something that should be considered for the not so distant future...

 

Think about this: how many users do invest some bucks on getting a better-than average router, vs how many users invest on a powerful NAS ?? (and how that tendency will evolve, now that cloud storage is getting cheaper each year)

 

But anyway thanks for taking some time to consider this and provide your feedback

 

Kind Regards

 

Max

Not really I'm just not your average user with your average home network or internet connection.  My last consumer router was years ago and at that time cost several hundreds of dollars.  It couldn't keep up with Gigabit, it couldn't handle more than say 1000 simultaneous connections.  And it's WiFi sucked!.   So now I have a Dell Server running PF Sense, 2 Cisco Switches, and 2 enterprise grade WAP's and life can't be better.

 

It's like anything in life, look at home audio, "separates" will always give you better quality and performance than a receiver for instance.  Same holds true here.  Better to have a device with a single dedicated job (in general) than one device trying to do a whole lot of crap at the same time.  And that's before even looking at things from a security standpoint as many have brought up here.

[Koleckai Silvestri 1150]

I'll just stick to a dedicated Emby Server. I don't want to run stuff on my router which is stuck in a closet next to the modem and several switches. The network just has to work without a lot of maintenance.

[thefirstofthe300 291]

Add to the fact the FCC has all but outlawed custom firmware on routers and our options of how we can/could run emby starts to become more and more dismal.

 

 

 

The answer isn't completely cut and dry, but it does work out like this. If you "over tax" any network device it will show/result in lower performance as the device can not process (inspect) it's incoming packets, decide what actions to take (or not take) (filter) on said packet and then finally send (or not) the packet on ward. In anything we would consider "real-time". We see this all the time with overloaded switches, access points, routers, firewalls and even server.

Just to clarify here, the FCC is not trying to ban custom firmware but trying to get the manufacturers to lock down the antenna so it is harder for a custom firmware to mess with the wireless signal strength. It will still be legal to run custom firmware provide d they don't have that ability.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[jluce50 118]

I could see Emby as an addon for something like pfsense long before it would be realistic on a consumer router. The market for that would likely be so small that it wouldn't be worth the effort though.

[the-dumb1 121]

Yes, in general terms. But if the SW is designed carefully so it ONLY binds to a local (LAN) IP address, that threat could be solved. In most routers, you have to explicitly create a rule to allow WAN-LAN connections started from the WAN side.

 

 

 

Since when is ANYTHING designed carefully?  Security isn't as simple as that, and it's the reason why security is an industry within itself.  Bad ideas are just that: bad ideas.  Keep it simple.