How hard to port Sage Linux sever to windows

[mechling-burgh]

Just curious how hard would it be to port the Linux server to windows. I really don't care if the server can also act as a client from the same install. I would think it might be better to make the server and client install separate at this point. So if you wanted to run a client you could just install it on the server. This would make it much easier to create the 64 bit server on windows I would think since you would be removing any graphics display and such in the server install. The reason I ask is some of the capture devices I use won't run on Linux. I know I can run both in a virtual server then make them network encoders but I think a server only option would be cleaner and maybe encourage more user that are use to using windows.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by mechling-burgh

Just curious how hard would it be to port the Linux server to windows. I really don't care if the server can also act as a client from the same install. I would think it might be better to make the server and client install separate at this point. So if you wanted to run a client you could just install it on the server. This would make it much easier to create the 64 bit server on windows I would think since you would be removing any graphics display and such in the server install. The reason I ask is some of the capture devices I use won't run on Linux. I know I can run both in a virtual server then make them network encoders but I think a server only option would be cleaner and maybe encourage more user that are use to using windows.

Everything in SageTV is already ported to windows... incuding the full client (which you said you don't really need). There's a Windows Installer that is as recent as the latest linux release.

The problem is that there some "native" parts of sagetv that need to be maintained... It's ported... just someone with a Windows developer mindset needs to take ownership of it and start producing builds. I think the linux version has taken off mainly because there are fair number of linux only developers on the forum (myself included), that has taken ownership of the linux linux builds, etc.

I think there's been a call for someone, anyone, to take ownership of Windows... but other than the installer, there doesn't appear to be any developer interest in that... but, if someone did do it... and they were familiar with Windows C/C++ development and builds, then I suspect it wouldn't be hard to be a full native 64bit version of windows binraries.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by mechling-burgh

Just curious how hard would it be to port the Linux server to windows. I really don't care if the server can also act as a client from the same install. I would think it might be better to make the server and client install separate at this point. So if you wanted to run a client you could just install it on the server. This would make it much easier to create the 64 bit server on windows I would think since you would be removing any graphics display and such in the server install. The reason I ask is some of the capture devices I use won't run on Linux. I know I can run both in a virtual server then make them network encoders but I think a server only option would be cleaner and maybe encourage more user that are use to using windows.

In addition to what stuckless mentioned about lack of windows developers, there's also the fact that the 'ideal' sagetv setup consists of a headless server, running in a closet somewhere, serving up to clients of whatever variety. The linux install, and especially the unRAID system, is just so much better suited to an unattended sagetv headless server, that's where everyone gets recommended to go.

Realize though, that over the course of the last 13 years or so of SageTV, nearly all the servers in actual use out there were on Windows. The mass group of users has only really transitioned to Linux in the last year or so.

[mlcarson]

I'm not sure how much better Linux is for a headless server than Windows. You can RDP into Windows and do about everything you need. I don't currently have a keyboard/mouse/monitor on my SageTV server.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by mlcarson

I'm not sure how much better Linux is for a headless server than Windows. You can RDP into Windows and do about everything you need. I don't currently have a keyboard/mouse/monitor on my SageTV server.

RDP is technically only available in Pro or higher windows licenses, which is more expensive than many people's server hardware - but I was more specifically calling out the use of unRAID for a headless server, where just about everything can be managed from a web browser.

[dgeezer]

As a semi technically savvy user, I will say that I find unraid much easier to use as a headless server. Not that it can't be done in windows. I had a headless windows 7 server for years. Well, not really headless, I kept an old low res monitor attached for the occasional times that my remote login failed.

However, using unraid with the docker install is dead simple. Network shares are easy to set up and always work. Much easier than on linux or windows. I do realize that for someone who only has 1 pc in their house having a windows install would be a good way to start using sagetv. However if you are going to have a dedicated server anyway I think that unraid is much simpler and probably more reliable.

[stuckless]

I think that many people see "linux" and they get intimidated because it's "linux". I think the great thing about unRAID, is that for the most part, you have no idea what OS running, since they do a great job of putting a web UI on top, that 99% of users will interact with. Many NAS solutions today run linux, and in most cases, you never interact directly with the OS... You just use the web ui.

It surprises me, that in standard linux, there isn't something like the unRAID Docker web UI for managing docker containers (finding, installing, configuring, etc).

[EnterNoEscape]

Originally Posted by stuckless

It surprises me, that in standard linux, there isn't something like the unRAID Docker web UI for managing docker containers (finding, installing, configuring, etc).

CentOS 7 and Fedora 22+ have Cockpit available from their default repositories and you can add an additional repo to install it on Debian based Linux distros. In my opinion it's still a work in progress, but it works decently with managing Docker containers.

Here's a brief overview of what the docker web pages look like since Cockpit's own web pages don't even have a screenshot of it. It's not as refined for the average end user as unRAID, but it definitely can save you some time.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by EnterNoEscape

CentOS 7 and Fedora 22+ have Cockpit available from their default repositories and you can add an additional repo to install it on Debian based Linux distros. In my opinion it's still a work in progress, but it works decently with managing Docker containers.

Here's a brief overview of what the docker web pages look like since Cockpit's own web pages don't even have a screenshot of it. It's not as refined for the average end user as unRAID, but it definitely can save you some time.

Yeah, I went looking after I posted that and I found about 7 projects that manage docker from a web UI. All the ones that I found were almost geared torwards IT people, and not really geared towards consumers. unRAID uses it's own docker template configuration, which helps it become more user friendly... Interestingly enough I don't see any of these web solutions offering a "template" driven experience. Even the unRAID one can be cumbersome... but still better than nothing.

[EnterNoEscape]

Originally Posted by stuckless

Yeah, I went looking after I posted that and I found about 7 projects that manage docker from a web UI. All the ones that I found were almost geared torwards IT people, and not really geared towards consumers. unRAID uses it's own docker template configuration, which helps it become more user friendly... Interestingly enough I don't see any of these web solutions offering a "template" driven experience. Even the unRAID one can be cumbersome... but still better than nothing.

I think this is partly the result of docker being relatively new (3 years). KVM has been around much longer (9 years) and despite being very good, it still only has a few good web/graphical interfaces and nothing that I would expect the average consumer be able to work with it. I'm sure as the technology matures more companies will see some value in making it more accessible to the average user (for all we know this is already happening). If you're using unRAID, you're probably not really the "average" user, but you don't need to be very technical either.

[mechling-burgh]

I guess my thoughts are that the people who are going to try SageTV for the first time are going to use a windows machine they have sitting around and maybe some tuner cards from a windows media center or some other PVR program. These cards will run in windows but maybe not Linux. I know we are short windows programmers and I'm sorry I can't help here, but windows is still the dominate OS out there on PCs. I know there market share is shrinking and Linux is getting much easier to use but the average Joe I think is still more comfortable with windows and the easy of finding hardware to work on it. If we could come up with a flash drive boot of Linux like Jeff was trying years ago that may easy people into the Linux environment. To get more programmers we are going to need to expand the user base and I think running out of java resources because your running 32bit java will turn some people off. Other than the Java resources my windows system has been rock solid since version 2.

[Fuzzy]

If it's the introductory users you are concerned with, then the 32-bit java heap limit is not likely a problem. 2-3 extenders will work just fine in a 1GB JVM Heap, and 3-5 works fine without heavy graphics (fanart) usage. Also realize that many of these same users who were used to WMC before, likely have actual windows HTPC's, which would be running a full client that doesn't use almost any of that 1GB Heap, because it maintains it's own heap.
No one was running a 64-bit sagetv JVM until just about year ago, and there have been many very successful sagetv installations in use for over a decade. Basically, I wouldn't put much weight into the 32-bit only on windows concern for now.

[SomeWhatLost]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I think that many people see "linux" and they get intimidated because it's "linux". I think the great thing about unRAID, is that for the most part, you have no idea what OS running, since they do a great job of putting a web UI on top, that 99% of users will interact with. Many NAS solutions today run linux, and in most cases, you never interact directly with the OS... You just use the web ui.

I don't know if it is really "many" people or not, but stuckless's observation is at least 100% true in my case...
well, I guess I technically know that unraid uses Linux... but still...
stuckless's Docker template thingy has a "Just Works" factor that is almost up there with the HDx00 extenders... much easier to set up than any of my previous Win based servers...
of course, tuners/capture devices could be a problem, if there are no linuxy drivers... but I just have a bunch HDHR's and they all just worked with no effort involved...

[mlcarson]

I don't see the average user buying a $59 unRAID Basic license just to manage a docker installation. I think just packaging the standard Linux way so that an apt-get works would be a great start.

[panteragstk]

I used a Windows Server 2012 box as my sage server for years. Rock solid and I almost never had issues. I never used extenders until the android mini client came out. I had a dedicated HTPC in every room.

I can say that since moving to unraid and android clients the user experience is much better than it ever was. My server was always solid, but the clients had issues quite often.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by mlcarson

I don't see the average user buying a $59 unRAID Basic license just to manage a docker installation. I think just packaging the standard Linux way so that an apt-get works would be a great start.

I don't think anyone is against setting up sage in an apt repository. I just don't think anyone has taken the time to figure out HOW to do that. I think part of the issues of this is that sage doesn't really deal with files the way it 'should'. A few legacy issues and such mean that there are permissions issues that I'm not sure totally work in a 'simple' installation method. These permission issues are also completely alleviated in a docker install. FWIW, you don't need unRAID to use the docker install. You can install docker on a general linux host. unRAID just gets the ease of management that, if you've ever used it, is worth $60. Considering the price people used to pay for the 'ease' of setting up an extender over a windows client, I think the $60 is well worth it.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

No one was running a 64-bit sagetv JVM until just about year ago, and there have been many very successful sagetv installations in use for over a decade. Basically, I wouldn't put much weight into the 32-bit only on windows concern for now.

Yeah, but it would be SO nice to have a 64 bit Win install from my perspective. I swear that the JVM knows when I am away on a business trip and that is when it overloads and causes SageTV to crash.

I have lots of extenders in the house and we have learned to live with the shortcomings of a 32 bit install but a 64 bit would be awesome. I could even leave all of the SageTV extenders powered on all of the time which would also improve the "boot up" time of watching Sage.

Could I install SageTV on Linux? Maybe - I do dabble in Linux a fair bit but it is mainly on Raspberry Pis and an AWS instance. But my Sage server also runs some other stuff to facilitate playback on other devices. I use AirVideo HD to playback to iOS devices and I also have Plex server running on the box. Can those run on Linux - maybe but it is generally more work to get them up and running on Linux.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by wayner

Yeah, but it would be SO nice to have a 64 bit Win install from my perspective. I swear that the JVM knows when I am away on a business trip and that is when it overloads and causes SageTV to crash.

I have lots of extenders in the house and we have learned to live with the shortcomings of a 32 bit install but a 64 bit would be awesome. I could even leave all of the SageTV extenders powered on all of the time which would also improve the "boot up" time of watching Sage.

Could I install SageTV on Linux? Maybe - I do dabble in Linux a fair bit but it is mainly on Raspberry Pis and an AWS instance. But my Sage server also runs some other stuff to facilitate playback on other devices. I use AirVideo HD to playback to iOS devices and I also have Plex server running on the box. Can those run on Linux - maybe but it is generally more work to get them up and running on Linux.

There is a Plex Server Docker that works great. I run quite a few things in dockers. The only thing I used to do on my sagetv server that doesn't fly on linux is PlayOn - but as infrequently as I needed that, I just installed it on my desktop (originally put it in a windows VM, but seemed wasteful to have a windows VM running JUST for that infrequent use).

[mlcarson]

I'm really not seeing the need for complete isolation of a SageTV system that a Docker container would supply. For development, I totally get it.

This guy is using Docker in combination with Rake, git-buildpackage and fpm-cookery for package building.

https://blog.codeship.com/using-dock...bian-packages/
It might be worth a look.

My degree was in Computer Science but it's been 25 years since I've done any real coding. I went the Systems Administrator -> Systems/Network Engineer -> Security Engineer path rather than the software development path. So, I'm not a developer.

From my perspective, I think that the reasons for using Docker would go away with a proper package build for users. I get why pushing out docker containers would be appealing if you don't have the .deb package methodology done and are using docker containers anyway. But that's like seeing every problem as a nail when your only tool is a hammer. If users start running into problems requiring an isolated environment that Docker would provide, it's still a nice option.

Just strongly suggesting that the DEB packaging get worked out. Considering you're doing this all on your own time on behalf of the SageTV community though, it's hard to really criticize. It's just nice to see the program advance.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by mlcarson

This guy is using Docker in combination with Rake, git-buildpackage and fpm-cookery for package building.

https://blog.codeship.com/using-dock...bian-packages/
It might be worth a look.

Just strongly suggesting that the DEB packaging get worked out. Considering you're doing this all on your own time on behalf of the SageTV community though, it's hard to really criticize. It's just nice to see the program advance.

Building the deb file is the easy part... and it's already being done. It's hosted on BinTray along with the .tgz packages. The part that I've asked people to figure out is how to publish that deb file on BinTray in a proper deb repo style... what additional files are required, etc. I could figure this out, but I'm busy doing other things... I have setup the BinTray deb repo... I just have no idea how I'm supposed to publish it there. This isn't dev work as much as it's configuration details.... probably something a sys admin could figure out in a few hours

Originally Posted by mlcarson

I'm really not seeing the need for complete isolation of a SageTV system that a Docker container would supply. For development, I totally get it.

From my perspective, I think that the reasons for using Docker would go away with a proper package build for users. I get why pushing out docker containers would be appealing if you don't have the .deb package methodology done and are using docker containers anyway. But that's like seeing every problem as a nail when your only tool is a hammer. If users start running into problems requiring an isolated environment that Docker would provide, it's still a nice option.

What docker is bringing to the table has less to do with process isolation and more to do with application composition. The nature of "debs" is that you have lots of them and they depend on each other, but once they installed, you might have some configuration to do... In linux (and windows alike)... sometimes installing a "solution" involves installing multiple products and then configuring how they work together, which usually means hours of manual configuration steps, and the hope that you didn't mess something up. Docker solves this by allowing someone to create the recipe for how something needs to be composed, and then enabling it, so that you can fire up a complete configured installation in minutes.

For SageTV, the docker container takes care of upgrading (which debs could do as well), and it downloads gentuner (which is used by command ir and usb-urit), and it installs comskip native binaries and does some small configuration changes in sagetv for it. It installs Lirc and does some small configurations around it. It updates the memory configuration for sagetv. It add the license file to the correct place. it sets the permissions on various files. it does a backup of the old Wiz.bin and a few other files during an upgrade, so that if something did go wrong, you could roll back. It's configured to use either Java 7 or Java 8 from Oracle (depending on your preferences). It configures sudo for sagetv so that if you run it as normal user, it can still do somethings as root (sagetv does require some things to be run as root).

I've configured a sagetv many times, and on average it takes me a few hours (off and on) to fully configure everything from scratch... getting all those pieces in place.

Now, I run a a single command to get 95% configured system in place.

docker run -d --name sagetv-server \
  -v /home/seans/unRAID/mnt/user/sagemedia:/var/media \
  -v /home/seans/unRAID/mnt/user/mediaext:/var/mediaext \
  -v /home/seans/unRAID/mnt/user/apps/sagetv:/opt/sagetv \
  -v /home/seans/unRAID:/unraid \
  --net host \
  --env OPT_GENTUNER=Y \
  --env OPT_COMMANDIR=Y \
  --env OPT_COMSKIP=Y \
  --env PUID=1000 \
  --env PGID=1000 \
  --env VIDEO_GUID=44 \
  --env LICENCE_DATA=AAABBB \
  --env JAVA_MEM_MB=512 \
  --privileged \
  -t -i "stuckless/sagetv-server-java8"

unRAID make that command line much nicer to deal with... because it puts a web ui around that command line... at the end of the day, unRAID is just issuing those commands to docker... no real magic.

I can test Java 7 and Java 8 (and eventually Java 9) and when Java 9 is fully ready, I can just point to a different image and things are fully configured.

Even Ubuntu is planning on changing it's package manager from deb to something that better composits applications. Too many times you can't upgrade to a new version of an application, because it depends on a library that hasn't been upgraded and maybe can't for some time. Their new package manager solves this, in much the same way that docker solves it, by ensuring complete isolation for the application and it's dependencies.

Having used Linux for 20+ years, it's safe to say that I really like it. And I think that the package managers that Linux has is one of it's greatest strengths. But, in many cases, installing packages does not end up with an installed solution. You still have lots of grunt work to do get things fully setup, especially for complex solutions, like SageTV.