I’ve tried a few options over the years, including SMB and NFS, XBMC as well as HTML with javascript I found online.
I don’t have a large collection of music (fewer than 100 albums), so hand coding things was actually one of the quicker options to setup. That’s despite then hassle of hand coding the URL to each FLAC file as well as the album art. But sometimes the javascript doesn’t handle large collections of FLAC and each implementation I tried had different quirks so I’ve sunk a lot of time into that in other ways without a satisfactory result.
I’ve heard of Emby, Jellyfin, Plex, Roon and Servio. I just need something that’s simple to set up and access. I don’t need fancy features beyond the ability to play the music with a pleasant UI that can be accessed from the web (HTTP, not HTTPS). I’d be running this from a Raspberry Pi 3B which already has the lighttpd server running.
I’m also considering just getting a portable, 128GB FLAC player with a minijack connection and moving on with my life without getting involved in networking at all.
Any recommendations for an uncomplicated way to approach to doing this?
Edit: Thanks so much for the helpful and enthusiastic comments! I tried Navidrome and had it up and running in ten minutes thanks to this tutorial video: https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=7V5UUJlSknY
I had to install docker-compose on the RPi. Then I got an error which turned out to be because I also needed a separate docker daemon which I installed following these instructions: https://www.simplilearn.com/tutorials/docker-tutorial/raspberry-pi-docker
In just 10+ minutes I had my music collection accessible from all my devices - thanks again!
You must log in or register to comment.
I got Navidrome working on the local network quickly with docker compose thanks to this video: https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=7V5UUJlSknY
Once I forwarded the right port on my router I was also able to access the music from the web. Thanks for the recommendation, I’m very happy!
Another tip, please be very careful when exposing ports to the public. With docker you’re already mitigating your attack surfaces but an open port allows anyone to make a connection and there are lots of bots out there looking for open ports and vulnerabilities. A good alternative would be to setup wireguard and instead then connect through that or if you like simplicity check out Tailscale.
Thanks for that. I’ll look into tail scale (since you mentioned the magic word, ‘simplicity’). My domain doesn’t have any links to the pages on my server, and Navidrome is username and password protected. Would that be safe enough? I am using unencrypted http, though.
Unencrypted HTTP can mean that anyone can see your traffic as it passes through their network. Your ISP will see that traffic. If you’re streaming pirated music and you’re in a country that cares about those things, might not go very well. From a security stand point though, you still wouldn’t want to trust the authentication on the open port. A vulnerability may exist that you don’t know about. It’s always better to keep them closed and add another layer or two between your home computer and the public.
Tailscale let’s you tunnel into your home network without opening any ports, and it encrypts the traffic. Much safer way of doing it.
Thanks. I really appreciate the insight. I’ll start learning about tailscale as a priority.
Here you go friend, enjoy! 😁
Thanks again! Do I understand right that once I:
- Run tail scale on each machine
- Register those with my account
The machines will be able to see each other, but the machines can not be seen outside of the network of those machines?
Also, my Raspberry Pi is hosting some other publicly exposed services that need to remain that way. Will tail scale take over those too?
I found a nice overview video here for anyone who might want it: https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=Kzyolu9yn0E
It shouldn’t mess with your current routing but if you’re running other VPNs you may run into issues.
After you join the machines to the tailnet, each machine gets a new IP address ( only visible to other machines in the tailnet), by default it’s a 100.x.y.z you can check the tailnet for the device IP.
Now you can keep the port closed on your router and it will still be accessible over the usual lan ip and port. But when you want to access remotely, turn on tailscale and connect using the tailnet IP.
Another cool thing you can do with this setup is turn your home server into an exit node. By default it will only route things that are in the tailnet (100.x.y.z subnet). But if you turn your home server into an exit node you can funnel all your traffic back through the exit node. Instant free VPN back home!
That sounds promising, thanks! You say LAN, but I can share this with people over the internet too, right?
Especially with music, if any of this is plain HTTP (or any other plaintext, non-encrypted protocol) and you live in a lawsuit happy jurisdiction you might end up with piracy letters in the mail.
It is plain HTTP. There’s a username and password needed to log in and access the music, though if that helps?
Plain HTTP means anyone between you and the server can see those credentials and gain access.
It it using HTTP Basic Auth by chance? It would be so easy to put nginx (or some other reverse proxy with TLS) in front and just pass the authentication headers.
I don’t know what kind of authentication it uses, but it dots appear to be susceptible to brute force https://github.com/navidrome/navidrome/issues/242
But if I add a reverse proxy I would need it to just affect that one service/port. I’m running a publicly facing static (amateur/hobby) website - and other services - from there too and I’d prefer it to remain public.
All of my public facing sites are behind a reverse proxy. I use Nginx Proxy Manager it runs from docker and has an easy webgui. It takes care of things like https certificates and stuff to.
I saw in your update you mentioned installing docker-compose. Modern docker has “compose” as a verb, and should work as
docker compose. I haven’t tested this on raspberry pi though.You’re right. It’s just that the package to installed is called docker-compose (if I remember right. I’m on mobile now). So the command to install was: apt install docker-compose, and the command was: docker compose. Thanks man.
No, thats not how it works now. You used to have to install docker-compose and run
docker-compose, but now you don’t. Docker comes with compose, but you call it asdocker composerather than the old Python module based waydocker-composehttps://www.docker.com/blog/new-docker-compose-v2-and-v1-deprecation/
Thanks for clarifying. I might be sent to uninstall that other package in that case. It’s all working nicely anyway. Appreciate it, thanks again for your help!
