Trying to install Jellyfin on TrueNAS Scale

TrueNAS Scale 24.04.1.1
Jellyfin app from the TrueNAS app store

I accept all of the defaults and click on install.

Once it is running I click on the “Web Portal” button. The install now wants the URL which I supply. It wants a user account and password. What are the default creds?

Try refreshing the page. You’re supposed to see a first-time setup wizard.

Or replace the URL with this:
http://ip.add.re.ss:8096/web/index.html#!/wizardstart.html

Note the section that starts after the port number.

1 Like

I believe it’s asking you what you would like the admin account name/password to be.

Nope. It is asking the creds to login.

Rebooted TrueNAS. Now I get the wizard.
I created a media location called Movies. I can see the empty library in the Jellyfin UI.
How do I import my video files?

Did you set up the mount points when setting up the app in TrueNAS using the GUI? For example, if your video files are on your NAS at /mnt/tank/myvideos/, you have to set that up as a host mount point in the app.

/mnt/tank/myvideos → /myvideos

Then, in Jellyfin, when you add a movie library, the videos will be in /myvideos.

I have spent the afternoon trying to get the Jellyfin add to work on TrueNAS Scale with no success.

It does not seem to be as simple as just installing the application. Are there instructions available that work?

The jellyfin user has to have read access/traverse access to the media.

I use world readable on this, and my “media writers” group has write access.

Gave up. With no instructions and since it does not work without undefined tweaking, I give up. I got as far as getting it installed but none of my Jellyfin clients will see the server.

Maybe HexOS is the answer. :grinning:

Why do so many newbies think they need a NAS to run Plex, Jellyfin, Emby, etc? What is directing them to Scale? That they want a NAS is fine, but, there is a lot to learn.

1 Like

It does make sense to have the thing that scans, processes and transcodes the media collocated with the media, rather than possibly sending media across the network to another system which is going to possibly decode it, modify it and re-encode it only to then restream is back out again…

1 Like

I likely don’t understand transcoding correctly?

For me, it seems simpler to have a well-organized file server specializing solely on data delivery and end points focused on transcoding / upscaling / whatever.

It’s easier to scale the number of end points up or down, whereas pre installing a set of CPUs / GPUs to do it all centrally under peak load conditions means a very high upfront cost and a high energy budget all year to boot.

My Mac Mini digests whatever stream or video file content I throw at it… so Is transcoding mostly meant for mobile phone / tablet use? Clearly I’m not getting something.

I don’t think it does. They have a machine. That machine can load virtually any regular distribution and still have DAS. We’re not talking for fancier uses, a lot of these guys and on reddit are simply loading the *arrs and a media center app. I would find it much much simpler to just load any 'ol OS, even Windows and the software. Plex, Emby, and Jellyfin all run fine without a NAS. To actually learn how to use said NAS is much more work IMHO. Just my opinion.

1 Like

Transcoding is based on what you use to play the videos/content. GPU is expensive, so, for home use, why in the world would I want a GPU. Instead, I go for clients or software that plays anything, and I never transcode. That should be the goal for cheapness and efficiency, and even energy usage. So, I use Emby as an example. My clients are Apple TV. The client plays any content I throw at it without transcoding. So, no need for a GPU. Now, if I try and play in a browser, I may well use transcoding, but I don’t play in a browser thusly. I use an app. It’s ironic how many of these guys want to spin down those drives as it’s “too expensive” for energy use, but then buy a super fancy GPU. That can easily burn 100W or way more even depending on which one.

The only time I ever transcode is on a trip with a Roku. But, then I’m the only user, I’m on a trip after all! I can transcode with just the processor. And honestly, I’d not transcode 4k with the fanciest audio when on a trip, I’m on a trip after all!

What happens though is some of these guys are wanting to setup their media center for others, maybe family friends, whatever. In that case, they don’t control what client is being used and therefore they need to be able to transcode.

1 Like

Thank you for that!

So perhaps I’m understanding it correctly and I (like you) don’t see a killer app reason for transcoding on the server except in a couple of very narrow circumstances.

I remain flummoxed by folk who on the one hand only download / store 4K content but then also insist on investing in servers that can transcode multiple streams at the same time. It’s almost as if purposely trying to create a need for a solution that wouldn’t need to exist unless a 4K stream had to be transcoded in order to appear in a browser window on a low res machine.

I suppose that’s one benefit of old eyes, most content in 720p upscaled to my TV looks just fine to me. I still watch DVDs, etc. Perhaps if I were a bigger aficionado of detail in movies AND still had perfect eyesight, the difference between 720p / 2k / 4K would be more apparent.

I suspect there are 2 groups who do this. Group 1 are doing it for others who are remote users. Group 2 are those who watched a video somewhere that said they needed a GPU so they get one.

It’s not just browsers, rokus can’t play some videos depending on the mediacenter without transcoding. Probably other such devices also. 4k content is great at home, I have a home theater! But I don’t worry about playing 4k movies remotely, and why play them on a tiny tiny little phone, no idea. Though I use phone software that if I ever did, it also doesn’t need transcoding but still don’t see the point.

It’s just ironic that the same group wanting multiple 4k transcoding streams also want low power usage in a lot of cases. :rofl:

If I were going to allow people to stream my stuff remotely, and I am not, then, I’d need even faster internet (another expense on top of said GPU), I’d simply have non 4k content stored on the media center, no way am I having massive bitrate 4k videos going out from my ISP. 4k would just be for me at home. Energy savings? There are none with a high end GPU, which then take a better power supply, faster internet, etc. What money is saved there?

2 Likes

Group 3 are those who live in the far north with harsh winters.

2 Likes

Remote users? My child won’t even get access to the Netflix password while at (remote) school.

Thanks but no thanks. I only want myself to blame should something go wrong here. Allowing others to access (and worse, add to or manipulate) content on my NAS is something I’m not comfortable with.

Seems like this is the kind of stuff where someone proficient with the *ARR range of apps is the last mile for less proficient friends, relatives, etc. Given the potential costs associated with such conduct, I simply ask why take the risk?

1 Like

Or you could… transcode… to a lower resolution and bitrate.

1 Like

Of course, which means more expense, more power, more cost, etc. It’s all a tradeoff. My point is this is not always a known pre-planned thing for the user. My preference is to avoid all the work and expense.

1 Like