On Thursday 30 June 2005 1:24, BP wrote: > Joseph A. Caputo wrote: > > > > > ...which is kind of why I put forth the idea of 'slicing' the > > recordings > > as they're in-progress (see my post earlier in this thread). It > > allows > > you to take full advantage of *all* of the space across multiple > > mount > > points/devices, even though any one of them taken by itself may not > > have enough space. Without the ability to treat a collection of > > But one of the reasons why people were asking for multiple mount > points > was for not losing all their recordings if one drive croaked as can > happen with LVM. This 'slicing' idea does not resolve that issue and > makes things very complicated.
Not if you make it so that all 'slices' get recorded to the same location, only changing locations mid-recording if the first one runs out of space. This way, you reduce the likelihood that a single recording will span multiple locations. And, if you lose a storage device, it's easy to identify which recordings have been partially or completely lost and deal with them as appropriate. With LVM, if you lose a disk, it's a real pain in the ass to try and recover files from the remaining volumes. > > Simple solution: If the recorder runs out of space, the recorder > exits. Already does this. > Scheduler sees the recorder exited, attempts to restart it. The > recorder code checks the mount points for space, sees none free on > option one, tries option two. Just like when you restart the backend > in > the midst of a recording, you end up with two partial recordings of > the > same show, both viewable. This is pretty much how the slicing approach would work, except you wouldn't be stopping/restarting the recording, just recording the next 'slice' to the next available location. -JAC _______________________________________________ mythtv-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
