Bruce Markey wrote:
Michael T. Dean wrote:
...
Line 1222 of programinfo.cpp is the culprit, but unfortunately, I
can't see an easy way to fix it. We can't just trim the
RecordFilePrefix off the left because it won't work with multiple
hosts...
You don't want to allow a server to access to any arbitrary full path.
Yeah, but what's the likelihood that someone who puts an appropriate
link under my recordings directory to damage my filesystem is going to
be able to guess that my "mythtv" database user has a password "mythtv"
so that they can put the bad basename in there. ;)
I can't think of a non-invasive approach to use. Ideas?
Here's what I've written before that I'd like to see but I haven't
needed this so far so I'd never gone past some simple proof of
concept tests last winter.
This is definitely a much better solution. I was going for the
quick-and-easy "read-only" solution hoping it would be a building block
toward a readable/writable solution, but going for the end goal is
probably more appropriate--especially since you have some code...
-----------8<-----------8<-----------
Even though I still don't need this myself, I did start on
a prototype back in Dec. that allows a colon separated list
for RecordFilePrefix. It correctly splits, reads from and
writes to any of the dirs. Reading from the dirs throughout
the code is pretty easy. For writing, I'd like it to make
these choices:
- prefer not full (above MinRecordDiskThreshold) over full
- prefer local disk over remote mount
- prefer a disk not in use by another recorder over one in use
and if there is still more than one equal choice,
- prefer the disk with the most free space
The remaining problems are determining that a dir is on a local
mount vs any type of remote mount (NFS, Samba, others?).
What about making the user specify? For example, we could have two text
boxes for recordings directory--one for "Local recordings directories"
and one for "Remote recordings directories." I think if we try to do
the determination in code, we'll get into all sorts of portability
issues. And, when you think of really strange situations--like a union
mount with a local filesystem on front and an NFS filesystem on back--it
can even come down to "remoteness" of a filesystem being determined on a
file-by-file basis.
Also
determining which backend is responsible for a directory if it
is shared for reporting total free space properly
Not to mention whether multiple specified directories exist within the
same filesystem. Although with this approach--since it's not
user-configurable through recording rules (i.e. put Simpsons in the
Simpsons directory, etc.), it doesn't really make sense to put multiple
directories that exist on the same filesystem into the list (but that
doesn't mean it won't happen :).
and which
backend(s) may delete files. This isn't too bad if all NFS
mounts are from disks that are local to another backend, The
local backend would be responsible. However, if one of the
dirs is a disk on a slave and that slave is down or if there
is a shared NFS mount from a system that doesn't run a backend,
exactly one backend has to take charge for that disk.
If this all works, you can have more than one disk on a machine
whose filesystems are not tied together so you can move files off
one to take the disk out, replace it or do maintenance. A slave
could have a local disk and paths to NFS mounts so if the local
disk fills up it could fail over to writing across the network.
A master could have paths to NFS mounts of the slaves' local
disks so the master could play the slaves files even while the
slave backend process is not running (but the machine would have
to be up of course =). Etc.
Sounds good. It would also be nice to add another priority for the
user-specified directory (specified in a recording rule) after the
prefer not full. If there is no user-specified directory (i.e. it has
the value "Default" or something), it will work exactly as you
described. Of course, adding the user-specified directory makes
figuring out whether multiple dirs are on the same filesystem a problem
that must be solved (as opposed to one to be taken care of through the
lists, which would be possible if the rule says one directory per
filesystem :).
Mike
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
