Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
> I would like to know which magic switch behind a single cable receiving only > one polarization/band allows feeding multiple tuners with independent > signals. ;-) There is no "magic", you probably should read up on switches I guess. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
> pretty simple, there are users who cannot change their SAT infrastructure > easily. The reasons are varied, e.g. they are tenants and not allowed to > change it by the owners, they own it and cannot change it due to the rules of > commonhold association or the own it and the construction of apartment/house > doesn't allow changes etc. Are you saying people are not allowed to put a switch at the point where the cable plugins into their dvb device? It would be no different that putting an ethernet switch on your ethernet line. You don't need to alter anything aside of instead of the cable going into your dvb card, it goes into your switch. 100% internal, 100% your own hardware. -Derek ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
Happy new year! I second that feedback from forums like vdr-portal.de would probably be more significant. I have been using the old LNB-sharing patch for years and really appreciated when device bonding became part of vdr itself. I am still using the feature and find it is one of the cool things about vdr. All the best, Michael Gesendet: Sonntag, 01. Januar 2017 um 19:06 Uhr Von: "Andreas Regel" An: vdr@linuxtv.org Betreff: Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)? Am 01.01.2017 um 18:36 schrieb VDR User: >> they do in vdr-portal.de ... as I already do remember a bunch of users still using that function and the reasons why, so no what-if-scenarios. > > Not sure why you didn't mention that earlier but aside of that it > still doesn't answer this part: "I'd like to know why they don't just > use a switch. Simple, cheap, easy, and no complex code required." > > One of the main purposes of a switch is to feed multiple tuners from a > single cable so it's not like device bonding is a vital feature. The > pros don't seem to outweigh the cons but if enough people actually use > it it sounds like Klaus will take it into consideration. > > -Derek Hi Derek, I would like to know which magic switch behind a single cable receiving only one polarization/band allows feeding multiple tuners with independent signals. ;-) And, no I am not using this feature and I guess most people subscribed to this list don't use it, too. But there are much more VDR users out there, so asking here may not be representative. Best regards Andreas ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
[vdr] vdr-convert updated, call for sample recordings
Happy New Year VDR users. There have been a few updates to the vdr-convert script + tools over at https://projects.vdr-developer.org/projects/vdr-convert/wiki in the last few weeks: * Added support for AC3/DTS streams in VDR1.x recordings (updated Genindex). Needs more compatibility testing * Added logging criticality to syslog messages (info, warn, err) * Optional email notification of events at criticality "err" * Fixes for very long program titles/subtitles and " in same To complete compatibility testing, I need a set of old .vdr recordings containing AC3/DTS/Other streams? and ideally dvb subtitles from a range of broadcasters,~100Mb samples are ideal. If you can help, please post them on a public fileshare, or point me to any existing files out there, I would appreciate it. If possible, please provide the matching "info.vdr" files as well. Thanks Richard ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
Am 01.01.2017 um 18:36 schrieb VDR User: >> they do in vdr-portal.de ... as I already do remember a bunch of users still >> using that function and the reasons why, so no what-if-scenarios. > > Not sure why you didn't mention that earlier but aside of that it > still doesn't answer this part: "I'd like to know why they don't just > use a switch. Simple, cheap, easy, and no complex code required." > > One of the main purposes of a switch is to feed multiple tuners from a > single cable so it's not like device bonding is a vital feature. The > pros don't seem to outweigh the cons but if enough people actually use > it it sounds like Klaus will take it into consideration. > > -Derek Hi Derek, I would like to know which magic switch behind a single cable receiving only one polarization/band allows feeding multiple tuners with independent signals. ;-) And, no I am not using this feature and I guess most people subscribed to this list don't use it, too. But there are much more VDR users out there, so asking here may not be representative. Best regards Andreas ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
Derek, pretty simple, there are users who cannot change their SAT infrastructure easily. The reasons are varied, e.g. they are tenants and not allowed to change it by the owners, they own it and cannot change it due to the rules of commonhold association or the own it and the construction of apartment/house doesn't allow changes etc. Unlike USA, Canada, not many people own houses in Europe or are living in houses with that flexibility. You're right, to have one cable for each DVB adapter is nice to have, but is sometimes not doable. The individuals who can do, will run decent SAT infrastructure, for sure. fnu ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
> they do in vdr-portal.de ... as I already do remember a bunch of users still > using that function and the reasons why, so no what-if-scenarios. Not sure why you didn't mention that earlier but aside of that it still doesn't answer this part: "I'd like to know why they don't just use a switch. Simple, cheap, easy, and no complex code required." One of the main purposes of a switch is to feed multiple tuners from a single cable so it's not like device bonding is a vital feature. The pros don't seem to outweigh the cons but if enough people actually use it it sounds like Klaus will take it into consideration. -Derek ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
Derek, they do in vdr-portal.de ... as I already do remember a bunch of users still using that function and the reasons why, so no what-if-scenarios. fnu ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
There's no point in worrying about what-if scenarios, actual real world usage is what matters. Klaus is giving those who use device bonding the chance to speak up now. If there's very little-to-no interest in it, it's gone. Unless I've misunderstood the intention here. If there rally is someone out there who only has 1 cable and for some reason can't run more, I'd like to know why they don't just use a switch. Simple, cheap, easy, and no complex code required. -Derek ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
> So I take it you yourself are *not* using this feature, right? Not active anymore, but in the past for many years, just up to a couple of years ago for my development machine. Getting rid of that feature may also causing the comeback of any sort of patch, maybe causing other issue, nobody can control ... As I said just my 2 cents. Cheers Frank ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
On 01.01.2017 13:57, fnu wrote: Hi Klaus, well, you're right it's a hack, but IMHO not really an ugly one. A similar function is up today part of some premium products from Loewe or Metz, bonding two DVB-S/S2 tuners. Originally it was limited to two devices, what really can make sense. I have never seen any reason to make that bonding available almost unlimited. For me it doesn't make sense to tie more than two adapters onto same ZF level. Well, whether it's two or more devices doesn't really make a big difference when it comes to the code complexity. And you're right, today seems with SCR (EN50494 & EN50607) or SAT>IP more elegant solutions available. Absolutely. But, it would be cool to keep it for that specific two DVB-S/S2 tuner setup, if possible. There might be people out there, having just one SAT cable in their apartment and not the possibility to change the that. They would keep their chance to run "1,5 DVB-S/S2" adapters with VDR ... So I take it you yourself are *not* using this feature, right? Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
Hi Klaus, well, you're right it's a hack, but IMHO not really an ugly one. A similar function is up today part of some premium products from Loewe or Metz, bonding two DVB-S/S2 tuners. Originally it was limited to two devices, what really can make sense. I have never seen any reason to make that bonding available almost unlimited. For me it doesn't make sense to tie more than two adapters onto same ZF level. And you're right, today seems with SCR (EN50494 & EN50607) or SAT>IP more elegant solutions available. But, it would be cool to keep it for that specific two DVB-S/S2 tuner setup, if possible. There might be people out there, having just one SAT cable in their apartment and not the possibility to change the that. They would keep their chance to run "1,5 DVB-S/S2" adapters with VDR ... Just my two cents. Happy new year 2017 to all VDR fans following that Mailingslist. Cheers Frank -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: vdr [mailto:vdr-boun...@linuxtv.org] Im Auftrag von Klaus Schmidinger Gesendet: Sonntag, 1. Januar 2017 13:29 An: VDR Mailing List Betreff: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)? Implementing "device bonding" (formerly known as "LNB sharing") has had quite an impact on VDR's dvbdevice.c, and made the code quite a bit more complex. Since this feature is really just an ugly hack, and it makes much more sense to provide each device with its own antenna cable, rather that connecting two or more devices to the same cable and having to limit them to the same polarization and frequency band, I'd very much like to remove that code from VDR's source. I would therefore like to know if there are any users who actually use this, and *really* need it. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
[vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?
Implementing "device bonding" (formerly known as "LNB sharing") has had quite an impact on VDR's dvbdevice.c, and made the code quite a bit more complex. Since this feature is really just an ugly hack, and it makes much more sense to provide each device with its own antenna cable, rather that connecting two or more devices to the same cable and having to limit them to the same polarization and frequency band, I'd very much like to remove that code from VDR's source. I would therefore like to know if there are any users who actually use this, and *really* need it. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] [PATCH] cDevice::GetDeviceForTransponder(): fix a typo
On 28.12.2016 15:26, glenvt18 wrote: Just an observation. That code from vdr.c that calls GetDeviceForTransponder() (for example, when a VPS timer is about to start) can only interrupt tasks with priority < LIVEPRIORITY anyway. It looks like disabling priority checking can't do much harm here. Is that what you originally meant? Well, all I know is that I'm not daring to touch any of this at this time. I'm probably going to rewrite the whole device selection stuff from scratch one day... Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
