On 5/20/07, Artur Skawina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks. It seems that 648k was the largest size ever used for a buffer,
which is less than 1/3 of the full size (2M for Result,Transfer and TS).
The Recorder buffer was typically at 5% of its max size, ie 300k instead
of 5M. No overflows w/ v3
VDR User wrote:
> On 5/20/07, Artur Skawina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> VDR User wrote:
>> > I've recorded/watched a lot of tv in the last couple days and so far I
>> > haven't noticed any problems with this patch. I am currently using v3
>> > (the patch I attached to my previous post) with vdr-
On 5/20/07, Artur Skawina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
VDR User wrote:
> I've recorded/watched a lot of tv in the last couple days and so far I
> haven't noticed any problems with this patch. I am currently using v3
> (the patch I attached to my previous post) with vdr-1.5.2.
Do you know how larg
VDR User wrote:
> I've recorded/watched a lot of tv in the last couple days and so far I
> haven't noticed any problems with this patch. I am currently using v3
> (the patch I attached to my previous post) with vdr-1.5.2.
Do you know how large the buffers usually grow?
If you haven't reduced vdrs
I've recorded/watched a lot of tv in the last couple days and so far I
haven't noticed any problems with this patch. I am currently using v3
(the patch I attached to my previous post) with vdr-1.5.2.
___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
http://www.linu
I just wanted to give some feedback on this, im using the patch on my
vdr 1.4.7 and it workes without problems for now. Good work, thanks.
Dortje
In case anyone is having trouble, here's an attached patch of v3 for
vdr-1.5.2.
2007/5/15, VDR User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
No, I mean vdr-1.5.2. Artur said he had attached a patch to his post
but there was no attachment and since copy & paste the patch from his
post was causing problems for some reason, I patched a vanilla
vdr-1.5.2 (which is what I use) by hand. If it appl
On 5/15/07, Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/5/15, VDR User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In case anyone is having trouble, here's an attached patch of v3 for
vdr-1.5.2.
You mean 1.4 :) Thanks.
No, I mean vdr-1.5.2. Artur said he had attached a patch to his post
but there was n
2007/5/15, Artur Skawina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
actually it's vs 1.4.6, but applies to 1.5.2 too.
Ah, I see. I tried to apply it to 1.4.7. The patch provided by VDR User applies.
--
Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www.archlinux.org | www.juvepoland.com
___
Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
> It seems your patch is against VDR 1.5.x. Could you please backport it
> to VDR 1.4.x?
actually it's vs 1.4.6, but applies to 1.5.2 too.
___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
2007/5/15, VDR User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
In case anyone is having trouble, here's an attached patch of v3 for vdr-1.5.2.
You mean 1.4 :) Thanks.
--
Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www.archlinux.org | www.juvepoland.com
___
vdr mailing list
In case anyone is having trouble, here's an attached patch of v3 for vdr-1.5.2.
diff -ruN vdr-1.5.2-orig/dvbdevice.c vdr-1.5.2/dvbdevice.c
--- vdr-1.5.2-orig/dvbdevice.c 2007-05-14 14:58:29.0 -0700
+++ vdr-1.5.2/dvbdevice.c 2007-05-14 15:22:50.0 -0700
@@ -1172,7 +1172,7 @@
Close
It seems your patch is against VDR 1.5.x. Could you please backport it
to VDR 1.4.x?
--
Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www.archlinux.org | www.juvepoland.com
___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
This is still in a just-for-testing phase. Found a way to better stress test
this code, hence these changes:
- decreased the growth threshold from 1/2 to 1/3. IOW the goal is always for
66% of the buffer to be free; this increases the working set, but the
alternative (handling overflows by s
14 matches
Mail list logo
