On Thursday 27 March 2008 18:22:35 Artur Skawina wrote:
> VDR User wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Artur Skawina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I have a similar setup, just with 100M ethernet instead of wifi and NFS
> >> instead of samba. wifi could be a problem, but if you're able to watch
> >> the same channel live you should also be able to view a recording.
> > Takes a lot more bandwidth to record & playback then just to record so
> > the fact that live tv is fine doesn't amount to much I don't think.
> I was referring to playing a finished recording and playing a file that is
> currently being extended by the "server" vdr -- alexw said that doesn't
> work well for him. It should, unless the disk and/or fs can't handle the
> two data streams concurrently, while keeping the latency low enough.
> I'm assuming the vdr server in powerful enough to handle the load, yes.
> vdr mailing list
My setup is a little bit more complicated as it is using a share drive on both
machine. The two local disks are only CF. The file server is compose of 4x
SATA II 500GB in raid 5 (total ~1.5 TB available) piloted by a promise
controller and a fully idle 3 GHz P4 CPU. The throughput or the sustained
write/read access is not a bottleneck. Here is a quick ASCII art drawing:
/-- 100M --[AP]~ WIFI 54Mb ~[vdr client/FF]-[TV]
[switch]--- 100M ---[CIFS/fileserver]
\-- 100M -- [vdr server/B2C2]-DVB-S+DVB-T
This evening I will test the provided patch.
vdr mailing list