Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
>> Is there any movement to files >2GB for the recordings?
> I will most likely change this when going to TS recording format.
> In doing so, I'd like to get rid of splitting recordings into separate
> files altogether. However, I think there might be people who still
> want this feature - any comments?

Pretty much said already: I really don't want to miss hard link cutter 
any more, and I frequently use my (FAT32) USB-HDD as portable recording 
media. I've even considered offering the hard link cutter for VDR 
integration once the TS recording has settled. Going beyond 2TB however 
is a good idea in any case.

> I won't go for full 64 bit file sizes, though, because I'd like
> the index records to still fit into 8 byte. Using 6 byte for the
> file index would result in 256 TB for a single recording (or 128 TB
> if we avoid 'unsigned'), which I guess should be large enough ;-)

I would prefer going the other direction, having more than 255.vdr 
files. Well, 8 bytes should be enough for everyone. ;)

While we're at doing incompatible changes to the recording format:

Two things bug me about the folder structure. First, the two-level 
directory structure. A single level makes IMHO more sense, and reduces 
the number of folders to scan by half:

Sure, the old way groups recordings of same name, but only if no episode 
title is used. And things get really confusing if a recording and a 
folder share the name. And if two recordings share a name, its a lot 
easier to rename just one of them.

Second: Priority and Lifetime of a recording IMHO don't belong to the 
name part. This could easily fit into the info.vdr file instead. Or does 
it make sense to have the same recording with different lifetime or 
priority in separate folders?

Well, just some of my thoughts. In the end, it has worked well in the 
past too...



vdr mailing list

Reply via email to