On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:54:21 +0200
"Manuel Reimer" <manuel.rei...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> > This method may have been useful in the old days where large
> > harddisks were unavailable or hard to come by. Now we're living
> > in the age of terabyte disks, and setting up a VDR with 1TB of
> > video storage (even using a second disk to have a RAID-1 for
> > data safety) os no big deal any more.
> Especially with HDTV the amount of disc space, used for recordings,
> also got bigger.
> > Isn't LVM the keyword here?
> No. It is virtually impossible to just merge in a second disc if the
> first already has data on it and hasn't been set up as LVM physical
> volume on first install.
> You would have to move all data to another disc to set up the first
> VDR disc from scratch with LVM. After setting up, all data has to be
> copied back. I think it requires several hours to set that up. With
> the VDR multiple disc feature, I just install the new disc and mount
> it --> Setup done.
> Another big disadvantage of LVM is, that it is nearly impossible to
> restore data of one of the LVM discs, if only one disc is available.
> Means: If one disc dies, all recordings are gone.
Try mhddfs - the only thing it misses from vdr behaviour (if
partition size is chosen well) is to put the small files on another
harddisk, then the bigger files (i.e. put index and info on 00 and
all the rest somewhere else).
Knowing the history of bugs on that part (also, but not only in vdr
core) its a wise choice to drop support for it (i say that even if i'm a
user of that feature and like it a lot !)
vdr mailing list