[mythtv-users] is mythtv smart enough to do this (overlap/back-to-back) with recordings?

Janne Grunau janne-mythtvusers at grunau.be
Fri Jul 28 08:13:48 UTC 2006


On Thursday 27 July 2006 23:10, Steve Hodge wrote:
> On 7/28/06, Janne Grunau <janne-mythtvusers at grunau.be> wrote:
> > If I record two or more movies back-to-back I wouldn't want to skip
> > over all others if I want only see the last one. The system should
> > work for a larger number of overlapping recordings.
>
> Would this be a real issue? I've never noticed any delay skipping any
> distance though I've probably skipped no more than 2 hours at a time.

You have to find the start of the program. You can probably set 
cutmarks/bookmarks at start and end of each program, but this is again 
additional code.

> > You can circumvent parental control with this since all recordings
> > are accessible through the others. Not that it bothers me.
>
> Nor me. Could be difficult to fix this flaw though.

It's only fixable if you make parts of the not accessible.

> > It's especially bad since the AutoExpirer would expire recordings
> > that doesn't need to be deleted since we gain no additional space.
> > So hard links won't work and and mythtv has to know if two
> > recordings share the same file. Space calculations in the current
> > form might also not work since MythTV adds the sizes of all
> > recordings.
>
> Doesn't the AutoExpirer have to check how much space has been
> reclaimed after deleting anyway? Surely it can't assume that there is
> no other process using diskspace at the same time.

You missed my point. The Autoexpirer should be conservative and delete 
only recordings until enough space is available. So it's useless to 
delete a recording if it does not increase the free space. 

> > So this solution is not only more complex than a clean solution but
> > it has a security hole, is not scaleable (think of ten back-to-back
> > recordings and you want only to keep one of them) and has a bad
> > usability.
>
> I think you're overstating your case,

Maybe.

> but I do agree that the  record-to-two-files implementation would be
> better. Provided it's not significantly more difficult to implement.

It's easier to implement.

> Are all types of recorders definitely going to be able to record to
> two files simultaneously? 

It might be for the software encoders a little bit harder but it should 
be easy too.

> > I hope nobody will start to implement this solution.
>
> That's silly. Surely the best outcome would be if both
> implementations were developed so that the best implementation can be
> chosen.

I disagree strongly. It would be wasted development effort. If one 
design has advandtages and the effort to implement both is similar (I'm 
convinced the clean solution is easier to implement) only the design 
with advandtages should be implemented.

Janne


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list