[mythtv-users] Myth autoexpiring brand new shows

Allen Edwards allen.edwards at oldpaloalto.com
Tue Aug 26 21:36:40 UTC 2008


On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Kevin Kuphal <kkuphal at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Yeechang Lee <ylee at pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Kevin Kuphal <kkuphal at gmail.com> says:
>> > From his further information in his rather insulting and
>> > condescending response,
>>
>> I'm sorry you took it that way, but put yourself in his shoes. He
>> asked why programs are being autoexpired that shouldn't be (at least
>> according to his, and my, and others' understanding) and you told him
>> "Well, don't mark those programs to be expired." It's the equivalent
>> of the old joke:
>>
>>   "Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
>>   "Well, then, don't do that."
>>
>> especially when his messages make it clear he understands the issue
>> much better than that. You are normally on target (if curt, but the
>> latter is OK with the former), but I am afraid you were the
>> condescending one in this particular exchange.
>
>
> With the lack of additional information, and knowing my own recording
> habits, anything that I care enough about to complain loudly that it got
> auto-expired, is not set to auto-expire.  A suggestion to fix this
> particular issue it was not, but simply a suggestion on how the situation
> could be avoid while a solution is determined.  Either way, his was an
> unnecessary response to his request for help.  And I've learned from enough
> troubleshooting in my day never to assume that someone understands the issue
> better than what I've confirmed through some troubleshooting steps because
> that more often than not just results in you missing the actual problem
> because you overlooked something that was supposed to be "obvious".
> Anyways...
>>
>> > From the OP, it appears without further information that he had a
>> > single recording going at the time of the expiration.  In the case
>> > of a single recording on what we can assume are all full partitions
>> > (each one has about the same amount of free space indicating to me
>> > that they are all at capacity), then Myth, based on the Wiki quote,
>> > will use the local disk first for the next recording (remember,
>> > Storage Groups only dictate where a recording will be stored, not
>> > what will be expired).  As a result of local disk being chosen,
>> > local programs are being expired.
>>
>> This is both illogical and nonsensical. It is illogical because the "a
>> last resort" clause indicates (to me, Enigma, and others, at least)
>> that free space indeed will be used as the final determinant *if
>> necessary*, while you are saying--if I read you right--that this
>> doesn't trigger unless "at least two concurrent recordings [are]
>> active or other equivalent I/O."  If this is the case, the
>> documentation is very very very much not clear.
>
>
> It says that the free space will be used to break a tie.  There is no tie.
> The drive with the lowest weight is always used first and in this case, that
> is his local filesystem.  Done.  End of story.  The rest of the message,
> while an interesting discussion, isn't for me to comment on as it is more of
> a feature request to change how some people would like the defaults of
> storage group weighting to be.
>
> I personally would not want remote storage equally weighted with local
> because of the potential I/O issues with network recordings, commflagging,
> and the like.  The previously mentioned database setting laid out in the
> wiki from the original coder does provide the advanced user this means of
> making his/her system weigh local and remote identically so that a tie
> situation does occur in which case free space will be the determining
> factor.
>
> Seems to me that Myth, once again, has set reasonable defaults for the
> average system and provides a way for advanced users to tweak it to their
> liking.
>
> Kevin
> _______________________________________________


I thought I was following this but maybe I was not.

If you have two drives in the same storage group, why do you want to
leave an empty one empty and delete files on a full one?

I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would want that to
happen.  I mean, if I set the drives up in the same storage group, why
is it an advantage to me as a user to effectively not use the drive,
which is what I read would happen...

That said, the obvious solution is for the original party to buy a 1T
drive and put it in the myth locally.  I just bought one for $130 from
Buy.com
http://www.buy.com/retail/usersearchresults.asp?querytype=home&qu=206895079&qxt=home&display=col
This is a WD 10EACS Caviar drive and it comes with both data and power
cables and screws.  It also has a nice toster called "Regen backup
software"

Now I have to figure out if I really want a 2T myth system or should I
put the drive in my desktop.

Allen


Allen


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list