[mythtv-users] How hard is it to build an HD MythTV?

[stefan_jones at comcast.net]

Thanks to everyone who responded on this sub-thread, and on the main flow of the conversation. This tells me what I need to do.

I guess I'll see if I can _maybe_ squeeze HD out of my original box . . . and if not, spend a few hundred on a nice new combined box. 

As I think I mentioned, my current "TiFaux" host was literally plucked out of the trash. The only hardware that I bought for it that I won't be able to move into a new box are the two IDE drives. I'll donate the system to the local recycle / reuse place.

--
http://home.comcast.net/~stefan_jones


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Brad DerManouelian <myth at dermanouelian.com>
> stefan_jones at comcast.net wrote:
> > Related question:
> > 
> > If you have a frontend / backend system, with a front end servicing a HD, you 
> are obviously going to need a relatively stout processor in the front end. Or a 
> middling processor and card with good MPEG2 offload capabilities. 
> > 
> > But what about the back end? It will be doing HD capture, which I understand 
> isn't all that CPU intensive. But where does the commercial flagging / 
> transcoding get done?
> 
> Backend HD capture is about the same amount of CPU as copying a file 
> from one place to another since essentially that's what it's doing. Very 
> low CPU cycles for this.
> 
> Commflagging/transcoding is done on the backend system. Will you be 
> transcoding? I don't do that any more. Storage is cheap. I have 2TB and 
> never transcode anything.
> 
> Commflagging is fast. You don't need a beefy CPU to do this in any sort 
> of reasonable amount of time.
> 
> Playing back HD is the most processor intense thing MythTV will ever do. 
> This is where you need to spend the money. However, the benefit is that 
> if you are already spending the money on a big beefy processor for HD 
> playback, you might as well double up the machine as a backend as well. 
> This will also save you headaches if you run into network bandwidth 
> issues (commflagging and watching HD at the same time combined with any 
> other network traffic might cause pauses) as well as configuration 
> issues (making sure mysql can connect from your frontend, making sure 
> your network doesn't drop connection for any number of reasons).
> 
> > 
> > This is relevant to me because I'm trying to decide whether to go for a new 
> combined system, or to retire my current box to be back end only, and make a new 
> HD-capable frontend in a trim little box.
> 
> A combined system is much easier to set up and maintain. When you 
> upgrade, you upgrade the box. You don't have to worry about upgrading 
> two boxes and making sure they both run the exact same version of 
> mythtv, making sure your security updates are good on both machine, etc, 
> etc.
> 
> I started with a combined frontend/backend. Moved to 3 backends, now I'm 
> back to a combined system again. The only remote files are 
> music/videos/photos on another file server in my basement. All the 
> recordings, processing and playing back happens locally next to the TV. 
> I have to say I like it much better this way.
> 
> -Brad
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users