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

[William Munson]

stefan_jones at comcast.net wrote:
> 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
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
>   
Still can be used as a firewall. IPcop is a good example.