[mythtv-users] Optimizing rec./livetv tuner orders

[Michael T. Dean]

On 07/20/2012 07:35 AM, warpme wrote:
> Hi *
> I have quick question regarding rec/livetv tuner orders optimization.
> Let assume we have 2 phy tuners (a,b) with 4 vritual each (1...4).
> I want to achieve: minimal rec-livetv collisions, best 
> livetv availability, in case of resource races rec. should have 
> priority over livetv.
> What setup will give meet above conditions with lowest scheduler load:
>
> <tuner>:<rec.order>,<livetv.order>
>
> case1:
> tun_a1: 1,8
> tun_a2: 2,6
> tun_a3: 3,4
> tun_a4: 4,2
> tun_b1: 5,7
> tun_b2: 6,5
> tun_b3: 7,3
> tun_b4: 8,1
>
> or
>
> case2:
> tun_a1: 1,2
> tun_a2: 1,2
> tun_a3: 1,2
> tun_a4: 1,2
> tun_b1: 2,1
> tun_b2: 2,1
> tun_b3: 2,1
> tun_b4: 2,1
> Assuming, that for the same order value algorithm use tun_nr value for 
> selection, it seems that for rec. order, case1 will result with the 
> same scheduling order like case2. For livetv not.
> But functionally, I think, both cases will offer exactly the same 
> user experience.
>
> Has case2 any sched. performance gains over case1 ?

Never, ever, do case 1.  It will completely break multirec (meaning 
you'll record things from the same multiplex using different physical 
tuners).  This is why the UI only allows you to set the schedule order 
or Live TV order on the capture card--not the individual virtual tuners.

Case 2 is what you want--or something along that line, but with more 
physical tuners (as with only 2, the likelihood of recordings preventing 
you from being able to "own" a tuner for Live TV is very high).

Mike