<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jan 4, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Mudit Wahal wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/4/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">David Brodbeck</b> <<a href="mailto:gull@gull.us">gull@gull.us</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div style=""><br><div><div>On Jan 4, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Brad DerManouelian wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000">...y</font>ou should probably make your frontend machine also your master <span class="q"> <br>backend, then the slave backend will only turn on when it needs to <br>record something.</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's how mine is set up. The slave is also a secondary frontend, so I also power it up manually when I want to watch something on it. The master runs all the time. </div></div><div><br></div><div>If you set up your tuners so the master backend's is preferred, the master will *always* be up when the slave needs to record something, anyway -- the slave will only be needed for recording if the master is already busy recording something else. </div></div></blockquote><div><br>Is the slave recording it on its local hard drive ? I want to create a similar setup. I've two independent masters right now. I want to convert one of the master to slave, but still record locally. <br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>You can set it up that way, have them both record on just one location or have both backends record on both using storage groups (records on whichever has the most free space) in pre-release software available in SVN.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></body></html>