<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Allen Edwards <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:allen.edwards@oldpaloalto.com">allen.edwards@oldpaloalto.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div></div></div><br>I thought I was following this but maybe I was not.<br><br>If you have two drives in the same storage group, why do you want to<br>leave an empty one empty and delete files on a full one?</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>The key designator is remote vs. local. In the case where all disks are in the same system attached to the motherboard, it will not leave one empty but balance the recordings (this is how my system works). In the case of the OP, some of his disks were network mounted, and Myth considers network mounted storage lower priority than direct attached disks resulting in the confusion he had.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><span id=""></span><br><br>I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would want that to<br>happen. I mean, if I set the drives up in the same storage group, why<br>
is it an advantage to me as a user to effectively not use the drive,<br>which is what I read would happen...</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>In the case of network disks, it has to do with network I/O from, for example, multiple HD recordings + multiple commflag operations that could seriously degrade a network and/or result in bad recordings.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kevin</div></div></div>