<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">$500? for a frontend. That is a pretty expensive frontend. What are<br>
you spending the money on, a really nice case? CPUs and motherboards<br>
that can do everything you need are cheap these days. Plus with VDPAU<br>
you don't really need much in a frontend. Have you considered going<br>
with a $200 ION solution, or is there some reason that won't work for<br>
you?<br></blockquote></div><div><br>Australian dollars mate, an Ion solution is $360 + RAM (say $40 for 2GB in my currency) + HDD (say $50 for either the smallest hard drive I can find or a USB/CompactFlash solution. I'm booting my laptop from USB at the moment to test the theory, works pretty nicely, actually. It's great to be able to put GRUB on the USB key, so it boots Mythbuntu if the key is in, and Windows otherwise.). <br>
<br>So yeah, say $450 over here. Otherwise, yes, that's exactly what I plan to build for the other frontend, VDPAU is working a treat on the current machine.<br>
<br></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I don't know about that but you would have to be doing several HD<br>
streams to saturate a 100 Mbit/s connection. Like I said you can get<br>
Gbit ethernet cards and switches for $10-$20 to be safe. Unless you<br>
are stuff with 100 Mbit/s on your NAS.<br></blockquote></div><div><br>Guess I should try it and see! Not much content is broadcast in true HD here, most of our HD channels are just poorly upscaled versions of the respective SD channels 90% of the time, but I still want the solution to be futureproof. The NAS is gigabit. I can't remember if the switch is, I have one that is and two that aren't.<br>
<div class="im"><br> > My understanding from the Wiki was that balancing between local and network<br>
> storage is based on I/O throughput, and that network drives won't be<br>
> utilised until you exceed disk load equivalent to two simulataneous<br>
> recordings. Can anyone clarify this for me?<br>
<br>
</div></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I would be interested in the details of this also. My understanding is<br>
that it will try to keep it to 1 recording per disk and it will choose<br>
local storage first. But I see what you are referring to in the wiki<br>
so maybe it will actually put 2 recordings on the local disk before<br>
using the NAS.<br></blockquote></div><div><br>Yeah. It'd be nice if the constants it uses in determining that could be exposed to the user as a setting which allows you to weight storage manually, allowing you to force the system to use the NAS equally, or even preferentially, if the user preferred. But I don't think anything like that is planned.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>- Chris Kerr<br><br> <br></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
mythtv-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mythtv-users@mythtv.org" target="_blank">mythtv-users@mythtv.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users" target="_blank">http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div><br>
</div><br>