On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Frank Merrill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fmerrill1@gmail.com">fmerrill1@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Andrew Herron <<a href="mailto:totallymaxed@gmail.com">totallymaxed@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Well I have to say that we dont see this performance issue in our testing<br>
> using the current scheduler but with the upper limit on multirec tuners<br>
> lifted to say 10. What your describing is not apparent to us. However what<br>
> is apparent is that the way multirec tuners are implemented currently seems<br>
> less efficient than it might be. This is an area we're looking at<br>
> currently...but performance is not driving this so much as reducing code<br>
> complexity. We'll post some patches in this area as soon as we have a<br>
> reasonably clean implementation.<br>
> Andrew<br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Head of Software & Technology<br>
> Convergent Home Technologies Ltd<br>
> <a href="http://www.dianemo.co.uk" target="_blank">www.dianemo.co.uk</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.cascade-media.co.uk" target="_blank">www.cascade-media.co.uk</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Your messages are somewhat confusing to me as you seem to keep using<br>
the words 'current' and 'currently', but in your first post in this<br>
thread you indicate your company is working on patches to MythTV 0.21,<br>
which is not the 'current' release.<br>
<br>
If you are referring to 0.22 instead, then it might be clearer if you<br>
state that.<br>
<br>
I am also a bit surprised by you providing URLs that lead to your<br>
companies products on a mailing list for what is an Open Source DVR<br>
project.<br>
But, it's not my list.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Frank</font></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As stated further up this thread our current work in for 0.21 but we will probably provide patches for 0.22 too. To clarify I am referring to the standard 0.21 scheduler in my post above when I refer to the 'current scheduler as we are in the process of writing/testing a patch to bring the scheduler into line with our patch for LiveTV tuner management - I agree the language I used was a little confusing. </div>
<div><br></div><div>However their appears to be very little if any difference between the 0.21 scheduler & the 0.22 scheduler in the context of this discussion so in that sense my comments broadly apply to either version.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Apologies for the footer...sometimes I forget to omit it from my posts...there was & is no intention to promote my companies products here in anyway at all. Our only objective is to offer our patches for review/comment and to make them available in the hope that they might be found useful by people reading this list.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Andrew</div></div><br><br clear="all"><br><br>