<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Brian J. Murrell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brian@interlinx.bc.ca">brian@interlinx.bc.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">> I would suggest</div><div class="im">
> that you try it since you are looking for solutions and see what it really<br>
> does instead of dismissing it.<br>
<br>
</div>Well, it seems I cannot try this test since something very hinkey is<br>
going on. I removed the override that I placed prior to force<br>
everything onto the digital tuner and the new schedule is now using the<br>
other tuners for the conflicts that were previously there. I am<br>
absolutely most definitely positive it was not before.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Perhaps something changed in the guide data from then to now that allowed the scheduler to make that decision. I often find that suboptimal scheduling is resolved by the time I'm closer to the scheduled date out due to changes in the guide. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
The scheduler has still left one conflict but that's because it's<br>
arrangement of recordings on digital and analog tuners is less than<br>
optimal and has exhausted the number of tuners. I'd still argue that it<br>
should try harder, and to that I'd argue that if there really is some<br>
simple threshold value on the number of passes the scheduler makes and<br>
if given an infinite value for that threshold the scheduler would<br>
produce the most perfect fit schedule then that threshold should be user<br>
configurable. Let *me* decide how much resource I give to the scheduler.<br>
<br>
At least tell me where in the code this threshold value is, please.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You'd have to talk to a developer that knows the code. That would not be me.</div><div><br></div><div>Kevin</div>
</div>