<div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">My experience says the same; I've got a SD DVB-T Mythbox with three tuners,</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">each providing four virtual tuners using multirec. That's a total of 12</span></div><div>
<span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">virtual tuners. I have two 2TB WD Caviar Black SATA drives (which benchmark</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">at about 140MB/s at the rim, and about half that at the hub), split into</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">2x5x200GB RAID1 arrays, and 2x1x200GB arrays for filler recordings. My SQL</span></div><div>
<span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">database is in a different RAID1 array, but on the same pair of discs. UK</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">DVB-T usually runs at about 1GB/hour (about 0.28MByte/s) per channel or</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">3Mbyte/s per multiplex, and I've recorded from all 12 virtual tuners without</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">glitches.</span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div>Hi There,<div><br></div><div>
I am trying to work out why you would configure a system like you have, across all those partitions across two very high performance drives, but now you are making the heads seek like _crazy_ and that is just for recording, add in OS and DB load...</div>
<div><br></div><div>making heads seek</div><div> - causes most wear on drives and your arrangement must be making the heads go mad - constantly.</div><div> - slows down the throughput as so much time is lost moving the head to the right area of the drive</div>
<div><br></div><div>using multiple partitions means</div><div> - that when data is being written to two different files in "free" space on the drive, if the two files are to be written on two different partitions on the same drive the head _has_ to move to a completely different area of the disk which takes time.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I understand the desire to have a reliable system and use RAID1,5,6 or 1+0 for important and rapidly changing data but this is not usually the case with HTPC, there is some data which changes slowly (ripped videos & music) some that you always want to keep (database) and some you can replace relatively easily from a backup with no harm (the OS) and then the stuff that falls somewhere in that range (tv recordings)</div>
<div><br></div><div>For instance my setup is much simpler</div><div>40GB IDE drive for the OS & DB</div><div>2TB Recordings drive</div><div>2TB Video music, and general file-server drive</div><div><br></div><div>database and OS are backed up onto the video drive regularly</div>
<div>video drive is backed up and stored off-site.</div><div><br></div><div>now my only optimisation would be to split the videos and the recordings more evenly across both drives so the system has more IO throughput for HD recordings (not more space; there is enough of that).</div>
<div><br></div><div>R</div>