[mythtv-users] Anyone running a diskless frontend?
usenet at wingert.org
usenet at wingert.org
Thu Feb 13 20:13:37 UTC 2003
One more thing.
There are X procotol compressors available (in ssh for example).
However, these usually do gzip/bzip type compression as opposed to the DCT
type compression (yielding worse results).
>
> Personally, I would not run X over ethernet. I would export the root of a
> filesystem and run X locally on the diskless machine (much less bandwith
> given the raw bulk of video). Although I export mythtv sessions all
> the time from one of PVRs for testing purposes, performance is fine.
>
> If you are exporting the streams as opposed to X, the following should
> yield your performance.
>
> I haven't had much experience with the codec that MythTV uses (I am using TiVos for recording devices). If I remember correctly 1 hour is around 2 GBs.
> This is about 582 kB/s.
>
> A good 100BT connection can sustain about 90 Mb/s (11 MB/s), in an optimal
> environment.
>
> Given this performance 100BT should be able to sustain approximately 19
> streams. This does not include the disk bottleneck though.
>
> Since X exports images in a more raw format, you essentially lose your
> codec compression rate. So you could divide the number of streams by
> your compression rate to achive the number of X streams.
>
> BTW - 100BT has a lot of bandwidth.
>
> HTH
>
> >
> > Further to this discussion, I have been thinking about this. <Disclaimer>
> > this is a question, not a suggestion. I haven't tried it and doubt it will
> > be very efficient.</Disclaimer>
> >
> > How about running the backend *and* frontend somewhere in a storage room or
> > whereever you can't hear it. Then next to your TV you have a Pentium 200 or
> > some such just running X -query mythserver? Vanilla pentiums used to be
> > quiter than a mouse. Double that with a nfs-root and you have a dead silent
> > "frontend" that only has a network card and a TV-out PCI card. The video
> > card of course must have xv support. You have to take care of audio. How
> > about nas?
> >
> > Would the traffic choke a 100MB switch? Is this even feasable to attempt?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > IvanK.
> >
> > On Thursday 13 February 2003 04:09 am, Bruce Markey wrote:
> > > Aaron Stewart wrote:
> > > > I dunno.. It seems like network transfer of data is adding another level
> > > > of complexity that could be avoided, but if sound dampening is
> > > > necessary, then it's a necessary evil :).
> > > >
> > > > My understanding was that an uncompressed mpeg2 stream ran at
> > > > 18mbits/sec, which translates to:
> > > >
> > > > send->18mbit
> > > > recv<-18mbit
> > > > buffer->18mbit (for delayed playback)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mythtv-users mailing list
> > mythtv-users at snowman.net
> > http://www.snowman.net/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at snowman.net
> http://www.snowman.net/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
>
More information about the mythtv-users
mailing list