[mythtv-users] another scheduling mishandling

[David Engel]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 05:07:51PM -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> But TBH, it seems to me that the more global "tuner priority" makes more
> sense here.  I thought I was getting the impression though, from the
> other thread about priorities that the tuner priority was not considered
> at this point of the scheduling?

All priorities are simply added together to come up with a single
number.  It was done this way on purpose so no type of priority has
priority over another type of priority, pun intended.

> So is tuner priority or bumping up the channel priorities of all of the
> channels on a given tuner (that you want to prefer) the more correct way
> of going about preferring a digital tuner, over an analog tuner? 

Either way is correct.  It really depends on your needs.  Using tuner
priority can be more convenient.  I use channel priorities because
there are some channels I want to fall back to analog so I'll get an
earlier recording.

>  AND(!)
> trying as much as possible to select combinations of channels that
> result in the most episodes being recorded from the digital tuner as is
> possible -- i.e. jugging showings around so that more than one on a
> digital multiplex is chosen over distributing them out to single channel
> analog tuners?

You lost me here, but I think you're asking if you should use channel
priorities to favor shared multiplexes.  If so, I would, but I'd also
realize that doing so gives a priority boost to every other program on
those channels whether I wanted to or not.  IOW, if you do that and
there are programs on those channels that you don't want to give a
priority boost to, you need to account for it.

David
-- 
David Engel
david at istwok.net