[mythtv-users] Anyone using arm with mythbackend?

Michael T. Dean mtdean at thirdcontact.com
Tue Aug 20 01:04:29 UTC 2013


On 08/19/2013 08:02 PM, Tyler T wrote:
>>> What seems to be at issue is the definition of "enough grunt." Some
>> I would no more suggest that someone purchase a 25cc scooter
>> for a cross-country trip
> Nice strawman.
>
>> What one should have (and I dislike this in Windows, so I really
>> hesitate to suggest it) is a MythTV "experience" index based
>> on some agreed upon criteria which includes all the relevant
>> functions (disk I/O, DB SQL functions, commercial flagging,
>> HD decode, spatial/temporal de-interlacing, etc.) normalized to
>> 1.0 for the recommended minimum configuration.
> An experience index sounds good. Don't forget that the BE and FE have
> different requirements; a BE requires no HD decode or de-interlacing
> and the FE requires no commflagging.

I think what you're trying to say is a backend does not require 
*realtime* HDTV decode (otherwise, how could it do commercial 
detection?)--assuming you're patient and/or watch recordings long after 
they air (and, yes, that's exactly how I use MythTV--even though my 
backends can do realtime decode in CPU no problem).

>   For that matter, not all users
> care about commflagging, so that's not a pre-requisite for a 1.0 BE
> either; that would be a 2.0 feature.

And, really, advanced scheduling support and ... aren't requirements 
either.  And if you take this approach (again, the "bend your 
expectations to your underpowered hardware" approach), then I /highly/ 
recommend an ARM- or MIPS-based system--the one you get from your cable 
or satellite service provider.  If you're not building a system that can 
do what makes MythTV unique, why are you wasting your time on the 
learning, installation, configuration, maintenance (and learning, 
re-installation for upgrades, re-configuration for upgrades and 
maintenance, and ...), and expense (and additional expense with hardware 
failures and upgrades) of a MythTV system?

(That said, with 4- and 6-tuner DVRs and whole-house "networked" DVRs 
becoming far more commonplace among commercial service provider 
offerings, nearly all of the "myth" that MythTV made real is available 
elsewhere.  IMHO, there's no longer a lot of reason to choose MythTV 
with the currently-available offerings, other than due to a desire for a 
fun hobby and the struggle to swim upstream, against the current 
providers create to try to force their customers to use their 
solutions.  And, yes, I still use MythTV.  It's still a fun hobby.  When 
that changes...)

Mike


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list