[mythtv-users] Question on channel record removal

[Tom Dexter]

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:46 PM, David Engel <david at istwok.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:23:48PM -0500, Tom Dexter wrote:
>> I'm currently on 0.25.3 and will have to upgrade soon, as the Gentoo
>> ebuilds for 0.25.3 are scheduled for removal.
>>
>> Until today I wasn't aware of the removal of the channel record option
>> and it's replacement with a filter in 0.27.  I use almost nothing but
>
> Don't believe everything you read/hear here.  There are a lot of
> low-information users out there.  Hint, it's still easy to create
> rules that only record on a single channel.

By that you mean that you set up an all record rule, with (as I
understand it) a new "This channel" filter checked correct?

>
>> channel record for this reason:  I live between New York and Philly
>> and can get both areas if I turn my antenna.  I watch New York almost
>> exclusively, but do occasionally turn the antenna to see an NFL game
>> out of Philly for example.  As a result I have all the Philly network
>> channels in my database, but they under normal circumstances they of
>> course won't come in.  For that reason I've always used he channel
>> record on the New York stations.
>>
>> I leave those Philly channels set with "visible" off.  Is that visible
>> flag used in scheduling in any way?  My guess is that it isn't, and
>> I'll have to use filters.
>
> Only "visible" channles can be recorded.

I see...so essentially in my case an all record rule theoretically
wouldn't need the "this channel" filter if the others are not visible.
 I suppose if I were to do that however that even temporarily making
on of those channels visible to watch a game etc runs the risk that a
re-schedule would pick up that channel....so I probably need the
filter either way.

>
>> Another unrelated question:  I'm still deciding as to whether I want
>> to upgrade to 0.26 or 0.27 right now.  I have a lot of concerns about
>> things I've seen in passing about mythlogserver issues.  First of all
>> I wanted to be clear on where all that stands.  Also, when the release
>> notes talk about mythlogserver being "optional", what exactly does
>> that mean?  If you don't run mythlogserver do you get any logging at
>> all, and if so, is it just to the console?
>
> mythlogserver was(is) a separate daemon that got spawne automatically
> to collect log entries from the various MythTV processes and write
> them to disk, save them to the database, or whatever.  The benefit of
> having the logs handled in a separate process was you wouldn't lose
> the last, possibly important, log messages from a process that dies
> suddenly.  For most users, having a separate mythlogserver process was
> more trouble than it was worth, so the logging was changed to be done
> "in-process" by default.
>
> David

I see...so the default behavior now is that the log files simply get
written directly by the processes themselves...essentially identical
to the 0.25.3 behavior?

I think that's enough to convince me to go directly to 0.27.

Thanks for the reply!
Tom