On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:50:39 +0200, Carsten Koch wrote: > Emil Naepflein wrote: > ... > >>3) You could spawn a separate thread for every disk > >> you process, so waiting for 9 disks to spin up does > >> not take 9*spinup_time, but only 1*spinup_time. > > > > > > I would disable spin up/down of disks anyway. > > Is this mainly because you want more noise in > the living room, because you want the disks to > die sooner, because you want more heat in your > VDR PC or because you want it to waste more power? ;-) First, my server is not in my living room. Second, I hate when it takes multiple seconds until I get a response. Third, with RAID all disks would be either up or down. The power saving would be minimal. I save mor power by using NVRAM wakeup. > I am using only a single /video directory on the system disk. > Directly under /video, I have one directory for each genre. > Those are symbolic links pointing to other disks, some of > which are local disks, others are NFS-mounted. My logical layout is similar but the recordings are spread over multiple RAID partitions (but files of one recording are all on the same). > It would not be hard for VDR to follow my links and find > out which disks are really involved, but I guess currently > there is no such code in VDR. There was already the diskussion to drop the support for multiple disks. I don't think that a more complex scheme to handle the spin up/down of disks has any chance to be introduced. Emil
