On Thursday 27 March 2008 18:22:35 Artur Skawina wrote: > VDR User wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Artur Skawina <art_k@xxxxx> wrote: > >> I have a similar setup, just with 100M ethernet instead of wifi and NFS > >> instead of samba. wifi could be a problem, but if you're able to watch > >> the same channel live you should also be able to view a recording. > > > > Takes a lot more bandwidth to record & playback then just to record so > > the fact that live tv is fine doesn't amount to much I don't think. > > I was referring to playing a finished recording and playing a file that is > currently being extended by the "server" vdr -- alexw said that doesn't > work well for him. It should, unless the disk and/or fs can't handle the > two data streams concurrently, while keeping the latency low enough. > I'm assuming the vdr server in powerful enough to handle the load, yes. > > artur > > _______________________________________________ > vdr mailing list > vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr Hi, My setup is a little bit more complicated as it is using a share drive on both machine. The two local disks are only CF. The file server is compose of 4x SATA II 500GB in raid 5 (total ~1.5 TB available) piloted by a promise controller and a fully idle 3 GHz P4 CPU. The throughput or the sustained write/read access is not a bottleneck. Here is a quick ASCII art drawing: /-- 100M --[AP]~ WIFI 54Mb ~[vdr client/FF]-[TV] | [switch]--- 100M ---[CIFS/fileserver] | \-- 100M -- [vdr server/B2C2]-DVB-S+DVB-T This evening I will test the provided patch. Rgds, Alex _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
