Should I go Linux?

[cenwesi]

For Sagetv Server it makes more sense to use linux. I know alot of people will disagree with me but believe me i also use and still uses windows.... Not to go into all the dislikes of windows but with with linux you only load what you need.... My linux server is used 90% of the time for sage but i also do other things on it. I have tweaked it to give sage more cpu time once HD200 or any other clients connects to it...All this through scripts i wrote. Also for example i use it for DVD encoding (mkv), comskip, vmware, website, NAS, etc. I have written scripts that automate DVD encoding, clean ups of the recording/movie directory. Most of these you can probable automate on a windows box, but it won't be as clean as it will be on a linux box not to mention some might require a you to click on something.

now, bring on the windows vs linux bashing

[Fuzzy]

no bashing of either please, they both have their uses. That said, the scripting you speak of is no easier or more robust on linux than vbscript is on windows, and no, it wouldn't require any clicking.

For me, though, the advantage of Linux is it's use as an embeded OS... custom tailored for the task.. you could, just as easily develop a windows ce sage server, and it would work just fine, and, just as in your linux, run just what you need. It seems the only real difference in regards to running a sage server reside in cost. If you've already got a windows license, I see no reason to switch from what you know.

For me, there isn't really an option. My system is Server/Client, and it would not make sense to switch to linux in that scenario. Aside from the better video quality available, I also get full BluRay support through ArcSoft TMT3.

[bastafidli]

I went Linux because we have switched the entire household to Linux. Before I was running XP clients and 2k3 servers for several years but had issues with it, plus I got tired of inability to keep everything update to date with simple click, it just required too much maintenance.

Once the HD extender became available the need to run Windows on the client went away. Linux also allowed me to setup multiseat setup for our office (single computer, multiple monitors, keyboards, mice) which is not available on Windows. I ended up saving $$$ by not having not have multiple clients in the office, paying for software OS and app upgrades, saving time by keeping the maintenance simple.

For those requiring nice partition backup solution for Linux (or Windows) I recommend PartedMagic Live ISO http://partedmagic.com/. It allows you to modify your partitions, back them up (even over the network) using Clonezilla. It is super nice and free.

[stuckless]

The question of to linux or not to linux, for me, has always been about a person's tolerance for change. If you are not a linux person and your tolerance for change is low, then don't choose linux (the same is true if you are a linux user going to windows). But, if your tolerance for change is med-high, and you don't mind re-learning some things, then go linux.

For me, the choice for linux was a no brainer, and it was one of the 3 reasons why I chose SageTV. My server is a headless server with very few startup processes. The server starts up quickly and very few resources are going to anything except the core os and sagetv. I tend to find on windows, that I have a very hard time keeping a service stopped, or even removing them. So over time, while I may disable services on windows, I find that through windows update, many of them get turned on again. As for stability, I have a couple of windows machines (for the kids) and they rarely get turned off. They only require reboots about once a week, which I think is probably acceptable. My linux server does much better, but it's only doing a couple of tasks.

The last thing I really want to do, is spend time managing the server. i just want it to be there when I need it. And that is why I use linux... it's also the same reason many other people use windows.

[davephan]

Do you still have the 4 gig memory limitation required by Hauppauge video tuner cards?

Dave

[bcjenkins]

No 4 gig limit

B

[oddjob]

Originally Posted by bcjenkins

No 4 gig limit

B

My understanding is 4 gig is limited to 32bit OS.

[gplasky]

Good explanation (from a Linux forum):

Anything which uses 32 bit pointers for memory locations is naturally limited to 2^32 bytes of addressable memory. That's the four gig limit that haunts Windows users. For CPUs earlier than the Pentium-Pro and Athlon that's what you're stuck with. Most processors produced after 1995 have the capability of using Physical Address Extension, or PAE.

PAE allows you to use 36 bits instead, increasing your available memory by a factor of 2^4 or 16. That gives you sixty-four gigabytes to play with, but only code that was compiled with PAE support will be able to do that. Standard x86 code will still use only 32 bit pointers and be limited to four gigabytes.

Linux, FreeBSD, and various other operating systems on the side of good all ship with PAE as a kernel option, but it isn't always enabled by default because there are still some systems which lack PAE support. Applications are generally compiled without PAE so that they will be able to run on non-PAE kernels. This means that each process can only see four gigabytes of memory, but the kernel can map that space anywhere it likes in the sixty-four gigabyte space that it can see. The actual amount of kernel memory is nicely hidden behind a big friendly API and the running processes never need to know the difference. A PAE kernel can neatly manage 64 gigabytes of physical memory and hardware addresses and use the magic of memory mapping to parcel that out in four gigabyte chunks to that processes that it runs and everybody will be happy.

Where things start to Go Horribly Wrong is when you try to load kernel modules which were not compiled with PAE support directly into a PAE kernel. Passing a 36 bit pointer to a function which expects 32 bit pointers is the programming equivalent of Crossing The Streams. Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. That's pretty much what happens to your entire system.

Fixing that when you have access to the source is usually as simple as rebuilding the kernel and all modules with the right compiler options, but that simply isn't an option for most Windows device drivers. It's especially not an option if you're dealing with code that handles pointers in unsafe or non-portable ways and just _can't_ be convinced to understand PAE. That's why Windows sticks with the 4G limit, with either two or three gigabytes being usable memory for each process and the rest given over to hardware access and other kernely voodoo.

Naturally running a 64 bit operating system will solve this problem. The x86_64 right now uses 40 bits for memory addresses, giving you one thousand and twenty four gigabytes to play with. That catch is that, just like running with PAE enabled, all your kernel modules or device drivers need to be built in x86_64 code. Unfortunately, the 64 bit Windows device drivers are being produced by the same people who can't code reliable PAE-enabled drivers, so good luck with that.

Gerry

[bcjenkins]

Originally Posted by oddjob

My understanding is 4 gig is limited to 32bit OS.

Sorry, you lost me here. I thought we were talking about using Hauppauge cards (PVR500 etc.) in machines with more than 4GB. You can use PAE enabled kernels for 32-bit over 4GB or use 64bit.

B

[JetreL]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I think JRMC might work under wine, but Squeezecenter might fit the bill too.

You may want to look to Ampache to stream music as well. I have used it for years and have been very pleased.

On a different note, I am hoping to make the switch this weekend. Partially because I know with linux it will be a little harder to set up bu once it is setup it should work rock solid. Not the mention the ease of making scrips and running them using the crontab will automate a lot of my house cleaning.

[davephan]

Originally Posted by oddjob

I have both linux and windows

I'm a diehard Linux person, but I still have windows as my main server.
Windows is brainlessly easy to setup. Linux can take some time, you need
make sure you install startup scripts, services and filesystems. Of course once you get the system the way you like it - thats when you screw it up. So I would only go Linux if you got lots of time on your hands.

P.S. - I still feel Linux is rewarding and hours of fun.

I'm curious, since your a diehard Linux person, and have both Windows and Linux SageTV versions running, you choose Windows as your main SageTV computer. Why don't you use Linux as your main SageTV computer? How do both systems compare? Is the performance and reliability similar or different? What makes you want to stay with Windows as your main SageTV computer, when the SageTV computer could be running with Linux?


Dave

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by davephan

I'm curious, since your a diehard Linux person, and have both Windows and Linux SageTV versions running, you choose Windows as your main SageTV computer. Why don't you use Linux as your main SageTV computer? How do both systems compare? Is the performance and reliability similar or different? What makes you want to stay with Windows as your main SageTV computer, when the SageTV computer could be running with Linux?

Stability is pretty much the same (perfect) with either, if setup correctly, on decent hardware. Performance, is again, equal for server duties (just running a server takes really NO performance to speak of anyways, so there's nothing really to measure here). Playback, windows is really the only option. Ease of setup and maintenance, I'd say windows is better. Hardware compatibility, Windows is an easy winner. About the only thing I'd say Linux is ahead on would be cost, but I, along with many others, have so many random XP licenses available to us that it's not REALLY an issue.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Ease of setup and maintenance, I'd say windows is better.

Funny... whenever I see statements like this, I'm always reminded of the blind men and the elephant tale... Being another blind party, I'd have to say that sagetv under linux is far easier to setup and maintain

Hardware compatibility, Windows is an easy winner.

Can't argue with that.

About the only thing I'd say Linux is ahead on would be cost, but I, along with many others, have so many random XP licenses available to us that it's not REALLY an issue.

How does one go about having so many Random XP licenses just lying around? The only licenses that I have for windows, I got as part of purchasing the hardware, and as a result, those licenses are not transferable to new hardware, and get discarded once the machines die.

But I would think that very few people actually use Linux because of the cost of the license, since most people will probably have valid OEM windows licenses when they purchase a machine anyway.

I don't think there is a compelling reason for a person to use windows over linux (or vice versa), except for personal preference and hardware support. For that reason, I only purchase hardware that is compatible with Linux, so that I don't have to worry about the hardware factor, and I'm just left with personal preference

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stuckless

How does one go about having so many Random XP licenses just lying around? The only licenses that I have for windows, I got as part of purchasing the hardware, and as a result, those licenses are not transferable to new hardware, and get discarded once the machines die.

I guess it's a matter of how you purchase hardware... most my computers are in a perpetual state of upgrade, I don't think I've thrown away a 'computer' in quite some time, as such, i still have a lot of 'valid' XP licenses. They all came with systems that are far from how they were when purchased, but the license has no limit on numbers of hardware upgrades performed. And all licenses are at least 6 years old... That said, I only still use one, and that's in my truck... everything else I've got is running Win7.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by JetreL

You may want to look to Ampache to stream music as well. I have used it for years and have been very pleased.

I don't see anything about dynamic or smart playlists in my very quick search of the documentation....

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Stability is pretty much the same (perfect) with either, if setup correctly, on decent hardware. Performance, is again, equal for server duties (just running a server takes really NO performance to speak of anyways, so there's nothing really to measure here). Playback, windows is really the only option. Ease of setup and maintenance, I'd say windows is better. Hardware compatibility, Windows is an easy winner. About the only thing I'd say Linux is ahead on would be cost, but I, along with many others, have so many random XP licenses available to us that it's not REALLY an issue.

Fuzzy, thanks a lot for that, it was exactly what I was looking for in my OP, ie if from a day to day usage perspective, if Sage ran better on on one OS or the other. I'd pretty much decided Linux wasn't going to buy me anything but thanks for the confirmation... (H).

Originally Posted by stuckless

How does one go about having so many Random XP licenses just lying around? The only licenses that I have for windows, I got as part of purchasing the hardware, and as a result, those licenses are not transferable to new hardware, and get discarded once the machines die.

They say that, but depending on what you do with your hardware, I say that's not exactly true. Now if you just go buy a new, pre-built PC every time then yes, technically it's true. But if you're like a lot of us and rebuild, swap parts, update, etc, then in practical terms it's not an issue.

I think the first big reason is if you don't reactivate all the time, there's sort of a statute of limitations on if they'll "call you" on your reinstallation and whether it's valid or not. For example I've got a couple copies of XP I got under the MSDNAA program when I was in college that AFAIK are basically under the OEM license agreement. I've only once ever had an issue activating XP, even on drastically different hardware.

And that brings me to the second reason, even if you do get "called" on your activation, MS is very good about it. As mentioned above, I had to call MS once to activate a copy of Windows, I was in college and had activated quite a few times I think throughout reinstalls, and one day I upgraded/replaced the motherboard, sound and video cards and XP wouldn't let me automatically activate. So I called up MS and they asked me what I did. I told them I upgraded the motherboard, processor, video card and soundcard (and thus onboard lan), and their response to me was something like "Yeah, that would make you have to call in, read me the 20,000-character number and I'll read you back a 20,000-character number and you'll be all set."

Now I don't know if they'd have said I'm SOL had I worded it differently (said I was trying to install on a new PC I'd built) but that's not what I said because that wasn't the way I thought of the event.

Regardless, if you've got a legal key for Windows, and you're only running it on one machine at a time, in my experience that's good enough for MS. Of course that said I've never tried installing an OEM/corporate license (eg from Dell) on a new/upgraded machine...

[Fuzzy]

I actually think they closed down the XP activation line. Everytime I used to reactivate a copy of XP on a newly upgraded PC, I'd have to call them and say that it was new motherboard, of harddrive, whatever was the case. Then, it went to an automated system... lately, it doesn't ever fail to activate over the internet. I think they figured that since they are no longer SELLING XP, they can't really be losing much money on it.

[bcjenkins]

FWIW - I would argue SageTV on Linux might give you access to HW features which aren't available on Windows. For instance, multiple IR blasters for Hauppauge cards.

B

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by bcjenkins

FWIW - I would argue SageTV on Linux might give you access to HW features which aren't available on Windows. For instance, multiple IR blasters for Hauppauge cards.

B

I think that may be the ONLY one... I'm not a fanboi either way, and DO use windows and linux systems... however, when i started using sage, it was on windows, and there is no compelling reasons to switch... especially now that my server is ALSO my client, win7 is a landslide victor...

[bcjenkins]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I think that may be the ONLY one... I'm not a fanboi either way, and DO use windows and linux systems... however, when i started using sage, it was on windows, and there is no compelling reasons to switch... especially now that my server is ALSO my client, win7 is a landslide victor...

No 3GB memory limit with PVR500s comes to mind too.

B

PS - I started on Windows too and switched because of driver instability with multicard systems. In particular, the Windows BDA drivers were problematic.