New Recorder Owner

[chadwolcott]

So, I am sure that this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I'm going to say it anyway. I just bought a third 250 and a copy of sage recorder. I have 2x250s in my HTPC and I dropped this 3rd into my media server. My intent was to have the HTPC tuners record to the local HD and the Media Server tuner to record to it's local drive. I have sage server set to see both locations as UNC paths and it is now recording everything to my media server...all 3 tuners.

I have read a number of posts about this behavior, and I can't for the life of me figure out why this is the way it works. To me this is counter-intuitive, I would expect that you should be able to define the recording locations for each tuner. At a minimum, sage should be smart enough to allow you to record to the local share as opposed to the network share. It looks like I'm going to have to upgrade my switch to gigabit, there's another 400 bucks I am going to have to find

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by chadwolcott

I have read a number of posts about this behavior, and I can't for the life of me figure out why this is the way it works.

Sage's choice of recording location is quite simple, it always records to the drive with the most free space. SageRecorder has no effect on this, Sage uses that tuner just like any other.

To me this is counter-intuitive, I would expect that you should be able to define the recording locations for each tuner. At a minimum, sage should be smart enough to allow you to record to the local share as opposed to the network share.

The file would have to be streamed once anyway, regardless of where it's stored, either on recording or playback, so you aren't saving any bandwidth.

It looks like I'm going to have to upgrade my switch to gigabit, there's another 400 bucks I am going to have to find

You shouldn't need gigabit for one network encoder, you're only using a maximum of 1/8th of the 100Mbps bandwidth of Fast Ethernet, Gigabit is only usefull if you're copying files back and forth or streaming to numerous clients.

[insomniac]

5 port gig switches go on sale at fry's (or outpost.com) all the time for $29-39.

I own 2 airlinks @ $29. Work great.

I.

[chadwolcott]

Sage's choice of recording location is quite simple, it always records to the drive with the most free space. SageRecorder has no effect on this, Sage uses that tuner just like any other.

I agree this is the case, but that does not mean it is the best way to do it. I still feel that being able to define the recording location by tuner would be useful.

The file would have to be streamed once anyway, regardless of where it's stored, either on recording or playback, so you aren't saving any bandwidth.

Not necessarily true, I would have the tuners in my HTPC record my wife's soaps for example which would be viewed from that machine. Lost for example would be recorded on the networked recorder which I would watch via client on my laptop in my office. In this scenario, only one of the recordings would be streamed.

You shouldn't need gigabit for one network encoder, you're only using a maximum of 1/8th of the 100Mbps bandwidth of Fast Ethernet, Gigabit is only usefull if you're copying files back and forth or streaming to numerous clients.

True, but my media server has far more space available so I would like to use it as well. If I configure it as a video directory as I have, sage will route all 3 encoders there. On say, wednesday nights all 3 encoders will be running over the wire. I could also be watching a recorded program as well, and maybe my wife is watching one of our 270 ripped DVDs. That is going to put some strain on the network I think. Hopefully our VoIP phone won't ring

Insomniac,

I saw those, but unfortunately I have need for more than 5 ports. All my personal/home machines have gigabit, right now I have 15 full ports on my managed 24-port SMC, plus 2 other switches for my office subnet. I think I'm going for the Linksys 24-port gigabit switch.

I don't mean to complain, and it is not something that I do often. I really do love the sage product line and promote it whenever possible. Since this is really the first time that I have encountered this scenario, I saw opportunity to build in some additional flexibility to an already fantastic system. Thanks for all the constructive comments.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by chadwolcott

True, but my media server has far more space available so I would like to use it as well. If I configure it as a video directory as I have, sage will route all 3 encoders there. On say, wednesday nights all 3 encoders will be running over the wire. I could also be watching a recorded program as well, and maybe my wife is watching one of our 270 ripped DVDs. That is going to put some strain on the network I think. Hopefully our VoIP phone won't ring

Well let's crunch some numbers

You've got about 70Mbps of useable bandwidth.
I don't know what quality you use, but let's assume max for arguments's sake.
So you've got 3 recordings, let's asume all have to stream to the recording dir.
That's 3x12Mbps = 36Mbps
You're watching something = 12Mbps
DVD = 8Mbps
Total that's 56Mbps, well within the 70Mbps you have available.

Now lets evaluate more, first those tuners are going to the server, while the viewing is from, so that's 36Mbps one way and 20Mbps the other, I'm assuming you've got a full duplex setup, so that gets you even more headroom. And to expand further, the one encoder is on the server so that one doesn't run the wire (I don't think at least), so you're now down to under 30Mbps both ways, or 60Mbps total.

That said, sounds like you've got a really nice setup there, with a bunch of PCs. I'm guessing you transfer files between them, in which case regardless of if Sage needs it, I'd want GigE anyway

[chadwolcott]

thanks for the lesson in bandwidth calculation

I think this is a little beyond the argument I was trying to make. I understand that the current methodology works, and I will make it work fine for me. My only point was that I think there is a better way to do it. Maybe my original post came across as overly negative, but I meant it in a constructive way. I will be going to gigabit regardless of sage at some point as I complete my game room/bar. I will have 3 TVs in there some connected to PCs and 2 in-wall touchscreens to control my xlobby server and X10 for that room and other rooms in the house. I'm just trying to look at this from a future perspective where 100Mbps is going to be a bottleneck due to the sheer number of connected devices.

I can appreciate the current state of affairs and can work with it. That said, IMHO, the ability to define specific recording locations per tuner/show/etc would be fantastic!

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by chadwolcott

Maybe my original post came across as overly negative, but I meant it in a constructive way.

Nah, perhaps just overly worried

[DFranch]

I would not mind being able to specify which folder each encoder uses. I have a 160 GB and 80 GB drive. The 80 GB drive is never used, because the 160 GB drive always has more space than the 80 GB drive. I had a situation where I was recording 2 football games at 5.6 GB/hr, and watching one of those games at the same time. The game was quite choppy, and I think it was because all of the activity was off of the 1 drive. if I could define decoder 2 to the 80 GB drive, I think it would have been ok. I no longer use 5.6 gb for football, and it seems to be ok at 3 GB per hour.

[natesneat2000]

If they were equal size, you could try a RAID array for blazin-fast storage.
I'm not really familiar with Recorder, h9owever, but I promise someone who is will be here soon.