Coordinating multiple servers

[HansS]

I have two servers at home, one for analogue recordings, the second for digital recordings. I use two servers because one single server alone hasn't enough slots to accommodate all tuners and CI slots. One server is setup as master, the other as a network recorder. This is nice, because now I have one central epg from which I can schedule recordings independently on which server they will be made. The problem is that if the slave is recording, it sends the stream to the master, where it is recorded on disk. The network recorder is actually a network tuner and not a recorder. Recording multiple streams and watching one at the same time uses up a lot of network bandwidth. I could setup both servers as masters, but then I would lose coordination in scheduling, recorded shows etc.
I searched the forum but could not find an answer. Is there a possibility to keep coordination, but let both servers record on their own local disks?

Thanks!

[paulbeers]

Originally Posted by HansS

I have two servers at home, one for analogue recordings, the second for digital recordings. I use two servers because one single server alone hasn't enough slots to accommodate all tuners and CI slots. One server is setup as master, the other as a network recorder. This is nice, because now I have one central epg from which I can schedule recordings independently on which server they will be made. The problem is that if the slave is recording, it sends the stream to the master, where it is recorded on disk. The network recorder is actually a network tuner and not a recorder. Recording multiple streams and watching one at the same time uses up a lot of network bandwidth. I could setup both servers as masters, but then I would lose coordination in scheduling, recorded shows etc.
I searched the forum but could not find an answer. Is there a possibility to keep coordination, but let both servers record on their own local disks?

Thanks!

In the properties file it lets you set where you want the recordings to record to using UNC paths. Using that option, I would imagine you could set the tuners in your Network Encoder to point to your Network encoder using those properties. The only thing I don't know is whether or not that it would require the show to be sent to the server and then the server would just point it right back to the Network Encoder.

However, I am not sure why you think you think there is network bandwidth issues. Especially if you set up the Analog Server to the network encoder, then you really shouldn't run into bandwidth at all. Here is some math:

Using 3.2GB per hour as your setting for analog tuner/encoders = 7.28 mbps. You would have to be sending over 13 recordings at one time to even max out a simple run-of-the-mill 100mb connection!

[Fuzzy]

While true, you probably aren't experiencing network related problems, it probaby is best if you lock the network encoder's to recording on their local drives. This can be done in the Sage.properties file. You have to use UNC paths, and those paths have to be added as recording folders in sage. The network encoder will simply attempt to write the recordings to that folder. If it turns out to be local (which it will in this case) then it will not use the network.

[freedml]

Can you give or point to an example?

[nyplayer]

Originally Posted by HansS

I have two servers at home, one for analogue recordings, the second for digital recordings. I use two servers because one single server alone hasn't enough slots to accommodate all tuners and CI slots. One server is setup as master, the other as a network recorder. This is nice, because now I have one central epg from which I can schedule recordings independently on which server they will be made. The problem is that if the slave is recording, it sends the stream to the master, where it is recorded on disk. The network recorder is actually a network tuner and not a recorder. Recording multiple streams and watching one at the same time uses up a lot of network bandwidth. I could setup both servers as masters, but then I would lose coordination in scheduling, recorded shows etc.
I searched the forum but could not find an answer. Is there a possibility to keep coordination, but let both servers record on their own local disks?

Thanks!

I had the same problem especially when people where copying files etc... across the network... my recordings would be corrupted. What I did was install a second nic card on my server and used a crossover cable to hookup both servers. This completely took the network encoder away from the normal network.

This also allows me to take down the network without interrupting network encoding. And also this enables the network encoder to use the full bandwidth by itself.

[HansS]

Thank you all for your replies. I did do the same calculations about bandwidth and came to the conclusion that SageTV alone could not be a problem. However, I have a NAS file server that is used extensively for backups from two notebooks and two desktops besides other things. Once a backup starts any stream from network encoder to master server will stutter. I tried to time backups such that they do not interfere with recordings, but this is not always possible.
I will try your suggestions, starting with the properties file. If that doesn't help I will install a second nic. One more question. When I watch (with placeshifter) a live broadcast on a tuner in the network recorder, will the stream directly come from the network recorder or via de server?

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by HansS

One more question. When I watch (with placeshifter) a live broadcast on a tuner in the network recorder, will the stream directly come from the network recorder or via de server?

Placeshifter always streams through the primary server. SageTV Client has the ability to read directly from other file servers (including network encoders) but Placeshifter does not. (Live v. pre-recorded makes no difference; playback is always from a file on disk somewhere.)

[Fuzzy]

If you are getting network conflicts from things like backups and such, you MAY be able to tweak some QoS settings in your router to give the network encoder the priorty. Never tried though.

[hufnagel]

I'll toss my 2 cents into the pot here (as you're situation has some resemblance to my own.)

If you can, add multiple NICs to the "Server" so as to segregate traffic as much as possible. while paulbeers' math is correct what it doesn't take into account is traffic overhead, network contention due to other traffic (such as your backups as you've already noticed) and the general overhead and latency Windows has to begin with. If you can put the network encoder box (and any dedicated media targets such as MVPs and HD Extenders) on their own physical network you'll prevent them from having those contention problems with other traffic.

[src666]

As hufnagel said, you don't get 100MB/s of traffic out of a 100MB/s network. In general, you can count on about 60-70% of your "available" bandwidth in an ideal world (i.e. 2 devices communicating only with each other), but once you add more devices to the mix, you start running into contention.

Also, on a 1GB/s network, you have to be aware that CAT-5 cable (even CAT-5E) usually tops out around 600MB/s in the real world. To get full 1GB/s bandwidth, you need to move to CAT-6 cable.

I'm not saying that this is your problem, but people often forget that these numbers are laboratory numbers, and not really reliable in the real world.

[HansS]

Well, the problem was network-related. When I added the second server I also had to add an extra router. It appeared this one didn't function properly and didn't deliver the throughput it should have. I got a new one and now everything works as it should be.
In addition I would like to record the streams locally, but I couldn't find the property in sage.properties. Can someone direct me to it?

[GKusnick]

Why would you need a second router? If it's just a question of running out of Ethernet ports, a switch would take care of that with less complexity and less chance for things to go wrong.

The property name you're looking for is forced_video_storage_path_prefix.

[HansS]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Why would you need a second router? If it's just a question of running out of Ethernet ports, a switch would take care of that with less complexity and less chance for things to go wrong.

The property name you're looking for is forced_video_storage_path_prefix.

Hi Greg,

I said router, I meant switch. Sorry for the confusion. Although everything is running ok now, I will try the property anyhow. Thanks.