SageTV with Terminal Services

[dgage]

Hello everyone,

I have done a search but haven't found much that mentions exactly what I want to do.

First, I want to run SageTV as a service on my Windows 2003 Server machine. I saw many threads and discussions on that so I am not too worried about this part.

However, I want to be able to login remotely using Terminal Services to choose recordings and interact with the interface. All of my video watching is done with MediaMVPs so I only have the single SageTV program running on my network. My console will be logged in for my wife to use to check email and minor use. Therefore, I can't just login remotely to the console or it would logoff the local user.

My main question is how do I interact with the SageTV UI if I have it running as a service?

Also, I am really looking forward to the time when SageTV has a client for the MediaMVP. (HINT, HINT, HINT!!!! ) I would say BeyondTV definitely has us beat there with the work their community has done.

Thanks.

David

[falchulk]

"My main question is how do I interact with the SageTV UI if I have it running as a service?"

To my knowledge, its not yet possible to run it as a service. Of course, my knowledge could be out of date..........

[dgage]

Do a search and you will find where many people have done this using Task Scheduler, FireDaemon, Service+, SrvAny, or some other method. I think there are several options there.

Assuming I can get SageTV running as a service where it will record, how do I see it so I can use the UI? Can I use SageClient on the same machine with SageTV installed? Would I have to buy the client in that situation?

For more background, I am a consultant and travel quite a bit so I would like some way to control SageTV while I am gone.

Thanks.

David

[Opus4]

Originally posted by dgage
Can I use SageClient on the same machine with SageTV installed? Would I have to buy the client in that situation?

The client can run on the same machine as the server & I believe you would have to have a client license too. One advantage to this is that the client's UI can crash w/o affecting teh server's ability to continue recording.

I could be wrong about the license requirement (and hope I am), but I think it is correct.

- Andy

[falchulk]

Thats exactly what I mean. I used Firedameon quite a while ago. It starts but there is no access to the gui. In the 1.4 days, it would just crash sage when you tried to launch another instance of sage. I have not tried it with 2 but suspect its the same.

[justme]

I have not tried it with 2 but suspect its the same.

It doesn't crash on my system. I end up with another instance of SageTV, I found this out when I accidently left a shortcut in the Startup group of one of my accounts. I can't answer the questions about terminal access as I use the same account my service SageTV is running on to acces the UI. However I am able to use XP's fast user switching without it effecting Sage's recordings.

[Opus4]

I don't think you would really want 2 instances of SageTV running, though, would you? Wouldn't tha interfere with its database handling? (I don't know... just mentioning it.) I thikn it would be safer to run a client to UI access.

- Andy

[dgage]

I just setup SageTV with FireDaemon and it is working well. It will even record without a user being logged in which will allow my wife and I to login without using the same profile.

However, I installed SageTV Client as well to use that to see SageTV UI since SageTV itself is hidden away while running.

Basically everything is working as I would like. The only issue now is that I may have to pay for a client that I am using on the same server with SageTV installed. I really have no need for a client on a different machine since I have 3 MediaMVPs. I will be sending an email to SageTV asking about having to pay for a client in this instance.

David

[justme]

I don't think you would really want 2 instances of SageTV running, though, would you? Wouldn't tha interfere with its database handling? (I don't know... just mentioning it.) I thikn it would be safer to run a client to UI access.

True, I should have been clear this was a mistake. I didn't want to have two instances. It was just the result of having left that shortcut in my startup groups when I did fast user switching.

You're correct about it causing strange issues. This is why i do all my SageTV control form the same account(you'd want a SageTVClient for other accounts) that is running my SageTV service. I was just trying to add some info(since my experience was different from falchulk's), not confuse things farther.

[Opus4]

Originally posted by dgage
I will be sending an email to SageTV asking about having to pay for a client in this instance.

Please be sure to let us know if they are flexible on this -- I haven't tried it, but it would be great if it would recognize the server's license & be able to run on the same machine. Like I said, it is a safer way to record, since if you watch through the server & the UI causes a crash, you lose you current recording. Having the client crash is almost irrelevant. I hardly ever have a crash on my server, but it would help some people...

- Andy

[dgage]

The reply I received back said that this was how SageTV was designed. I will first say that I understand that sometimes old architectures carry forward as you update the system. However, with that said, I am very disappointed that I need to buy SageTV Client to administer SageTV on the very same machine when using Terminal Services. I sincerely hope they plan on changing the archtiecture to more of a service oriented architecture which would have many benefits even for those using normal systems such as decoupling recording from the UI for greater stability. However, for me, I must say SageTV has been very stable. Since I am on a rant, I hope they hurry up and get some sort of remote administration capability through the web like BeyondTV. However, again I will give Frey Tech some credit for not rushing to include features that might jeapordize SageTV's stability. For me, I went ahead and bought the SageTV Client software since I travel a lot and need remote administration capability. I still feel I shouldn't have needed to purchase it when many other popular PVR systems have a remote interface. But those are my $.02 and we all know how much that is worth.

David

PS: I would gladly buy 3 MediaMVP Clients as soon as they are available. HINT, HINT, HINT!!!

[mdmint]

Originally posted by dgage
The reply I received back said that this was how SageTV was designed. I will first say that I understand that sometimes old architectures carry forward as you update the system. However, with that said, I am very disappointed that I need to buy SageTV Client to administer SageTV on the very same machine when using Terminal Services. I sincerely hope they plan on changing the archtiecture to more of a service oriented architecture which would have many benefits even for those using normal systems such as decoupling recording from the UI for greater stability. However, for me, I must say SageTV has been very stable. Since I am on a rant, I hope they hurry up and get some sort of remote administration capability through the web like BeyondTV. However, again I will give Frey Tech some credit for not rushing to include features that might jeapordize SageTV's stability. For me, I went ahead and bought the SageTV Client software since I travel a lot and need remote administration capability. I still feel I shouldn't have needed to purchase it when many other popular PVR systems have a remote interface. But those are my $.02 and we all know how much that is worth.

David

PS: I would gladly buy 3 MediaMVP Clients as soon as they are available. HINT, HINT, HINT!!!

Of course, you could also consider that buying the Client for terminal services access is an added feature module of the Server. Oft times software is sold base, with optional modules at additional expense. Just a matter of how you look at it... and IMO SageTV prices are cheap for what it can do! Beats the heck out of $12.95 per month FOREVER for every single tuner housed in separate mulitiple enclosures... or $299 lifetime license per tuner tied to specific enclosure, non transferable if upgrade to newer model or unit dies. Yeah, I'm not gonna complain about what I paid for SageTV license, SageRecorder license, and two SageClient licenses... less than the cost of a single license with those other guys.

[dgage]

You make a compelling argument mdmint!

David

[tmd]

Dgage
Now that you have sage running as a service;
Does the system go into hybernation when not being used?
Or maybe I should ask does it go into any power saving modes?

My system is primarily used for HTPC for our theater-room. So I would like it to sleep when not recording or in playback. Also I find the system easier to secure when someone doesn't have to be logged on at all times.

[insomniac]

Ditto on the buying of MVP licenses!

Originally posted by dgage
The reply I received back said that this was how SageTV was designed. I will first say that I understand that sometimes old architectures carry forward as you update the system. However, with that said, I am very disappointed that I need to buy SageTV Client to administer SageTV on the very same machine when using Terminal Services. I sincerely hope they plan on changing the archtiecture to more of a service oriented architecture which would have many benefits even for those using normal systems such as decoupling recording from the UI for greater stability. However, for me, I must say SageTV has been very stable. Since I am on a rant, I hope they hurry up and get some sort of remote administration capability through the web like BeyondTV. However, again I will give Frey Tech some credit for not rushing to include features that might jeapordize SageTV's stability. For me, I went ahead and bought the SageTV Client software since I travel a lot and need remote administration capability. I still feel I shouldn't have needed to purchase it when many other popular PVR systems have a remote interface. But those are my $.02 and we all know how much that is worth.

David

PS: I would gladly buy 3 MediaMVP Clients as soon as they are available. HINT, HINT, HINT!!!

[dgage]

Originally posted by tmd
My system is primarily used for HTPC for our theater-room. So I would like it to sleep when not recording or in playback. Also I find the system easier to secure when someone doesn't have to be logged on at all times.

tmd,

I haven't played with the power saving settings much so I don't know if you can put it to sleep or not. I will try playing with those and see what happens. Please report your findings as well if you try this. But it is definitely nice not needing someone logged in.

David