[vdr] vdr killing its recording on symlink directory

peter.dittmann at freenet.de peter.dittmann at freenet.de
Fri Aug 12 20:41:28 CEST 2005


>Von: "Emil Naepflein"<Emil.Naepflein at philosys.de>
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:23:26 +0200, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> 
> > An even better idea (IMHO) would be to drop that whole video
> > directory symlinking stuff altogether and say "If you want a large
disk,
> > use something like RAID or whatever". I was never a friend of this
> > linking, and regret the day I agreed to implement it...
> 
> I am totally against dropping this functionality. 

Sound I triggered another religios war.
I hope I will never regret this posting ;D

> > On server systems with multiple TB of storage it would be just brain
> > dead to put all recordings on one large raid filesystem. A single error
> > in the filesystem could kill all the recordings. 

Basically the usually distribution between /videoX directories doesn't help
here improving safety 
(doesn't matter if on RAID or single discs).
A single failing disc/RAID will cause almost all recordings to fail because
they are distributed.
Often all recordings will miss at least one file after that.
All thats left then are partial recordings, ergo useless.

This was/is the reason quite a lot of people move the cutted recording
completely to one /videoX , so one recording is kept on one harddrive
completely. To make this work you HAVE to symlink to /video0.

> The symlink functionality works fine since more than 4 years. It is easy
> to use and it is easy to expand storage without doing any
> reorganisation. It is one of the most important features of vdr.

Agree, but for a different reason.
Most people have not the money to start a RAID 5 at the beginning.
I usually buy a new additional HD if needed.

Ok there is LVM . . .

Althought LVM works, a single disc failing in LVM crashes everything.

And try one time to add a new additional disc to a RAID 5 installation . . .

But thats another war . . .
 
> Those people that have problems with it have not unterstood how it
> works. Nobody is forced to use this functionality, but those that use it
> intentionally appreciate it very much.

See remark above. 
That you don't understand the intentions of others should not cause you to
blaim others for not understanding vdr
;-)

I was just pointing out a weekness that may be worth fixing . . .
 
> So keep it, please. 

I would personnally rather vote for a round robin distribution of recordings
not single files, but that a different thread.
The circulating patch changing the file distribution method  is not applied
my vdr because I feared worse side effect.

regards Peter
  




More information about the vdr mailing list