[vdr] DeleteResume patch for vdr 1.3.32.
Emil.Naepflein at philosys.de
Mon Sep 12 06:22:10 CEST 2005
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:50:39 +0200, Carsten Koch wrote:
> Emil Naepflein wrote:
> >>3) You could spawn a separate thread for every disk
> >> you process, so waiting for 9 disks to spin up does
> >> not take 9*spinup_time, but only 1*spinup_time.
> > I would disable spin up/down of disks anyway.
> Is this mainly because you want more noise in
> the living room, because you want the disks to
> die sooner, because you want more heat in your
> VDR PC or because you want it to waste more power? ;-)
First, my server is not in my living room. Second, I hate when it takes
multiple seconds until I get a response. Third, with RAID all disks
would be either up or down. The power saving would be minimal. I save
mor power by using NVRAM wakeup.
> I am using only a single /video directory on the system disk.
> Directly under /video, I have one directory for each genre.
> Those are symbolic links pointing to other disks, some of
> which are local disks, others are NFS-mounted.
My logical layout is similar but the recordings are spread over multiple
RAID partitions (but files of one recording are all on the same).
> It would not be hard for VDR to follow my links and find
> out which disks are really involved, but I guess currently
> there is no such code in VDR.
There was already the diskussion to drop the support for multiple disks.
I don't think that a more complex scheme to handle the spin up/down of
disks has any chance to be introduced.
More information about the vdr