[vdr] [Fwd: Re: let vdr ignore non vdr directories ?]
st_barszus at gmx.de
Wed Apr 15 08:57:32 CEST 2009
Klaus Schmidinger schrieb:
> On 15.04.2009 08:24, Steffen Barszus wrote:
>> ...On the other hand i think what vdr does is a bad idea
>> and unnecessary. period.
>>> Still I support the opinion that vdr should not silently delete files it does
>>> not know.
>> vdr is not deleting files it does not know. Its only deleting empty
>> directories in its video directories.
> >From the VDR/INSTALL file:
> Note that you should not copy any non-VDR files into the /videoX directories,
> since this might cause a lot of unnecessary disk access when VDR cleans up those
> directories and there is a large number of files and/or subdirectories in
> The video directory is VDR's own space, there shall be nothing else
> in there. If the user puts anything non-VDR related into it (even by
> mistake), it's their fault.
I know that and what i did - and this might not be suggested (i'm mostly
happy user since 7 years now). My question was: Why ?
It should not be necessary for vdr to check at all second (or third)
harddisk. Going into directory hierarchy at disk one should be good enough.
I could understand if vdr would blend into one structure
directories/files on all harddisk without the symlinking - but fixing
things like that needs to be done manually. So why not drop this
checking ? What you expect to gain from checking directories not
reachable symlinked from video.00 ? Its not only my use case - but also
why vdr should waste time/cpu cycles to do that without gaining something.
More information about the vdr