[vdr] Filesystem hierachy standard patch needs review.

Gero geronimo013 at gmx.de
Sun Apr 8 12:34:01 CEST 2012


On Sunday 08 April 2012 - 11:36:18, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> On 08.04.2012 09:51, Manuel Reimer wrote:
> > 
> > In my opinion, this way a great feature of VDR would be lost.
> 
> This method may have been useful in the old days where large
> harddisks were unavailable or hard to come by. Now we're living
> in the age of terabyte disks, and setting up a VDR with 1TB of
> video storage (even using a second disk to have a RAID-1 for
> data safety) os no big deal any more.
> 
> >  There is *no* alternative to easily add more space to VDR.
> 
> Isn't LVM the keyword here?

I agree to Manuel.

The possibility to extend an exhausted video-dir is unique to vdr and all 
quirks could be handled by simple scripting - opposed to quirks of lvm or the 
like.

The fact that nfs can not handle mounted subfs should be no reason to kill the 
vdrs  videodir handling.

and beside that: I really love the feature to have splitted files. Even in days 
of terabyte drives - I use max filesize of 200 Mb, which has several advantages 
for me.

kind regards

Gero



More information about the vdr mailing list