Most of my VDR movies are between 2 and 3 GB in size. I assume that there would be no noticeable loss of quality, if I would convert them to DivX movies of about half the size, maybe also removing any unwanted sound tracks.
This could even be done automatically by a background process.
However, that would be inconvenient, because now I would have to check both the Recordings menu and the Mplayer plugin to look for a recording.
So, I wonder if it would be easy to make that transparent, so there is only one user interface that takes me to all recordings.
Carsten.
You may want to go for a hardware solution .. http://www.litec-computer.de/Festplatten/35/UDMA/Seagate-ST3750640A-750GB-72 00RPM-16MB::10223.html
would make 250 Films á 3GB .. let's assume: 3GB equals 1 hour and think of: max. 8 hours per day viewing .. would mean you have more than 30 days, "instant fun" ..
-> So coding, testing, bug fixing costs a lot more than a new hard drive .. go and get yourself a new hard disc :-) And I am not kidding ..
And if you think of HTDV in germany: h264 is on it's way, which is "one more" then DivX, which is h263. So within short time you have high defition TV with high compression.
Cheers, Martin
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org [mailto:vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org] Im Auftrag von Carsten Koch Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. September 2006 17:38 An: VDR Mailing List Betreff: [vdr] Doubling my available VDR disk space without cost or loss of convenience.
Most of my VDR movies are between 2 and 3 GB in size. I assume that there would be no noticeable loss of quality, if I would convert them to DivX movies of about half the size, maybe also removing any unwanted sound tracks.
This could even be done automatically by a background process.
However, that would be inconvenient, because now I would have to check both the Recordings menu and the Mplayer plugin to look for a recording.
So, I wonder if it would be easy to make that transparent, so there is only one user interface that takes me to all recordings.
Carsten.
_______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
martin wrote: ...
go and get yourself a new hard disc :-)
Well, that option is of course always available. ;-) Let's take a look at my vdr system:
/video> df -hT Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda2 xfs 147G 12G 136G 8% / udev tmpfs 253M 236K 252M 1% /dev /dev/hdb1 xfs 149G 86G 64G 58% /vdr2 /dev/hdc1 xfs 149G 115G 35G 77% /vdr3 /dev/hdd1 xfs 149G 114G 36G 77% /vdr4 athlon:/ nfs 148G 128G 21G 86% /athlon athlon:/mp3 nfs 233G 142G 92G 61% /athlon/mp3 athlon:/vdr5 nfs 233G 107G 127G 46% /athlon/vdr5 athlon:/vdr6 nfs 233G 141G 93G 61% /athlon/vdr6 athlon:/vdr7 nfs 233G 179G 55G 77% /athlon/vdr7 athlon:/vdr8 nfs 233G 170G 64G 73% /athlon/vdr8 athlon:/vdr9 nfs 233G 210G 24G 90% /athlon/vdr9 athlon:/vdr10 nfs 149G 75G 75G 50% /athlon/vdr10 athlon:/video nfs 233G 211G 22G 91% /athlon/video
It would still be nice to integrate videos from other sources seamlessly.
And: 20 disks are twice as much trouble as 10 disks. My older disks have started to fail recently...
Carsten.
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:07, Carsten Koch wrote:
Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda2 xfs 147G 12G 136G 8% / udev tmpfs 253M 236K 252M 1% /dev /dev/hdb1 xfs 149G 86G 64G 58% /vdr2 /dev/hdc1 xfs 149G 115G 35G 77% /vdr3 /dev/hdd1 xfs 149G 114G 36G 77% /vdr4 athlon:/ nfs 148G 128G 21G 86% /athlon athlon:/mp3 nfs 233G 142G 92G 61% /athlon/mp3 athlon:/vdr5 nfs 233G 107G 127G 46% /athlon/vdr5 athlon:/vdr6 nfs 233G 141G 93G 61% /athlon/vdr6 athlon:/vdr7 nfs 233G 179G 55G 77% /athlon/vdr7 athlon:/vdr8 nfs 233G 170G 64G 73% /athlon/vdr8 athlon:/vdr9 nfs 233G 210G 24G 90% /athlon/vdr9 athlon:/vdr10 nfs 149G 75G 75G 50% /athlon/vdr10 athlon:/video nfs 233G 211G 22G 91% /athlon/video
Sounds like the core computer of the USS-Enterprise - How many Terra-Quads are this? ;-)
...thinking about the wasted/unused terra-bytes on all those millions of systems out there in the net...
Guido Fiala wrote: ...
Sounds like the core computer of the USS-Enterprise - How many Terra-Quads are this? ;-)
Actually, according to http://www.kasper-online.de/en/docs/startrek/ncc1701d.htm the Enterprise D has a mere 630.000 Kiloquads.
But seriously: My VDR system started out in June 2000 with a 9GB SCSI disk in a 150 MHz PentiumPro system. Disk space has increased a bit since then, but in another 6 years all of that will fit into a single disk and that will not be the largest disk you can buy for a home computer, either.
Neither is my VDR system even close to the largest one. I believe that Matthias Schniedermeier has so many disks in his house that the house no longer requires a separate heating system. ;-)
Carsten.
Carsten Koch wrote: ...
Actually, according to http://www.kasper-online.de/en/docs/startrek/ncc1701d.htm the Enterprise D has a mere 630.000 Kiloquads.
Sorry, wrong link. I meant this one: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/misc/artikel-computer.htm
So Carsten, you talk about archiving. Then you should definitely go for h264 coding, with constant quality. Why keep everything online? What is the aim of having terra bytes online? It costs a lot of energy.
Coding and burning to an offline media would help a lot then.
And BTW: even your mp3 collection is larger than you can listen to it in one year!
Martin
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org [mailto:vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org] Im Auftrag von Carsten Koch Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. September 2006 20:23 An: VDR Mailing List Betreff: Re: AW: [vdr] Doubling my available VDR disk space without cost or loss of convenience.
Guido Fiala wrote: ...
Sounds like the core computer of the USS-Enterprise - How many Terra-Quads are this? ;-)
Actually, according to http://www.kasper-online.de/en/docs/startrek/ncc1701d.htm the Enterprise D has a mere 630.000 Kiloquads.
But seriously: My VDR system started out in June 2000 with a 9GB SCSI disk in a 150 MHz PentiumPro system. Disk space has increased a bit since then, but in another 6 years all of that will fit into a single disk and that will not be the largest disk you can buy for a home computer, either.
Neither is my VDR system even close to the largest one. I believe that Matthias Schniedermeier has so many disks in his house that the house no longer requires a separate heating system. ;-)
Carsten.
_______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:31:56 +0200, you wrote:
So Carsten, you talk about archiving. Then you should definitely go for h264 coding, with constant quality. Why keep everything online? What is the aim of having terra bytes online? It costs a lot of energy.
I have a similar setup like Carsten (2.5 TB currently). So the main reason why keeping everything online is convenience. The users of the four clients have instant online access to all recordings without going through the hassle of looking for the DVD. The other point is that I already have lost several DVDs because of reading errors over time. Disk storage together with Raid5 is very reliable. If one disk fails then you replace it with a new one (five year warranty of Maxtor). At the same time you may upgrade to larger disks.
Coding and burning to an offline media would help a lot then.
This is to much work.
And BTW: even your mp3 collection is larger than you can listen to it in one year!
That doesn't matter. Important ist that I have instant access.
Emil
On Thursday 14 September 2006 07:08, Emil Naepflein wrote:
That doesn't matter. Important ist that I have instant access.
Keeping it online has the drawback that all parts fail at once when your house gets hit by lightning/overvoltage...not sure how good USVs are at protecting hardware.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:55:20 +0200, you wrote:
On Thursday 14 September 2006 07:08, Emil Naepflein wrote:
That doesn't matter. Important ist that I have instant access.
Keeping it online has the drawback that all parts fail at once when your house gets hit by lightning/overvoltage...not sure how good USVs are at protecting hardware.
The problem is that the computer cannot only hit through the power line, it also can be hit through antenna, telefone, dsl, ... In one such event two of my full-featured cards have been hit. But non of the data was lost.
I think we have to live with this in private environments. Since more than five years data has never been lost except by errors in early reiserfs implementation.
Emil
So finally we get philosophic. There are several articles in the internet that RAID5 does not replace a proper backup. Just a "rm -rf *" is enough, bugs in the file system, bla bla bla.
But maybe we have to go back to the roots: why does one singe private person need to have more data online than he can watch in his life?
For those of you, who are able to read German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messie-Syndrom
Martin
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org [mailto:vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org] Im Auftrag von Emil Naepflein Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. September 2006 11:07 An: VDR Mailing List Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [vdr] Doubling my available VDR disk space without cost or loss of convenience.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:55:20 +0200, you wrote:
On Thursday 14 September 2006 07:08, Emil Naepflein wrote:
That doesn't matter. Important ist that I have instant access.
Carsten Koch wrote:
Neither is my VDR system even close to the largest one. I believe that Matthias Schniedermeier has so many disks in his house that the house no longer requires a separate heating system. ;-)
Not excatly.
I would call it "semy-online"-storage.
Normaly the HDDs are switched off. But as they are connected to USB-Power-Switches they can be switched on/off automatically by the computer.(*)
But nontheless i don't have any "normal" heating system in my cellar and i haven't needed one in the last 2 winters. ;-)
*: At least theoretically, currently it seams i've reached a point where Linux has a problem with the shear size of my USB-Tree, or there is a hardware-defect in one of the USB-Hubs that brings down the HUB-Driver of Linux. So until i find the time to "make a full diagnostic" (I'm currently watching Voyager, so please excuse Star Trek Jargon) i'm currently using the "manual override" by manually powering on/off the HDDs and manually plugging a cable directly from to the Root-Hub.
As i only have to do this procedure every few weeks, when temporary storage get a bit full, it hasn't be a problem i can't live with for a little while. :-|
Bis denn
Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
Not excatly.
I would call it "semy-online"-storage.
Normaly the HDDs are switched off. But as they are connected to USB-Power-Switches they can be switched on/off automatically by the computer.(*)
Hi,
I just got interested when I read USB-Power-Switches and the possibility to switch on/off the hdds automatically by the computer. As a quick google search only showed rubbish on the first 3 pages searching for usb power switches it would be nice if you could post some links to such products.
Thx, Norbert
Norbert Goebel wrote:
Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
Not excatly.
I would call it "semy-online"-storage.
Normaly the HDDs are switched off. But as they are connected to USB-Power-Switches they can be switched on/off automatically by the computer.(*)
Hi,
I just got interested when I read USB-Power-Switches and the possibility to switch on/off the hdds automatically by the computer. As a quick google search only showed rubbish on the first 3 pages searching for usb power switches it would be nice if you could post some links to such products.
The ones i use are from "Gembird" and are called "SIS-pm". http://www.gmb.nl/main.asp?mode=item&N=2755
It comes with a simple Linux-Commandline-Tool (including Source) that i patched for my needs. AFAIR on Sourceforge or somewhere else there is another Commandline-Tool.
Unfortunatly i can't tell you were to buy them, as i buy mine at my local hardware-wholesaler. Last time i looked they cost 19.90 EUR + VAT per piece.
Bis denn
egalus@gmx.de(Norbert Goebel) 13.09.06 18:21
Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
Not excatly.
I would call it "semy-online"-storage.
Normaly the HDDs are switched off. But as they are connected to USB-Power-Switches they can be switched on/off automatically by the computer.(*)
Hi,
I just got interested when I read USB-Power-Switches and the possibility to switch on/off the hdds automatically by the computer. As a quick google search only showed rubbish on the first 3 pages searching for usb power switches it would be nice if you could post some links to such products.
Those devices are relatively expensive. Typically 50E per Plug.
I found that "combo" USB Devices with firewire and USB often allows "spindown" using sdparm. (If found *no* USB-Only 3,5 external case which supports spin down!)
If you insist on a power switch try:
http://www.heise.de/ct/ftp/projekte/netz-schalter/
Too you will find such devices at lindy
http://www.heise.de/kiosk/archiv/ct/2002/17/84
Cheaper would be bying RF/IR-remote switches like Aldi offen for 15 Euro for 4(!) and modding the transmitter to be used by a PC. Or simly move to the USA. There energy is so cheap (thank to brain dead George Warmonger Bush) it would make no ense to waste time in optiimize power consumption...
Rainer
Rainer Zocholl wrote:
egalus@gmx.de(Norbert Goebel) 13.09.06 18:21
Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
Not excatly.
I would call it "semy-online"-storage.
Normaly the HDDs are switched off. But as they are connected to USB-Power-Switches they can be switched on/off automatically by the computer.(*)
Hi,
I just got interested when I read USB-Power-Switches and the possibility to switch on/off the hdds automatically by the computer. As a quick google search only showed rubbish on the first 3 pages searching for usb power switches it would be nice if you could post some links to such products.
Those devices are relatively expensive. Typically 50E per Plug.
"Mine" are much cheaper per Plug. 5 EUR + VAT actually. See other mail.
Bis denn
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 20:22, Carsten Koch wrote:
Guido Fiala wrote: ...
Sounds like the core computer of the USS-Enterprise - How many Terra-Quads are this? ;-)
Actually, according to http://www.kasper-online.de/en/docs/startrek/ncc1701d.htm the Enterprise D has a mere 630.000 Kiloquads.
<OT> In the book "The computers of Star Trek" one quad is assumed to relate to "one quadrillion bytes" - that is 1e18 bytes or 1 Million Terrabytes...
I wonder why their PADDS (used for nothing more than a sophisticated ebook-reader) will need 4 Million Terrabytes of Storage when they can access the core anyway at any time...not even Data can read data that fast ;-) </OT>
Carsten.Koch@icem.com(Carsten Koch) 12.09.06 20:22
Guido Fiala wrote: ...
Sounds like the core computer of the USS-Enterprise - How many Terra-Quads are this? ;-)
Actually, according to http://www.kasper-online.de/en/docs/startrek/ncc1701d.htm the Enterprise D has a mere 630.000 Kiloquads.
But seriously: My VDR system started out in June 2000
Started at aprox the same time with a 30GB IIRC.
But im still at 160 GB and have problem to watch all i recorded during the week.
One of the nicest feature of VDR was the "auto deleting" for me. One missing feature is: High/low speed play with sound...
Neither is my VDR system even close to the largest one. I believe that Matthias Schniedermeier has so many disks in his house that the house no longer requires a separate heating system. ;-)
Doesn't he have his own power plant near by? (Some said it belongs to Nordeutsche Affinerie in Hamburg, but we know better.)
Rainer
Carsten Koch wrote:
martin wrote: ...
go and get yourself a new hard disc :-)
Well, that option is of course always available. ;-) Let's take a look at my vdr system:
/video> df -hT Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda2 xfs 147G 12G 136G 8% / udev tmpfs 253M 236K 252M 1% /dev /dev/hdb1 xfs 149G 86G 64G 58% /vdr2 /dev/hdc1 xfs 149G 115G 35G 77% /vdr3 /dev/hdd1 xfs 149G 114G 36G 77% /vdr4 athlon:/ nfs 148G 128G 21G 86% /athlon athlon:/mp3 nfs 233G 142G 92G 61% /athlon/mp3 athlon:/vdr5 nfs 233G 107G 127G 46% /athlon/vdr5 athlon:/vdr6 nfs 233G 141G 93G 61% /athlon/vdr6 athlon:/vdr7 nfs 233G 179G 55G 77% /athlon/vdr7 athlon:/vdr8 nfs 233G 170G 64G 73% /athlon/vdr8 athlon:/vdr9 nfs 233G 210G 24G 90% /athlon/vdr9 athlon:/vdr10 nfs 149G 75G 75G 50% /athlon/vdr10 athlon:/video nfs 233G 211G 22G 91% /athlon/video
It would still be nice to integrate videos from other sources seamlessly.
And: 20 disks are twice as much trouble as 10 disks. My older disks have started to fail recently...
That's nothing. ;-)
I've currently have 36 HDDs with a total capacity of 8,3 TB. 7,4 TB used and 0,9TB "free". A "projection" of about 1TB of missing things and another TB of recordings still on DVDs that i hadn't copied over. (Note to myself: Remember to by a HDD each month for the next 3 month, so that i can finally put the DVD "priode" behind me.) And above i haven't counted the about 1TB of "misc" space i have.
And most of it i have actually watched, it took a few years to record all of that!
Bis denn
-
Carsten Koch -
Emil Naepflein -
Guido Fiala -
martin -
Matthias Schniedermeyer -
Norbert Goebel -
UseNet-Posting-Nospam-74308-＠zocki.toppoint.de