I use a system with 3 harddrives. On a recent system cleanup I moved some serial recordings completely to one drive (e.g. /video1/stargate) and symlinked the directory on /video0 for vdr to find the recordings. Now I have made a new recording to this directory. VDR now decided to start the 001.vdr right on the same physical drive with the result of killing the file in the process.
The problem seems to be that vdr tries to create a symlink /video0/stargate/.../001.vdr pointing to the real file. As /video0/stargate is in reality /video1/stargate vdr can't create the real 001.vdr because a file with this name already exists.
A good idea may be that vdr in this case would retry creating 001.vdr on the next available /videoX. to avoid this collission.
regards Peter
peter.dittmann@freenet.de wrote:
I use a system with 3 harddrives. On a recent system cleanup I moved some serial recordings completely to one drive (e.g. /video1/stargate) and symlinked the directory on /video0 for vdr to find the recordings. Now I have made a new recording to this directory. VDR now decided to start the 001.vdr right on the same physical drive with the result of killing the file in the process.
The problem seems to be that vdr tries to create a symlink /video0/stargate/.../001.vdr pointing to the real file. As /video0/stargate is in reality /video1/stargate vdr can't create the real 001.vdr because a file with this name already exists.
A good idea may be that vdr in this case would retry creating 001.vdr on the next available /videoX. to avoid this collission.
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...
Klaus
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
peter.dittmann@freenet.de wrote:
I use a system with 3 harddrives. On a recent system cleanup I moved some serial recordings completely to one drive (e.g. /video1/stargate) and symlinked the directory on /video0 for vdr to find the recordings. Now I have made a new recording to this directory. VDR now decided to start the 001.vdr right on the same physical drive with the result of killing the file in the process.
The problem seems to be that vdr tries to create a symlink /video0/stargate/.../001.vdr pointing to the real file. As /video0/stargate is in reality /video1/stargate vdr can't create the real 001.vdr because a file with this name already exists.
A good idea may be that vdr in this case would retry creating 001.vdr on the next available /videoX. to avoid this collission.
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...
Just do it, you got my vote for it :-) (Would be a great idea for a more stable 1.4 Version)
On 10 Aug 2005 peter.dittmann@freenet.de wrote:
I use a system with 3 harddrives. On a recent system cleanup I moved some serial recordings completely to one drive (e.g. /video1/stargate) and symlinked the directory on /video0 for vdr to find the recordings. Now I have made a new recording to this directory. VDR now decided to start the 001.vdr right on the same physical drive with the result of killing the file in the process.
The problem seems to be that vdr tries to create a symlink /video0/stargate/.../001.vdr pointing to the real file. As /video0/stargate is in reality /video1/stargate vdr can't create the real 001.vdr because a file with this name already exists.
A good idea may be that vdr in this case would retry creating 001.vdr on the next available /videoX. to avoid this collission.
IMO you cannot blame VDR for this.
You moved around recordings and you didn't obeyed the rules VDR uses to create recording dirs. VDR always creates a recording dir on video0 and puts the index file and such there. On videoX it creates a equal named dir to put the 00x.vdr files which are linked to the dir on video0. But you create a direct link to a recording dir, which was unexpectable for VDR.
Regards.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:59:07PM +0200, Helmut Auer 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...
Just do it, you got my vote for it :-) (Would be a great idea for a more stable 1.4 Version)
Another proposal which would make a distributed vdr system much easier:
a) There's only one default directory selectable with the automatic cleanup function (say /video0). This avoids messing in other vdr's files.
b) Forget the linking. Files are created in one directory only ...but...
c) Allow the selection of the recording directory by default and in the timer programming.
d) Allow playback from all directory sources.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So keep it, please.
Emil
On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:25, Emil Naepflein wrote:
I am totally against dropping this functionality.
As am I.
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.
And I very much like to record over the network to an nfs in another computer in addition to the single local hdd so I don't have to have 10 zillion heat producing hdds in the box requiring more fans generating more noise than is absolutely necessary.
RAID over network doesn't sound too workable to me.
So keep it, please.
Yes please.
Jukka Tastula wrote:
RAID over network doesn't sound too workable to me.
Uh, what ? All my servers have RAID-systems and are accesible over network. Or what do you mean ? Also Emil said something like.. --- 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. --- Why, with RAID-0 yes, but RAID-0 is not raid at all. Use proper hardware with RAID-5 or better.
On Thursday 11 August 2005 22:10, Lauri Tischler wrote:
RAID over network doesn't sound too workable to me.
Uh, what ? All my servers have RAID-systems and are accesible over network. Or what do you mean ?
That would mean completely giving up using the hdd in the vdr box itself for recording. I really wouldn't want to do that as it is about 40% of total capacity.
Hi,
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.
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.
I only have 1 TB of storage on my server and absolutely no problem of just using one disk of 300 GB for recording. After recording I just cut the film and the result will be written on a server disk.
Hello,
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:56:55 +0300 Jukka Tastula jukka.tastula@kotinet.com wrote:
| RAID over network doesn't sound too workable to me.
Though, i'm not saying that the symlink functionnality should be dropped or not, i just want to say that i use and old diksless PC in the living room, and that all the hundreds of gigs are in the basement on another "backend" server. The backend server uses hardware RAID1 + Linux Software Raid 0 ( yes, i know, don't ask me why :) and data is accessed though NFS. No problem since more than a year, and heavy VDR use.
I'm not saying that this should the "the default way to do it", it just happened to "work for me (tm)" just fine, though i'd probably do it differently if i had to do it again. Or not :)
Thanks,
Philippe
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:10:00 +0300, Lauri Tischler wrote:
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.
Why, with RAID-0 yes, but RAID-0 is not raid at all. Use proper hardware with RAID-5 or better.
I talked about a single failure in the filesystem and not about a single failure of a disk. Of course I use Raid5.
The other problem ist the time to resync a Raid5 after a system crash. During this time the Raid is unprotected.
Emil
Jukka Tastula jukka.tastula@kotinet.com wrote:
On Thursday 11 August 2005 22:10, Lauri Tischler wrote:
RAID over network doesn't sound too workable to me.
Uh, what ? All my servers have RAID-systems and are accesible over network. Or what do you mean ?
That would mean completely giving up using the hdd in the vdr box itself for recording. I really wouldn't want to do that as it is about 40% of total capacity.
if you have network connection to the server anyway, why not put the hdd in the server and get rid of the noise in the vdr box?
clemens
On Friday 12 August 2005 14:41, Clemens Kirchgatterer wrote:
if you have network connection to the server anyway, why not put the hdd in the server and get rid of the noise in the vdr box?
Even 100Mbit gets really slow really fast when you start doing everything over it. I was tempted with the idea at first, though, but I decided against it since I found that the HDD makes no detectable noise (unless I put my ear right to it) and only heats up to about 30C without cooling.
And as I depend on vdr for my every day tv viewing I really don't want the whole system to be _completely_ unusable if the network happens to stop working for a reason or another.
I still think that the symlink stuff is such an easy and simple way of adding/removing storage to/from an existing vdr installation that it makes any kind of RAID setup look ridiculously overkill. That is all.
Emil Naepflein wrote:
I talked about a single failure in the filesystem and not about a single failure of a disk. Of course I use Raid5.
huu? so if we use symlinks we don't use filesystem. what ever you stor files on has a filesystem!
i think i have comment this before, do it again. "So you want Klaus keep the VDR multi-volume capability? When there are soft/hard-ware that its very purpose is to handle multiple volumes. I the end, no one to trust!"
take care, ::beppe
-
Beppe -
Clemens Kirchgatterer -
Emil Naepflein -
Georg Acher -
Helmut Auer -
Jukka Tastula -
Klaus Schmidinger -
Lauri Tischler -
peter.dittmann＠freenet.de -
Philippe Gramoullé -
s.huelswitt＠gmx.de