Is this the right approach ? (1 Viewer)

[pastimer]

With the current implemenation, scheduling and the collection of program info is restricted to Tvserver. So we are not able to schedule web-radio if that becomes available at some time. Implementing all these services seperately in MP makes them independent. That makes it flexible.

Well, it's just as easy to add scheduling of web-radio on the tv-server as it is on a client. Don't really see the problem there.

And what exactly do you think you'll gain by making the services independent ?
You mention added flexibility but i'd prefer an example.

So when i want web radio scheduled but am not in need for tv i still must use TVserver to have the scheduler? Or develop another for MP? And then end up with two scheduling plugins when i want TV as well? That wás an example! Timeshifting is another. Isn't that just the pause button? That push on the pause button is early enough to start a timeshift file. Of course you cannot go back, it's not a recording! So what's the point of timeshifting in TVserver? Beats me!
Let's turn the question around: What are the benifits of having a fat and slow TVserver instead of having just Mediaportal with a fast lan dvb source?
Just Mediaportal with the speedy (like Altdvb, channelswitches are INSTANT!) networked dvbsource looks pretty ideal to me.
Right now, you get the impression that TVserver is IN COMPETITION with MP (see the comparison table as an example of that) instead of being a means to enrich MP.
The more i think about it, the more i am convinced that the whole idea behind TVserver has gone way out of hand. Too complicated, too slow, too much elements not working, too many bugs.

And it is sad that MP users who dont want all the features of TVserver cannot define a networked dvbsource that operates as if it were in your computer.

 

[Laban]

So when i want web radio scheduled but am not in need for tv i still must use TVserver to have the scheduler? Or develop another for MP?

Why not ? What i'm proposing is a MediaServer which then contains plugins. So if you don't want TV, well, don't add that plugin.

And then end up with two scheduling plugins when i want TV as well? That wás an example!

Why would you need two scheduling plugins ?

What are the benifits of having a fat and slow TVserver instead of having just Mediaportal with a fast lan dvb source?

All recordings in one place = accessability. Easier to do backups. "Intelligent" scheduling of limited resources like f.e tv cards. All scheduling logic in one place instead of duplicated among different clients.

Fat & slow ? Well, dual-core 2+GHz CPU's are available for close to nothing these days. And if you think that it's too slow, do a master , slave server setup, put your music on one server, tv on the other and so forth.

The more i think about it, the more i am convinced that the whole idea behind TVserver has gone way out of hand. Too complicated, too slow, too much elements not working, too many bugs.

It's still a beta though. And i didn't see any major problems with the speed compared to MP. Switching channels takes ages for me but it's the same in MP. CAM related problem. I don't see why channel switching should take that much longer when in a single-seat setup.

And adding more services won't necessarily add complexity either. Just make them separate plugins/services within the MediaServer service

 

[pastimer]

All recordings in one place = accessability. Easier to do backups. "Intelligent" scheduling of limited resources like f.e tv cards. All scheduling logic in one place instead of duplicated among different clients.

You do not need a tvserver to schedule your recordings and keep your data at one place. You could easily use remote desktop to connect to the one pc you do your scheduling on.

Having a database does not give you a better use of resources either.

Fat & slow ? Well, dual-core 2+GHz CPU's are available for close to nothing these days. And if you think that it's too slow, do a master , slave server setup, put your music on one server, tv on the other and so forth.

More power means more noise. Having the same level of performance at a lower CPU level is preferable. The slowness is experienced at the client, but it's because it's doing a lot of overhead at the serverside. Stopping timeshift, cleaning it up, start another timeshift.

It's still a beta though. And i didn't see any major problems with the speed compared to MP. Switching channels takes ages for me but it's the same in MP. CAM related problem. I don't see why channel switching should take that much longer when in a single-seat setup.

I do not use a cam. Switching channels on one transponder taked 4.5 seconds from the moment the green switching sign is on. In the same environment, Altdvb takes less than one second. Yes it's a beta, and if the way MP/TVserver develop, i'm afraid it will always remain a beta.

To round things up: Why dont we organise a poll among MP users and ask them:

"What would you rather have:

1. TVServer3 as it is but working without major problems
2. A MP plugin that makes your remote dvb card act like it is in your pc.

"

 

[Laban]

You do not need a tvserver to schedule your recordings and keep your data at one place. You could easily use remote desktop to connect to the one pc you do your scheduling on.

Or just have a separate Scheduling/recording service that could potentially be located on a separate computer. Or on the same if you feel like it.

More power means more noise. Having the same level of performance at a lower CPU level is preferable. The slowness is experienced at the client, but it's because it's doing a lot of overhead at the serverside. Stopping timeshift, cleaning it up, start another timeshift.

My new dual-core 2.13 GHz doesn't consume more power then my old single-core 1.8 GHz Athlon 64. Probably the opposite. And you don't necessarily have to put the TV-Server in the livingroom. It is a server-client setup you know.

Switching channels on one transponder taked 4.5 seconds from the moment the green switching sign is on. In the same environment, Altdvb takes less than one second. Yes it's a beta, and if the way MP/TVserver develop, i'm afraid it will always remain a beta.

I agree with you that 4.5 s is a long time. But the question is, why does it take so long. Is it much faster then when running the MP built-in TV engine f.e ?

If not, then perhaps it's other things that causes this "problem".

 

[Frodo]

The whole idea of the tvserver is that we have a central server and multiple clients
The server is responsible for all tv-related tasks and the clients control the server
to setup recordings, watch tv etc etc.

In the future i would like to move this further to a central media server which also includes support for pictures,videos,music , iptv and webradio and perhaps networked devices like the hdhomerun.

I don't see anything wrong with this idea. In fact its the same principle as
many others do? (mythtv, sagetv, windows home server, ....)
This setup also allows us to write thin-clients and in fact people are already busy with it. If you look in the forums you'll see people working on plugins for XBMC and windows media center.

We all know that the tvserver is beta and not 100% finished yet.
And sure it takes us longer then expected.
But is this because the tvserver is fat/slow/unstable???

I think not. The main problems we are having at this moment are:

1) driver issues.
Many card drivers are simply buggy or unstable or have conflicts
when used in combination with other hardware (tvcards)

2) regional issues. DVB isnt a 'standard' anymore these days.
Lots of broadcasters are adding their own tweaks, or simply violate the DVB standard. Some examples are the MHW-2 epg introduced in spain lately, or the conditional access of casema here in the Netherlands
All these 'regional' exceptions must be added to the tvserver to support a large
user group. And as always you only see the people in this forum who have problems. Users without problems don't post ;-)

3) BDA filter issues
Microsoft's own BDA filter (The MPEG-2 Network Information Filter) crashes sometimes. There are some hotfixes available, but they dont fix everything
This is a serious issue, but nothing we can do about it :-(

4) Mediaportal Filters.
Some of the filters we use are not 100% yet.
For example we first started with tsfilesource which is an (opensource) filter developed by someone else. Because of the many problems we now started writing our own filters . (See the 'help us testing the new filter' thread) This new filter should fix all the playback issues we see and improve the zapping speed a lot.

So i'm still optimistic and think we're getting closer to a stable release every day
which has good channel zapping behaviour.


Frodo

 

[infinite.loop]

3) BDA filter issues
Microsoft's own BDA filter (The MPEG-2 Network Information Filter) crashes sometimes. There are some hotfixes available, but they dont fix everything
This is a serious issue, but nothing we can do about it :-(

and one specific hotfix which solves crashes during scan and issues when using more then one BDA-device has ONLY been release for WindowsMCE2005 yet!!!!!

WindowsXP users are waiting for this hotfix since more then one year now..... still nothing...

And frodo could list more issues which cause that ppl blame MediaPortal to be crap. In fact the crash/issue of/in MediaPortal is just the symptom of a bug which comes from a driver or Windows dll/filter.

*thinks about manufacturer hacks for dvb-s2 because its not defined in BDA-driver-specs*

 

[THDBASED]

Isn't there a way to contact Microsoft and explain the troubles you are having. When you bought a copy of their product they must be kind enough to help you no?
I think if you are able to get some direct contact with someone who is able to fix these thing at Microsoft they should be glad someone is trying to help them fix bugs. The only problem off course is the fact that Microsoft also has Media center software Maybe do not tell them you are a dev of Mediaportal

 

[infinite.loop]

Isn't there a way to contact Microsoft and explain the troubles you are having. When you bought a copy of their product they must be kind enough to help you no?
I think if you are able to get some direct contact with someone who is able to fix these thing at Microsoft they should be glad someone is trying to help them fix bugs. The only problem off course is the fact that Microsoft also has Media center software

well...... you can be sure that other commercial products with "better" relationships allready did.

you can also be sure that these issues (anlong with others) are present in Microsofts Bugtracker, just with a rather low priority.

Microsoft is a HUGE comapany. So things are not as easy as i.e. here or with smaller hardware manufactuers where you can directly talk with driver/frimware developers.

you can place your report and wait...... that sucks i know, but thats how it is....

The only problem off course is the fact that Microsoft also has Media center software

yup, and at least one bugfix is quite exclusive available for that WinXP-MCE, interesting.... isnt it?

 

[pastimer]

4) Mediaportal Filters.
Some of the filters we use are not 100% yet.
For example we first started with tsfilesource which is an (opensource) filter developed by someone else. Because of the many problems we now started writing our own filters . (See the 'help us testing the new filter' thread) This new filter should fix all the playback issues we see and improve the zapping speed a lot.

Thanks for your views frodo. The first three issues do not relate to slow channel changes i expect. This one does. I take it that the whole .ts is written to disk and read from there by the client. Three questions:

1.
Have you considered streaming the transportstream directly to the client and leave the decision what to do with it (timeshift, record, play) to the client ?

2.
Can you describe how much time is spent on different actvities during a channel change with the new filter and how much you could improve on that in the future ?

3.
Would you consider giving the user the option to 'just' receive the transportstream (rtsp/udp?) as a unicast stream to keep overhead to a minimum ?

Eppo

The whole idea of the tvserver is that we have a central server and multiple clients
The server is responsible for all tv-related tasks and the clients control the server
to setup recordings, watch tv etc etc.

In the future i would like to move this further to a central media server which also includes support for pictures,videos,music , iptv and webradio and perhaps networked devices like the hdhomerun.

I don't see anything wrong with this idea. In fact its the same principle as
many others do? (mythtv, sagetv, windows home server, ....)
This setup also allows us to write thin-clients and in fact people are already busy with it. If you look in the forums you'll see people working on plugins for XBMC and windows media center.

No there is nothing wrong with that. But there will always be a lot of people like myself that would rather have a tvservICE than a tvservER....

Maybe the TV service (why not 'LanTv'?) and 'MP Server' could (should) be seperated into different projects? The TV service would be the plugin to give you TV reception over the network (like the dvb-card is present in the client, the Altdvb example). 'MP Server' you already described.


Eppo

 

[infinite.loop]

2.Can you describe how much time is spent on different actvities during a channel change with the new filter and how much you could improve on that in the future ?

imo. slow channel-change speeds are not a general issue of TV-Server.

in singleseat its ~1second (which is nearly the maximum you can get on dvb by design of dvb ) here
and in multiseat it is slightly slower.

from my personal experience i can tell that, the "real" slowdown in channelchange-speed is caused by the TV-Card.

i am talking about the hardware, firmware and the drivers.
for encrypted channels, the CAM(firmware) and used encryption system also have an impact in tuning/zapping times.​

But there will always be a lot of people like myself that would rather have a tvservICE than a tvservER....

Maybe the TV service (why not 'LanTv'?) and 'MP Server' could (should) be seperated into different projects? The TV service would be the plugin to give you TV reception over the network (like the dvb-card is present in the client, the Altdvb example). 'MP Server' you already described.

nothing wrong with that idea.

the TV-Server sources are available for everyone.
so if anyone wants to modifiy it in that direction go ahead ​