PowerScheduler++ test versions (1 Viewer)

[Jay_UK]

Re: PowerScheduler++ Version 1.2.0.10 (RC1)

Hi there,

Forgive me if its been covered already.

But does PS++ honour/follow the OS power settings.

Eg: I have disabled Hybrid Sleep (so I only have basic S3 standby). But in the PS++ plugin config screen it still shows the option as "Hybrid Sleep - (S3)". I appreciate this option might just be a hard coded textual description, but will PS++ just use S3 or Hybrid S3?

Thanks,

J.

 

[michael_t]

AW: Re: PowerScheduler++ Version 1.2.0.10 (RC1)

Hi J.,

from the sent logs I can not reproduce that you suspended the system (presssed the off (standby) button), because there are nearly no entries in the MediaPortal.log and they do not cover the time in question (around 23 o'clock). Did you activate "Debug" log level and "Extensive logging" in the PS++client configuration?
Seen from the server side (tv.log) watching tv ended at 22:54:17 but the MP client still continued to run. This does not look like a standby / power off.
After ten minutes of user inactivity (idle timeout) the PS++ server decided at 23:04:31 to suspend the system. Then something went wrong, so that the system did not go to standby. To tell what went wrong, I would need the client logs of that period.

Michael

PS: I do not know what MPstandbyHandler is doing and how it works; maybe the combination of PS++ and MPstandbyHandler causes your problems. Thus you should test if your problem still exists when MPstandbyHandler is deactivated.

PPS: The text "Hybrid Sleep - (S3)" is fixed and does not change when you activate / deactivate hybrid sleep mode

 

[fabien44]

Re: PowerScheduler++ Version 1.2.0.10 (RC1)

Hello,

i wonder if your plugin can do this: put into standbye PC only after a recording process is finished and not after a time of inactivity (idle)?

Thanks

 

[michael_t]

AW: Re: PowerScheduler++ Version 1.2.0.10 (RC1)

fabien44:

No, this is not possible at the moment. I assume the scenario you are thinking of is: There is no automatic standby if a user switched on the PC, but it should goto standby when it woke up automatically (e.g. for a recording) when the recording is finished. I will think about this.

Michael

 

[fabien44]

Re: AW: Re: PowerScheduler++ Version 1.2.0.10 (RC1)

@fabien44:

No, this is not possible at the moment. I assume the scenario you are thinking of is: There is no automatic standby if a user switched on the PC, but it should goto standby when it woke up automatically (e.g. for a recording) when the recording is finished. I will think about this.

Michael

Yes Michael, you guess fine!

I don't understand why this feature is not yet implemented. It's very useful. I think automatic standbye is dangerous for multi-tasks user like me, it should be a parameter linked to the recording: standbye or not after finishing recording.

 

[doskabouter]

Re: AW: Re: PowerScheduler++ Version 1.2.0.10 (RC1)

@fabien44:

No, this is not possible at the moment. I assume the scenario you are thinking of is: There is no automatic standby if a user switched on the PC, but it should goto standby when it woke up automatically (e.g. for a recording) when the recording is finished. I will think about this.

Michael

Yes Michael, you guess fine!

I don't understand why this feature is not yet implemented. It's very useful. I think automatic standbye is dangerous for multi-tasks user like me, it should be a parameter linked to the recording: standbye or not after finishing recording.

+1.

And of course, if automatically restarted for a recording, and if any useractivity is detected, don't auto-shutdown after the recording is finished (unless of course, the user presses shutdown -> enter away mode)

 

[michael_t]

AW: Re: AW: Re: PowerScheduler++ Version 1.2.0.10 (RC1)

Well, this is much more than a new feature. If implemented properly it would need a rework of PowerScheduler(++), because the main focus of the plugin is now to prevent standby when it is not appropriate (e.g. while a user is watching media or the system is recording). The proposed philosophy would require PS(++) not only to prevent unwanted standby but to handle standby actively depending on different system states:

1. There is no automatic standby after some time of user or system inactivity. The HTPC will only go to standby when the user presses power off / remote off.
2. When the HTPC is in standby it will wakeup automatically for scheduled recordings, EPG grabbing etc. and goto standby again afterwards. When it is on it will do scheduled recordings etc. but not go to standby afterwards.
3. When you press power off / remote off while the HTPC is recording (or performing some other activity preventing power off) it will go to away mode and only go to standby after all activities preventing power off are finished.
4. When the HTPC woke up from standby automatically for scheduled recordings, EPG grabbing etc. or is in away mode and there is any user activity on the system it will not goto standby again but stay on until the user presses power off / remote off.

Of course it should still be possible to define an idle timeout for automatic standby, if wanted. Then the system states would be like this:

1. There is an automatic standby after some time of user or system inactivity. The HTPC will also go to standby when the user presses power off / remote off.
2. When the HTPC is in standby it will wakeup automatically for scheduled recordings, EPG grabbing etc. and goto standby again afterwards. When it is on it will do scheduled recordings etc. and go to standby after the defined idle timeout.
3. When you press power off / remote off while the HTPC is recording (or performing some other activity preventing power off) it will go to away mode and only go to standby after all activities preventing power off are finished.
4. When the HTPC woke up from standby automatically for scheduled recordings, EPG grabbing etc. or is in away mode and there is any user activity on the system it will goto standby again after some time of user or system inactivity or when the user presses power off / remote off.

This is all thought for a single-seat scenario. In multi-seat an active remote client (i.e. needing the TV-server) could be handled like a server activity preventing power off (e.g. active shares). But I am not sure if there are no side effects. I really have to design that carefully before realizing it. Any ideas / comments are welcome.

Michael

 

[joseosoria]

Re: PowerScheduler++ Version 1.2.0.10 (RC1)

question.
maybe i am wrong but, run command before after wake up isn't suppouse to run and exe file?
i put this :C:\Program Files\WinTV\BlastCfg.exe so the blaster can change to the channel i want to record. also reinitialize service is checked.
but it does not work, htpc wakes up 1 minute before recording , blaster does not work , so it records whatever channels is on my set top box.
so i put that exe file to bring up the baster before recording but nothing.

 

[yhoogi]

Re: PowerScheduler++ Version 1.2.0.10 (RC1)

Hi Michael,

I observed for several times now, that my standalone TV-Server (WIN 7) sometimes didn't perform a wakeup.
(Also confirmed by the system logs by missing events at the next scheduled wake-up time)

Where are the powerscheduler logs included? - In the TS-Writer logs?

I attached the log set in case you would be yo kind to give me a helping hand.
(extensive logging enabled)

first missed event would have been 8.2.11 @ 7:10 and subsequent others until manual wake-up @ ~19:20.


Also, I am not quite sure, but have the impression that there is no scheduled restart of the OS performed as it was configured



TV-Server config:
Atom525/4GB RAM/floppydtv/Win 7


Cheers & Thanks in advance,

 

[fnokke]

Re: PowerScheduler++ Version 1.2.0.10 (RC1)

Hi,

I have a crash when trying to stop playback of a certain file in TV-series plugin (.mp4 which was converted to mp4 from flv by free FLT to MP4 tool). I realize that it is not likely caused by PS++, but I noticed that there were lots of exceptions raised byPS++ client plugin so I wonder if those are raised because something else has failed or whether those in themselves are a problem?

Thanks,

fnokke