Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tourettes" data-source="post: 371564" data-attributes="member: 10858">Live555 library that we use for RTSP is lighting fast (and using RTSP has few limitations...). From performance point of view it is slower than the local HD buffers.This would make the code much more complicated without no actual benefit.<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> HDs that are used in HTPC should be noiseless (Otherwise your hardware setup isn't a good one <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />) 
</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> HDs are most likely going to spin / run even if timeshifting is not placed on them as OS and MP itself are still requiring those (so no saved power here) 
</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Zapping speed won't get any benefit if the buffer is located in RAM. HD is not the bottleneck (not even if you have old hard disk)</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="tourettes, post: 371564, member: 10858"] Live555 library that we use for RTSP is lighting fast (and using RTSP has few limitations...). From performance point of view it is slower than the local HD buffers. This would make the code much more complicated without no actual benefit. [list] [*] HDs that are used in HTPC should be noiseless (Otherwise your hardware setup isn't a good one :)) [*] HDs are most likely going to spin / run even if timeshifting is not placed on them as OS and MP itself are still requiring those (so no saved power here) [*] Zapping speed won't get any benefit if the buffer is located in RAM. HD is not the bottleneck (not even if you have old hard disk) [/list] [/QUOTE]

Verification