Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="perky" data-source="post: 1117121" data-attributes="member: 145880">It's definitely not, see above post!Well I suppose I see timeshifting as being a client specific thing, with buffer sizes and settings locally set on the client. It would make it faster from the client's perspective (locally stored timeshift buffer) and possibly simplify the rewind control mechanism between the client and server, and deal with issues of a client going offline unexpectedly etc. However it doesn't cope too well if you ever wanted to store live data while playing a recording as it would double the used LAN bandwidth. You're right, the live channels would need to be served anyway. I'm going to conceed defeat on this one, if the goal is to conserve LAN bandwidth and simplify the client's hardware requirements it's probably optimal already. I should think these things through a little more more before posting ;-)Mark.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="perky, post: 1117121, member: 145880"] It's definitely not, see above post! Well I suppose I see timeshifting as being a client specific thing, with buffer sizes and settings locally set on the client. It would make it faster from the client's perspective (locally stored timeshift buffer) and possibly simplify the rewind control mechanism between the client and server, and deal with issues of a client going offline unexpectedly etc. However it doesn't cope too well if you ever wanted to store live data while playing a recording as it would double the used LAN bandwidth. You're right, the live channels would need to be served anyway. I'm going to conceed defeat on this one, if the goal is to conserve LAN bandwidth and simplify the client's hardware requirements it's probably optimal already. I should think these things through a little more more before posting ;-) Mark. [/QUOTE]

Verification