home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Support
Installation, configuration support
TV Server Configuration shows incorrect path for recording
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mm1352000" data-source="post: 1117127" data-attributes="member: 82144"><p>Sorry, I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Breese's post doesn't explain your comment.</p><p></p><p>You originally said:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Those two folders are not and never have been equivalent or in any way linked. So, could you please explain exactly what you mean by "...in reality this is...".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, timeshifting is client-specific in so much as each client has its own independent buffer.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If timeshift buffers were stored on the client then this probably would be necessary. However as it stands, such configuration seems like unnecessary complexity.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Both of these points are true.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not at all. Talking through these things is useful. After using MP for as long as I have, I sometimes become blind to flaws that are obvious to fresher eyes. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>In theory the goal is to deliver the best user experience. From that perspective the most relevant points to consider would be the trade-off between the additional setup/configuration complexity (ie. the fact that each client would have to be configured individually) and the improved seeking performance.</p><p>In practice we are also limited by the availability of developers... and developers choose what they want to work on.</p><p></p><p>I'd also say that there's no perfect solution for design problems like this. The beauty of the current approach is that it requires minimal configuration (no per-client stuff) and works for both timeshifting and recording access. As you say: seeking would certainly be faster if the client were accessing local files. However if we were to do a cost-benefit analysis I think the costs - in terms of implementation effort, additional setup, and maintenance of complex code - would outweigh the benefit. In any case network access speed/bandwidth is increasing over time (1 Mb/s => 10 Mb/s => 100 Mb/s => 1 Gb/s => 10 Gb/s etc.), and this improves the seeking performance without any effort on our part. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mm1352000, post: 1117127, member: 82144"] Sorry, I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Breese's post doesn't explain your comment. You originally said: Those two folders are not and never have been equivalent or in any way linked. So, could you please explain exactly what you mean by "...in reality this is...". Sure, timeshifting is client-specific in so much as each client has its own independent buffer. If timeshift buffers were stored on the client then this probably would be necessary. However as it stands, such configuration seems like unnecessary complexity. Both of these points are true. Not at all. Talking through these things is useful. After using MP for as long as I have, I sometimes become blind to flaws that are obvious to fresher eyes. :) In theory the goal is to deliver the best user experience. From that perspective the most relevant points to consider would be the trade-off between the additional setup/configuration complexity (ie. the fact that each client would have to be configured individually) and the improved seeking performance. In practice we are also limited by the availability of developers... and developers choose what they want to work on. I'd also say that there's no perfect solution for design problems like this. The beauty of the current approach is that it requires minimal configuration (no per-client stuff) and works for both timeshifting and recording access. As you say: seeking would certainly be faster if the client were accessing local files. However if we were to do a cost-benefit analysis I think the costs - in terms of implementation effort, additional setup, and maintenance of complex code - would outweigh the benefit. In any case network access speed/bandwidth is increasing over time (1 Mb/s => 10 Mb/s => 100 Mb/s => 1 Gb/s => 10 Gb/s etc.), and this improves the seeking performance without any effort on our part. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Support
Installation, configuration support
TV Server Configuration shows incorrect path for recording
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom
