2.1.5 No tuner for padding, but found one for recording

[Nistrod]

Hmm, but in Aus we have 5 frequencies. :-(

[vfrvulcan]

Hmm, but in Aus we have 5 frequencies. :-(

As do we here in the UK - 6 if you include the HD multiplex.

Pick up an Hauppauge WinTV Nova T-500 dual card off ebay or similar, they go for around £15 over here

One tuner per multiplex is the ideal set-up

[Nistrod]

I have 4 tuners. I did think that 4 tuners for 5 frequencies would cover most situations.
All tuners see all channels.
At no time was I trying to record more than 4 frequencies, so I'm still not sure why I didn't get the padding.

[vfrvulcan]

I have 4 tuners. I did think that 4 tuners for 5 frequencies would cover most situations.
All tuners see all channels.
At no time was I trying to record more than 4 frequencies, so I'm still not sure why I didn't get the padding.

The fifth tuner will eradicate that I'm sure. Even with 4 tuners for 5 frequencies you can still very easily have a tuner unavailable - all 4 on one freq and try to record on a second for example. The one tuner per freq eliminates those situations.

Just because you have a tuner recording on one frequency (multiplex) doesn't mean that it will get used for another recording on the same frequency if another tuner is available IYSWIM

[Reddwarf]

I have 3 tuners and about 15 65 channels spread on 15 multiplexers. I have successfully recorder up to 6 shows at the same time and NEVER since npvr was born missed a single padding. All my tuners see all my channels, and that's the way it works best.

[Nistrod]

all 4 on one freq and try to record on a second for example

But why would you have more than one tuner on the same frequency?

Reddwarf - I would agree, it should be fine. Not sure why it wasn't.

[BrettB]

But why would you have more than one tuner on the same frequency?

Because that's the way npvr schedules/allocates them! Unfortunately, its logic does not result in the most optimum tuner allocation. It is much better in the latest release, but it is still not perfect.

[imilne]

Say you have three tuners... and all of them have all channels available... you set recording on three channels which all happen to be on the 1st multiplex. One recording is assigned to each tuner. A fourth recording using a different multiplex will fail as no tuners are available.

I know the scheduling is a very complex issue, but does it really work that way? I would have expected it to assign one tuner to the first recording, and then realise that the other two are on the same multiplex and just use the same tuner for them too. Only once it gets to the fourth recording should a second tuner come into play?

Iain

[sub]

Say you have three tuners... and all of them have all channels available... you set recording on three channels which all happen to be on the 1st multiplex. One recording is assigned to each tuner. A fourth recording using a different multiplex will fail as no tuners are available.

That is not how it works. In this scenario those first three recordings would have been assigned to the first tuner. The fourth recording is on a different frequency, so would have been allocated to a second tuner.

[Nistrod]

OK, this makes sense.
So is there any explanation for the problem originall described?