2005-04-05, 03:31 PM
From what I understand of gbpvr so far, I think the architecture would probably already allow for this. I think it probably just needs some work to make it more integral.
What I'd like to see, is the ability to have a gbpvr "server", which runs the gbpvr GUI, handles guide updates, display, plugins, etc.
Other PC's on the network would run only the recording service, and would handle all recording of shows. That's all they need to do. They could simply poll and update through the gbpvr.mdb database mounted from a shared drive.
There's a few benefits I see to a scenario like this.
I've long been a believer that the "recording" should be handled by a standalone PC dedicated to the task. I've found that to be much more reliable, and I end up with less missed shows due to something I was doing causing instability. If I'm watching a movie and the playback goes south causing the machine to misbehave (less common than it used to be, but still happens), it can impact an in progress or future recording. If they're on seperate machines, one failing is isolated from the other.
For those who are really into this, the ability to split recording off to other PC's allows for more tuners and input sources, which means more parallel recording. You wouldn't be limited to PC slots, or cases where the capture device doesn't co-exist well with others in the same machine. Drop a few low end machines with capture cards in the basement, and you've got a recording farm.
From an architecture standpoint, sharing the gbpvr directory to the recording pc's should give them access to all the config and database data they need. The server PC can query the remotes via IP, which I think it already does, to get thier status. For things like live tv, it can find an available recorder, send it a request to start recording, and read the file from a share, much like it does today.
What I'd like to see, is the ability to have a gbpvr "server", which runs the gbpvr GUI, handles guide updates, display, plugins, etc.
Other PC's on the network would run only the recording service, and would handle all recording of shows. That's all they need to do. They could simply poll and update through the gbpvr.mdb database mounted from a shared drive.
There's a few benefits I see to a scenario like this.
I've long been a believer that the "recording" should be handled by a standalone PC dedicated to the task. I've found that to be much more reliable, and I end up with less missed shows due to something I was doing causing instability. If I'm watching a movie and the playback goes south causing the machine to misbehave (less common than it used to be, but still happens), it can impact an in progress or future recording. If they're on seperate machines, one failing is isolated from the other.
For those who are really into this, the ability to split recording off to other PC's allows for more tuners and input sources, which means more parallel recording. You wouldn't be limited to PC slots, or cases where the capture device doesn't co-exist well with others in the same machine. Drop a few low end machines with capture cards in the basement, and you've got a recording farm.
From an architecture standpoint, sharing the gbpvr directory to the recording pc's should give them access to all the config and database data they need. The server PC can query the remotes via IP, which I think it already does, to get thier status. For things like live tv, it can find an available recorder, send it a request to start recording, and read the file from a share, much like it does today.