[mythtv-users] Dual-FireWire troubles in 0.20 solution found

[Yeechang Lee]

Michael T. Dean <mtdean at thirdcontact.com> says:
> Oh, so you were just changing values in 0.18 randomly (
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users/184085#184085 ).
> I stand corrected.  I guess we only have one data point, now.

Not only do you stand corrected, the very message you reference
contains the facts about my system I've been repeating in this thread:

* 1.5GB RAM.
* Ringbuffer at 96MB ("since about the second day I started").

> HD Ringbuffer size (KB)

> The HD device ringbuffer allows the backend to weather moments of
> stress. The larger the ringbuffer, the longer the moments of stress
> can be. However, setting the size too large can cause swapping,
> which is detrimental.

I. Have. 1.5GB. My swap usage was, is, and remains zero. (And,
needless to say, even when occasionally a couple of hundred MB of swap
space were used for something or other non-MythTV related, I never
noticed any problems with recording before in eight months of heavy
use.) Swapping or thrashing was, is, and remain a nonissue.

> If that were always the case, why wouldn't Myth use bigger for the 
> default?  Currently, it uses the minimum value for the default.

Because even though *I* have 1.5GB of RAM, not everyone does. 96MB is
a significant fraction of, say, 256MB or 512MB. Compared to 1.5GB,
96MB is minuscule. It makes sense for a) the default to be set to a
much-lower setting and b) for those of us who can afford to set it
higher to do so. *MythTV lets us do so.*

> >* 0.19 did not have this issue.
> >* 0.20 does; thus something broke.
> 
> Only if you can prove that 96MB is the proper configuration is this
> a sign of a bug in 0.20.  An upgrade causing an incorrect
> configuration to show problems isn't a sign of breakage in 0.20, but
> a sign of brokenness of previous versions.

If you honestly believe that my inability to set the HD ringbuffer to
96MB in 0.20--again, a built-in setting choice--and have the system
work right when I could do so without problems using 0.19 means that
*0.19*--and not 0.20--had the buggy code, oy vey. Please, please think
about what you've written above.

You began this through your out-of-the-blue ill manners and you are
now ending this with your stupendous obtuseness. The above paragraph
is evidence I can do no more here. I officially throw up my hands in
frustration, and will now shut up (to the loud cheers of the other
list members).

-- 
Yeechang Lee <ylee at pobox.com> | +1 650 776 7763 | San Francisco CA US