[mythtv-users] Live TV channel restrictions

[Andrew Herron]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Frank Merrill <fmerrill1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Andrew Herron <totallymaxed at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well I have to say that we dont see this performance issue in our testing
> > using the current scheduler but with the upper limit on multirec tuners
> > lifted to say 10. What your describing is not apparent to us. However
> what
> > is apparent is that the way multirec tuners are implemented currently
> seems
> > less efficient than it might be. This is an area we're looking at
> > currently...but performance is not driving this so much as reducing code
> > complexity. We'll post some patches in this area as soon as we have a
> > reasonably clean implementation.
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> > --
> > Head of Software & Technology
> > Convergent Home Technologies Ltd
> > www.dianemo.co.uk
> > www.cascade-media.co.uk
> >
> >
>
> Your messages are somewhat confusing to me as you seem to keep using
> the words 'current' and 'currently', but in your first post in this
> thread you indicate your company is working on patches to MythTV 0.21,
> which is not the 'current' release.
>
> If you are referring to 0.22 instead, then it might be clearer if you
> state that.
>
> I am also a bit surprised by you providing URLs that lead to your
> companies products on a mailing list for what is an Open Source DVR
> project.
> But, it's not my list.
>
> Frank


As stated further up this thread our current work in for 0.21 but we will
probably provide patches for 0.22 too. To clarify I am referring to the
standard 0.21 scheduler in my post above when I refer to the 'current
scheduler as we are in the process of writing/testing a patch to bring the
scheduler into line with our patch for LiveTV tuner management - I agree the
language I used was a little confusing.

However their appears to be very little if any difference between the 0.21
scheduler & the 0.22 scheduler in the context of this discussion so in that
sense my comments broadly apply to either version.

Apologies for the footer...sometimes I forget to omit it from my
posts...there was & is no intention to promote my companies products here in
anyway at all. Our only objective is to offer our patches for review/comment
and to make them available in the hope that they might be found useful by
people reading this list.

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20100225/7dfc7de2/attachment.htm>