<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Brian J. Murrell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brian@interlinx.bc.ca">brian@interlinx.bc.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On 11-09-09 08:50 AM, Kevin Kuphal wrote:<br>
><br>
> Or it's operating as intended,<br>
<br>
</div>Intended to leave tuners idle which could be used to resolve conflicts?<br>
That doesn't sound like good design.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> giving you the feedback necessary to make the<br>
> informed decision (conflict resolution) that it couldn't make due to<br>
> limitations of the design.<br>
<br>
</div>But I don't have the ability to resolve a conflict by assigning it to an<br>
idle tuner. And I shouldn't, so I don't disagree with that decision.<br>
That the scheduler doesn't do that, is IMHO, a bug.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You said yourself you resolved the conflict using the Upcoming Recording screens to tell the scheduler to record X on a particular tuner (essentially adding priority to it)</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> Complaints like yours come up repeated from time<br>
> to time. Ultimately the scheduler has been designed to make certain<br>
> decisions after which it relies on human intervention to resolve certain<br>
> cases such as this 3 way "tie".<br>
<br>
</div>But to not even fall back to using another available tuner? Is that<br>
really within the design consideration?<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> What I would suggest is playing around with<br>
> priorities despite your desire not to.<br>
<br>
</div>Why should I need to? There are IDLE TUNERS!<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, from your perspective. From the scheduler's perspective, it is done. It did the programmed number of passes, did the best it could do with the information given and the constraints on it and finished. It does not endlessly try to resolve conflicts probably because in other situations that would result in dramatically increased scheduling time bringing negative side effects to the system operation.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> Giving one of those programs a +1<br>
> priority may resolve your problem entirely without any negative side<br>
> effects.<br>
<br>
</div>Until next time when the +1 yields a different, non-desirable schedule.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I sincerely doubt in your situation with the number of available tuners you appear have that a simple +1 preference on one program of the three that are typically recorded at the same time would have any problem. I would suggest that you try it since you are looking for solutions and see what it really does instead of dismissing it. It is a tool provided to address this situation of multiple equal priority programs.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Kevin</div></div>