# eSATA capacity questions



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I've got two Cavalry 2.0 eSATAs in RAID enclosures set to the "big" setting so that I may use the total capacity of the hard drives. They will not work on my 21-700s or 21-200s. I have them working on two of my 20-700s.

When I begin to dip below the 27% available on either eSATA, the 20-700s start to slow down. Not on the recording or playback, but the responses to the remote are noticeably slower. Delete a couple movies and get back to 30% available and the remote response is normal.

So what it seems that I have ended up with are two eSATAs that have a 2TB capacity, but slow down the HRs before 1.5TBs is reached. 

My questions are these:

Has anyone reached full capacity on a 1.5TB eSATA or internal drive and if so, has the HR slowed down?

If you have a full 1.5 drive, do the shows that are not marked to "Keep" drop off automatically as they should?

Does anyone have a 2TB drive that has reached more than 25% full and if so, have you noticed the same symptoms I have detailed?

I really hate to start a new eSATA thread, but I have asked this question on the other eSATA threads and never gotten any response.

Could the fact that both eSATAs are in a RAID enclosure have anything to do with the problem? 

I know I can "clean up" both drives and operate them at 30% capacity with no problems. What I am afraid of is that I will fill one up and have it become completely unresponsive and have to reformat the drive and lose everything.

Rich


----------



## Bobbo (May 26, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I've got two Cavalry 2.0 eSATAs in RAID enclosures set to the "big" setting so that I may use the total capacity of the hard drives. They will not work on my 21-700s or 21-200s. I have them working on two of my 20-700s.
> 
> When I begin to dip below the 27% available on either eSATA, the 20-700s start to slow down. Not on the recording or playback, but the responses to the remote are noticeably slower. Delete a couple movies and get back to 30% available and the remote response is normal.
> 
> ...


Hi Rich

I have an HR20 and HR21 both with 2TB Raid 0 configured drives in Sans Digital enclosures.

The HR 20 is 90% full (10% remaining) and is working fine, so I have not seen the problem you described. However, I am not using the "big" configuration.

I've had symptoms similar to what you describe occasionally. Sometimes re-booting helps, and once, the sluggishness seemed to be a precursor to a disk crash in which I lost everything. Hopefully that is not going to happen to you.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bobbo said:


> Hi Rich
> 
> I have an HR20 and HR21 both with 2TB Raid 0 configured drives in Sans Digital enclosures.
> 
> The HR 20 is 90% full (10% remaining) and is working fine, so I have not seen the problem you described. However, I am not using the "big" configuration.


So what you have is two HRs with 1TB eSATAs on them? And a backup copy on each?



> I've had symptoms similar to what you describe occasionally. Sometimes re-booting helps, Hopefully that is not going to happen to you.


Can't imagine what a reboot would do. The problem can be cured simply by deleting a few shows.



> and once, the sluggishness seemed to be a precursor to a disk crash in which I lost everything.


Something like that starts happening for no good reason and you should always pull the plug and go read a book for a while and then come back and plug it back in. If you're lucky, everything will be normal again.

Clearly, I should have made my first post clearer. The only reason I bought the two 2TB eSATAs was to see if they would work when full. And I purchased two identical eSATAs, just so my comparisons would be valid. I haven't read much about the actual capacity an HR will handle, but there must be an upper limit. And most of what I read, said the HRs would handle up to a 2TB hard drive. Never saw a figure that differentiated between eSATAs and interior drives. Just 2TB.

So far, I can't reach that capacity. I can't reach a full 1.5TB without the problems starting. I have never had a program marked for deletion on either eSATA. And since both eSATAs cause the same problems to their respective HRs at the same levels of capacity, I have to think it must be the HRs inability to cope with close to 1.5TBs.

And this isn't figuring in that 100GBs that D* is saving for whatever on each active drive. (Is this an "Urban Myth"?)

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> And this isn't figuring in that 100GBs that D* is saving for whatever on each active drive. (Is this an "Urban Myth"?)
> 
> Rich


No myth [urban or otherwise], as I can see 75 gigs being used right now by the "pushed" HD recordings under Movies now/showcase.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

Wasn't it determined the file system the HRs use had a limit of 1.5TB?


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

V'ger;1904125 said:


> Wasn't it determined the file system the HRs use had a limit of 1.5TB?


aparently only the '20' had a 2tb limit..


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> No myth [urban or otherwise], as I can see 75 gigs being used right now by the "pushed" HD recordings under Movies now/showcase.


Gotcha. In any event, I am using the gross numbers of the eSATAs and hard drives and ignoring the 100GBs that D* keeps in reserve.

Fred wants to know how come you have a "manservant" and we don't. See what you started? :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

V'ger;1904125 said:


> Wasn't it determined the file system the HRs use had a limit of 1.5TB?


The only thing I can recall is 2TB. Do you have a link for the 1.5 claim? That would answer my questions very simply.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

houskamp said:


> aparently only the '20' had a 2tb limit..


That is what I have the 2TBs on, two 20-700s. And I can't get to 1.5TB. Could it be the RAID enclosure? But if it is the RAID enclosure, and I don't understand the technology behind RAID but do understand how they work, set to the big setting, why does each HR start slowing down at virtually the same capacity level. Works perfectly until they hit about 26-27% Availability on the capacity meter.

Rich


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

V'ger;1904125 said:


> Wasn't it determined the file system the HRs use had a limit of 1.5TB?





houskamp said:


> aparently only the '20' had a 2tb limit..


I know rich has had trouble once he gets near 1.5TB, and I know he's been asking for info about this for a while.
However, I haven't seen useful answers to his plight.

Are there other things to indicate a 1.5TB limit on the HR21? 
Or are you gleaning that solely from the fact that rich has had trouble?
I want to check with you before we accidentally start a new urban legend about this ;-)

ps: Not saying rich's troubles aren't real. But if I had HR-troubles the way he's had HR-troubles, I wouldn't be a D* customer today. (Really.)


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

From What I was told: Hr20 has a 2tb limit while the HR21 has a much higher (16tb?) limit.. this is due to version of OS (linux) on the boxes..
Wether there are other limits I don't know..


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

houskamp said:


> From What I was told: Hr20 has a 2tb limit while the HR21 has a much higher (16tb?) limit.. this is due to version of OS (linux) on the boxes..
> Wether there are other limits I don't know..


Now you have me 

While I can understand the hardware is slightly different between the 20-21, since they're running the same "code", how can they be running different versions of OS?


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Now you have me
> 
> While I can understand the hardware is slightly different between the 20-21, since they're running the same "code", how can they be running different versions of OS?


They're both just special-purpose computers (with other parts inside, like tuners).
Different computers can have different versions of OS. This can include stuff that resides in chips.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

russdog said:


> They're both just special-purpose computers (with other parts inside, like tuners).
> Different computers can have different versions of OS. This can include stuff that resides in chips.


The software [firmware] seems to be a complete package, each time it updates. These aren't "patches", so the flash chip [like BIOS] gets the same code for both the 20 & 21.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

From what I was told the 21 has a slightly new linux kernel..


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

houskamp said:


> From what I was told the 21 has a slightly new linux kernel..


Who? :lol:


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

little birdy  said "much more than 2tb".. and some other research found the newer linux..


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

houskamp said:


> little birdy  said "much more than 2tb".. and some other research found the newer linux..


Hope that "birdy" wasn't a crow.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Also from Brott: I'm pretty sure (off the top of my head) that Linux 2.4 is limited to 2TB and Linux 2.6 is limited to 16GB .. HR21+ is Linux 2.6 which HR20 is Linux 2.4.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

houskamp said:


> Also from Brott: I'm pretty sure (off the top of my head) that Linux 2.4 is limited to 2TB and Linux 2.6 is limited to 16GB .. HR21+ is Linux 2.6 which HR20 is Linux 2.4.


OK, the part about the 20s is what I remember from way back. And it was 2TB. I've never been able to get a really large eSATA to work on my 21s, so let's forget them for the moment.

If the 20s are indeed capable of dealing with a 2TB drive, do you think the RAID enclosure is causing this to happen? I'm including Very Old School in this question. I don't know enough to make anything more than observations.

By the way, even tho I paid over $850 for the two eSATAs, it's really not a big deal. There's no reason to feel sorry for me. I'm getting ready to buy a Seagate 1.5 Xtreme just to see what happens when I fill it up. If that works as it should, I would then have to conclude that the RAID enclosure is somehow adversely affecting the HR20-700s. And the two 2TB eSATAs will go back to my retailer. Ya gotta admit $850 is a lot to pay for two not quite 1.5 eSATAs.

And, if the 1.5 Xtreme slows down the 20 at about the same point as the 2TBs do, don't we have to rethink the 2TB capacity of the 20s?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> I know rich has had trouble once he gets near 1.5TB, and I know he's been asking for info about this for a while.
> However, I haven't seen useful answers to his plight.


Well, I'm gonna solve that problem and buy a 1.5 Xtreme, fill it up and see what happens.



> ps: Not saying rich's troubles aren't real. But if I had HR-troubles the way he's had HR-troubles, I wouldn't be a D* customer today. (Really.)


But it's been fun, for the most part, and I've learned a lot. And improved my typing skills dramatically. And all seven of my HRs work so well now that the aggravation was worth sticking with it. Now, I'm just playing around with them to see how much I can get them to do. And the more I play with them, the more I like them.

Rich


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Also remember that even if the OS can address a large amount we don't know if the other software can deal with it.. it maybe that the dvr software has trouble with keeping track of more than so much info..
A thing to try would be to see if large shows (several hr each) cause less trouble than a lot of 1/2-1hr shows..


----------



## bdcottle (Mar 28, 2008)

You might want to read this thread first
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=146439


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

houskamp said:


> Also remember that even if the OS can address a large amount we don't know if the other software can deal with it


That's the point I've been trying to make. Simply put: Will a 20-700 support a 2TB hard drive?



> it maybe that the dvr software has trouble with keeping track of more than so much info..


Again, that's the point I've been trying to make.



> A thing to try would be to see if large shows (several hr each) cause less trouble than a lot of 1/2-1hr shows..


The first time I noticed the remote signals being recognized very sloooooowly, I had mostly movies on the drive. Lots of movies. 2TBs is a lot of storage space. Now I have a lot of 1 hour shows on both, but I'm probably not going to do much more experimenting until I get at least one cleared off. Now that I think of it, this testing could take a while...

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> OK, the part about the 20s is what I remember from way back. And it was 2TB. I've never been able to get a really large eSATA to work on my 21s, so let's forget them for the moment.
> 
> If the 20s are indeed capable of dealing with a 2TB drive, do you think the RAID enclosure is causing this to happen? I'm including Very Old School in this question. I don't know enough to make anything more than observations.
> 
> ...


Can you supply more info on what "big" is here:


> I've got two Cavalry 2.0 eSATAs in RAID enclosures set to the "big" setting so that I may use the total capacity of the hard drives.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Can you supply more info on what "big" is here:


It is the setting of the RAID enclosure that allows both hard drives to record as if they were one. The folks at Cavalry set these up for me. Gives me a total of 2TBs, but how to get to 2TBs without taking the chance of having to reformat the enclosure is the question.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Gotta be more info out there. C'mon guys, help me here. Do the moderators know the answer? Somebody? Anybody?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I just called TenBox support and they say that they have no problems with filling up one of their 2TB eSATAs. They are going to check further and email me with any updates to this info. Didn't really sound like the tech knew a whole lot, but... 

The 3TB TenBox will not work with a 20 unless it is in the "mirrored mode" (their terminology, not mine) and becomes, in effect, a 1.5TB RAID setup.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

The techs at TenBox are going to fill up a 2TB TenBox and make sure it works correctly. Just got an email, they said it will take a few days to fill it up. Of course the TenBox costs $1299 for the 2TB and I would expect it to work for that price. I paid about $450 for the first 2TB Cavalry and they are now selling for about $270. 

Is this a fair comparison? 

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

By the way, since the techs at TenBox are filling up a 2TB drive to see what happens, it must be obvious that nobody there knows the answer to the capacity question. 

This is the only device I can think of that doesn't come with, or you can't order, a specification sheet that tells you what to expect from every function.

Rich


----------



## TenLab (Sep 12, 2007)

rich584 said:


> By the way, since the techs at TenBox are filling up a 2TB drive to see what happens, it must be obvious that nobody there knows the answer to the capacity question.
> 
> This is the only device I can think of that doesn't come with, or you can't order, a specification sheet that tells you what to expect from every function.
> 
> ...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

TenLab said:


> rich584 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, since the techs at TenBox are filling up a 2TB drive to see what happens, it must be obvious that nobody there knows the answer to the capacity question.
> ...


While your box, may "fill", it doesn't [yet] mean it's completely compatible with all of the HR2x receivers.


----------



## TenLab (Sep 12, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> While your box, may "fill", it doesn't [yet] mean it's completely compatible with all of the HR2x receivers.


Yes.

The TenBox is compatible with All DirecTV Plus HD DVR models:
HR20, HR21, HR22, HR23, HR21 PRo. Works with all.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

TenLab said:


> Yes.
> 
> The TenBox is compatible with All DirecTV Plus HD DVR models:
> HR20, HR21, HR22, HR23, HR21 PRo. Works with all.


"Works" and "works well" may be slightly different.
While I understand your "position" [your username seems to point this out].
Rich has been posting about the DVR slowing down at the 1.5 TB point.
There are postings that suggest the Linux version is slightly different between HR20 & HR21.
Perhaps, you can post a "bit more" about how "your box" functions with a HR20 compared to Rich's problems.
"Yes" isn't quite enough.

EDIT:
I guess what I'm trying to say is: you may make a wonderful device that might be limited by the design of the HR20 [since when it was designed, 2 TB drives weren't common] where they work to full function with the newer receivers.


----------



## dotbombjoe (Apr 6, 2008)

FYI, I have 3 of the Cavalry RAID units, 2 of the 2Tb models and one of the 1.5Tb model. I had one connected to my PC and the other two connected to my HR-20 100s... All three units have now failed (less than six months). I was using them all in mirrored mode, not the "big disk" mode, but I'd be willing to be that the number one problem you are running into related to disk failure and not anything to do with compatibility between the receiver or anything like that...

Cavalry...apparently you get what you pay for! Well, that's probably giving them too much credit because since you get pretty much nothing out of the deal other than a few hundred dollars out of your pocket and a slew of unwatched programming down the tube...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

That is why I didn't buy Calvary because I heard they were cheaply made and unreliable. I have not had one problem with my AMS DS3RPRO with 2 1TB Hitachi drives in it even though others have had problems getting their DS3RPRO to work.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dotbombjoe said:


> FYI, I have 3 of the Cavalry RAID units, 2 of the 2Tb models and one of the 1.5Tb model. I had one connected to my PC and the other two connected to my HR-20 100s... All three units have now failed (less than six months). I was using them all in mirrored mode, not the "big disk" mode, but I'd be willing to be that the number one problem you are running into related to disk failure and not anything to do with compatibility between the receiver or anything like that...
> 
> Cavalry...apparently you get what you pay for! Well, that's probably giving them too much credit because since you get pretty much nothing out of the deal other than a few hundred dollars out of your pocket and a slew of unwatched programming down the tube...


I just bought the RAID Cavs to try them out. I've had absolutely no problems with them other than what I have reported on this thread. I have been using Cavalry 750s for over a year and never had one fail. Sure, they are cheap and noisy, but they work reliably. Shame you had to lose your money. Did you check with them to see if their warranty would allow for replacements?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rich584 said:


> By the way, since the techs at TenBox are filling up a 2TB drive to see what happens, it must be obvious that nobody there knows the answer to the capacity question.
> 
> This is the only device I can think of that doesn't come with, or you can't order, a specification sheet that tells you what to expect from every function.
> 
> Rich





> Just to be clear: the TenBox TB2000 fills to maximum capacity with every HR2x.


I fixed your post so it was readable. The tech that answered my call the other day didn't know what would happen when the TenBox filled up when connected to a 20-700. She put me on hold and asked other techs and apparently they didn't know either because she told me they were going to fill one up and see what happened. There is no doubt in my mind that the 2TBs I have will fill up to full capacity. My worry is the remote commands slowing down so much before I reach 1.5TBs. I don't want to have to reformat the drive (yet) to get the capacity back to the point where the 20-700 works properly.



> The TenBox does not have a problem, Rich does with his HR20 and his setup
> (which is not a TenBox).


Never said it was a TenBox. Never said I was having problems with one 20, always said I had two 20-700s and two 2TB Cavalrys and that both were doing the same thing. There is nothing wrong with my "setup". The Cavalrys function perfectly as long as I keep the capacity above 30% available. Might be something wrong with the Cavs. Might be that the 20s will not support a 2TB drive that costs less than a thousand dollars. I don't know the answer and that is why I started the thread. Just seeking information.

I was curious when I called your tech and now I'm curious about why you are so certain and she was so uncertain. She even told me that I would see a screen come up that told me that the TenBox was full. That's not what should happen. The programs marked for deletion should just fall off the drive automatically and open up space for more recordings.

By the way, your website still says your 3 year return warranty is the best. How is that better than the 5 year Seagate warranty? Here is the direct quote: "Best warranty and support".

But enough of this. I do have a sincere question for you: Do you have a spec sheet that tells you the capacities of eSATAs that the various HRs support?

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

When my HR10-250s got close to capacity they slowed down and I was told by a TiVo tech that it was caused by the processor having to wait while it freed up space so it could finish it's current tasks and that the unreponsive of the remote was simply that it was queuing up those commands while waiting on the current task to finish and as soon as that task had enough space it would then finish the task at hand and go on to the next in the task queue!!!!

I deleted recordings and it returned to it's normal functionality!!!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> When my HR10-250s got close to capacity they slowed down and I was told by a TiVo tech that it was caused by the processor having to wait while it freed up space so it could finish it's current tasks and that the unreponsive of the remote was simply that it was queuing up those commands while waiting on the current task to finish and as soon as that task had enough space it would then finish the task at hand and go on to the next in the task queue!!!!
> 
> I deleted recordings and it returned to it's normal functionality!!!


I'm in the process of filling one of the 20-700s back up to the full 2TB capacity. I have all the recordings mirrored on my other HRs and will lose nothing if I have to reformat. I had thoughts that paralleled your statement above. Perhaps I pulled the trigger too quickly. Perhaps the Cav will not "pull down'' the 20-700 if I give it a chance and have patience with it.

Did your TiVo have an eSATA or a larger internal drive in it?

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

This was a larger Internal Drive as the HR10-250s did not have an eSATA Port!!!

It seems also to need a faster processor!!!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TenLab said:


> Yes.
> 
> The TenBox is compatible with All DirecTV Plus HD DVR models:
> HR20, HR21, HR22, HR23, HR21 PRo. Works with all.


Please don't get the idea I was attacking your product. I don't know of anyone else who is marketing 2.0 eSATAs that work with HRs except Cavalry and your company. That is the only reason I called your tech support number.

I almost bought one of your products last year when Earl was raving about them. I usually go for more expensive products on the assumption that if they cost more, they will perform better than cheaper products. If it would have had four or more inputs, I would have happily purchased the 2TB version (and I do believe it was a lot more expensive than it is now).

I had hoped that when I started the thread someone from your company would jump in and give us an answer based on the HRs specification sheets.

I haven't even had a reply from anyone who bought one of the 2TB TenBoxes. I had hoped for a reply from a satisfied customer, but so far, nada.

I know of one other person on the forum who is filling up a 2TB eSATA, but I'm not sure if he is using a 20 or a 21. I think the 21s will support a larger drive than the 20s, but that opinion is just based on what I've read in the forum.

I know you took some heat in another thread and I can understand your being defensive, but we're just looking for answers, not arguments. What I don't want to do is buy a 1.5TB eSATA and have that cause the HR to become unresponsive when the drive gets nearly full. I know the 1TB and 750G eSATAs work properly with the HRs when full, but nobody I have seen has reported any experiences with filling up even a 1.5.

Rich


----------



## dotbombjoe (Apr 6, 2008)

rich584 said:


> I just bought the RAID Cavs to try them out. I've had absolutely no problems with them other than what I have reported on this thread. I have been using Cavalry 750s for over a year and never had one fail. Sure, they are cheap and noisy, but they work reliably. Shame you had to lose your money. Did you check with them to see if their warranty would allow for replacements?
> 
> Rich


Yes, I'm sending them all back for repair/replacement. I'm guessing they'll send new units my way... But that isn't getting my money back and I have to say I'm not all that confident in the products they'll be sending me at this point.

I'm just disappointed because I bought RAID units specifically so that if a drive failed, I'd be able to recover using the 2nd drive...but in none of the cases (three) in which this has happened have I been able to do so -- the units have failed so completely that they cannot be accessed at all.

To make matters worse, in order for any service to be done under warranty, I have to ship the whole thing back to them...which means I have zero shot at getting any of my data off these devices which totally defeats the purpose of having redundant disks in the first place. I'm beginning to think the mirrored configuration is useless for these devices.

I know buying bargain basement isn't a great strategy for "reliability" but I still had higher expectations.

I've bought four Cavalry products to date, the other one was a 500g external single drive unit. The fan on that one failed within two months but due to the way I use that drive it hasn't caused a problem (it is rarely on).

So, all within a year (I believe under six months actually), the four Cavalry products have all failed in one or more ways. I'm sure there are units out there that have been working fine for quite some time...but I can't believe I just happen to have received four bum units (ordered separately over the span of about four months) -- this would seem to be a pattern.

Anyway, I just wanted to share my personal experience with the drives sold by Cavalry in case others find it helpful when making their buying decisions. I guess I should have done more homework rather than getting sucked in by the price.

I'll keep my fingers crossed with the new units but I am half-tempted to disassemble them and just put the drives in a different enclosure in hopes that the drives may have a longer life that way.

Regardless, hopefully your units hold up for the long-haul. I hope my replacements do as well! Best wishes,


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> This was a larger Internal Drive as the HR10-250s did not have an eSATA Port!!!
> 
> It seems also to need a faster processor!!!


Huh. I have only ever looked at new ''stand alone'' Hi Def TiVos and they have eSATA ports. Of course the HR10 needed a larger internal drive. I knew that, don't know why I asked. Brain lock.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I also am at 4% Space Available on my HR21-700 running RAID-1 with as you know my AMS DS3RPRO and I am not slowing down or having any problems and in fact I have been down to 1% and it did not slow down!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> I also am at 4% Space Available on my HR21-700 running RAID-1 with as you know my AMS DS3RPRO and I am not slowing down or having any problems and in fact I have been down to 1% and it did not slow down!!!


Holy moley.....you've got a lot of HD to watch and delete off there!!!  :lol:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

That is why I can't wait for the NEW 2TB Drives to come out so I can double my capacity while still RUNNING RAID 1 so I will have BACKUP in case of a drive failure in the future!!!

Can't have enough SPACE for recording HD!!!

Also, can't wait for MRV so I don't have to record the same things in 3 different places at the same time because I don't know where I might be watching that program at!!! 

When MRV comes out I will just record it on ONE DVR and then send it to wherever I want to watch it if I don't want to watch it on the DVR that originally recorded it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I also am at 4% Space Available on my HR21-700 running RAID-1 with as you know my AMS DS3RPRO and I am not slowing down or having any problems and in fact I have been down to 1% and it did not slow down!!!


We've pretty much determined that 1TB eSATAs will not cause the slowdowns. What we are concerned about is the 1.5TBs and the 2TBs. How much did that setup cost you?

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

My Setup cost alot more money than most people would be willing to pay, however money is not one of my problems in life.

I am willing to pay for the BLEEDING EDGE (or Cutting Edge) EXPERIENCE and that always means I will pay more for it than someone else down the road who waits but I choose not to wait!!!

Can't wait for the 2 TB Drives to become available and once again I will pay a PREMIUM to get them rather than wait 6 months for the price to drop but I want what I want and I normally get what I want!!!


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> Can't have enough SPACE for recording HD!!!
> 
> Also, can't wait for MRV so I don't have to record the same things in 3 different places at the same time because I don't know where I might be watching that program at!!!
> 
> When MRV comes out I will just record it on ONE DVR and then send it to wherever I want to watch it if I don't want to watch it on the DVR that originally recorded it.


Given that you use RAID-1 to protect yourself from lost recordings, I would expect that you'd want to record everything on more than 1 HR nomatter how much storage that HR is connected to. If you do what you said above, if that one HR dies, then you lose all your recordings.

On the other hand, with MRV, if you record everything on more-than-one HR, then your are protected from HR failures... it would be like a different version of doing what RAID-1 does for you...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I will diversify where I record my important recordings for that very reason.

DIRECTV needs to allow us to use our EXTERNAL Drive Configuration to connect to whatever replacement unit we get if our HR2X fails!!! It shouldn't be dependent upon the serial number of the unit it is connected to or if it is and they send a replacement then we should be able to modify it so it will accept the External Drive Recordings.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> I will diversify where I record my important recordings for that very reason.
> 
> DIRECTV needs to allow us to use our EXTERNAL Drive Configuration to connect to whatever replacement unit we get if our HR2X fails!!! It shouldn't be dependent upon the serial number of the unit it is connected to or if it is and they send a replacement then we should be able to modify it so it will accept the External Drive Recordings.


IMO, what they need to do is simply tie each recording to the customer account, not to the specific HR. 
That would solve the problem of lost recordings due to HR-failure, and it would still provide the protection against unauthorized copies that is the justification for tying recordings to the HR.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

russdog said:


> IMO, what they need to do is simply tie each recording to the customer account, not to the specific HR.
> That would solve the problem of lost recordings due to HR-failure, and it would still provide the protection against unauthorized copies that is the justification for tying recordings to the HR.


EXACTLY WHAT I HAD IN MINE!!! If I record stuff downstairs on my HR21-700 why should I be disallowed from viewing it upstairs in my other HR21-700. I paid for the right to view it so why must it be tied to the DVR and NOT to MY ACCOUNT!!!

DUMB!!!


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Looks like there must have been a post-black-friday sale on exclamation points.

I wonder what the net risk of people distributing some sort of unauthorized content from an external sata drive is vs the total aggravation experienced by customers who have an HR blow a gasket and lose the ability to play their recordings. Particularly when just about any piece of content you want is readily available from about a million alternative sources.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I bought 3.5 Million Exclamation Points at the Black Friday Sale that DBSTALK.COM had and I am going to use them all!!!


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

richierich said:


> When my HR10-250s got close to capacity they slowed down and I was told by a TiVo tech that it was caused by the processor having to wait while it freed up space so it could finish it's current tasks and that the unreponsive of the remote was simply that it was queuing up those commands while waiting on the current task to finish and as soon as that task had enough space it would then finish the task at hand and go on to the next in the task queue!!!!
> 
> I deleted recordings and it returned to it's normal functionality!!!


That's pretty interesting, and unexpected. It implies that the HR is using the drive for significant VM swap pages, does it not? I never would have guessed that there would be the need for much VM in a DVR at all. I also would expect that they would use a different small partition for that (or the DTV partition) rather than actively paging in the media partition, which sounds dangerous.

And I don't think that simply the fact of an enclosure that holds multiple disks is used that this would have any effect. I'm not sure I understand the term "RAID enclosure", as RAID refers to the recording scheme rather than the hardware it is encased in. IOW, you can have a RAID on a single HDD, as well as no RAID on multiple HDDs.

While on that topic, Weaknees is offering a 2-drive enclosure that will allow 2 1 TB drives be used as RAID 1 if you like (or as simple mass storage). Since I think there is much more chance of a recording being skunked by the DVR itself as opposed to it being wiped from storage, I prefer the backup of double-recording.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

TC, I'm by no means an expert at all when it comes to PCs or DVRs but this is just what I was led to believe and it sounded plausible.

I can't explain why the DVR would SLOW DOWN and become UNRESPONSIVE unless it was something like this so how would you EXPLAIN why the Processor seemed UNRESPONSIVE and SLOW but eventually would RESPOND to the COMMANDS QUEUED UP???


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

richierich said:


> TC, I'm by no means an expert at all when it comes to PCs or DVRs but this is just what I was led to believe and it sounded plausible.
> 
> I can't explain why the DVR would SLOW DOWN and become UNRESPONSIVE unless it was something like this so how would you EXPLAIN why the Processor seemed UNRESPONSIVE and SLOW but eventually would RESPOND to the COMMANDS QUEUED UP???


Richie, I CAN"T explain it. All I said was I found their explanation both surprising and revealing regarding the inner workings of their DVRs. I am certainly not challenging the explanation, I just am surprised by it. But I accept it.

It does, however, make perfect sense that tasks can get backed up in queue and that there might be a corresponding wait time which can be perceived as sluggishness, in fact I am convinced that is the case, and always have been, even well before this "explanation". The processor itself obviously marches along at the same clock speed all the time. What changes are the tasks on its to do list and how long it takes for it to get to one that is queued up behind a lot of others.

Typical PCs become unresponsive and are more-prevalent to disk errors when the drive becomes 90% full, for 2 reasons:

1) Less space for virtual memory, meaning paging becomes fragmented (which is the explanation it seems that DTV was giving you, and why I was surprised, in that I never suspected significant VM paging on a DVR).

2) Files become exponentially fragmented, meaning slower access time and potential loss of extent tree pointers (IOW, more chance for cataloging errors).

But since the media on DVRs doesn't fragment (or at least that is the prevailing theory) that kind of shoots #2 as a cause on the HR2x, and kind of points to the remaining explanation (#1).


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

dupe deleted


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

TomCat said:


> Richie, I CAN"T explain it. All I said was I found their explanation both surprising and revealing regarding the inner workings of their DVRs. I am certainly not challenging the explanation, I just am surprised by it. But I accept it.
> 
> It does, however, make perfect sense that tasks can get backed up in queue and that there might be a corresponding wait time which can be perceived as sluggishness, in fact I am convinced that is the case, and always have been, even well before this "explanation". The processor itself obviously marches along at the same clock speed all the time. What changes are the tasks on its to do list and how long it takes for it to get to one that is queued up behind a lot of others.
> 
> ...


Didn't Tivo use FAT filing system where the HR2x is Linux?
The HR2x does have a sway file partition that is twice the 256 RAM. [or so others have posted]
Does the HR10-250 even have 256 MB RAM?
Since Rich [I think] posted he had no problem with the HR21, but did with the (2) HR20s as they got to 1.5 TB, and they [21/20] run slightly different versions of Linux, doesn't this still point back to the version of Linux as being "what is slowing down"? Perhaps it's just keeping track of that many programs that is limiting the performance.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I would also think that the Slowing Down is connected to it's writing data or recording and it is taking time looking for adequate space to write it to. Anyway, it is an interesting thing that is happening and it does have an explanation and this is the best explanation that I have heard.

Makes sense that the UNRESPONSINESS of the REMOTE would pertain to the Queuing Up of Tasks waiting to be acted upon. 

Space Limitations seem to be the problem but then why just as it is approaching 1.5 - 2.0 Tb. 

Why not on my HR21-700 when it is running out of space at 1.0 TB???


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Didn't Tivo use FAT filing system where the HR2x is Linux?


Yes....and that makes alot of difference in how the indexing works, and the speed with which retrieval will work as well.

Linux has a much thinner footprint and simpler file "labeling" system, and therefore, is much more responsive in terms of file lookup times during the operating system seach process for any file on the drive. For that same reason, a user would expect a longer timeframe before they see any degredation of performance when approaching disk capacity levels.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> Looks like there must have been a post-black-friday sale on exclamation points.


Two points: I've been waiting for him to start using bold large italicized print to make his points, which he makes over and over ad nauseam.

The other point is: I find the term "Black Friday" rather offensive. Just an opinion.



> I wonder what the net risk of people distributing some sort of unauthorized content from an external sata drive is


There is no more risk of having several eSATAs being used within an account on any HR within that account than there is with one HR using an eSATA. The problem is that for whatever reason, D* refuses to support the eSATA function. That's the first step that must be taken before we can freely swap eSATAs on HRs on a single account. I've started a couple of threads about this and apparently few people care about this, until an HR fails and they lose a bunch of recordings.



> vs the total aggravation experienced by customers who have an HR blow a gasket and lose the ability to play their recordings. Particularly when just about any piece of content you want is readily available from about a million alternative sources.


Can you imagine trying to explain an eSATA problem to a CSR? It usually takes a CSR about an hour to activate a receiver. Their answer to any problem is to reformat the hard drive or send out a "refurbished" unit that will, undoubtedly, have the same problems. And to add eSATAs to their list of things they know nothing about would overload them.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TomCat said:


> That's pretty interesting, and unexpected. It implies that the HR is using the drive for significant VM swap pages, does it not? I never would have guessed that there would be the need for much VM in a DVR at all. I also would expect that they would use a different small partition for that (or the DTV partition) rather than actively paging in the media partition, which sounds dangerous.
> 
> And I don't think that simply the fact of an enclosure that holds multiple disks is used that this would have any effect. I'm not sure I understand the term "RAID enclosure", as RAID refers to the recording scheme rather than the hardware it is encased in. IOW, you can have a RAID on a single HDD, as well as no RAID on multiple HDDs.
> 
> While on that topic, Weaknees is offering a 2-drive enclosure that will allow 2 1 TB drives be used as RAID 1 if you like (or as simple mass storage). Since I think there is much more chance of a recording being skunked by the DVR itself as opposed to it being wiped from storage, I prefer the backup of double-recording.


I agree, but weaknees.com is so expensive compared to other sites. They do have a good reputation and I have done a lot of business with them over the years, but to pay those high prices makes little sense to me.

I too prefer the multiple HR method of backing up, in fact I use four HRs with large eSATAs to backup all my valued recordings. I do have a couple large RAID enclosures, but use the whole capacity rather than the mirrored versions. It has been my experience that the eSATAs will outlive the HRs, so why sink so much money into an expensive RAID enclosure?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Didn't Tivo use FAT filing system where the HR2x is Linux?
> The HR2x does have a sway file partition that is twice the 256 RAM. [or so others have posted]
> Does the HR10-250 even have 256 MB RAM?





> Since Rich [I think] posted he had no problem with the HR21


I've never tried the 21s with a large (2TB) hard drive. I did accept your opinion that the 21s would support larger drives than the 20s. Wait a minute, I did try the Cavalry 2TB drive on a 21-700 and it wouldn't work. The only large drive I ever tried with a 21 was a Seagate Xtreme 1.5 and that only lasted a week and started adversely affecting my 21-700. I never did fill it up, but did have it about 50% full when the lockups started during a football game.



> but did with the (2) HR20s as they got to 1.5 TB, and they [21/20] run slightly different versions of Linux, doesn't this still point back to the version of Linux as being "what is slowing down"? Perhaps it's just keeping track of that many programs that is limiting the performance.


Your last sentence above is what I think seems to be happening. They both work perfectly until they get to 27% or so, and when I put them back to 30% Available, the HRs work perfectly again. Good logic.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yes....and that makes alot of difference in how the indexing works, and the speed with which retrieval will work as well.
> 
> Linux has a much thinner footprint and simpler file "labeling" system, and therefore, is much more responsive in terms of file lookup times during the operating system seach process for any file on the drive. For that same reason, a user would expect a longer timeframe before they see any degredation of performance when approaching disk capacity levels.


So, if I understand you correctly, I should not be seeing the remote or front panel commands slow down at about 27% Available? I know nothing at all about Linux and am trying to process your post and I think this is what you are saying. Is this correct? And if it is correct, what do you think is causing that command slowdown? Could it be the RAID enclosure? I know I've filled up 750s and 1TBs and they have correctly dropped off the unsaved programs automatically, but since I haven't filled up a 2TB yet, I don't know what will happen. What I am afraid of is having to force a reformat of the disc. Wouldn't lose much, everything is backed up and I am in the process of letting one of the 20-700s fill all the way up just to see what will happen. I have not seen any problems with the actual recording or playback.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TomCat said:


> That's pretty interesting, and unexpected. It implies that the HR is using the drive for significant VM swap pages, does it not? I never would have guessed that there would be the need for much VM in a DVR at all. I also would expect that they would use a different small partition for that (or the DTV partition) rather than actively paging in the media partition, which sounds dangerous.
> 
> And I don't think that simply the fact of an enclosure that holds multiple disks is used that this would have any effect. I'm not sure I understand the term "RAID enclosure", as RAID refers to the recording scheme rather than the hardware it is encased in. IOW, you can have a RAID on a single HDD, as well as no RAID on multiple HDDs.
> 
> While on that topic, Weaknees is offering a 2-drive enclosure that will allow 2 1 TB drives be used as RAID 1 if you like (or as simple mass storage). Since I think there is much more chance of a recording being skunked by the DVR itself as opposed to it being wiped from storage, I prefer the backup of double-recording.


So, what do you think causes the remote and front panel commands to slow down? I had no problems viewing programs or recording them, but the commands were so slow I deleted a few movies and as soon as I got back to about 30% Available, the commands were normal again.

You obviously have a greater knowledge of this technology than I do. Can you explain it in a way that I can understand it? I do plan to dump the 2TB drives, I really don't need that much recording space, but if I replace them with 1.5TB eSATAs will I still have the same problems (on the 20-700s) when the drive approaches 0% Available? I started this thread in the hope of getting an answer and I gotta admit I'm still pretty confused.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *hdtvfan0001*
> _Yes....and that makes alot of difference in how the indexing works, and the speed with which retrieval will work as well._
> 
> _Linux has a much thinner footprint and simpler file "labeling" system, and therefore, is much more responsive in terms of file lookup times during the operating system seach process for any file on the drive. For that same reason, a user would expect a longer timeframe before they see any degredation of performance when approaching disk capacity levels._





rich584 said:


> So, if I understand you correctly, I should not be seeing the remote or front panel commands slow down at about 27% Available? I know nothing at all about Linux and am trying to process your post and I think this is what you are saying. Is this correct? And if it is correct, what do you think is causing that command slowdown? Could it be the RAID enclosure? I know I've filled up 750s and 1TBs and they have correctly dropped off the unsaved programs automatically, but since I haven't filled up a 2TB yet, I don't know what will happen. What I am afraid of is having to force a reformat of the disc. Wouldn't lose much, everything is backed up and I am in the process of letting one of the 20-700s fill all the way up just to see what will happen. I have not seen any problems with the actual recording or playback.
> 
> Rich


I beleive this was inresponse to the Tivo [FAT] file system, verses Linux, but the different versions of Linux in the HR20/21 may just mean this [same thing] happens at a larger amount of files/recordings. [To put it another way: Tivo (HR10-250) might exhibit this @ 750 GB or 1 TB.]


----------



## bdcottle (Mar 28, 2008)

Tivo's use a Linux file system, not a fat file system


----------



## bdcottle (Mar 28, 2008)

The TiVo uses Ext2 and a modified MFS file systems


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Absolutely correct. Tivo has their own optimized file system that is maintained and accessed by the system software as a 'container' under the linux OS that tivo uses.

Another potential source of slowdowns might be the size of any databases that directv employs. While space increases and a low level of free space might be the issue, more space usage also probably means more shows to keep track of.

I thought I read something around here a little while ago about directv bringing a new database technology into the HR's.

Consider that Directv still hasnt released a box with more than 500GB of storage in it, even though 750/1TB drives arent that much more expensive and premium users would pay a premium price for it. They also still have a 50 SL limit in place.

That suggests to me that they're concerned about performance in >500GB >50SL configurations.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> Absolutely correct. Tivo has their own optimized file system that is maintained and accessed by the system software as a 'container' under the linux OS that tivo uses.


I knew that you would be a source of good info on this thread. Now if I only had the technological knowledge to understand all this. Don't try to explain it to me, I'll just struggle thru it and, hopefully, I will be able to understand it.



> Another potential source of slowdowns might be the size of any databases that directv employs. While space increases and a low level of free space might be the issue, more space usage also probably means more shows to keep track of.


Databases I understand. But does the size of the database in the HR not rely on the hard drive used? Or is there another limiting factor? The reason I ask this is that I never used a database on a computer that had a ''limit''. Unless I ran out of space on the hard drive of the computer.



> I thought I read something around here a little while ago about directv bringing a new database technology into the HR's.
> 
> Consider that Directv still hasnt released a box with more than 500GB of storage in it, even though 750/1TB drives arent that much more expensive and premium users would pay a premium price for it. They also still have a 50 SL limit in place.
> 
> That suggests to me that they're concerned about performance in >500GB >50SL configurations.


I have filled up both 750G and 1TB hard drives and they both do just what they are supposed to do. They both deleted the "unkept" recordings as they ran out of space and thereby freed up space for more recordings.

I was really surprised that D* came out with the 22 and 23 with the larger hard drives. And quite disappointed that the larger drives were so small. A 750 would have made for a great selling point, and they don't seem to put any pressure on the HRs. Of course the idea of selling a Hi Def DVR that only recorded 20 or so hours of Hi Def recordings was pretty strange to begin with.

Rich


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

I have been using a 2TB RAID box with an HR21-200. (XtraStor XS-2B35U-R-BK enclosure with 2 WD10EACS's inside.)
It now shows 26% free. I will let it fill up further and see what happens.
Here are my observations so far...

Once it filled up to the point where less than 40% of space was free, *some* (but not all) responsiveness began to suffer:
 The main lag is when pulling up the list of recorded programs.
 It started showing a notable delay at 40% free, and has got worse since.
 At present, it takes as long as 7 seconds for the list to appear.

 Other aspects of responsiveness seem fine.
 Op's like pause, FF, RW, 30-sec slip, etc., seem the same as always, for both live programs and recordings.
 Once the list of recordings is showing, responsiveness when navigating that list is sometimes fine but sometimes sluggish. I have not discerned a pattern about when it's sluggish vs. fine.
 However, even when moving thru the list of recordings is sluggish, it's nothing like the huge delay in getting the list of recordings to show up.

My current poorly informed opinion is that:
 The issue here is a crappy db design.
 It behaves as if it has to regenerate the list of recordings each time you ask to see the list. 
 I'm not dissing that particular aspect. However, it appears that the db design is lousy, to the point where a longer list of recordings makes it snail-like.
 There is no good reason for this. The number of items in the db is quite small by any standard of modern db's. Even if it does things on the fly, it should still go lickety-split.
So, I'm hoping that they fix the db problem soon.
It's not that hard a problem (although God-knows what havoc a download to everybody will cause, given the D* track record re: download consequences.)

It will be interesting to see what users who have 1.5TB HDD's say when their HDD's fill up.
AFAIK, the issue I'm describing here has nothing to do with RAID vs. non-RAID, but rather is 100% about the HR-database's ability to cope with a longer list of recordings.

ps: I think this is a different issue than eSATA capacity. For example, we can imagine a db that performs reasonably, while different HR's might still have different upper limits on how many TB they each can handle.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Awhile back maybe 2 years ago my HR10-250 experienced similar problems and then they reorganized the database in a more efficient manner and it speeded up processing. Maybe this is what Directv needs to do. They need to look and see what Tivo did to make their's run faster and more efficiently.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> Awhile back maybe 2 years ago my HR10-250 experienced similar problems and then they reorganized the database in a more efficient manner and it speeded up processing. Maybe this is what Directv needs to do. *They need to look and see what Tivo did to make their's run faster and more efficiently*.


They don't need to study TIVO and then reverse engineer it. 
This isn't like trying to figure out the formula for Coke.

What they need is a few folks who have a clue about db's.
Maybe they do, but the results don't show it. 
(Now, watch umpteen people post comments about how this is somehow OK because they don't officially support eSATA, yada-yada.)


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, they were in meetings with TiVo about this restructuring of the database so they should be well aware of what TiVo did to solve this problem.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> I have been using a 2TB RAID box with an HR21-200. (XtraStor XS-2B35U-R-BK enclosure with 2 WD10EACS's inside.)
> It now shows 26% free. I will let it fill up further and see what happens.
> Here are my observations so far....





> Once it filled up to the point where less than 40% of space was free, *some* (but not all) responsiveness began to suffer:
> The main lag is when pulling up the list of recorded programs.
> It started showing a notable delay at 40% free, and has got worse since..






This is what I experienced using my two 2TB Cavalrys on two 20-700s, but the slowdown in response did not take place until I hit about 28% Available. I had hoped that the 21s would not have this problem at all and I am surprised that the problem showed up so early (40%).



> [*] At present, it takes as long as 7 seconds for the list to appear.






> [*] Other aspects of responsiveness seem fine.
> Op's like pause, FF, RW, 30-sec slip, etc., seem the same as always, for both live programs and recordings.
> Once the list of recordings is showing, responsiveness when navigating that list is sometimes fine but sometimes sluggish. I have not discerned a pattern about when it's sluggish vs. fine.
> However, even when moving thru the list of recordings is sluggish, it's nothing like the huge delay in getting the list of recordings to show up.



This, too, is what I experienced. Admittedly, I got scared and cleared some space off, went back to 30% and all was fine. Now that we have more info and confirmation that I was not experiencing an isolated incident, I am in the process of filling both 2TBs up (carefully and slowly) and will report if they work as they should. I can live with a slight delay, I just don't want to have to reformat the disc.



> My current poorly informed opinion is that:
> The issue here is a crappy db design.
> It behaves as if it has to regenerate the list of recordings each time you ask to see the list.
> I'm not dissing that particular aspect. However, it appears that the db design is lousy, to the point where a longer list of recordings makes it snail-like.
> ...


I think they would first have to support the eSATA function.



> It's not that hard a problem (although God-knows what havoc a download to everybody will cause, given the D* track record re: download consequences.).


Which brings me to a subject that I have been meaning to address thru a seperate thread: Why can't we be given some ballpark date when an NR is about to download? I know Stuart usually gives us some warning, but I would like the opportunity to disconnect all my eSATAs before an NR. For that to happen, a more precise date for the downloads would be needed. Of course that means that D* would have to "recognize" the eSATA function. Notice that I did not say "support", just "recognize".



> It will be interesting to see what users who have 1.5TB HDD's say when their HDD's fill up..


If they are using an eSATA such as the 1.5 Xtreme, and experienced the same symptoms, that would be solid proof that the RAID setup has nothing to do with the problem.



> AFAIK, the issue I'm describing here has nothing to do with RAID vs. non-RAID, but rather is 100% about the HR-database's ability to cope with a longer list of recordings.


See my statement above.



> ps: I think this is a different issue than eSATA capacity. For example, we can imagine a db that performs reasonably, while different HR's might still have different upper limits on how many TB they each can handle.


Agreed and thanx for the info, Russ.

Rich


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> If they are using an eSATA such as the 1.5 Xtreme, and experienced the same symptoms, that would be solid proof that the RAID setup has nothing to do with the problem.


For those of us who might be trying to make sense of this, for the same amounts of storage used, here are the approximate "Space available" percentage factors for 2TB vs. 1.5TB HDD's used for HR storage:

```
2TB     50%    45%    40%    35%    30%    27%   
1.5TB   32%    25%    18%    12%     5%     1%
```
The numbers above are based on a 2TB HDD's having 1763GB available for user recordings vs. 1297GB for 1.5TB HDD's.
(That's what you get after correcting for how HDD's are labeled and for the 100GB of HDD space that we believe D* allocates for other purposes).

I saw a slowdown in bringing up the list of recorded programs once I got under 40% free, which would correspond to 18% free on a 1.5TB.
Rich says he didn't see the slowdown until 28%, which would correspond to only 2% free on a 1.5TB HDD.

I'd put the comparable numbers there for 1TB HDD's too, but they don't exist in this range. 
1TB's are filled up when 2TB's have about 53% free and 1.5TB's have about 36% free.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> > So, I'm hoping that they fix the db problem soon.
> 
> 
> I think they would first have to support the eSATA function.


Other way around: They'd have to fix the db before they could officially support it.

Unless they want to cause lots of aggravation, that is.
(Given their history of software-QA, maybe you're right after all ;-)


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> For those of us who might be trying to make sense of this, for the same amounts of storage used, here are the approximate "Space available" percentage factors for 2TB vs. 1.5TB HDD's used for HR storage:
> 
> ```
> 2TB     50%    45%    40%    35%    30%    27%
> ...


That's (from my point of view) amazing. I don't even want to think of how you did this. And then you go on to translate this into something that makes sense. Well done!



> I saw a slowdown in bringing up the list of recorded programs once I got under 40% free, which would correspond to 18% free on a 1.5TB.
> Rich says he didn't see the slowdown until 28%, which would correspond to only 2% free on a 1.5TB HDD.


So, if I understand your figures correctly, the 20-700s would support a 1.5TB eSATA better than a 21.



> I'd put the comparable numbers there for 1TB HDD's too, but they don't exist in this range.
> 1TB's are filled up when 2TB's have about 53% free and 1.5TB's have about 36% free.


I've filled up 1TBs and they exhibit no problems at all. I gotta admit I never expected to have any problem with any eSATA such as I have experienced with the 2TBs. And, according to your figures, the 21s will have problems with the 1.5s.

Now I'm beginning to wonder if an internal 2TB would have the same problems. If it is the database that is the root cause, I would expect to see the same thing happen.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> Other way around: They'd have to fix the db before they could officially support it.
> 
> Unless they want to cause lots of aggravation, that is.
> (Given their history of software-QA, maybe you're right after all ;-)


Think what we've found might be the reason D* does not "support" the eSATA function?

Rich


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> > I saw a slowdown in bringing up the list of recorded programs once I got under 40% free, which would correspond to 18% free on a 1.5TB.
> > Rich says he didn't see the slowdown until 28%, which would correspond to only 2% free on a 1.5TB HDD.
> 
> 
> So, if I understand your figures correctly, the 20-700s would support a 1.5TB eSATA better than a 21.


I don't see why. It appears to be about the HR's database, which is a software thing.
AFAIK, it has nothing to do with HR20 vs. HR21/22/23.

We have seen reports here that the HR20 can address 2TB of storage and that the others can cope with 16TB. 
AFAIK, that's a different issue than how the db copes with up-to-2TB.

However, I'm just guessing, I don't really know.
The D* people know, but they're not talking.



rich584 said:


> Now I'm beginning to wonder if an internal 2TB would have the same problems. If it is the database that is the root cause, I would expect to see the same thing happen.


Yes. It shouldn't make any diff where the HDD lives.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

My guess is the slowness is based on the number of items recorded and stored in the db moreso than the total size of the recorded items. 

We've seen reports that DIRECTV has contracted to use another db, presumably in the HR2x, hopefully in all the db related functions like: PlayList, Guide, info lookups, perhaps even channel changes. 

I'm expecting good things at least... 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Think what we've found might be the reason D* does not "support" the eSATA function?
> 
> Rich


Beats me.

It appears to work OK up to and beyond the capacity of 1TB HDD's.
I agree that it's about the number of recordings, not the size of them, but the drive-size effectively dictates that (within some range).
If they wanted to, they could specify a max of 1TB HDD's (or perhaps even 1.5TB). It appears that would be fine.

But if they did that, they'd still have the big mess of only a few eSATA products working with the HR21/22/23.
Since eSATA is just a standard for connecting external SATA drives, people could/would/should expect that they'd just work.
But, as we have seen, a few do and many don't. We don't know why. 
I assume somebody at D* knows, but they're not talking.

I suppose they could support 1TB right now if they specified those eSATA's that work.
The problem with that is that the best solutions appear to involve users assembling their own.
The list of prefab 1TB eSATA units that always work is dreadfully short (and fanless).
All of which is silly, and is a sad example of lousy QA, but there you are.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> I don't see why. It appears to be about the HR's database, which is a software thing.
> AFAIK, it has nothing to do with HR20 vs. HR21/22/23.


I was referring to the difference in the amount of capacity available that the two platforms (20-700 at about 27% and 21-200 at about 40%) begin to show slowness when I said that the 20s seem to support the 2TBs better than the 21s.



> We have seen reports here that the HR20 can address 2TB of storage and that the others can cope with 16GB.


When housekamp posted those numbers he must have meant 16TB. You've far exceeded 16GBs.



> However, I'm just guessing, I don't really know.


I think we have begun to gather empirical data to support our guesses. Guesses become hypothesis and that becomes theory and then becomes fact if enough data is gathered to prove the theory. We do need more and last night I invited a member with a 1.5TB Xtreme to join us on this thread. He is using it on a 21 and I expect his attempt to fill it up to fail, but perhaps he will not have the same problems I had when I tried the Xtreme.



> The D* people know, but they're not talking.


I wouldn't bet the farm on that.

Both my 20-700s are at the 35% level and have exhibited nothing abnormal. This time I will make sure I note the exact percentage the issues start at.

Rich


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

As the 2TB RAID dips below 24% free (now at 22% free, w/ HR21-200), 2 updates:

* Delay in bringing up list of recordings is now up to 9 sec.

* Within the last 48 hours, 2 HR freezes. Neither one triggered by user action. Just turn TV on in the morning, and it's frozen. Whatever channel it's on, get audio but frozen still-frame video, no response to any user action, no use of the eSATA drive (little light doesn't flicker every few seconds like it normally does due to buffer activity). This HR has no prior history of freezing up (except for the Great D* Download Snafu of a few weeks ago).

If it happens a 3rd time, I'll delete enough stuff to get it back to 30% free and see if that stops it.


----------



## TenLab (Sep 12, 2007)

Here are some test results for Rich and those concerned about the maximum storage capacity allowed by the HR20-700:

We put two HR20-700 to test connected to 2TB Tenboxes, and with just 2% of space left on the TenBoxes they are still working flawlessly. 
The Disk Space Warning of the HR20-700 started popping up every time the List is called since they was about 5% left of free storage space, 
but both systems still working with no glitches nor slowdowns. The Guide, Search and every other function of the HR20-700 are working as expected.

Both TenBoxes have been recording for days nonstop different HDTV programs from different DirecTV channels ( MPEG-4 and MPEG-2).

If the HR20-700 works fine alone, it will work fine with 2 TB externally.
Most (if not all) of the glitches, slowdowns, etc such as Rich is experiencing may be related to excessive heat on the external HDDs, on the 
electronics of the controllers or poor data transfer rate on the external boxes. 

Hope you find this information helpful.

TenLab


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

russdog said:


> As the 2TB RAID dips below 24% free (now at 22% free, w/ HR21-200), 2 updates:
> 
> * Delay in bringing up list of recordings is now up to 9 sec.
> 
> ...


It just happened again.
Based on the details (below), my hunch is that the number of programs blew up the database.
Here's what happened:
 3rd freeze-up, then reboot. 
 Prior to the freeze-up, was showing 22% free.
 After the reboot, was showing 30% free, the blue/black bar was goofy, and a only a very short list of recorded programs were listed. The name of programs made sense, but the dates were from before I even had the thing. 
 Reboot again, just to see if the same list appeared again. It did.
 I deleted two programs, 1 by 1. With each delete of a single program, the free % would jump: first from 30% to 35%, then to 38%. It is certain that these numbers were goofy.
 Before I could delete another, it froze again.
 After another reboot, the proper program list was back with correct dates, showing 21% free, which is less free than it had ever showed before.
Due to the db weirdness, I deleted folders of stuff that I had saved solely for the purpose of filling it up. Plus, a lot of other stuff that I would otherwise have deleted after viewing (like college football games) but which I had kept just to fill it up.
Now, it's at 52% free and everything is snazzy.

From this behavior, I don't think it was the eSATA, I think that I had exceeded the capacity of the db. 
I have no way to know what the number of programs was (which I figure is what would make the db go crazy). 
It happened between 22% and 21% free. 
That would correspond to somewhere between 1375 and 1400 GB of the 1763 GB that I believe a 2TB would have available for user recordings. 
This is more than the 1297 GB that I believe a 1.5TB would have available for user recordings.

This is with an HR21-200. 
I assume that the db would be stressed by the number of recordings, not the size of the total.
I suppose it is also possible that the HR21-200 is somehow limited to coping with 1.5TB, as that also might explain the goofiness. However, I don't really know.

All I know for sure is that everything worked fine... until lately, when it filled up to a certain point. 
As for whether the problem is the number of programs vs. the storage they consume, I don't know.

As for the suggestion from the previous post that this is somehow due to "excessive heat on the external HDDs, on the electronics of the controllers or poor data transfer rate on the external boxes", I'm not buying that. In this case, I know for a fact there is not a heat problem, and the transfer rate has not been an issue before or since.


----------



## Beast (Jun 30, 2008)

Hi All  

Thanks for the invite rich584

Ok I have been trying to fill up my FA-X 1.5TB drive connected to my HR21-700. So far with very limited success, as of now it show 80% free. The least free space I have seen is 70%. I have way more shows on there now with the 80% free then I did with only 70%. My guess at the moment is that most of my shows are SD and only a few are HD. I have noticed that as I delete several SD shows after watching them that the free space never changes until I delete a whole lot of them.

The good news is I have had zero problems with this setup, but then I have had the drive installed for just over a month. I have seen no slow ups with the menus. The menu speed has always seemed slow to me. My previous setup was with a first gen Tivo (Sony Series One) Sat T60. 

I am running the latest CE. And plan to update (if there is one) tonight in a few hours.

In an attempt to fill the drive I have changed several of my recordings from keep 10 to ALL. 

I have a question, do any of you know the behavior when a recording is set to keep at most 10. Once this limit is reached will it stop recording the shows, or will it continue to record more shows replacing the oldest in the 10 already recorded?

Well I got a lot to learn about this unit. It seems to me the DVR should be recording much more than it is. I have looked in the history and seen a lot of not recorded entries do to show no longer available or some pid expected but found some other pid or some such wording.

TIA


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> As the 2TB RAID dips below 24% free (now at 22% free, w/ HR21-200), 2 updates:
> 
> * Delay in bringing up list of recordings is now up to 9 sec.
> 
> ...


OK, that's enough for me. I'm down to about 33% free on both 20-700s and if you're getting lockups, I'm not going to stress the 20-700s any further. As soon as I go upstairs I will begin deleting programs on both of them. I lost two 20-700s so far this year and don't want to lose another one. When they start locking up, it's time to do something. Quickly.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rich584 said:


> OK, that's enough for me. I'm down to about 33% free on both 20-700s and if you're getting lockups, I'm not going to stress the 20-700s any further. As soon as I go upstairs I will begin deleting programs on both of them. I lost two 20-700s so far this year and don't want to lose another one. When they start locking up, it's time to do something. Quickly.
> 
> Rich


I think it realy depends on the specific DVR you use and the specific hard drive you are using as well. Others have posted NOT to be experiencing any degredation of performance, including with very littl HD space left.

I've had 2 of my 3 HD DVRs at 98% full or so...and saw no problems whatsoever.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Beast said:


> Hi All
> 
> Thanks for the invite rich584


Please call me Rich, no need for formality. Thanx for responding so quickly. What we're trying to determine is the capacity that a 20 or 21 will support. Russ and I have both used RAID setups to get to 2TB and neither of us has succeeded without lockups. Keep this in mind, lockups are bad for the HRs. They will damage the HRs if they are caused by an external drive (never tried an internal drive). Your Xtreme is the second one we've played with and the first one started locking up in less than a week. That went back to the retailer.

You're the first member I've seen that has a 1.5 Xtreme working with a 21 and I urge you to take the eSATA off if you get close to filling it up and it begins to lockup or lockups at any time.



> Ok I have been trying to fill up my FA-X 1.5TB drive connected to my HR21-700. So far with very limited success, as of now it show 80% free. The least free space I have seen is 70%. I have way more shows on there now with the 80% free then I did with only 70%. My guess at the moment is that most of my shows are SD and only a few are HD. I have noticed that as I delete several SD shows after watching them that the free space never changes until I delete a whole lot of them.


An hour of SD recording is equal roughly to 1GB, if I remember correctly. So if you were able to fill up the 1.5 with SD recordings you would have about 1400 hours of programs. We are more interested in the Hi Def recordings as they use more space quickly.



> The good news is I have had zero problems with this setup, but then I have had the drive installed for just over a month. I have seen no slow ups with the menus. The menu speed has always seemed slow to me.


The HRs respond more slowly than the SD TiVos do. That's normal.



> My previous setup was with a first gen Tivo (Sony Series One) Sat T60.


That's like comparing apples and oranges.



> In an attempt to fill the drive I have changed several of my recordings from keep 10 to ALL.
> 
> I have a question, do any of you know the behavior when a recording is set to keep at most 10. Once this limit is reached will it stop recording the shows, or will it continue to record more shows replacing the oldest in the 10 already recorded?


If you "keep" all 10, I think it will stop recording more programs. If you let the HR delete them by not "keeping" them, the oldest will drop off and make room for the next one.



> Well I got a lot to learn about this unit. It seems to me the DVR should be recording much more than it is. I have looked in the history and seen a lot of not recorded entries do to show no longer available or some pid expected but found some other pid or some such wording.


The HRs do have an extremely steep learning curve. Two years into having them and I'm still learning. Have patience.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I think it realy depends on the specific DVR you use and the specific hard drive you are using as well. Others have posted NOT to be experiencing any degredation of performance, including with very littl HD space left.
> 
> I've had 2 of my 3 HD DVRs at 98% full or so...and saw no problems whatsoever.


But have you tried to reach 98% with a 2TB or a 1.5TB drive? I have had no problems filling up the internal drives, 750GB eSATAs or 1TB eSATAs. My first attempt at using a 1.5 Seagate Xtreme resulted in lockups multiple times the first week I had it hooked up to a 21-700. Those lockups began with the drive less than half full.

I will be purchasing another 1.5TB Xtreme to try with one of my 20-700s and expect to be able to fill it up without any lockups. I'm gonna get rid of the 2TB Cavalrys. I don't think it is the Cavs, I think it is the HRs inability to cope with a 2TB drive.

Rich


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> OK, that's enough for me. I'm down to about 33% free on both 20-700s and if you're getting lockups, I'm not going to stress the 20-700s any further. As soon as I go upstairs I will begin deleting programs on both of them. I lost two 20-700s so far this year and don't want to lose another one. When they start locking up, it's time to do something. Quickly.
> 
> Rich


On the one hand, better safe than sorry.
On the other hand, it could be the possible diff between HR20's and HR21's that you have hypothsized about before.
If such a diff exists, it could explain (somehow) the difference between my experience with the HR21 and the Tenbox guy's report about his 2TB product with an HR20.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

TenLab said:


> Here are some test results for Rich and those concerned about the maximum storage capacity allowed by the HR20-700:
> 
> We put two HR20-700 to test connected to 2TB Tenboxes, and with just 2% of space left on the TenBoxes they are still working flawlessly.
> The Disk Space Warning of the HR20-700 started popping up every time the List is called since they was about 5% left of free storage space,
> ...


It is good to have info from actual experience. Thanks for contributing this info.
Given the behavior of HR21's (both mine and Rich's), it would be interesting to see if you get the same results using an HR21 instead of an HR20.

Also, there are 2 related issues here: storage-capacity (in GB's), and db-capacity (re: number of programs recorded).
When testing the HR20, do you know if whoever did it recorded a zillion different programs? 
Or did they use manual settings to have it record fewer-and-larger blocks of time?

Since one possible issue is the HR db, this could make a huge difference in the HR's ability to handle it. 
Recording a relatively small number of large time-blocks could well give a false-positive result, one that would not be replicated w/ normal user behavior.
IMO, it's important that tests fill the storage capacity by recording a large number of small-ish programs, in order to populate the db like users would do.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TenLab said:


> Here are some test results for Rich and those concerned about the maximum storage capacity allowed by the HR20-700:
> 
> We put two HR20-700 to test connected to 2TB Tenboxes, and with just 2% of space left on the TenBoxes they are still working flawlessly.
> The Disk Space Warning of the HR20-700 started popping up every time the List is called since they was about 5% left of free storage space,


I don't get that. I've filled up the internal drive, 750 eSATAs and 1TB eSATAs and they all just deleted programs that had not been marked to "save" or "keep". I've never seen a disc space warning screen. Don't doubt you, but is that the TenBox that is causing the warning screen or the HR? Why would I not get that warning screen on the three sizes of drives I have filled up?

Did you put a "keep" on each recording? I've never done that and that is the only way I can think of that the HR would show a capacity warning screen. Normally, the "unkept" programs just drop off the HR and make room for new recordings, but if you told the HR to save every program I can see a warning screen generated by the HR itself.



> but both systems still working with no glitches nor slowdowns. The Guide, Search and every other function of the HR20-700 are working as expected.
> 
> Both TenBoxes have been recording for days nonstop different HDTV programs from different DirecTV channels ( MPEG-4 and MPEG-2).


Must have something to do with your eSATAs.



> If the HR20-700 works fine alone, it will work fine with 2 TB externally.
> Most (if not all) of the glitches, slowdowns, etc such as Rich is experiencing may be related to excessive heat on the external HDDs


Both my 20-700s read 116 degrees, well within the temperature parameters for a 20-700 and the Cavalry 2TBs are not "hot" to the touch. I truly doubt it is a heat related problem.



> on the electronics of the controllers or poor data transfer rate on the external boxes.


Yet they both work perfectly until they reach about the 1.5TB level. Russ began to see problems with his 21-200 at 40% Available. If the Beast has problems with his 1.5 Xtreme similar to what Russ and I are experiencing I will call Seagate and ask their techs to look into this problem.

Don't forget, my 2TB Cavalry is selling now for $299 compared to yours at over $1000. And the Xtreme 1.5 is selling for $239. I'm not sure the comparison is valid. For instance, I went to a Dodge dealership recently because my son wants a Charger and I wanted to see what they were like. I usually drive my 1988 Bonneville (bought it new in 88) when I go to a dealership, but this time I happened to be driving my Caddie. The salesman laughed at me when I told him I was looking for something like the Caddie for my son. In terms of performance and safety. His reply was simple, "Not here. Nothing on this lot comparable."

Do you think this is a similar situation? Is your product so good that it allows the 21 or 20 to cope with drives that "normal" eSATAs can't? That is the only conclusion I can come to.

I have found that the 2TB drives are more than I need. A 1TB is plenty on each of the four 20/21-700s that I use to record and backup programming for my wife and I to watch. I've done all this just to see what would happen. I will be dumping one of the Cavs ASAP and putting a Seagate 1.5 Xtreme on it and see what happens with that.



> Hope you find this information helpful.


To be honest, it just confuses me more. But without a proper spec sheet, how can we expect to "know" what to expect? I asked you in a previous post if you had a spec sheet for the 20/21s and I have to ask you again if you do. I'd love to see one, the HRs are the only device I've ever worked with that had virtually no specs to go by.

Well, thanx for replying. I'd appreciate it if you could offer any constructive advice based on the setups we are using. Unfortunately, it seems that not many people use eSATAs, at least not as many as I thought would. I asked Beast to join us because he is the only member of our forum that I know that has a 1.5 Xtreme working with a 21 or a 20.

Stay in touch, please. You or your product will not be vilified on this thread (I hope, I have no real control over what members say).

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> On the one hand, better safe than sorry.
> On the other hand, it could be the possible diff between HR20's and HR21's that you have hypothsized about before.
> If such a diff exists, it could explain (somehow) the difference between my experience with the HR21 and the Tenbox guy's report about his 2TB product with an HR20.


Don't forget, I'm using two 20-700s and after reading your posts, I'm gonna unload both 2TB Cavs.

Perhaps the TenBox just works better than our setups. I dunno, I gotta get off now before I go completely bonkers.

Rich


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Don't forget, I'm using two 20-700s and after reading your posts, I'm gonna unload both 2TB Cavs.
> 
> Perhaps the TenBox just works better than our setups. I dunno, I gotta get off now before I go completely bonkers.
> 
> Rich


It appears to be a capacity issue, but we don't know which capacity:
 Is it the capacity of storage (GB's used for recordings)?
 Or is it the capacity of the db (number of recordings listed in the db)?
I'm guessing it's the latter, but I'm just guessing.
We also don't know if the HR20's and HR21's exhibit the same behavior.
What we need is test of each that include not just eating GB's but also filling up the db.

Bottom line is that we need both of the following kinds of tests:
 To see if it's a storage issue, we need a smaller number of huge recordings.
For example, manual recordings of many hours per recording, of HD material.
 To see if it's a database issue, we need a larger number of small recordings. 
For example, many, many, many recordings of 30-min each, of SD shows.
Then we'd find out which one causes goofy HR behavior.
And we'd want to do that separately for HR20's and for HR21's.

I wish I had spare HR's to do these with, but I don't.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Beast said:


> I have a question, do any of you know the behavior when a recording is set to keep at most 10. Once this limit is reached will it stop recording the shows, or will it continue to record more shows replacing the oldest in the 10 already recorded?


If you have it set to KAM 10 it'll always continue to record, overwriting the oldest episode with a new recording. The "keep until I delete" doesnt actually keep until you delete, the only effect that has is that if your disk runs out of space, it'll choose to delete other shows that dont have the KUID flag set.

Which is different from how every other DVR product works, so its a little confusing to people making a transition.

My guess is the slowdown will be more evident with more shows that have more show information, like longer descriptions, more actors, more show categories rather than large block recordings with very little information. I think it has more to do with volume of show data entries than volume of disk space. If thats the case, someone with a 1TB disk with lots of 15 and 30 minute shows might see more of a problem than someone with a 2TB disk with a bunch of 3-6 hour block manual recordings, football games or other long shows/events.

We have 1TB disks and lots of 15-30 minute recordings (kids shows) and lots of dramas and movies with lots of show information. Ours are slow if we go below 50% free space or have more than 40 series links with lots of hits.

So it could also be a combination issue of the number of series links 'hits', recorded show database size, etc. The HR's seem to do an awful lot of things in real time/interactive while the tivo used to do a lot of things in-place and keep them static for a period of time, for example downloading guide data once every day to day and a half and processing it in place, rebuilding the todo list only periodically, and recreating the todo list whenever you rearranged the season pass priorities.

While the highly interactive/real time approach responds more quickly to changes and can provide more timely info, I'd imagine there is a heck of a performance penalty and chances for bad real time information to cause problems.

So it may be that someone with 5 series links that records 24 hour manual recordings to fill up a 2GB drive would see no problems whatsoever. But someone with 50 series links full of kids shows that are on all the time would have problems with a much smaller drive.

Hearkens me back to my early 1980's Vax experiences, where the Vax was somewhat limited by how much storage it could manage by processor performance and memory size, and you had to take away from that for any regular processing loads.

These are after all pretty low performance machines with (relatively speaking) slow cpu's and small amounts of memory. A 2002 model mid range graphics card could kick the crap out of the HR20 in a fair fight.

And now they're not only recording tv shows, they're doing all sorts of VOD stuff, network stuff, querying other devices for capabilities, being prepared to do MRV, etc.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> If you have it set to KAM 10 it'll always continue to record, overwriting the oldest episode with a new recording. The "keep until I delete" doesnt actually keep until you delete, the only effect that has is that if your disk runs out of space, it'll choose to delete other shows that dont have the KUID flag set.


Pains me to admit it, but that assumption on my part was based on logic and not experience. I had never done such a thing and assumed that all programs marked "Keep" would stay in place. Learn something new everyday.



> Which is different from how every other DVR product works, so its a little confusing to people making a transition.


The TiVos did work the way I thought the HRs would in that particular (and peculiar) way, right? Must have formed that opinion from something. Nah, I don't remember ever "Keeping" only a limited amount of recordings. When I mark programs to "Keep", I usually also hit the save all button too (or whatever it's called). Different strokes...



> My guess is the slowdown will be more evident with more shows that have more show information, like longer descriptions, more actors, more show categories rather than large block recordings with very little information. I think it has more to do with volume of show data entries than volume of disk space. If thats the case, someone with a 1TB disk with lots of 15 and 30 minute shows might see more of a problem than someone with a 2TB disk with a bunch of 3-6 hour block manual recordings, football games or other long shows/events.


I mix up movies and network programming and have never seen a slowdown until I put the 2TBs on and hit about 1.5TBs on them. I've been using 750s and 1TBs for a while. To be honest, I expected to have lockups before I ever experienced a slowdown in response time. I dread lockups.



> We have 1TB disks and lots of 15-30 minute recordings (kids shows) and lots of dramas and movies with lots of show information. Ours are slow if we go below 50% free space or have more than 40 series links with lots of hits.


Huh. That's never happened to me.



> So it could also be a combination issue of the number of series links 'hits', recorded show database size, etc. The HR's seem to do an awful lot of things in real time/interactive while the tivo used to do a lot of things in-place and keep them static for a period of time, for example downloading guide data once every day to day and a half and processing it in place, rebuilding the todo list only periodically, and recreating the todo list whenever you rearranged the season pass priorities.
> 
> While the highly interactive/real time approach responds more quickly to changes and can provide more timely info, I'd imagine there is a heck of a performance penalty and chances for bad real time information to cause problems.
> 
> So it may be that someone with 5 series links that records 24 hour manual recordings to fill up a 2GB drive would see no problems whatsoever. But someone with 50 series links full of kids shows that are on all the time would have problems with a much smaller drive.


My poor head is spinning trying to process (pun intended) all this.



> Hearkens


 Great word! :lol:



> These are after all pretty low performance machines with (relatively speaking) slow cpu's and small amounts of memory. A 2002 model mid range graphics card could kick the crap out of the HR20 in a fair fight.


No doubt about that. I recently asked my wife if she had ever lost a hard drive and she replied in the negative. She's a heavy Excel user at work and damn near drove our IT group crazy back in the middle to late 80s trying to keep up with her and her multi-layered spread sheets and that was on Macs. She always had the biggest and best Macs on her desk and they were constantly replaced by larger models as they came out and they still couldn't keep up. And yet, all her problems were memory related and speed of processing related. She never lost a hard drive. I've never lost a hard drive either on a computer. My problems with hard drives began on the UTV DVRs and the Series 1 and 2 TiVos. I've never really lost a hard drive on an HR.



> And now they're not only recording tv shows, they're doing all sorts of VOD stuff, network stuff, querying other devices for capabilities, being prepared to do MRV, etc.


I do use VOD occasionally. No way would I attempt to hook up an HR to a computer network. As for MRV, I've had it for years, just not in the manner that everyone is looking forward to. At the moment I have five Panny plasmas and can watch what I want anywhere. I know that's not the same as MRV, but close enough for me.

So to sum things up, what the HRs are is a slow computer? Seems like they could do better and not raise the cost of each unit much. Perhaps the new 23-700s have faster processors? I think I saw that in the release notes.

Rich


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

t_h said:


> My guess is the slowdown will be more evident with more shows that have *more show information, like longer descriptions, more actors, more show categories rather than large block recordings with very little information. I think it has more to do with volume of show data entries than volume of disk space*. If thats the case, someone with a 1TB disk with lots of 15 and 30 minute shows might see more of a problem than someone with a 2TB disk with a bunch of 3-6 hour block manual recordings, football games or other long shows/events.


I agree about the db (vs. available resources) being the likely culprit.
I hadn't thought about the volume of data per show affecting things.
That's a reasonable idea, and one that makes it way harder to test.

I know this feature isn't supported, but I wish there was some back-channel communication path by which D* could tell us what's what with this whole thing.

Either they don't know, or else they do know and they're not talking.
While their track record has me dubious about their overall level of competence, that's not saying nobody there is competent.
I have a hard time believing they don't know.

While they're busy not-supporting it, it would make things a whole lot easier if they would just tell us the truth about what the issues and limitations are.
They don't have to officially tell us. They could leak the tidbits as "unsupported info".
Maybe somebody could ask somebody, who could ask somebody, who could etc.
What we need is an information leak.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

If the database is the Problem then why does the TENBOX work without any problems??? Same DB!!! EXPLAIN!!!


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> If the database is the Problem then why does the TENBOX work without any problems??? Same DB!!! EXPLAIN!!!


Just read the recent posts: We don't know how they filled it up, or how that method did or did not stress the db.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I think it has more to do than the DB. I think it is more Hard Drive related but who knows. 

If the TENBOX can do it then it is not software or database related, PERIOD!!!! They are using the same software and db so it must be something else!!!


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> If the TENBOX can do it then it is not software or database related, PERIOD!!!!


Well, if you actually believe that, then maybe you should buy a couple of them ;-)


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I think I will buy one of them when they come out with the 2 TB hard drives as I want to make sure I don't have the same problems as you and Rich have. I can't believe how much time you guys are spending on this problem. It's like an obsession. I'll spend some money and be done with it.


----------



## Mighty H (Dec 8, 2008)

I don't think the DVR does much to defragment an external HDD. Additionally, if the video and the metadata arent' written in a consistent manner to the HDD, the heads and actuators spend a lot of time hopping back and forth to stream the video. If the file system is set up to stream video, then it can work a lot better. Here's one that does accept streaming commands: http:www.seagate.com/showcase


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I couldn't get that link to work but this one will.

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/consumer_electronics/showcase/

I prefer using an External Enclosure that supports RAID configuration so I can run RAID 1 mirroring my drives so if one fails I will be able to replace it without losing any recordings. Can't wait until the 2TB Drives come out so I can upgrade.

Also, that is pretty pricey for a unit without a fan or RAID backup capabilities. Also, it doesn't state that it is compatible with Directv's DVRs but I imagine it would work but who knows. It said compatible with Dish & Pace.


----------



## Mighty H (Dec 8, 2008)

It does have a bottom mounted fan, and is extremely quiet and temperature tolerant. Did see Pace and DISH compatibility, so it looks like they are going down the right path.....at least for a single drive expansion.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> Also, that is pretty pricey for a unit without a fan or RAID backup capabilities. Also, *it doesn't state that it is compatible with Directv's DVRs* but I imagine it would work but who knows. It said compatible with Dish & Pace.


In principle, there should not be compatibility issues re: eSATA.
It's nothing but a way to connect SATA HDD's that live in an external box.
For any device that uses SATA HDD's, an eSATA jack is an additional connection for SATA HDD's. There should be nothing tricky about it.

The mystery re: HR's is not about why some eSATA's work. The mystery is why so many of them don't.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I think I will buy one of them when they come out with the 2 TB hard drives as I want to make sure I don't have the same problems as you and Rich have. I can't believe how much time you guys are spending on this problem. It's like an obsession. I'll spend some money and be done with it.


Speaking of obsessions, why don't you tell us about your RAID setup? And while you are at it, consider a "comprehension of English" program. I am not having problems. I've said several times that I'm curious and that is why I bought the two 2TB Cavs. To play with. To play with. To play with. Got it? Russ is doing the same thing. We both find this interesting.

I've discontinued playing with the Cavs and am going to replace them with 1.5 Seagate Xtremes. To play with and see what happens. Understand?

If you think we are spending too much time on what you think is an obsession why don't you stop reading this post? You seem to find it interesting altho you've contributed little to the thread except your constant raving about your mirrored RAID setup which will be useless as soon as the HR you have it connected to fails. You'll lose all your precious recordings, the RAID mirroring won't help you, all you've done is waste your money and our time.

Happy? Glad you've finally aggravated me? That seems to be your main thrust in life.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> If the database is the Problem then why does the TENBOX work without any problems??? Same DB!!! EXPLAIN!!!


I told the gentleman from TenBox that I would not vilify either him or his products. And now you force me to do just that. He is a retailer. Did you expect him to say that his products might not work correctly with the HRs? I didn't. And if you read his posts in reply to my posts, you will see that he did not answer all my questions. I'm not going to go any further with the TenBox and I'm not going to buy one. I apologize to the gentleman from TenBox for this.

Perhaps you could EXPLAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!! why the TenBox works and the Cavs or Russ' setup doesn't work. After all, they are all RAID enclosures and you seem to be a self anointed expert on those!!!!!!

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mighty H said:


> It does have a bottom mounted fan, and is extremely quiet and temperature tolerant. Did see Pace and DISH compatibility, so it looks like they are going down the right path.....at least for a single drive expansion.


I looked at it and Pace makes the 20-700s and the 21-700s so they might work perfectly with them. The Seagate line does not have a good track record with the 21s and I would be a bit leery of hooking a 21 up to it. They are rather expensive and I do believe that products that are more expensive usually work better than cheaper ones. The best thing you can do to satisfy your curiosity is to give Seagate a call. They have great technical support and freely admit it when they don't know the answer to something. Or wait until someone else tries one. Won't be me. Not on a 21.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

rich584 said:


> You seem to find it interesting altho you've contributed little to the thread except your constant raving about your mirrored RAID setup which will be useless as soon as the HR you have it connected to fails. You'll lose all your precious recordings, the RAID mirroring won't help you, all you've done is waste your money and our time.
> Rich


Actually, I find that about 90% of all DVR failures are related to the hard drive so my chances are pretty good that I will be okay.

I admit that Directv should allow me to receive a replacement DVR and then use my External Drive Enclosure to attach to it and be able to view MY RECORDINGS!!! Why should the External Enclosure be LIMITED to a particular DVR especially if THAT DVR FAILS???

It would be pretty simple to do as far as Directv is concerned so why don't they do it. Who knows???


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Actually, I find that about 90% of all DVR failures are related to the hard drive so my chances are pretty good that I will be okay.


What are you basing that finding on? I've NEVER had a hard drive fail (except for a couple of eSATAs that were my fault) on an HR. I had many, many hard drive failures on UTV DVRs and TiVos, but never on an HR.



> I admit that Directv should allow me to receive a replacement DVR and then use my External Drive Enclosure to attach to it and be able to view MY RECORDINGS!!! Why should the External Enclosure be LIMITED to a particular DVR especially if THAT DVR FAILS???


If I recall correctly, I started two threads in the last couple of years addressing this issue and nobody seems to care that D* does not support or even recognize the "hard drive to HR marriage" issue. The final conclusion of the last one was that not many people actually use eSATAs. I still find that hard to believe, but I did not get much response to either thread.



> It would be pretty simple to do as far as Directv is concerned so why don't they do it. Who knows???


I think it is quite clear that it would be relatively easy to do, but the first thing that has to be done by D* is to recognize and support the eSATA function and since we cannot even find out what capacities the HRs support, how are we gonna get D* to support the eSATA function?

Unless enough people complain about the lack of support nothing will be done. Check out the setups of the moderators and other knowledgeable people like Very Old School and you will rarely see any mention of an eSATA. Without them, nothing will be done.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, I have had 3 drives fail on my HR10-250s but have had none fail on my HR2Xs.

However, I have been in countless threads where people have posted that their DVR had drive problems and had to replace either the drive or the DVR. If fact I posted in a Thread yesterday about it and the moderator said not to talk about replacing Internal Drives as Directv does not want us to do it.

I used to be a SpinRite expert and alot of people PMed me about what to do since their drive was either failing or had failed. SpinRite can recover data on bad sectors long enough for you to offload it to a DVD.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mighty H said:


> I don't think the DVR does much to defragment an external HDD. Additionally, if the video and the metadata arent' written in a consistent manner to the HDD, the heads and actuators spend a lot of time hopping back and forth to stream the video. If the file system is set up to stream video, then it can work a lot better. Here's one that does accept streaming commands: http:www.seagate.com/showcase


The one thing that I did not see on the Seagate link was the speed of the eSATA. If it is only 1.5GB/s it will not work. Should be 3GB/s.

Again, I urge you to call Seagate and ask them about this.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I believe the HR20s require 1.5 Gb/s but the HR21s require 3 Gb/s.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Well, I have had 3 drives fail on my HR10-250s but have had none fail on my HR2Xs.


Exactly my experience.



> However, I have been in countless threads where people have posted that their DVR had drive problems and had to replace either the drive or the DVR.


How did they know it was the hard drive, a CSR tell them? With all the problems I have had with the HRs, how come I have never had a hard drive failure?



> If fact I posted in a Thread yesterday about it and the moderator said not to talk about replacing Internal Drives as Directv does not want us to do it.


And rightly so. Why anyone would post, for all the world to see, that they had violated their contract with D* is mind boggling.



> I bet most all of the Moderators have replaced their Internal Drives but just don't mention the fact.


They get to be moderators for a reason and I doubt if it is stupidity.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I believe the HR20s require 1.5 Gbs but the HR21s require 3 Gbs.


3GB/s for both. Never tried a 1.5 on any of mine. Doubt it would work on either platform.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> 3GB/s for both. Never tried a 1.5 on any of mine. Doubt it would work on either platform.
> 
> Rich


Since two HD MPEG-2 feeds would be ~ 50 Mb/s, seems like the burst figure of 1.5 Gb/s would work quite well.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I was referring to Moderators at Tivocommunity.com where I know one of them did indeed install a larger Internal Hard Drive on this DVR!!!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> I was referring to Moderators at Tivocommunity.com where I know one of them did indeed install a larger Internal Hard Drive on this DVR!!!


What you do with an owned DVR is one thing, while what you do with a leased, is another.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, you can do it on a Leased DVR if you don't have a problem with Directv finding out and charging you for the Full Price of the DVR. 

That's the Worst Case Scenario and I have not heard of one case where Directv has caused a problem for someone who has upgraded his Internal Hard Drive.

Have You???


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> Well, you can do it on a Leased DVR if you don't have a problem with Directv finding out and charging you for the Full Price of the DVR.
> 
> That's the Worst Case Scenario and I have not heard of one case where Directv has caused a problem for someone who has upgraded his Internal Hard Drive.
> 
> Have You???


Perhaps the best reply would be a closing comment from a chat with DirecTV engineering. They know we "know how to" but asked us not to.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Since two HD MPEG-2 feeds would be ~ 50 Mb/s, seems like the burst figure of 1.5 Gb/s would work quite well.


I don't think they do, but if you say they will, I will defer to your greater technical knowledge (I don't even understand your post :lol: ).

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I don't think they do, but if you say they will, I will defer to your greater technical knowledge (I don't even understand your post :lol: ).
> 
> Rich


data transfer rate far exceeds "the need" from the DVR.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Perhaps the best reply would be a closing comment from a chat with DirecTV engineering. They know we "know how to" but asked us not to.


And that should be enough to stop anyone from posting "how to" about an internal hard drive. I can't even begin to imagine why anyone would consider discussing that on an "open" forum.

The next time you chat with a D* engineer, could you ask him how large an eSATA drive the 20s and 21s will support? Somebody must know.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> data transfer rate far exceeds "the need" from the DVR.


So that means that the HRs will run on an eSATA with 1.5GB/s? How slow can you go?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I was referring to Moderators at Tivocommunity.com where I know one of them did indeed install a larger Internal Hard Drive on this DVR!!!


Explain "this DVR!!!"?

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> So that means that the HRs will run on an eSATA with 1.5GB/s? How slow can you go?
> 
> Rich


USB 2.0 is 0.4 Gb/s, which "could handle" ~ 40 MPEG-4 HD or 20 MPEG-2 HD programs at the same time, so I don't think you could get a new hard drive that couldn't handle the two feeds from the DVR.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

A DVR is a Digital Video Recorder!!!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

We've pretty much beat this baby to death and have come up with very little in the way of solid knowledge. I do know that my two 2TBs will not function properly when the capacity reaches about 1.5TB. I do know that Russ's will not function properly past 40% available. That is all I know for sure. After all this, that is the body of work that is conclusive. The sad thing is that I knew my two 2TB eSATAs wouldn't go past the 1.5TB mark when I opened this thread.



Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> A DVR is a Digital Video Recorder!!!


So some moderator put some hard drive in some DVR? What I was looking for was a model number, was it even an HR? Your reference to the TiVo forum makes your post incomprehensible.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

What will be INTERESTING is when I get 2 2TB hard drives and put them in my DS3RPRO which no one else can seem to get working and then I begin to fill it up to MAX CAPACITY then what will you say!!!

That will be very interesting to find out if I experience the same slow down when I get to the point of 1.5 Gig of recordings.

I thought that you might have been smart enough to look at my Signature in Blue below my Posts and figure out that it was an HR10-250!!! As in TIVOCOMMUNITY where we discuss TIVOs such as the first HD DIRECTIVO!!! I also was the First Person to buy an HR10-250 and have it Activated by DIRECTV way back when.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I think we've also seen Ten Lab not quite step up to the plate and give info as to why anybody would buy one of their products of this size and expect anything different.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> USB 2.0 is 0.4 Gb/s, which "could handle" ~ 40 MPEG-4 HD or 20 MPEG-2 HD programs at the same time, so I don't think you could get a new hard drive that couldn't handle the two feeds from the DVR.


But would an eSATA, which can't work on USB, as far as I know, work properly with 1.5GB/s? The ones that do work with the HRs all seem to be 3GB/s. Never seen a post that said that someone had a 1.5 eSATA working.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

If you go back and look at the posts long ago about the HR20-700, etc. hooking up with an external drive they were configuring it at 1.5 Gb/s. I think one of those posts was from hdtvfan0001 if I am not mistaken.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I also am curious why TenLab is not offering more info about their box being able to be filler up to capacity which would be a big selling point here in this forum if they COULD DO IT!!!

Maybe Mister TenLab found out they couldn't do it and they are trying to find out why.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> But would an eSATA, which can't work on USB, as far as I know, work properly with 1.5GB/s? The ones that do work with the HRs all seem to be 3GB/s. Never seen a post that said that someone had a 1.5 eSATA working.
> 
> Rich


The 3.0 Gb/s controller is backwards compatible with the 1.5 Gb/s drives.
"I think" what you're seeing is the larger drives are all 3.0 Gb/s [as this has become "the standard"]. Who would want to connect a 250 GB drive?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> What will be INTERESTING is when I get 2 2TB hard drives and put them in my DS3RPRO which no one else can seem to get working and then I begin to fill it up to MAX CAPACITY then what will you say!!!
> 
> That will be very interesting to find out if I experience the same slow down when I get to the point of 1.5 Gig of recordings.
> 
> I thought that you might have been smart enough to look at my Signature in Blue below my Posts and figure out that it was an HR10-250!!!


So, you were talking about a TiVo. What does that have to do with this thread?

Please watch the insults, you're really beginning to aggravate me. Seems that is what you strive to do. How anyone could have determined from your post that you were talking about a TiVo is beyond me.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> The 3.0 Gb/s controller is backwards compatible with the 1.5 Gb/s drives.
> "I think" what you're seeing is the larger drives are all 3.0 Gb/s [as this has become "the standard"]. Who would want to connect a 250 GB drive?


Let's see, I can think of one person who would probably be thrilled (with himself) if he stuck two 250s in a DS3RPRO :lol:.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I think we've also seen Ten Lab not quite step up to the plate and give info as to why anybody would buy one of their products of this size and expect anything different.


I've never even seen a post from someone besides Earl that had a TenBox. Have you?

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

rich584 said:


> Let's see, I can think of one person who would probably be thrilled (with himself) if he stuck two 250s in a DS3RPRO :lol:.
> Rich


Rich you got that slightly WRONG!!! I would be VERY HAPPY if I could STICK 2 TWO TB Hard Drives in that DS3RPRO and have it work without Slowing Down at the 1.5 Gig Mark!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Can't get enough Room for Recording Golf or Football or whatever can we???


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> I thought that you might have been smart enough to look at my Signature in Blue below my Posts and figure out that it was an HR10-250!!!


Not to jump on a band wagon here, but displaying signatures is an option under your user control panel settings.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I've never even seen a post from someone besides Earl that had a TenBox. Have you?
> 
> Rich


Think this might have something to do with it? :
*HDTV & Multimedia eSATA Storage Box*
MSRP:
*TB1000: 1TB Box $599.00*
*TB1500: 1.5TB Box $999.00*
*TB2000: 2TB Box $1299.00*
*TB3000: 3TB Box $1299.00*


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

WOW, that is EXPENSIVE!!! 

And the TB3000 only gives you 1.5 TB of Recording Capacity because of running in Safe Mode or RAID 1 which is what I run.

Is EARL that RICH??? Or did Mr. TenLab cut him a deal because of his connections???


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Not to jump on a band wagon here, but displaying signatures is an option under your user control panel settings.


Difficult person, if I didn't find him amusing at times...

Snowing here lightly, the shed is shaking and Fred wants to be turned loose. He doesn't listen to reason either. And now, because of you, he wants to know how we go about getting a "manservant" so he doesn't have to be dependent upon me. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

rich584 said:


> Difficult person, if I didn't find him amusing at times... :lol:
> Rich


I just try to keep you on your toes so you will be sharp!!! :lol:

And I have heard you can be difficult at times!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Think this might have something to do with it? :
> *HDTV & Multimedia eSATA Storage Box*
> MSRP:
> *TB1000: 1TB Box $599.00*
> ...


Oh yeah! Altho I have to admit I almost bought the 3TB back when Earl was posting about them. At that time, my knowledge of eSATAs was limited to FAPs and how to get them to work. At that time I think the 3TB was a whole lot more expensive than it is now. Truthfully, I can't blame any retailer for high prices if people are willing to pay those high prices. The tech I talked to the other day told me that the 3TB was actually in RAID 1 mode and would actually have a capacity of 1.5TB. At the time we were talking about 20s and I don't know if they think the 21s can support a full 3TB.

I glanced at an email from weaknees.com the other day and they are selling a 2TB mirrored eSATA for about the same price as the TenBox 1TB. I know the people at weaknees.com, have done enough business with them to be on a first name basis with a couple of guys there, and would trust them if they say it will work. What I don't remember is what that eSATA was for. Not sure if it was for the HRs. Will check...checked, here is the link:

http://www.weaknees.com/hr20-700-directv-hd-dvr.php#path2?code=793683

and it is for HRs and all D* DVRs that have eSATA functions. I'll give them a call later and ask them if they ever filled one up. Perhaps I can talk Jason into joining this thread. I've known and chatted with him for years and he's a good person. That's more than a fair price if the thing will actually work.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I just try to keep you on your toes so you will be sharp!!! :lol:
> 
> And I have heard you can be difficult at times!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Yeah, but I try to say only what I would say if the person I am responding to was three feet away from me. And few people have ever spoken to me as you have within that 3 foot distance.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> WOW, that is EXPENSIVE!!!
> 
> And the TB3000 only gives you 1.5 TB of Recording Capacity because of running in Safe Mode or RAID 1 which is what I run.
> 
> Is EARL that RICH??? Or did Mr. TenLab cut him a deal because of his connections???


I think they saw an opportunity to jack up their sales and either gave him one or loaned him one to play with. Wonder if Earl ever filled one up? We don't even know what size he had, do we?

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I am waiting for Two 2 TB hard drives being mirrored so I have 2 TB of storage with that being backed up by them running it in Safe Mode or RAID 1. Weaknees doesn't have that yet because the 2 TB drives are not out yet.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I am waiting for Two 2 TB hard drives being mirrored so I have 2 TB of storage with that being backed up by them running it in Safe Mode or RAID 1. Weaknees doesn't have that yet because the 2 TB drives are not out yet.


Just reread the email and the 2TB is two 1TBs in the "big" mode, not two 2TBs mirrored. Still not a bad price if it works. Can't call weaknees up until this afternoon, they are on Pacific time. Still want to see if they ever filled one up and what happened when and if they did.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Difficult person, if I didn't find him amusing at times...
> 
> Snowing here lightly, the shed is shaking and Fred wants to be turned loose. He doesn't listen to reason either. And now, because of you, he wants to know how we go about getting a "manservant" so he doesn't have to be dependent upon me. :lol:
> 
> Rich


Monday morning I was clearing 4" of snow and was wondering if Fred wanted to come to "sunny California" for a visit. [30 degrees right now]


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Monday morning I was clearing 4" of snow and was wondering if Fred wanted to come to "sunny California" for a visit. [30 degrees right now]


I'm not even going to read this to him. That's all he'd have to hear. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Just reread the email and the 2TB is two 1TBs in the "big" mode, not two 2TBs mirrored. Still not a bad price if it works. Can't call weaknees up until this afternoon, they are on Pacific time. Still want to see if they ever filled one up and what happened when and if they did.
> 
> Rich


So, I called weaknees.com and Jason doesn't work there any more. Damn. Got a guy named Nick and he admitted that they have never filled up a 3TB RAID 1 eSATA to the best of his knowledge. Told him what might happen, still not sure of the 1.5TBs, and he said he'd get that info to the techies. He did say his boss has one at his house and hasn't had any problems, but he's only been using it for a week so he can't have come close to filling it up.

I bought a 1.5TB Seagate Xtreme today and when it gets delivered, I will hook it up to a 20-700 (I know they won't work properly with a 21-700) and see what happens.

Rich


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> So, I called weaknees.com and Jason doesn't work there any more. Damn. Got a guy named Nick and he admitted that they have never filled up a 3TB RAID 1 eSATA to the best of his knowledge. Told him what might happen, still not sure of the 1.5TBs, and he said he'd get that info to the techies. He did say his boss has one at his house and hasn't had any problems, but he's only been using it for a week so he can't have come close to filling it up.


FYI, I added to the FAQ thread, summarizing what we think we know about the capacity limitations.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=142735

To find it, scroll down to post#2.

I had to use the empty placeholder in post#2 because post#1 is big enough that adding anything more breaks it. 
(Sorta like when you add "one program too many" to an HR HDD ;-)

That 2nd post is just about the capacity issue. 
It's long, simply because this is a somewhat complicated issue, so it takes some 'splainin'.

ps: Best to chit-chat about it here, not there ;-)


----------



## Beast (Jun 30, 2008)

rich584 said:


> I bought a 1.5TB Seagate Xtreme today and when it gets delivered, I will hook it up to a 20-700 (I know they won't work properly with a 21-700) and see what happens.
> 
> Rich


Just a short follow up, my Hr21-700 with FA-X 1.5TB is now at 68% free space.
Still no problems.

I noticed something for the first time tonight, the free space bar has two shades of blue, there is a light blue that represents the space taken and then on the far left is a much darker blue over the top of the lighter blue bar that is very short at the moment. Do you know what this is??? Does the darker blue maybe represent the space taken by the content D* puts on the drive, the pay to watch movies and other stuff.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Beast said:


> Just a short follow up, my Hr21-700 with FA-X 1.5TB is now at 68% free space.
> Still no problems.
> 
> I noticed something for the first time tonight, the free space bar has two shades of blue, there is a light blue that represents the space taken and then on the far left is a much darker blue over the top of the lighter blue bar that is very short at the moment. Do you know what this is??? Does the darker blue maybe represent the space taken by the content D* puts on the drive, the pay to watch movies and other stuff.


Darker is for the recording set "to keep".


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> FYI, I added to the FAQ thread, summarizing what we think we know about the capacity limitations.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=142735
> 
> ...


Russ, if I may suggest this, I think putting any changes in bold red and leaving them like that for a week or so would be helpful. Also, I would suggest thinking about adding a "Glossary" of terms relating to eSATAs so new readers could follow easier. For instance the terms "lockups" and "freezeups" are used interchangeably and I think that should be clarified. Lockups, in my mind are something that requires a reboot of the HR and "freezeups" can be handled by easier means, such as turning the HR off and back on. Stuff in that vein could make it easier for all of us to understand and more clearly communicate what we mean when we post or read a post. Just a couple thoughts.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Darker is for the recording set "to keep".


Aw, I wanted to answer that. You get to do all the techie stuff, you could have left that one for me. :lol:

By the way, what are you doing shoveling snow at your advance age? Be careful, we'd miss you and never know what happened.

Rich and Fred


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Beast said:


> Just a short follow up, my Hr21-700 with FA-X 1.5TB is now at 68% free space.
> Still no problems.
> 
> I noticed something for the first time tonight, the free space bar has two shades of blue, there is a light blue that represents the space taken and then on the far left is a much darker blue over the top of the lighter blue bar that is very short at the moment. Do you know what this is??? Does the darker blue maybe represent the space taken by the content D* puts on the drive, the pay to watch movies and other stuff.


You have to start watching that space bar. When you get close to the point where you have exceeded 1TB you might start experiencing problems. Witness Russ having lockups at 40% Available. Keep posting, we're interested.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> By the way, what are you doing shoveling snow at your advance age? Be careful, we'd miss you and never know what happened.
> 
> Rich and Fred


Well, the thought of a heart attack, at the time, was on my mind. :eek2: 
We had the usual "snow" here, where the top three inches was snow and the bottom inch was pure [freezing] slush. Then there was the "fun" of the steep driveway, where once you've scraped the snow, you then find yourself slipping on the fine sheet of "slop" and fighting to stay on your feet.
Had I waited a day, I would have needed an ice scraper instead of a shovel.
I left New Hampshire to get away from this s...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Well, the thought of a heart attack, at the time, was on my mind. :eek2:
> We had the usual "snow" here, where the top three inches was snow and the bottom inch was pure [freezing] slush. Then there was the "fun" of the steep driveway, where once you've scraped the snow, you then find yourself slipping on the fine sheet of "slop" and fighting to stay on your feet.
> Had I waited a day, I would have needed an ice scraper instead of a shovel.
> I left New Hampshire to get away from this s...


I've never heard anyone say they were thrilled with NH. How would we ever know if one of us expired? Gotta tell my wife to throw up an "it's finally over" email should I expire before she does.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

So, has anyone got any ideas about the capacity of eSATAs regarding HRs? There must be someone out there who has some new thoughts.

This thread is seven pages long and has over 3000 views and I still don't know any more than when I started it. 

I should get my Xtreme 1.5TB early this week and will then rip my wife's 20-700 from her hands and test the X out. I already know it won't work with my 21-700s properly (I do appreciate the Beast's willingness to test his X with his 21-700, and I'm reasonably sure that he will come to grief with it, but it is still a courageous thing to do in the pursuit of knowledge) and am pretty certain it will work with a 20-700 because the FAPs do. 

And sadly, Russ, the Beast and I are the only ones actively testing the HRs to find out just how much eSATA capacity it will support. I guess this is another indication of the fact that not many people use eSATAs. 

I do think that 1TB eSATAs used on four HRs is plenty of storage to backup and record the seasonal shows, but aren't more people just plain curious? 

And one of the really frustrating things about this is that, apparently, all the folks I trust for technical support don't seem to use eSATAs. Curiouser and curiouser.

Rich


----------



## Beast (Jun 30, 2008)

rich584 said:


> This thread is seven pages long and has over 3000 views and I still don't know any more than when I started it.
> Rich


Well slowly the drive is filling up, now at 58% free. Still no problems. Keeping my fingers crossed.

I did not download the latest CE this week end, after reading the posts. Seems lots of people are having audio glitches.


----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Has anyone reached full capacity on a 1.5TB eSATA or internal drive and if so, has the HR slowed down?
> 
> If you have a full 1.5 drive, do the shows that are not marked to "Keep" drop off automatically as they should?
> 
> ...


Hi Rich!

I have a two bay enclosure with a 1TB and a 750 GB drive in their respective bays. I have had as little as 9% remaining with no problems with playback or recording.

The receiver is an HR20 100.

Hope this helps!


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Russ, if I may suggest this, I think putting any changes in bold red and leaving them like that for a week or so would be helpful. Also, I would suggest thinking about adding a "Glossary" of terms relating to eSATAs so new readers could follow easier.


Both things are fine with me.

At the moment, it seems that our info is pretty stable. 
Nothing new lately, except for our guesses about the db-capacity issue.
However, when there's cause to make changes, I'll be happy to make them in red.

As for the glossary, I'm not the best one to do that.
If others wish to cooperate on one, I'll be happy to incorporate it.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> So, has anyone got any ideas about the capacity of eSATAs regarding HRs? There must be someone out there who has some new thoughts.


Not sure what you're looking for.
Do you suspect that our guesses about the db being the practical limit are incorrect?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Rich you might want to read this thread regarding similar problems with Tivo boxes such as the HR10-250.

If you don't have the time to read the whole article you could just skip about half way down to this Paragraph, "Common Failures of the Direct TV Tivo with most likely fault:"

http://0054c07.netsolhost.com/PVR_T.htm

Also, this is an interesting post on Bad Power Supply units which can mimic a hard drive going bad.

http://www.dealdatabase.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41440&page=2


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

saxon2000 said:


> Hi Rich!
> 
> I have a two bay enclosure with a 1TB and a 750 GB drive in their respective bays. I have had as little as 9% remaining with no problems with playback or recording.
> 
> ...


I think, if I am reading your post correctly, it does. You have a total of 1.75TBs of storage? That is quite interesting. Could you tell us about the enclosure and how you set it up?

The reason I ask is that I think that if someone (and I know they are not available now) were to put a 2TB drive in place of the present internal drive it would work as it should. I have a feeling the eSATA function is at fault, just a guess.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> Not sure what you're looking for.
> Do you suspect that our guesses about the db being the practical limit are incorrect?


I don't have the technical ability to form an opinion on this. I was hoping you and someone else could come to a conclusion. Did you read the post by Saxon 2000? That's interesting, huh?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Rich you might want to read this thread regarding similar problems with Tivo boxes such as the HR10-250.
> 
> If you don't have the time to read the whole article you could just skip about half way down to this Paragraph, "Common Failures of the Direct TV Tivo with most likely fault:"
> 
> ...


Thanx for the links. I knew most of the stuff about the TiVos, some of them I had experienced, some I just read about. The majority of problems I had with TiVos were bad hard drives and I solved that by buying my hard drives from a website called digitalrecordings.com (I think that was the name of it, I've got all new computers in the house and I've lost that address) that guaranteed their drives for three years.

I've really never had a hard drive problem with an HR. Even the eSATA that got wiped out in the last NR worked correctly when I reformatted it. Still replaced it, but it did work. I'm not even sure what a bad hard drive would look like on an HR. How would you know? On a TiVo, if you got the Welcome screen forever, that was an indication that the HD was shot. But on an HR? Dunno.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

A bad drive will usually not Power Up so you will never get to the end of the boot up. You start to notice pixellation if it is due to a bad sector or a bad power supply unit.

Lots of things that look like a bad hard drive is really a bad power supply not supplying enough voltage for it to either fully spin up or fail once it has spun up because of a reduced drop in voltage.

It will be interesting to see what happens when a certain person gets a 2TB drive and installs it internally and then maxes out the capacity. I believe the problem is with the eSATA rather than the storage capacity but it also could have something to do with the database structure.

Some of the same problems you report are mentioned in that link and that it also happened to some TIVOs when they came close to maxing out their capacity. It may be a processor/database problem where it can't handle a large number of small recordings as far as db indexing is concerned.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

saxon2000 said:


> Hi Rich!
> 
> I have a two bay enclosure with a 1TB and a 750 GB drive in their respective bays. I have had as little as 9% remaining with no problems with playback or recording.
> 
> ...


What's the enclosure set to? RAID-0, RAID-1, or what.
Which is it?

With either, I believe you're getting capacity based on the 750GB, not the 1TB.
So, if it's RAID-1, you've got 750GB.
If it's RAID-0, you've got 1.5TB.

Regardless, when it's nearly filled, is there any time lag at all in bringing up the list of recorded programs?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Rich did you read this in that link that I posted?

Tuner Problems: One or Both Tuners will not get Picture, One tuner gets Odd Transponders on signal level screen but not evens (or visa versa)

Problem: Breaking up or Tiling of Picture especially on replay of recorded programs

Cause: Can be a tuner problem or a slow hard drive, but often times due to hard drive needing to be cleaned up. This can be a simple matter of deleting some recorded programs to let your DVR get some "breathing room" A total system reset is advised prior to sending for repairs. Also, a hard drive that is constantly run at capacity will often times cause menus to appear sluggish or sticky.

Please understand that when we say a tuner or modem has failed, that we are referring to an un-separable section of a large circuit board that contains many parts.


----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

russdog said:


> What's the enclosure set to? RAID-0, RAID-1, or what.
> Which is it?
> 
> With either, I believe you're getting capacity based on the 750GB, not the 1TB.
> ...


Hello.

It's set for one big drive, RAID 0.

No pro-blem-o's whatsoever. Works great.

I'm down to 7% available as of today, until I delete a couple of football games I recorded once I have verified that I have them on the DVD's that I recorded at the same time.

I have hundreds of movies on there.

No noticeable time lag.

If you want, I'll try to connect my drive to my PC to see how much is used on the drive, and how much is available.

I just don't want to lose my saved content, though!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Rich did you read this in that link that I posted?
> 
> Tuner Problems: One or Both Tuners will not get Picture, One tuner gets Odd Transponders on signal level screen but not evens (or visa versa)
> 
> ...


I did read that. I've never had those problems. Good to know. Now that I've read about it, I will undoubtedly experience it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> What's the enclosure set to? RAID-0, RAID-1, or what.
> Which is it?
> 
> With either, I believe you're getting capacity based on the 750GB, not the 1TB.
> ...


Why would it be only 1.5TB? Why not 1.75TB? Don't understand, as usual.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Rich did you read this in that link that I posted?
> 
> Tuner Problems: One or Both Tuners will not get Picture, One tuner gets Odd Transponders on signal level screen but not evens (or visa versa)
> 
> ...


Did you notice that Saxon is using the same RAID enclosure as you are? You are not alone.

And your posts now look as if a rational person is writing them. Kudos!

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

No, I didn't notice that Saxon was using the DS3RPRO but I will definitely talk to him about it to see what his setup experiences were. Can't wait for the 2 TB drives to come out as I will install those on Day 1 when they come out.

Then we will see when I get close to being MAXED out if it is the RAID enclosure or the DB or something else.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

> With either, I believe you're getting capacity based on the 750GB, not the 1TB.
> So, if it's RAID-1, you've got 750GB.
> If it's RAID-0, you've got 1.5TB.





rich584 said:


> Why would it be only 1.5TB? Why not 1.75TB? Don't understand, as usual.
> 
> Rich


RAID-0 is a striped between the drives, so only 750 GBs of the 1 TB drive is being used, since it's paired with the 750 GB drive.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> data transfer rate far exceeds "the need" from the DVR.


Oh so true. Which raises the question, why is anyone even considering a RAID system for a DVR?

Weaknees has a system that will mirror drives, but that is technically not RAID, in fact if you search their site for the word "RAID" it only picks up the word "afraid" half a dozen times.

And actually, I question the value of their "mirror". AFAIK, the HR2x can only mount one drive at a time, which means that they must make the dual drives appear as if they were a single partition (which is indeed possibly similar to certain RAID configurations, but still not RAID). So what does that mean if something goes wrong with one of the two drives? Is there not the possibility that both drives would disappear?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> If you have it set to KAM 10 it'll always continue to record, overwriting the oldest episode with a new recording. The "keep until I delete" doesnt actually keep until you delete, the only effect that has is that if your disk runs out of space, it'll choose to delete other shows that dont have the KUID flag set.


So, naturally, I tried it and you're right. Never really had a reason to try this feature out. What else could "Keep Until I Delete" mean except keep until I delete? And yet there it is. These things even lie to us. Truly amazing.



> Which is different from how every other DVR product works, so its a little confusing to people making a transition.


I guess I never used this feature on a TiVo either. Did the TiVo stop at five or ten and not add or delete any programs unless told to do so?



> My guess is the slowdown will be more evident with more shows that have more show information, like longer descriptions, more actors, more show categories rather than large block recordings with very little information. I think it has more to do with volume of show data entries than volume of disk space. If thats the case, someone with a 1TB disk with lots of 15 and 30 minute shows might see more of a problem than someone with a 2TB disk with a bunch of 3-6 hour block manual recordings, football games or other long shows/events.


I'll be really interested to see what happens when the first brave soul replaces the internal drive with a 2TB drive when they become available. I have a feeling that it will work perfectly. And if it does that will prove that the eSATA function itself is flawed, no?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> RAID-0 is a striped between the drives, so only 750 GBs of the 1 TB drive is being used, since it's paired with the 750 GB drive.


Huh. So with my two Cav 2TBs I have, they each have two 1TB drives and since both are the same size, they add to 2TB in RAID 0?

And if you put a 500Gig and a 1TB in a RAID enclosure you would only get 1TB in total in RAID 0? And only 500G mirrored in RAID 1?

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

TomCat said:


> Oh so true. Which raises the question, why is anyone even considering a RAID system for a DVR?
> 
> Weaknees has a system that will mirror drives, but that is technically not RAID, in fact if you search their site for the word "RAID" it only picks up the word "afraid" half a dozen times.
> 
> And actually, I question the value of their "mirror". AFAIK, the HR2x can only mount one drive at a time, which means that they must make the dual drives appear as if they were a single partition (which is indeed possibly similar to certain RAID configurations, but still not RAID). So what does that mean if something goes wrong with one of the two drives? Is there not the possibility that both drives would disappear?


As far as the HR2X DVR is concerned it only knows the existence of Drive 0, it doesn't even know Drive 1 exists. The RAID Enclosure then does the mirroring and the only problem would be if the data on Drive 0 is corrupted. If not at any time you can pull Drive 0 out of Bay 0 and put Drive 1 in Bay 0, then add a New Drive to Bay 1, tell the enclosure to Mirror Drive 0 to Drive 1 and you are back in business with all of your recordings.

I personally don't believe the recordings are gone due to a reformat but just a perceived format and my procedure that I have hypothesized may indeed work but I personally have not had the opportunity to test it.

If the External Drives were not reformatted then just going to the internal and back to the external should do the trick without having to go thru the mirroring process described above.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Yes, Rich that is right as it uses the smallest of the two drives to determine it's size. Normally, you would always use the same size drives in a RAID 1 Configuration ideally.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TomCat said:


> Oh so true. Which raises the question, why is anyone even considering a RAID system for a DVR?


The 2TB Cavalrys were the biggest eSATAs I could get at a decent price and Cavalry tech support set them both up in what they called the "big" configuration. I guess that means RAID 0?



> Weaknees has a system that will mirror drives, but that is technically not RAID, in fact if you search their site for the word "RAID" it only picks up the word "afraid" half a dozen times.


When I called up weaknees.com the tech I spoke to called that a RAID enclosure. What would you call it? I ask this out of sheer ignorance, not to argue.



> And actually, I question the value of their "mirror". AFAIK, the HR2x can only mount one drive at a time, which means that they must make the dual drives appear as if they were a single partition (which is indeed possibly similar to certain RAID configurations, but still not RAID). So what does that mean if something goes wrong with one of the two drives? Is there not the possibility that both drives would disappear?


I can't quite understand why what happened to me on the previous NR (one of my Cav 750s was wiped out and I tried the restore function twice with no luck) wouldn't happen on a RAID enclosure. I'm just an "end user" and am just learning about all this RAID stuff.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Yes, Rich that is right as it uses the smallest of the two drives to determine it's size. Normally, you would always use the same size drives in a RAID 1 Configuration ideally.


So, essentially, Saxon wasted his money on that 1TB drive?

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Weaknees told me they were using a RAID Configuration they just don't call it that. 

Neither does TENBOX. They call their RAID 1, SAFE MODE which is indeed what it is.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

TomCat said:


> Oh so true. Which raises the question, why is anyone even considering a RAID system for a DVR?
> 
> Weaknees has a system that will mirror drives, but that is technically not RAID, in fact if you search their site for the word "RAID" it only picks up the word "afraid" half a dozen times.
> 
> And actually, I question the value of their "mirror". AFAIK, the HR2x can only mount one drive at a time, which means that they must make the dual drives appear as if they were a single partition (which is indeed possibly similar to certain RAID configurations, but still not RAID). So what does that mean if something goes wrong with one of the two drives? Is there not the possibility that both drives would disappear?


"My understanding" of RAID:
RAID-1 is "simply" mirroring. No speed increase, but if a drive drops off line, the other is still there. 
RAID-0 is simply striping. Can have a speed increase as it dumps to the drive buffer as it is moving on to the next drive. If one drive drops off line, "you're hosed". 
RAID-5 has parity. it does have a speed increase [like RAID-0] but not as much due to the parity, but if a drive drops off line, will still function.
There are the newer RAID-? that are a combination of striping and mirroring.
"Back in the day" when a drive was a "whopping" 4 GB, this seemed to have been more important than today.
Since the eSATA is "only for TV" [and not storing "the cure for cancer"] I tend to think a "JBOD" would work as the DVR only needs to see "the drives" as one drive. They can be striped, or simply "spanned" and function.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> As far as the HR2X DVR is concerned it only knows the existence of Drive 0, it doesn't even know Drive 1 exists. The RAID Enclosure then does the mirroring and the only problem would be if the data on Drive 0 is corrupted. If not at any time you can pull Drive 0 out of Bay 0 and put Drive 1 in Bay 0, then add a New Drive to Bay 1, tell the enclosure to Mirror Drive 0 to Drive 1 and you are back in business with all of your recordings.
> 
> I personally don't believe the recordings are gone due to a reformat but just a perceived format and my procedure that I have hypothesized may indeed work but I personally have not had the opportunity to test it.
> 
> If the External Drives were not reformatted then just going to the internal and back to the external should do the trick without having to go thru the mirroring process described above.


"As I see it" mirroring only is useful for a drive dropping off line. "Garbage" in will be written to both drives [if they're both on line]. So if a reformat command is sent, both drives "get it" and "you're hosed".
You would need to mirror [backup] one drive and then take the mirrored drive "off line" to not have it formated.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> So, essentially, the Beast wasted his money on that 1TB drive?
> 
> Rich


"Or" is one step closer to the next 1 TB drive to get the full size to be used.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

rich584 said:


> ...When I called up weaknees.com the tech I spoke to called that a RAID enclosure. What would you call it?...


I would certainly not call it a "RAID enclosure" unless it were running RAID. Technically, RAID is a software/firmware configuration of the hardware, not a physical enclosure. RAID implies _the need_ for an enclosure that handles multiple drives, but such an enclosure does not imply that it is being used for RAID unless it also has dedicated support hardware such as a loop controller. I think RAID has to see the drives as a single volume, and I think the HR2x does as well since it can only seem to mount one at a time. But I don't really know.

Now that I've raised the question (at least in my own mind) I would like to hear Weaknees explanation on all of this. I'd like to know if they just double record to a JBOD, and whether the drives appear as a single volume, and just exactly what benefit having their so-called "mirror" really buys you. I would have to assume that recordings are written to a single disk (once to one and once to another) rather than striped at block or sector level.

It seems to me that double-recording yourself on multiple DVRs is a more reliable backup, although a bit more expensive and cumbersome. They are pretty communicative, so I will maybe drop them a email ASAP (unless someone else wants to--I've got a dying media server that is nagging me right now).


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

TC, the Mirror Function of a RAID Configuration in a RAID Enclosure is to have one drive backup the other in the event of drive failure. If both drives fail at the same time you are screwed but if just one drive fails then you take the Good Drive that is NOT failing and put it in Bay 0 (if it was not already in Bay 0) and then put the NEW Drive in Bay 1 and then tell Drive 0 to Mirror itself to Drive 1. Once that is done a green light comes on and you press the button to put it back in service and Power it up and you are back in business.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Considering that RAID 0 & 1 chips have been on motherboards for the past few years, "I think" the "RAID" enclosures are "just that", RAID-0 or RAID-1


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, there are other RAID Configurations but those are the 2 most commons ones used.

When you hear the Term nowadays, "RAID ENCLOSURE", particularly by retailers or manufacturers they are referring to an enclosure that houses at lease 2 hard drives using a RAID Controller so you can use the various RAID Settings depending upon your needs.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> Well, there are other RAID Configurations but those are the 2 most commons ones used.


 These seem to be cheaper. The "other RAID" chips seem to be more costly.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

And these two fit most uses. You either want more capacity or you want security with a backup in case of a drive failure which has happened to me three times on my 2 HR10-250s and I learned a very valuable lesson. 

Backup and recovery is extremely important to me as well as any serious user of a PC.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> And these two fit most uses. You either want more capacity or you want security with a backup in case of a drive failure which has happened to me three times on my 2 HR10-250s and I learned a very valuable lesson.
> 
> Backup and recovery is extremely important to me as well as any serious user of a PC.


I guess I'm just a RAID-5 type of guy, or "spanning" would work just as well.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "My understanding" of RAID:
> RAID-1 is "simply" mirroring. No speed increase, but if a drive drops off line, the other is still there.
> RAID-0 is simply striping. Can have a speed increase as it dumps to the drive buffer as it is moving on to the next drive. If one drive drops off line, "you're hosed".
> RAID-5 has parity. it does have a speed increase [like RAID-0] but not as much due to the parity, but if a drive drops off line, will still function.
> ...


Once again, you've forgotten who you are speaking to. What the devil is a "JBOD"?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TomCat said:


> I would certainly not call it a "RAID enclosure" unless it were running RAID. Technically, RAID is a software/firmware configuration of the hardware, not a physical enclosure. RAID implies _the need_ for an enclosure that handles multiple drives, but such an enclosure does not imply that it is being used for RAID unless it also has dedicated support hardware such as a loop controller. I think RAID has to see the drives as a single volume, and I think the HR2x does as well since it can only seem to mount one at a time. But I don't really know.
> 
> Now that I've raised the question (at least in my own mind) I would like to hear Weaknees explanation on all of this. I'd like to know if they just double record to a JBOD, and whether the drives appear as a single volume, and just exactly what benefit having their so-called "mirror" really buys you. I would have to assume that recordings are written to a single disk (once to one and once to another) rather than striped at block or sector level.
> 
> It seems to me that double-recording yourself on multiple DVRs is a more reliable backup, although a bit more expensive and cumbersome. They are pretty communicative, so I will maybe drop them a email ASAP (unless someone else wants to--I've got a dying media server that is nagging me right now).


I've been using the above method for years, hence the seven HRs that I have active and backing each other up. And yes, it is an absolutely reliable method, but I still want to see what the RAID conversation produces. And I have to admit, I don't even know what RAID stands for. Could you enlighten me?

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Here is JBOD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#JBOD

Here is a definition or explanation of the other RAID Configurations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels

Here is a definition or explanation of RAID. "Redundant Array of Independent Disks".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Once again, you've forgotten who you are speaking to. What the devil is a "JBOD"?
> 
> Rich


Tell Fred it's "just a bunch of disks"


----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

rich584 said:


> So, essentially, the Beast wasted his money on that 1TB drive?
> 
> Rich


Yah, seems kid of weird that I have the 1 TB and 750 GB drives. How it happened, is that I had originally purchased the 1 TB drive included in an enclosure made by Cavalry at a very good price. I filled it up in pretty short order, and wanted to expand and found the dual bay enclosure from Venus. When I went to purchase a second drive, I found a good deal on the 750 GB drive and it was about $100 less than the best deal on a 1 TB drive, so that's how it went down.

I have since purchased a DVD recorder, and am planning on saving a lot of my movies to DVD to clear my drivespace (around 7% available, today).


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

saxon2000 said:


> Yah, seems kid of weird that I have the 1 TB and 750 GB drives. How it happened, is that I had originally purchased the 1 TB drive included in an enclosure made by Cavalry at a very good price. I filled it up in pretty short order, and wanted to expand and found the dual bay enclosure from Venus. When I went to purchase a second drive, I found a good deal on the 750 GB drive and it was about $100 less than the best deal on a 1 TB drive, so that's how it went down.
> 
> I have since purchased a DVD recorder, and am planning on saving a lot of my movies to DVD to clear my drivespace (around 7% available, today).


I don't have a DVD recorder. I waited for years for the price to come down on them and then I found DVRs and couldn't see the point of a DVD recorder. I do have a question tho: Does your DVD recorder upscale? I have several upscaling DVD players and the picture I get on my Panny plasmas is usually better than the 720P that I get on the DVRs. So, if you record a program, does your DVD recorder automatically upscale the picture to 720P? I realize that the upscaling only works on wide screen DVDs, but can you do the same thing with a DVD recorder?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Here is JBOD!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#JBOD
> 
> ...


All I was looking for was what the acronym meant, but thanx for the links. I will read them when I get some time.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Tell Fred it's "just a bunch of disks"


Aw, that's so simple. Why didn't I know that? But it must be more than just that, no? Arranged in some kind of enclosure, perhaps?

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Aw, that's so simple. Why didn't I know that? But it must be more than just that, no? Arranged in some kind of enclosure, perhaps?
> 
> Rich


JBOD is a "non RAID" grouping of disks that "are seen" as one.
Think of this as a stack of disks filling up like water in a bucket, where RAID would be a row of disks and would be filling up "a cup per disk" at a time.

Either of these could be "in a box" or simply in your computer. "The box" would have a disk controller as would the motherboard in the computer, and depending on the type, it would either group them together by "RAID" or simply "span" [extending one partition (on a disk) to another disk].


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> JBOD is a "non RAID" grouping of disks that "are seen" as one.
> Think of this as a stack of disks filling up like water in a bucket, where RAID would be a row of disks and would be filling up "a cup per disk" at a time.
> 
> Either of these could be "in a box" or simply in your computer. "The box" would have a disk controller as would the motherboard in the computer, and depending on the type, it would either group them together by "RAID" or simply "span" [extending one partition (on a disk) to another disk].


Better explanation! :lol: Thanx.

Rich


----------



## Beast (Jun 30, 2008)

Hi

Just checking in. FA-X now at 46% free space. On an HR21-700

Still no problems.

Merry Chirstmas


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> JBOD is a "non RAID" grouping of disks that "are seen" as one.
> Think of this as a stack of disks filling up like water in a bucket, where RAID would be a row of disks and would be filling up "a cup per disk" at a time.





> Either of these could be "in a box" or simply in your computer. "The box" would have a disk controller as would the motherboard in the computer, and depending on the type, it would either group them together by "RAID" or simply "span" [extending one partition (on a disk) to another disk].


So, this is what I was doing when I used to put two hard drives in a TiVo? I had to buy special plastic brackets to mount them on and all I needed was the bracket and the ribbon connectors and the twin power plugs. And that was a JBOD?

Merry Xmas, Geoff, from me and Fred (who is deeply concerned about your penchant for shoveling snow). Freds sitting out in the driveway waiting...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Beast said:


> Hi
> 
> Just checking in. FA-X now at 46% free space. On an HR21-700
> 
> ...


Merry Xmas to you. Does the X feel "right"? I don't think the one I had ever felt quite right and I don't really know how to explain it. No freezeups?

Thinking back the other day, it dawned on me that I was using the 21-700 that I had connected to a cheap HDMI switch that wrecked two 20-700s, had all three connected to the cheap switch. The 21 seemed to come thru alright, the 20s kept locking up even after I disconnected the HDMI switch and I had to get replacements for them. But now I'm wondering and thinking of hooking up another X to a 23-700 as soon as I get one.

Perhaps the cheap HDMI switch and the X were just too much for the 21-700, which I still have and it still freezes at times, but is still usable.

I'm at 42% on one 2TB Cav and am going to push it all the way this time. But I'm doing it gently this time. If I don't get any lockups, I will let it run and try to reach full capacity. "Damn the torpedoes, full capacity ahead!"

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Holidays to you all and to you Pagans out there get drunk and have fun pillaging!!! :lol:


----------



## Beast (Jun 30, 2008)

rich584 said:


> t. No freezeups?
> 
> "Damn the torpedoes, full capacity ahead!"
> 
> Rich


Hi

Now at 40% free. No lockups. There does seem to be a slight delay in the response to the remote now and then. But once it does respond it works like it always has.

BTW I served in the USA submarine service many years ago.

All torpedoes away running straight and hot, so watch out.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Beast said:


> Hi
> 
> Now at 40% free. No lockups. There does seem to be a slight delay in the response to the remote now and then. But once it does respond it works like it always has.
> 
> ...


OK, sounds as if you're beginning to hit the point where you might begin to experience problems. If it's just the playlist that slows down, I don't think that's too bad. If you experience a "freezeup" (which I consider to be a minor annoyance that can be usually fixed by simply hitting the power button and turning the HR off and then hitting the power button and turning it back on) that's not too bad either. If you hit a "lockup" (which demands a reboot to return the HR to working status), consider how much you care about the HR you are using. If you keep experiencing lockups, and want to keep the HR, I would take the X off the HR. But, that's up to you. I think you've gone beyond the capacity I was at when I experienced the lockups, so my problems might have been due to the cheap HDMI switch I had on the 21-700.

I expect my new X to arrive Monday and will immediately attach it to a 20-700 and see if I can fill that up.

I don't know how long ago you were in the Navy, but I spent my time on the _USS Lowry, DD770_ hunting subs in a hunter, killer squadron of destroyers. We brought up a whole bunch of Soviet subs and almost got nuked during the Cuban Crisis. Small world (forum?). :lol:

Rich


----------



## illinileo (Oct 22, 2006)

I've got an AMS Venus T4S enclosure that will hold 4 drives. It was connected for a year to my HR20-700 with two 750GB drives (WD7500AAKS) until the power supply died on the enclosure. Before the failure, it locked up twice requiring a reboot, and got to between 20% and 30% space remaining. I got the power supply replaced and I'm ready to hook it up again- my kids can fill up that little internal drive way too fast!

Before I connect it, I've been contemplating adding a third drive to increase capacity to 2.25GB, but don't want to waste the money if it's only going to lock up or only take advantage of a portion of it. I've just read this entire thread and it doesn't look good. I've already got the drive, so is there any harm in hooking it up? 

If the limit is truly somewhere between 1.5GB and 2GB maybe I should buy a pre-packaged 1.5GB drive and use the enclosure for PC photo and home movie backup instead. Just looking for advice on the smartest move.

Thanks


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I would not add a third drive. I would either do the internal 1.5 TB drive or wait for the 2 TB drive or stick with your 2 750 GB drives externally.

I have the Venus DS3RPRO and have ZERO problems with it. Rich is not sure what is causing his problems as it could be a cheap HDMI cable, could be the drives, could the the DB, who knows.

I am going to put 2 2TB drives in my DS3RPRO as soon as WD comes out with them.

I am also going to put a 2 TB Drive in my HR23-700 as soon as I get the HR23 and the 2 TB Drives which haven't come out yet but should be here soon.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

illinileo said:


> I've got an AMS Venus T4S enclosure that will hold 4 drives. It was connected for a year to my HR20-700 with two 750GB drives (WD7500AAKS) until the power supply died on the enclosure. Before the failure, it locked up twice requiring a reboot, and got to between 20% and 30% space remaining. I got the power supply replaced and I'm ready to hook it up again- my kids can fill up that little internal drive way too fast!
> 
> Before I connect it, I've been contemplating adding a third drive to increase capacity to 2.25GB, but don't want to waste the money if it's only going to lock up or only take advantage of a portion of it. I've just read this entire thread and it doesn't look good. I've already got the drive, so is there any harm in hooking it up?


Probably can't cause any "harm'' unless you start getting lockups. I'm in the process of taking one of my two 2TB eSATAs all the way to full if I can. I should know for sure if it can be done in a week or so. The other one is at 46% Available and is running perfectly. I am using 20-700s.



> If the limit is truly somewhere between 1.5GB and 2GB maybe I should buy a pre-packaged 1.5GB drive and use the enclosure for PC photo and home movie backup instead. Just looking for advice on the smartest move.


Personally, I have a feeling that the issues we've been seeing are a product of the eSATA function. I would like to see what an internal 2TB drive would do. And since weaknees.com is now selling internal drives for the HRs, I can't imagine D* having an issue with us installing our own hard drives internally. I think the smartest move you can make is to do what I've been doing: Wait for one of us to come up with something conclusive.

Rich


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

rich584 said:


> .... Personally, I have a feeling that the issues we've been seeing are a product of the eSATA function. I would like to see what an internal 2TB drive would do. ....


 Since the esata connection comes from the same controller that the internal sata connector is plugged in to, I would expect both to perform the same.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I also wonder if the Kernel Limitation is 1.5 TB and not 2 TB. 

I know it it stated that it is 2 TB but it may only be 1.5 TB.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

l8er said:


> Since the esata connection comes from the same controller that the internal sata connector is plugged in to, I would expect both to perform the same.


That's undoubtedly because you know more about this stuff than I do. I would have thought that the eSATA function detracted from the capacity in some way. One can hope to be right once in a while. Still a learning experience for me. Interesting tho. Please stay with us. Obviously, we need guidance and I have no problem sitting at the feet of masters.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I would not add a third drive. I would either do the internal 1.5 TB drive or wait for the 2 TB drive or stick with your 2 750 GB drives externally.


Agreed, but where's the fun in that?



> I have the Venus DS3RPRO and have ZERO problems with it. Rich is not sure what is causing his problems as it could be a cheap HDMI cable, could be the drives, could the the DB, who knows.


To clarify the above statement, the Venus is set to RAID 1 and his capacity is 1TB. We've recognized the 20-700 as being able to support 1TB drives of any sort. We are trying to go beyond the 1.3-1.4TB capacity and have not been able to do so.



> I am also going to put a 2 TB Drive in my HR23-700 as soon as I get the HR23 and the 2 TB Drives which haven't come out yet but should be here soon.


And since weaknees.com is selling internal hard drives that customers can install themselves, I think that gives us clear sailing to put our own internals in without D* flipping out.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I also wonder if the Kernel Limitation is 1.5 TB and not 2 TB.
> 
> I know it it stated that it is 2 TB but it may only be 1.5 TB.


Ahhh, now I gotta go find out what a "Kernel" is. And what was that comment about a "cheap" HDMI cord for? Once again, my philosophy is that more expensive items usually work better than cheap ones. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I think the whole point of view from Directv's standpoint is a legal disclaimer in case you get shocked or injured or screw up the device because you are inept and totally incapable of replacing a drive in your PC or DVR!

It is a Blanket Disclaimer and if I were Directv I would be saying the same thing. Do it at your OWN RISKS in other words. 

I have been in these forums for over 10 years and have never heard of Directv sueing someone over increasing their drive size.

That comment about a "Cheap" HDMI post actually came from one of your posts and I was just alluding to the fact that it could be one of many possibilities. We can't rule out much at this point because nobody knows or if they do they sure as Hell ain't telling us are they.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> And since weaknees.com is selling internal hard drives that customers can install themselves, I think that gives us clear sailing to put our own internals in without D* flipping out.
> 
> Rich


Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. If you have a problem with something from weakness, then you send things back to them, not DirecTV.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Mister Old School, I appreciate your WISDOM and SAGE ADVICE but I think he was referring to the fact that if Weaknees can do it and be sanctioned then Directv REALLY doesn't care as long as they can't be held LIABLE which is what I have been saying from the GIT GO!!!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> Mister Old School, I appreciate your WISDOM and SAGE ADVICE but I think he was referring to the fact that if Weaknees can do it and be sanctioned then Directv REALLY doesn't care as long as they can't be held LIABLE which is what I have been saying from the GIT GO!!!


I was just repeating what Earl said, when this was asked long ago [about Weaknees].
We do know [and if not, then I'll repeat it too] that DirecTV "knows we can do it", but has asked us "not to do it".


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> I was just repeating what Earl said, when this was asked long ago [about Weaknees].
> We do know [and if not, then I'll repeat it too] that DirecTV "knows we can do it", but has asked us "not to do it".


And all we are asking is WHY?


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

richierich said:


> And all we are asking is WHY?


 Because it's theirs? and they don't want it broke?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> And all we are asking is WHY?


"All we are saying is...." :lol:
I won't repeat the "lease thing".
They give us the eSATA option & in a chat asked us "not to".
Weakness does "their thing". If there is a problem, it would be between who bought it and weakness & not DirecTV.
Many may feel it's "their right", just as some don't obey the speed limit.
"Why" could have to do with the testing we do, but who knows?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. If you have a problem with something from weakness, then you send things back to them, not DirecTV.


That wasn't my point. The fact that Weaknees is now selling internal drives to be installed by owners would lead me to believe that D* has relaxed it's policy towards opening the HRs. Since Weaknees is an authorized D* seller, how could they sell internal drives without D*'s permission?

Have a nice Xmas?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I was just repeating what Earl said, when this was asked long ago [about Weaknees].
> We do know [and if not, then I'll repeat it too] that DirecTV "knows we can do it", but has asked us "not to do it".


There was a time that Weaknees could not alter the HRs. But they sure are selling all the same types of drives they sell for TiVos now. They must have received permission to do this or D* wouldn't let them advertise as "authorized" sellers of D* equipment.

When I first started using eSATAs I spent over an hour with one of the guys at Weaknees explaining the whole eSATA thing and they are now selling them too. At really high prices, I might add.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

houskamp said:


> Because it's theirs? and they don't want it broke?


I think Weaknees was and is a good producer of revenues for D*. And if they can sell internal drives that we can install ourselves, then that must open the door for replacements by customers buying hard drives from anyone.

Will people open the HRs (if they can figure out how to) and break something? Sure, most people (not referring to folks on the forum) are klutsy and will screw up the sets, but how many people will know how to do it? Most people don't even try to hook up eSATAs. We are in the minority.

I think the bottom line is that D* will sell more receivers. Or lease them. Whatever.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "All we are saying is...." :lol:


That's exactly what I was thinking, that song, what was it's name? All we are saying is give peace a chance? That worked out well.



> I won't repeat the "lease thing".


Asked the wife about this and she said it still comes down to how many units are leased, not what people do to them. Regarding D*'s bottom line, I mean.



> They give us the eSATA option & in a chat asked us "not to".
> Weakness does "their thing". If there is a problem, it would be between who bought it and weakness & not DirecTV.


Oh, Weaknees products will work, never had a drive from them come out of the box defective. And they will come with detailed instructions on how to install them. They could not do this without D*'s permission and remain an authorized dealer. And if you can't do the swap, you can send them the HR and they will install the larger internal HD.



> Many may feel it's "their right", just as some don't obey the speed limit. "Why" could have to do with the testing we do, but who knows?


Seems as if they are changing (evolving?). Perhaps it is a case of "They are gonna do it anyway, let's make some money off it." I dunno, anymore than I know how much the capacity of an eSATA the HRs will support.

Rich


----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

Hi, just checking back in to let you know I'm down to 6% on my setup with no problems to report.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> There was a time that Weaknees could not alter the HRs. But they sure are selling all the same types of drives they sell for TiVos now. They must have received permission to do this or D* wouldn't let them advertise as "authorized" sellers of D* equipment.
> 
> When I first started using eSATAs I spent over an hour with one of the guys at Weaknees explaining the whole eSATA thing and they are now selling them too. At really high prices, I might add.
> 
> Rich


After a quick trip to weaknees, I don't see any changes. 
"Stock" DVRs are listed with a DirecTV warranty, while "modified" DVRs are listed with a Weaknees warranty.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> After a quick trip to weaknees, I don't see any changes.
> "Stock" DVRs are listed with a DirecTV warranty, while "modified" DVRs are listed with a Weaknees warranty.


We seem to be arguing about two different things. I never said anything other than Weaknees was selling internal drives and letting the customer install them or the customer could send them the HR and Weaknees would install it. Never meant to convey the message that D* would "fix" anything that Weaknees sold or installed. Their warranties are separate and distinct and do not cross over.

If you look further in the Weaknees site you will see internal drives for sale. I didn't see any HR other than the 20-700s that the drives were for... Just checked and they have internals for all the HRs except the 23s. Here is the link to that page:

http://www.weaknees.com/dtv-tivo-upgrade.php

If they can sell them with the expectation that the customer may install their hard drives, wouldn't you think that that would apply to any hard drive from any supplier too?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

saxon2000 said:


> Hi, just checking back in to let you know I'm down to 6% on my setup with no problems to report.


Great! I just got the 1.5TB Xtreme and will install it tomorrow on a 20-700. So, you're almost at 1.5TB? Good to know. Have you noticed any slowing down of the playlist or any remote commands? I just filled up a 750 and at about 15% the 21-700 started slowing up.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> We seem to be arguing about two different things. I never said anything other than Weaknees was selling internal drives and letting the customer install them or the customer could send them the HR and Weaknees would install it. Never meant to convey the message that D* would "fix" anything that Weaknees sold or installed. Their warranties are separate and distinct and do not cross over.
> 
> If you look further in the Weaknees site you will see internal drives for sale. I didn't see any HR other than the 20-700s that the drives were for... Just checked and they have internals for all the HRs except the 23s. Here is the link to that page:
> 
> ...


 I still don't see what you are.
From the link above:
"Order an internal upgrade and send us your DVR. Prices below include labor and return shipping. You send us the unit, we upgrade it within two business days, and ship it back."


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TenLab said:


> Here are some test results for Rich and those concerned about the maximum storage capacity allowed by the HR20-700:
> 
> We put two HR20-700 to test connected to 2TB Tenboxes, and with just 2% of space left on the TenBoxes they are still working flawlessly.
> The Disk Space Warning of the HR20-700 started popping up every time the List is called since they was about 5% left of free storage space,
> ...


Just filled up a Cavalry 750G eSATA and it did exactly as I expected. The programs that were unmarked to save are being deleted and there is no warning window at all saying that the disc is full. Not when I open the playlist or any other time. Would seem to me that this would be the case with any eSATA no matter the size. And I have no space remaining.

Rich


----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Great! I just got the 1.5TB Xtreme and will install it tomorrow on a 20-700. So, you're almost at 1.5TB? Good to know. Have you noticed any slowing down of the playlist or any remote commands? I just filled up a 750 and at about 15% the 21-700 started slowing up.
> 
> Rich


The only thing is it takes a few seconds to bring up my 'list', but hey, it's a long list!

:blush:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I still don't see what you are.
> From the link above:
> "Order an internal upgrade and send us your DVR. Prices below include labor and return shipping. You send us the unit, we upgrade it within two business days, and ship it back."


Damn, I read it wrong. Mad Cow! Sorry. Take it all back. Soon tho, I betcha!

I could swear I saw a page just for 21-700s that listed internal drives that could be installed by the customer, but I can't remember what I had for breakfast most of the time.

Again, my apologies to you and D*.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

saxon2000 said:


> The only thing is it takes a few seconds to bring up my 'list', but hey, it's a long list!
> 
> :blush:


That's the first indication. Next should be the occasional freezeup. Minor annoyance. If you get a lockup, where you have to reboot, let us know.

I just installed my new 1.5 X today and it feels fine. I do have it on a good, stable 20-700. I hope it doesn't screw up the 20, can't find replacements for them.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> That's the first indication. Next should be the occasional freezeup. Minor annoyance. If you get a lockup, where you have to reboot, let us know.
> 
> I just installed my new 1.5 X today and it feels fine. I do have it on a good, stable 20-700. I hope it doesn't screw up the 20, can't find replacements for them.
> 
> Rich


 Weaknees claims to still sell/lease HR20s [has them "in stock"]. :lol:


----------



## amahdi (Sep 30, 2002)

I was just about to post a similar discussion topic. I have the exact same issues. As soon as the capacity is around 20% or less, the remote response time is very very slow. It is actually very frustrating. At times it feels as if the hard drive freezed up. Not sure what the problem is. I have tried rebooting as well but to no avail. Not surfe if anyone has a solution to this problem? Thanks...



rich584 said:


> I've got two Cavalry 2.0 eSATAs in RAID enclosures set to the "big" setting so that I may use the total capacity of the hard drives. They will not work on my 21-700s or 21-200s. I have them working on two of my 20-700s.
> 
> When I begin to dip below the 27% available on either eSATA, the 20-700s start to slow down. Not on the recording or playback, but the responses to the remote are noticeably slower. Delete a couple movies and get back to 30% available and the remote response is normal.
> 
> ...


----------



## MountainMan10 (Jan 31, 2008)

I have a 1TB WD in an Antec Mx-1 connected to my HR21-700. It also seems to be slower with less than 20% available. Also a lot more likely to get gray/blank recordings. I have thought about upgrading to a 1.5TB because of this.

I also have the USB connected for serial port control. The serial port control is always more responsive than the IR remote.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

MountainMan10 said:


> I have a 1TB WD in an Antec Mx-1 connected to my HR21-700. It also seems to be slower with less than 20% available. Also a lot more likely to get gray/blank recordings. I have thought about upgrading to a 1.5TB because of this.


I believe that won't help anything, because it's not the size that matters, it's the database.

My hunch is that you do not have it filled with mostly HD movies. I bet you have lots of shorter things and/or lots of SD. Is my guess right?

While all this is conjecture, it appears that the HR's database can store only so much info and, as that db starts to get kinda-full, responsiveness gets slower and slower. So, if you had nothing but 2-hr HD movies and 3.5-hr HD football games, I bet you could fill it up without it slowing down much. But with shorter and/or non-HD material, you hit the limit of the db before you hit the limit of the HDD's capacity.

For more info about this guess, see post #2 in this thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=142735

At the moment, I'm running into the same thing with my 1TB WD in an Antec. As an experiment, I was loading it up with lots of half-hour and 1-hr SD programs, including a bunch in B&W. As the number of programs grew, the responsiveness to db-related actions has gotten worse and worse. Since I was recording lots of programs that didn't use much space, I was seeing big slow-downs very badly at about only 50% full. When I deleted about 70 Maverick reruns, it got better. But not completely better. So, now I'm wondering whether the db gets fully fixed after its capacity gets taxed.

Now, if you get *any* new HDD, responsiveness will be great at first... simply because its db is empty. If you were to reformat your existing HDD, clobbering the db and all your recordings, I imagine it would get fast again too. But, as the db fills to a certain point re: number of programs and amount of program info, it will slow down again. A 1.5TB won't help that. (That's my guess anyway.)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

russdog said:


> I believe that won't help anything, because it's not the size that matters, it's the database.
> 
> My hunch is that you do not have it filled with mostly HD movies. I bet you have lots of shorter things and/or lots of SD. Is my guess right?
> 
> ...


Your "hunch" makes the most sense.
"Question": when you get to the slow down point and delete programs, but don't pick back up on the speed, what happens after a "menu restart"?
The db keeps a history of recordings [the 28/30 day repeats] and if you have "swamped it", I could see simply deleting programs wouldn't completely clear it up. Since smaller drives should see this same "swamping of the db" over a much longer time frame, "I'd think" a reset would help as it rebuilds during reboot.

I can't "play with this" since I hate re-runs, have stock drives, and 75% free space on all of them, after almost two years.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> I believe that won't help anything, because it's not the size that matters, it's the database.


Hi Russ,

This weekend I filled up a Cavalry 750 eSATA and as "t_e" told me it would, the HR slowed down noticeably when it reached about 15% Available. I'm at about 31% Available on one of my 20-700s with the 2TB Cavalry eSATA. This time, I'm gonna try to go all the way to no capacity as I did with the 750.

The 750 was loaded with both SD and HD recordings, mostly HD. Some football games, some VOD recordings. There was no problem with lockups and I did have one freezeup, but I fixed that quickly by powering off and then back on. All the recordings that were unmarked for saving rolled off the bottom of the playlist as I expected them to. At no time did I see a warning about the hard drive being full. I followed Mr. TenBox's post and hit the list while watching the Rutger's game (I live down the street from the Rutgers Stadium) and never saw a warning message of any kind. If the warning doesn't show up on a 750, why would it show up on a 2TB? Addressed this to Mr. T in a previous post on this thread and have not received an answer. I'm still determined to be polite, but I would like to see an explanation concerning the "warning".

Now, I think you're on the right path with the data base being the culprit. Altho I gotta admit I have had a hard time following some of the posts on this thread, I think the 750 doing what it did kinda points in that direction. And I have the feeling that, logically, all the hard drives are gonna slow up the HRs when they get close to "full".

If my last statement is true, then a larger hard drive would seem to be the weapon of choice. If a 1TB is slowing down as it reaches near capacity and my 2TBs are slowing down at 1.5TB then wouldn't a larger drive make sense?

Been doing some PMing about this and have come to the conclusion that these "computers" are probably not up to dealing with a full hard drive past the 500G mark. Also, as "t_e" has pointed out, the present lineup of HRs apparently has about the same ability to process data as a 2002 computer.

Perhaps the 23-700 has addressed this problem. Can't find one to buy and have been offered a "new" HR by D*, but turned the offer down because, as usual, they can't guarantee what model would be delivered.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Your "hunch" makes the most sense.
> "Question": when you get to the slow down point and delete programs, but don't pick back up on the speed, what happens after a "menu restart"?


Did that with my 2TB Cav and it made no difference.



> The db keeps a history of recordings [the 28/30 day repeats] and if you have "swamped it", I could see simply deleting programs wouldn't completely clear it up. Since smaller drives should see this same "swamping of the db" over a much longer time frame, "I'd think" a reset would help as it rebuilds during reboot.


As soon as I get this 2TB filled up (if it makes it that far) I will try your suggestion and see what happens. Seems logical. Didn't do anything for my other 2TB, but I have been more gentle filling this one up. And it has no SD recordings.



> I can't "play with this" since I hate re-runs, have stock drives, and 75% free space on all of them, after almost two years.


I do wish you'd buy an eSATA and play with it. We could use your informed input concerning your personal experiences with one.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MountainMan10 said:


> I have a 1TB WD in an Antec Mx-1 connected to my HR21-700. It also seems to be slower with less than 20% available. Also a lot more likely to get gray/blank recordings. I have thought about upgrading to a 1.5TB because of this.


I agree with you. Based solely on my own experiences and what I've been able to figure out from the posts on this thread, I do have a hard time digesting the "tech talk", a larger hard drive will give you more actual capacity. Might not be the "full" capacity of the hard drive, but I'm getting at least three quarters of programming out of my 2TB eSATA and that figures out to about 1.5TB (roughly).



> I also have the USB connected for serial port control. The serial port control is always more responsive than the IR remote.


I have no idea what the above statement means. Could you elaborate?

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I do wish you'd buy an eSATA and play with it. We could use your informed input concerning your personal experiences with one.
> 
> Rich


If there was a BB/Fry's anywhere near by, I'd take one for a "test drive", but they're an hour drive down the hill. 
I've got a 500 GB drive that I keep thinking of putting in my owned HR21, but since space isn't ever a problem, it doesn't seem to be worth doing.
If the db is the problem, larger drives wouldn't help at all, since the db isn't related to the drive.
The DVR is an extremely stripped down computer. Not that it's "slow" but that it doesn't have the extra resources that computers do. Computers simply have "generic" hardware to handle programs, while this has specific chips & code all streamlined to work with each other.
Think of it as more of a calculator with some memory than a PC.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I have no idea what the above statement means. Could you elaborate?
> 
> Rich


There is a USB to serial adapter, that will send "commands" to the DVR. Since this connects [more] directly to the "system bus", it doesn't have to go through the IR/RF remote interface, thus it's quicker.


----------



## Joseph Carozzoni (Dec 31, 2008)

I’m new to DBSTALK (about 5 minutes registered), so if I’m not posting in the correct area please move it. The purpose of this post is to help and/or inform people about eSata drives with the HR20-700 - I've got a whole three weeks experience now. I have two HR20-700 receivers (stable before), two Siig eSata cables, and two different eSata drives, and have different experiences with both.

The 1TB Cavalry CAXB3701T0 I got at Newegg for $99 after rebate (free S&H and no tax). The only word to describe it is perfect. Simply turn both units off, power up the drive then the receiver, worked first time. When Directv upgraded the receiver and rebooted, still worked fine. I had to reboot it myself (installed a UPS), still worked perfectly. The only issue I have with it is the Carbon-Laser powerful blue led - how bright does a drive activity light need to be?

The other receiver has a Seagate FreeAgent XTreme 1.5TB, $245 at Buy.com. The first time connected it worked fine (i.e. turn drive on first, then the receiver). Three days later the receiver locked after using the back-skip a few times. It rebooted but on the internal drive. To make a long story short about my one hour debugging process (yes –I’m an computer engineer and was forced to used the exhaustive try everything in everyorder and document it in an engineering notebook process), here’s how I have to get it to recognize the external Seagate again after update reboots and the every 3-4 day receive lockup from using the back-skip (which doesn’t occur with running on the internal drive):

1. Turn everything off and unplug both power cords. Wait 4-5 minutes.
2. Unplug the eSata from the receiver (not the drive).
3. Turn the drive on and let it spin up (1 minute, but blue led will still be off)
4. Plug the eSata and electric into the receiver.
5. As soon as the drive's blue led comes on (30 seconds), unplug both the electric and the eSata from the receiver.
6. Almost as quickly as you unplugged the receiver, plug the eSata quickly followed by the electric back in (luckily the eSata connector is next to the electric connecter on the reciever).

I’ve had to do this a dozen times now (every 3-4 days and the lockups are always due to the back-skip button) and this process hasn’t failed once.

Executive Summary: IMHO - Buy the Cavalry.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> If there was a BB/Fry's anywhere near by, I'd take one for a "test drive", but they're an hour drive down the hill.
> I've got a 500 GB drive that I keep thinking of putting in my owned HR21, but since space isn't ever a problem, it doesn't seem to be worth doing.
> If the db is the problem, larger drives wouldn't help at all, since the db isn't related to the drive.
> The DVR is an extremely stripped down computer. Not that it's "slow" but that it doesn't have the extra resources that computers do. Computers simply have "generic" hardware to handle programs, while this has specific chips & code all streamlined to work with each other.
> Think of it as more of a calculator with some memory than a PC.


I'm using the fastest computer I've ever owned to type this and I have to put up with a "calculator" to watch TV with? Great Googamooga! :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> There is a USB to serial adapter, that will send "commands" to the DVR. Since this connects [more] directly to the "system bus", it doesn't have to go through the IR/RF remote interface, thus it's quicker.


Do it come with a remote? How does this work? More confusion. :nono2:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Joseph Carozzoni said:


> I'm new to DBSTALK (about 5 minutes registered), so if I'm not posting in the correct area please move it. The purpose of this post is to help and/or inform people about eSata drives with the HR20-700 - I've got a whole three weeks experience now. I have two HR20-700 receivers (stable before), two Siig eSata cables, and two different eSata drives, and have different experiences with both.
> 
> The 1TB Cavalry CAXB3701T0 I got at Newegg for $99 after rebate (free S&H and no tax). The only word to describe it is perfect. Simply turn both units off, power up the drive then the receiver, worked first time. When Directv upgraded the receiver and rebooted, still worked fine. I had to reboot it myself (installed a UPS), still worked perfectly. The only issue I have with it is the Carbon-Laser powerful blue led - how bright does a drive activity light need to be?
> 
> ...


You're right about the Cavalrys. And a strip of Scotch Super 88 electrician's tape over the offending blue light will solve your problem.

I've tried the Seagate Xtreme 1.5 on a 21-700 and that experiment came to an end quickly during a football game when it started locking up. Got it on a Monday and returned it the next Monday. The 21s are a lot more finicky about the eSATAs that they will work with. The Cavs work with both the 20s and 21s, except for the 2TB RAID Cavalry eSATA. That one I could not get to work properly with a 21, but they do work perfectly with a 20. I have two of them set to RAID 0 and have no problems with them. Other than what I have posted on this thread.

I just got another 1.5 X Monday and hooked it up to a 20-700 yesterday and so far, I've had no problems, but your post makes me wonder what I will see in a week or so. You definitely should not have to go thru that process to get yours running.

Stay with us and tell us what happens.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Do it come with a remote? How does this work? More confusion. :nono2:
> 
> Rich


This is more for a home theater system where there is another computer controlling everything [hence the serial connection].


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Your "hunch" makes the most sense.
> "Question": when you get to the slow down point and delete programs, but don't pick back up on the speed, what happens after a "menu restart"?
> The db keeps a history of recordings [the 28/30 day repeats] and if you have "swamped it", I could see simply deleting programs wouldn't completely clear it up. Since smaller drives should see this same "swamping of the db" over a much longer time frame, "I'd think" a reset would help as it rebuilds during reboot.
> 
> I can't "play with this" since I hate re-runs, have stock drives, and 75% free space on all of them, after almost two years.


It gets faster but not as fast as it used to be. Maybe 4 or 5 sec from button-push to list-display.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

As I stated before to you Rich, the HR10-250 had this exact problem (I posted the documentation about this) and then they reorganized and restructured the database to prevent this from happening or to alleviate it as much as possible.

I believe it has to do with the database's structure and how many entries it has to access to find what it wants or needs but I am not a PC Guru by any means but I had the same problem on my HR10-250s and one got updated and the other one didn't. The one that did is definitely faster than the other one.

Whe Directv didn't learn from this Tivo experience is a mystery to me but I believe that this is the same situation where the processor and the database structure need to be optimized as in a Faster Processor and a better database structure for handling A/V data.


----------



## Beast (Jun 30, 2008)

Hi Rich


Ok now at 23% free space. Some slow ups when going to the recorded list and menus. But not too bad, no worse then some of the CE's I have tested. How far do you want I take this before I start to delete some stuff?? I was thinking about 10%.

FA-X 1.5tb connected to HR21-700


----------



## John4924 (Mar 19, 2007)

Hi guys, I have a question concerning external e-Sata's on HR20-700.

I have 3 HR20-700s, and on 2 of them, I have 750 gb e-Sata drives.

I am thinking of getting a new 1.5 TB e-Sata [recommendations welcome ] to put on the main DVR in the family room, and move the 750 gB to the 3rd unit where there is no e-Sata connected now. My question is [and I think I know the answer] can I just move this e-Sata to the 3rd unit and expect it to read the recordings already on it? Or is there a DRM issue that this drive has to be coupled to the unit that made the recordings?

I remember when I first installed these, there was a DRM issue, but haven't been following closely this past year so I don't know if anything has changed?

Thanks for any assistance & Happy New Year!

Cheers,
John


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

You can not view recordings on one drive on another DVR because it writes the serial number of the DVR on the recordings and verifies that serial number on the recordings with the one of the chip inside the DVR.

You will have to reformat and use it as a new drive.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> This is more for a home theater system where there is another computer controlling everything [hence the serial connection].


That finally dawned on me last night. Figured it out all by myself, I did, I did. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> As I stated before to you Rich, the HR10-250 had this exact problem (I posted the documentation about this) and then they reorganized and restructured the database to prevent this from happening or to alleviate it as much as possible.
> 
> I believe it has to do with the database's structure and how many entries it has to access to find what it wants or needs but I am not a PC Guru by any means but I had the same problem on my HR10-250s and one got updated and the other one didn't. The one that did is definitely faster than the other one.
> 
> Whe Directv didn't learn from this Tivo experience is a mystery to me but I believe that this is the same situation where the processor and the database structure need to be optimized as in a Faster Processor and a better database structure for handling A/V data.


I gotta tell you, VOS's comparison of the HRs to a calculator and t_e's comparison of the HRs to a 2002 computer have really upset me. But, both those comparisons explain a lot of things to me. And now you've made the above comments (I was planning on asking you about your HR10 today) and, yeah, why didn't D* learn from TiVo? That can't possibly be a patent infringement. Once again the consumer gets screwed.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Beast said:


> Hi Rich
> 
> Ok now at 23% free space. Some slow ups when going to the recorded list and menus. But not too bad, no worse then some of the CE's I have tested. How far do you want I take this before I start to delete some stuff?? I was thinking about 10%.
> 
> FA-X 1.5tb connected to HR21-700


I'm planning on taking my 2TB all the way to full and letting unsaved programs drop off. First lockup I get I will stop and delete some stuff and if you could follow suit, that would be a good test of the 21+X combo. But if you start getting lockups (where you actually have to reboot), delete some programming immediately, don't take a chance on losing the HR.

I'm at 29% on the 2TB+20-700 combo and still experiencing no slowdowns. I just went to the "Reset" menu and restarted the HR based on VeryOldSchool's thoughts on refreshing the data base. You might try that and see if it speeds up the HRs response time.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

John4924 said:


> Hi guys, I have a question concerning external e-Sata's on HR20-700.
> 
> I have 3 HR20-700s, and on 2 of them, I have 750 gb e-Sata drives.
> 
> ...


I am trying a Seagate Xtreme 1.5TB eSATA with a 20-700. Only hooked it up Tuesday, but it is running properly. I did have problems with the same eSATA on a 21-700 and disconnected it after a week, but the 21-700 is one I play with and not all that stable. Beast has an Xtreme 1.5 on a 21-700 and it is running properly.

You're fortunate to have the 20-700s, I think they are the most stable of the HRs. I would expect the Xtremes to work with the 20-700s.

Rich


----------



## John4924 (Mar 19, 2007)

richierich said:


> You can not view recordings on one drive on another DVR because it writes the serial number of the DVR on the recordings and verifies that serial number on the recordings with the one of the chip inside the DVR.
> 
> You will have to reformat and use it as a new drive.


Thanks for the answer. Now I will go to 'Plan B' and just move the entire DVR with e-Sata upstairs, and take the one from upstairs w/o e-Sata, and add a new 1.5 TB to this one. Any recommendations on what to buy?

BTW, I seem to remember something about 'multi-room viewing' last year. Any news on that?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I gave your post some thought last night. The simplest way to look at hooking up an eSATA is this: Unplug both the eSATA and the HR. Put the jumper cable between the HR and the eSATA. Plug in the eSATA and then plug in the HR. The Xtremes should work with the 20-700s, I just hooked up an X to one of my 20-700s Tuesday and have experienced no problems so far and don't really expect to.

If you follow the simple instructions above and still have trouble, it might be the SIIG cable, altho I don't recall anybody posting about a problem with one of the SIIG jumper cables, but you never can tell. If it is not that, it might well be the eSATA port on the HR or the eSATA itself. If you have another 20-700 try that and see if you go thru the same thing. That will eliminate the HR as the problem if that setup works correctly. If that doesn't work, call Seagate and get them to send a replacement for the X. They come with a 5 year warranty. If you hook that up and still experience the same problem and haven't changed HRs and eliminated them, it must be the HR.

Stay with us and let us know what you find out. The Seagate's are a better eSATA than the Cavs. Don't give up on them.

Rich



Joseph Carozzoni said:


> I'm new to DBSTALK (about 5 minutes registered), so if I'm not posting in the correct area please move it. The purpose of this post is to help and/or inform people about eSata drives with the HR20-700 - I've got a whole three weeks experience now. I have two HR20-700 receivers (stable before), two Siig eSata cables, and two different eSata drives, and have different experiences with both.
> 
> The 1TB Cavalry CAXB3701T0 I got at Newegg for $99 after rebate (free S&H and no tax). The only word to describe it is perfect. Simply turn both units off, power up the drive then the receiver, worked first time. When Directv upgraded the receiver and rebooted, still worked fine. I had to reboot it myself (installed a UPS), still worked perfectly. The only issue I have with it is the Carbon-Laser powerful blue led - how bright does a drive activity light need to be?
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

John4924 said:


> Thanks for the answer. Now I will go to 'Plan B' and just move the entire DVR with e-Sata upstairs, and take the one from upstairs w/o e-Sata, and add a new 1.5 TB to this one. Any recommendations on what to buy?
> 
> BTW, I seem to remember something about 'multi-room viewing' last year. Any news on that?


See my last post addressed to you. MRV is still in the future.

Rich


----------



## John4924 (Mar 19, 2007)

rich584 said:


> See my last post addressed to you. MRV is still in the future.
> 
> Rich


Yeah, saw your post after I posted...sorry bout that 

I see it at Amazon for ~$205 w/free shipping. And I think I read somewhere that it does NOT come with esata cable, so I will have to buy cable separate?

Thanks for the help.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

John4924 said:


> Yeah, saw your post after I posted...sorry bout that
> 
> I see it at Amazon for ~$205 w/free shipping. And I think I read somewhere that it does NOT come with esata cable, so I will have to buy cable separate?
> 
> Thanks for the help.


Yup. And this is where it gets sticky. As with everything else concerning the HRs, the eSATA jumpers are "different" in that they don't work with every eSATA or HR. Your best bet is to go to NewEgg and get a SIIG type II eSATA to eSATA jumper cable. I have only read one post where the SIIG cable "might" not work, so I feel pretty safe recommending that. Even the Cavalry eSATAs, which come with a jumper, don't work with another Cav model's jumper. Sometimes.

I've only read one post, as I said, where the problem might be the SIIG cable, and I think any SIIG eSATA to eSATA cable will probably work.

Make sure the site you're buying the X from has a decent return policy. All the Seagate warranty will do is replace the X. And if the X doesn't work with your HR, you'll be stuck with it. And remember, we have NOT reached a conclusion on whether the X will work with every model HR. Mine still looks good and "feels" right.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Yup. And this is where it gets sticky. As with everything else concerning the HRs, the eSATA jumpers are "different" in that they don't work with every eSATA or HR. Your best bet is to go to NewEgg and get a SIIG type II eSATA to eSATA jumper cable. I have only read one post where the SIIG cable "might" not work, so I feel pretty safe recommending that. Even the Cavalry eSATAs, which come with a jumper, don't work with another Cav model's jumper. Sometimes.
> 
> I've only read one post, as I said, where the problem might be the SIIG cable, and I think any SIIG eSATA to eSATA cable will probably work.
> 
> ...


By "jumper" do you mean the cable?
Is there any difference between SATA I & SATA II cables?
There is a difference between SATA & eSATA connectors as shown here: http://www.satacables.com/html/sata_external_cables.html


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I believe that you have to have a SATA External Cable Shielded eSATA to SATA (Type “I”) to (Type “L”) Connector. The ends are different as in the Type "I" and Type "L".


----------



## John4924 (Mar 19, 2007)

richierich said:


> I believe that you have to have a SATA External Cable Shielded eSATA to SATA (Type "I") to (Type "L") Connector. The ends are different as in the Type "I" and Type "L".


Like this one?

http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10226&cs_id=1022603&p_id=3750&seq=1&format=2


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

"Right" the connectors are different, but the "cable" is the same. Maybe with long lengths, "what cable" matters, but there doesn't seem to be a SATA II verses SATA I cable, so it should be "just the connectors" from SATA to eSATA that matter.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> By "jumper" do you mean the cable?
> Is there any difference between SATA I & SATA II cables?
> There is a difference between SATA & eSATA connectors as shown here: http://www.satacables.com/html/sata_external_cables.html


Yes the eSATA to eSATA jumper cable that connects the HR to the eSATA. I know there is a difference with the SATA to eSATA cables. These things are a PITA. Wouldn't you think a jumper cable would be a jumper cable? And yet, even with the Cav eSATAs which come with the jumper cable some jumpers from one model Cav won't work with other model Cavs.

The electrical industry has standards that MUST be met. Where are the standards for the broadband industry? Seems as if there aren't any.

Shocking! :lol:

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

John4924 said:


> Like this one?
> 
> http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10226&cs_id=1022603&p_id=3750&seq=1&format=2


Yes, that is what you want because the new eSATA cable must have the new eSATA connector to connect to a newer type eSATA female connection port but also the older type SATA connector to connect to the older type SATA port female connection port.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

John4924 said:


> Like this one?
> 
> http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10226&cs_id=1022603&p_id=3750&seq=1&format=2


More like this:

http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10226&cs_id=1022603&p_id=3943&seq=1&format=2

All my jumper cables say "eSATA" to "eSATA" on each end.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Yes the eSATA to eSATA jumper cable that connects the HR to the eSATA. I know there is a difference with the SATA to eSATA cables. These things are a PITA. Wouldn't you think a jumper cable would be a jumper cable? And yet, even with the Cav eSATAs which come with the jumper cable some jumpers from one model Cav won't work with other model Cavs.
> 
> The electrical industry has standards that MUST be met. Where are the standards for the broadband industry? Seems as if there aren't any.
> 
> ...


 "Just a guess" but this sounds like crappy cables [cheap Chinese garbage] more than a variation in "some standard".
SATA has seven pins, and the "L" to "I" connectors "should be" the only thing different for eSATA.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

"Seems like" there is a contradiction here.
The DVR has an "I" connector and the external hard drive could have either an "L" or "I" connector. Please check yours before ordering, so you get the correct cable.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Just a guess" but this sounds like crappy cables [cheap Chinese garbage] more than a variation in "some standard".
> SATA has seven pins, and the "L" to "I" connectors "should be" the only thing different for eSATA.


Wouldn't expect the greatest cables from Cavalry, but they do work. Here is a link for what I was talking about:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812191016

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Seems like" there is a contradiction here.
> The DVR has an "I" connector and the external hard drive could have either an "L" or "I" connector. Please check yours before ordering, so you get the correct cable.


I think the cable on this link will work on any HR or eSATA.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812191016

Never read any posts about problems with these.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> "Seems like" there is a contradiction here.
> The DVR has an "I" connector and the external hard drive could have either an "L" or "I" connector. Please check yours before ordering, so you get the correct cable.


OldSchool you are right. In my case my DVR needs an "I" connector and my DS3RPRO needs an "L" connector but your External Drive or Enclosure may need an "I" connector so in that case you would need an "I" to "I" where I needed an "I" to "L" connectors on my cable.

So yes check your devices to see what connectors you need.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Seems like" there is a contradiction here.
> The DVR has an "I" connector and the external hard drive could have either an "L" or "I" connector. Please check yours before ordering, so you get the correct cable.


By the way, I have rebooted the HR that has the 2TB eSATA per your suggestion a couple of times and I am just about to dip below 29% and it is working perfectly. Good suggestion. As usual. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> OldSchool you are right. In my case my DVR needs an "I" connector and my DS3RPRO needs an "L" connector but your External Drive or Enclosure may need an "I" connector so in that case you would need an "I" to "I" where I needed an "I" to "L" connectors on my cable.
> 
> So yes check your devices to see what connectors you need.


Huh. Never seen an eSATA that needed an "L" connector. Or an enclosure. More confusion, just what we need.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Here is the other cable. http://www.siig.com/ViewProduct.aspx?pn=CB-SA0311-S1


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Think it's time for "the pictures" again: http://www.satacables.com/html/sata_external_cables.html


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Think it's time for "the pictures" again: http://www.satacables.com/html/sata_external_cables.html


OK, that's a good picture. I can see the difference. But the poster who wanted to know what cable to buy needs an eSATA to eSATA jumper cable in the "I" configuration. Which is what the last link I posted is. Am I wrong again? Starting to get paranoid here. I do know what works with the Seagates and the Cavs and the Antec enclosure because that is all that I have ever used.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> OK, that's a good picture. I can see the difference. But the poster who wanted to know what cable to buy needs an eSATA to eSATA jumper cable in the "I" configuration. Which is what the last link I posted is. Am I wrong again? Starting to get paranoid here. I do know what works with the Seagates and the Cavs and the Antec enclosure because that is all that I have ever used.
> 
> Rich


"Are you wrong?" I have no idea, since I haven't seen the connector. 
If they're working for you, then "I'd guess you aren't".


----------



## John4924 (Mar 19, 2007)

rich584 said:


> OK, that's a good picture. I can see the difference. But the poster who wanted to know what cable to buy needs an eSATA to eSATA jumper cable in the "I" configuration. Which is what the last link I posted is. Am I wrong again? Starting to get paranoid here. I do know what works with the Seagates and the Cavs and the Antec enclosure because that is all that I have ever used.
> 
> Rich


Don't know if you are wrong or not. I looked closely at a picture of the back panel of the HR20, and the Seagate X drive, and the connections look "different". My best guess at this point is that the cable with the "I" connector on one end, and the "L" connector on the other is the correct one.

I will order the cable after I get the drive to make sure I get the correct one.

Why can't this stuff be standardized? :lol:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Some will need the "I" and the "L" and some will just need the "I" connector on both ends. Also, if you need the "I" connector and the "L" make sure that you put the right connector into the right port. Some people do not know there is a difference and just hook them up without looking at the cable ends to see that there is a difference.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Horse meet water [see pictures] :lol:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

John4924 said:


> Don't know if you are wrong or not. I looked closely at a picture of the back panel of the HR20, and the Seagate X drive, and the connections look "different". My best guess at this point is that the cable with the "I" connector on one end, and the "L" connector on the other is the correct one.
> 
> I will order the cable after I get the drive to make sure I get the correct one.
> 
> Why can't this stuff be standardized? :lol:


No. That won't work. I have my X hooked up with eSATA to eSATA jumper cables. Order them. Use the link I provided. It isn't "standardized" in this instance because the argument we are having (we all know each other and this goes on all the time, you just happened to ask a question that can be answered several ways if all the facts are not clear to all of us) is confusing to those of us who don't quite understand what the ubergeeks (nobody should go berserk, that is a compliment) are talking about.

What you are going to purchase must be an eSATA to eSATA jumper cable in the "I" configuration. I don't pretend to understand the tech talk, but I think the SATA to eSATA wires are for connecting an eSATA to a computer or some other device such as the enclosure RR lists in his sig. I've hooked up many, many eSATAs and have always used the eSATA to eSATA jumper cables. I have checked all my eSATAs and they all have the same jumper configuration. And all the spare jumpers I have are the same. Each jumper that I have has the seven pin configuration. All the HRs have the same female port that accepts that seven pin configuration.

Don't get discouraged by all this, as I said it goes on all the time and this is how I learn. Sounds confusing, but I consider myself an "end user" and all I want to know about something such as the jumper cable is "will it work on my equipment?". I know what will work on the X and the HR. I am using my second X and both were and are connected with jumpers such as I recommended.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Are you wrong?" I have no idea, since I haven't seen the connector.
> If they're working for you, then "I'd guess you aren't".


I know I'm right about the jumpers I use. I don't remember ever running into a jumper that had a "L" connector on one end. All the HRs have female ports that take the seven pin (got a magnifying glass out and counted them) connector. All the eSATAs that I have, and have hooked up in the past, have used these same jumpers.

All we have succeeded in doing is confusing John. And me, of course, but that's normal. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Some will need the "I" and the "L" and some will just need the "I" connector on both ends. Also, if you need the "I" connector and the "L" make sure that you put the right connector into the right port. Some people do not know there is a difference and just hook them up without looking at the cable ends to see that there is a difference.


Do the "L'' connectors even fit into the HRs or the eSATAs (not your enclosure, a normal eSATA such as John has)?

If they do, that's a poor design. Doesn't IEEE have standards for these wires and connectors?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

John4924 said:


> Don't know if you are wrong or not. I looked closely at a picture of the back panel of the HR20, and the Seagate X drive, and the connections look "different". My best guess at this point is that the cable with the "I" connector on one end, and the "L" connector on the other is the correct one.
> 
> I will order the cable after I get the drive to make sure I get the correct one.
> 
> Why can't this stuff be standardized? :lol:


John, please go to this link:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16812191017

This is exactly what you need.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I know I'm right about the jumpers I use. I don't remember ever running into a jumper that had a "L" connector on one end. All the HRs have female ports that take the seven pin (got a magnifying glass out and counted them) connector. All the eSATAs that I have, and have hooked up in the past, have used these same jumpers.
> 
> All we have succeeded in doing is confusing John. And me, of course, but that's normal. :lol:
> 
> Rich


The HR2x has an eSATA or "I" connector.
SATA connectors are the "L" type, which are what you find "inside" a computer.
Now to really start confusing everyone, I have a PC with an EXTERNAL SATA connector [L type]. Following this "logic" some enclosures could easily have "L " connectors also.
You have [portable] eSATA drives that are following "the norm" with the "I" connectors, so the cable [prefer calling it a "cable" than a "jumper" which is something else with hard drives] would be "I to I".


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> The HR2x has an eSATA or "I" connector.
> SATA connectors are the "L" type, which are what you find "inside" a computer.
> Now to really start confusing everyone, I have a PC with an EXTERNAL SATA connector [L type]. Following this "logic" some enclosures could easily have "L " connectors also.
> You have [portable] eSATA drives that are following "the norm" with the "I" connectors, so the cable [prefer calling it a "cable" than a "jumper" which is something else with hard drives] would be "I to I".


Are we in agreement that John needs a jumper such as the one in the link that I posted in post#299?

Rich


----------



## techleet (Feb 4, 2008)

Is eSata enabled by default on the HR21?

Sorry, I'm an ultra eSata + D* n00b, but I'm very technical.... can I use any sata drive + enclosure, or do I have to use specific "approved" drives? Is there a walkthrough somewhere?

Thanks


----------



## John4924 (Mar 19, 2007)

rich584 said:


> John, please go to this link:
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16812191017
> 
> ...


Thanks, Rich. Type "I" to type "I" is exactly what I need. Out of curiosity, I went and took apart my setup for my TV upstairs that has the external eSata. The cable is exactly what you describe...

So I will buy this one from monoprice for $3.52

http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10226&cs_id=1022603&p_id=2882&seq=1&format=2

Again, thanks for all the help.

Cheers,
John


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

John4924 said:


> Thanks, Rich. Type "I" to type "I" is exactly what I need. Out of curiosity, I went and took apart my setup for my TV upstairs that has the external eSata. The cable is exactly what you describe...
> 
> So I will buy this one from monoprice for $3.52
> 
> ...


You're very welcome, John. Let us know if the cable works properly. I've only had one bad experience with Monoprice. Bought a cheap HDMI switch without doing my homework and wrecked two HRs. Seems that you have to spend at least about $250-300 for one that will work with multiple HRs.

That cable is really cheaper than the NewEgg cable, but it will probably work. One can only hope.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

techleet said:


> Is eSata enabled by default on the HR21?
> 
> Sorry, I'm an ultra eSata + D* n00b, but I'm very technical.... can I use any sata drive + enclosure, or do I have to use specific "approved" drives? Is there a walkthrough somewhere?
> 
> Thanks


Russdog has a really good thread that details eSATA usage and I will provide you with a link in a moment...Got it.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=142735&highlight=esata

This thread and the above link should answer most of your questions. Quickly, I will try to answer your questions, but I urge you to read Russdog's thread.

Each model, for example 20s and 21s react differently to the same eSATAs so this can get pretty confusing. If you want to put your own SATA drive in an enclosure, the Antec MX-1 works with both 20s and 21s and is easy to put together and comes with it's own eSATA to eSATA cable.

If you want to use an assembled eSATA the Cavalrys will work with both the 21s and 20s and come with the eSATA to eSATA cable. The Seagate Xtreme seems to work with both too. The Seagate Free Agent Pros will only work with the 20s. The Seagates do NOT come with the eSATA cable, you will have to purchase your own and can find links to sites that sell them on this thread. I've never used the WD DVR Expander, but have read mixed reviews and it only comes in a 500G model.

With the Antec enclosure, it appears that any SATA hard drive will work. I use the Seagate Barracuda 1TB in mine and have no problems. I have a bias towards Seagate hard drives. Cost a little more, but seem to work well with few problems.

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Russdog requested "not a lot of chit chat" in the FAQ he's put together, so i'll put this here and see if it has any legs.

I've been thinking this whole e-sata/performance/capacity thing with regards to glitchiness or lack thereof.

I spent a couple of hours digging up pictures of the internal drives for the HR's, including the older HR10's. Some of the early HR10's used a plain jane hard drive, as do some of the HR20's I saw photos of.

But most of the photos, in particular those of the later HR22/23's, the later HR10's, and the Tivo HD I opened up all have "AV" type disk drives.

Physically these drives are similar to, if not identical to, their regular sata cousins. The firmware is different though. The cache and read/write operations are tuned for multiple data streams of video rather than the usual computer operating system data file access. Their error correction is pared down so that minor glitches in reading a video stream dont spend too much time re-correcting, under the presumption that it probably just a few pixels on a big screen...who'll notice?

What I'm not certain of is if that error correction also quickly sidesteps bad reads on data elements like database reads.

The AV drives generally cost more than the non AV vanilla versions, so I think we can be somewhat confident that tivo and directv arent sticking these into their boxes because they bought the marketing BS yet dont really need the AV features. They're in there because they likely tested the heck out of both types and the AV drives worked better.

Why some of the HR's have non AV drives and some dont is a mystery.

Another observation is that Doug Brott made a post last month with "recommended" external sata drives. He never said why he recommended them or where the recommendation came from, but both models (the WD DVR expander and the as yet unreleased Seagate Showcase) are AV model drives in an external case intended to be attached to esata equipped HD DVR's and are made end to end to be HD DVR storage devices.

Yet another observation is that Tivo only allows one drive to be used with the Tivo HD...the WD DVR Expander, as mentioned an AV equipped drive.

In the innards of the DVR, a variety of functions are happening concurrently. There is the real time recording of one or two streams of SD or HD content. There is the playback of a selected recording or the playback of the foreground buffered recording going on. The DVR is processing new guide data in real time. It may be communicating with other devices on the network or downloading an SD or HD stream via VOD. It has to schedule recordings based on the series links and available guide data. In the most recent versions of the software it may have to transmit a video stream to a PC running directv2pc. And it has to respond to the user interface if requested. And the operating system (linux in this case) has its own little housekeeping and overheads that happen periodically.

All of these tasks are prioritized to give the most urgent real time tasks with the most urgent and visible results the highest priority and things that can theoretically happen anytime the lowest.

More observations. A lot of people including myself have noticed a slow down in VOD download speeds and some VOD downloads crapping out intermittently in the last few weeks to a month. Recording is probably the highest priority, playback is probably right behind it, guide data and show scheduling in the middle and things like the UI and VOD at the bottom.

And some more observations. Directv still limits us to 50 series links and a single recording buffer, even though those limitations seem to have been easily transcended by other similar competing products. Directv has also not released any HR's with disks larger than 500GB and only released the 500's quite recently. I have to believe the directv marketing folks would love to have a 1TB model to sell at a premium price, like Tivo does. Yet they dont.

Some people seem to have very little trouble with their receivers, while others have sporadic intermittent issues and some are plagued.

Of my receivers, one gives me a good bit more trouble than the other, although it'll work fine for days or weeks at a time, then go bananas for a few hours or a day, then be fine again. The other has a slow UI and has had a few glitches but its fairly reliable most of the time.

The "bad" one has a cavalry unit with a non AV western digital 5400RPM drive in it, and had an MX-1 with a non AV seagate drive before that.

The "good" one has an MX-1 with a Seagate DB35 AV style drive in it.

Its also been my very unscientific observation that people who really like their HR's and say they NEVER have problems are generally not super heavyweight users.

So I'm going to postulate that heavyweight users who rarely record dual HD streams, are network connected, are downloading an HD stream, have a large database of stored shows that the software has to deal with, and are whacking away on the remote control may at times exceed the performance capabilities of a plain vanilla hard drive. And that an AV drive has less trouble with this sort of situation.

The totally guessed at symptoms of this problem would be a slow or erratic performing UI, slow or aborted VOD's, splats and urps on video playback or in extreme situations, recorded in blurps. Only when a perfect storm of activity hit all around the same time.

So with this in mind, it would seem that any use of a non AV drive would be tempting the possibility of some performance and reliability issues.

That it seems that some DVR's may have been sent out from the factory with non AV drive, which might explain why some people have more trouble than others...especially when that non AV drive equipped unit lands in the hands of a heavy user.

The only thing that bugs me about the AV drives, as I mentioned above, is what happens when its "lightweight" error correction gives up on a read operation and that read operation had something to do with retrieving a chunk of actual data. If the OS or application identifies that glitch and forces further retries, that would solve the issue. Otherwise you'd probably get a hung or crashed DVR.

There are also probably a brazillion gradients of this, as some non AV drives will perform better than others in a 

And while writing this, I had a "group" playback of one of my sons shows playing on the "evil/bad" dvr with the cavalry unit and he told me that the one he was watching was over, but it still had 3 minutes left on it, so I fast forwarded it and as soon as I hit the FF4, the unit gave me a gray screen and froze. Exactly what happened to my wife 2 days ago.

Once the unit rebooted, I recreated the situation and it bombed again. First time I've been able to procedurally make this receiver fail...

In this instance I had a recording going on, and the recorder was also recording live tv, both in HD.

I disconnected the e-sata and rebooted on the internal drive and was not able to reproduce the problem.

I'd say I might have a bad enclosure/disk, but I've had similar glitches with both the cavalry/WD Greenpower 1TB and the MX-1/Seagate non AV drive with the same receiver.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

And another thing, since my last post wasnt long enough...

In many mirrored raid implementations, while writes have to go to both drives, reads can come from both independently. So those using a mirrored raid esata setup without the "AV" type drives, may have enough improvement on their multiple stream read performance that things work as well for them as a single disk enclosure with an "AV" type drive.

Some super cheap raid implementations might not allow independent reads from either disk in the set, so YMMV.


----------



## claimjumper (Dec 16, 2008)

Is it a given and proven fact that AV drives work better?

For example, how do you think the wd10EACS drive would perform given your observations?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I have a WD AV Drive and mine has worked Flawlessly ever since I bought it and I think that WD is knowledgeable enough to know how to build a drive that is used 24/7 in a DVR type of environment. Mine is very quiet and runs cooler.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

You have to change your user ID to "Mr. Brevity". :lol:

Don't know enough to comment on the AV drives, but all my 20-700s are probably not equipped with them and all run very well.

Your statements about light users never having problems is probably right in a general context. Some people who have over 10,000 posts can't possibly be recording and watching programs. I do think that some of those with the outrageous number of posts are people who participate in the CE program.

Good post!

Rich



t_h said:


> Russdog requested "not a lot of chit chat" in the FAQ he's put together, so i'll put this here and see if it has any legs.
> 
> I've been thinking this whole e-sata/performance/capacity thing with regards to glitchiness or lack thereof.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I have a WD AV Drive and mine has worked Flawlessly ever since I bought it and I think that WD is knowledgeable enough to know how to build a drive that is used 24/7 in a DVR type of environment. Mine is very quiet and runs cooler.


I keep reading bad reviews on the WD 500G DVR Expanders. Some good, some bad. I did speak to a WD tech who told me in no uncertain terms that the E Books would absolutely NOT work with ANY DVR and yet, I have seen posts by people that have them working on 21s. I couldn't get one to work with a 20, that's why I called WD. Makes you wonder who you can believe.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Here is the drive that I bought and if you look at the Specs and believe some of what they say and print then maybe it is a great drive. Mine works flawlessly but there are many others that also work great but I trust WD to develope a drive that would work best in an A/V situation.

It says it runs cooler and is better in a 24/7 environment so I suppose they have added components that make it run cooler and last longer running in a 24/7 type of environment plus understanding the type of processing that it requires which is probably linear in nature.

Here is the link to my drive which is a WD10EVCS.

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=388


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

claimjumper said:


> Is it a given and proven fact that AV drives work better?
> 
> For example, how do you think the wd10EACS drive would perform given your observations?


Since all the DVR's I'd seen, like the tivo, series 2 tivo and directivos along with several pictures of the HR20's had the non AV drives, my original thinking was that the AV drive idea was marketing poppycock intended to separate you from an additional $20-30 of your money. In particular since I'd seen some model hard drives flashed from their vanilla variety to their AV variety and had some inside information that the physical drive was identical.

But I guess the short answer is why would tivo and directv start using the AV drives exclusively in (at least) their HD product line if they cost more with no benefit, why would tivo specify a requirement for one of the very few external AV drives, and why would one of the mods here at dbstalk be recommending the same external AV drive that tivo uses, and one other that is as yet unreleased?

If any old quality disk will do, they'd be using, requiring and recommending any old quality disk.

Is it a requirement? Eh, if half of what you record is SD, you only occasionally record two things in the same time slot, you dont have the receiver hooked up to a network for VOD, mediashare and directv2pc or you're only doing a few of those things at a time, then maybe you get by without it.

But do remember that the software isnt standing still. MRV and DLB or something like them will be around eventually, as may >50 series links, etc, etc.

As far as the WD10EACS, thats the external drive I'm using now that i'm having problems with. Its an excellent drive for external backup/pc use because its low power, doesnt make a lot of heat, can be passively cooled, and is inexpensive for the storage capacity.

But its 5400rpm instead of 7200, isnt tuned for AV usage, isnt targeted towards dvr use or 24x7 use by the manufacturer and while it performs well against typical 7200 rpm PC hard drives, its slower overall.

I do note that the drive that WD uses in their dbstalk recommended/tivo required external drive is a 7200rpm AV version.

I also note that there is no 1TB external "dvr expander" available from WD, nor have they announced an imminent release. Perhaps because they have no 1TB AV drive. But they do have a 1TB AV/GP 5400 rpm drive (the WD10EVCS,the one Richierich is using), and they've had it for a while. But no DVR Expander with that drive in it.

I imagine theres a reason for that. Do note that this isnt a binary "it works"/"doesnt work" thing, I think its a combination of the drives capabilities, the user requirements, and instances of the system load exceeding the drives capability, at which point something has to get dropped on the ground.

And now we all know why all of my salary reviews note that i'm an excellent story teller, but that I could learn to apply a little brevity to my stories...


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

One last thing I forgot to mention (how could such a thing be possible?)...tivo requires the 7200 rpm AV external but continues to use the internal drive (also a 7200 rpm AV) for its database, indexes, program data, and all system activity. It only uses the external for storing video.

So unlike the HR's, it uses BOTH drives and reserves one for system activity. And STILL wants a 7200rpm AV external.

By the way, I like the looks of the Seagate Pipeline HD drives, which are in the Showcase external esata unit that Doug Brott has recommended. The drives themselves can be bought now, and are pretty cheap. The retail on the packaged externals ($249 for 1TB) seems steep, but that'll drop when its broadly available.


----------



## claimjumper (Dec 16, 2008)

So many people are using non AV drives without any problems that it makes me wonder. I remember reading that the AV drives just handle the heat better and are quieter - which probably leads to lasting longer which is what AV drives need since they are always on.

If that is the case then it it wouldnt matter if its AV or not in terms of performance that you speak about.

Really makes me wonder given your observations what the truth is.

How about the DB35 drives? are they AV?


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

DB35 drives are AV type. The difference isnt just heat and acoustics.

From WD's site on their AV drives:

SilkStream™ - Optimized for smooth, continuous digital video playback of up to twelve simultaneous HD streams**. SilkStream is compatible with the ATA streaming command set so CE customers can use standard streaming management and error recovery options.

and

Preemptive Wear Leveling (PWL) - The drive arm frequently sweeps across the disk to reduce uneven wear on the drive surface common to audio video streaming applications.

Seagate also notes the "12 simultaneous streams" thing.

Both drives also claim to have hardware DRM capabilities, which may be another future requirement.

Like I said, that any old drive works for some/most people isnt the thing. Its whether it works for a high end user thats the question.

In my opinion, it also brings a whole bunch of "issues" into range of an underperforming drive as a cause. Is this the cause of audio brrping? Video glitching? Poor VOD performance? Hangs, freezes, lockups, gray screens, etc.

I dont have any numbers, but I'd bet that the majority of Directv's customers dont even know theres an eSata port on the back of the unit, let alone have an external drive attached. I'll bet we're a minority.

Plus we're just dipping into this over the last year or so. In the tivo world where disk changeouts and additions have been going on for a long time, the AV drive is strongly recommended in their FAQ. Directv and tivo are putting it in the box and requiring/recommending it.

If its unnecessary, then why are they going to the trouble and spending profit dollars on it?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Not a drive expert by any means, but a couple of things that came up a long time back about drives:
"DVR" drives are spec'd quieter [no one wants to hear their drive during a movie]
Google did an in house study with their servers running "server drives" and "generic drives" and found zero benefits with "server drives".
Recording three HD streams, would amount to less than 40 Mb/s, which seems well below the capabilities of current drives.
WD has always sold drives less than Seagate [for a similar size] or at least to suppliers [better markup].
DirecTV [well the manufactures of the DVRs really] are buying "in bulk", so their price most likely can't be compared to "over the counter" prices. Volume purchases has its advantage.


----------



## Blademan (Jun 3, 2004)

From the Seagate page on their Showcase DVR product:
Showcase Storage vs PC External Drives


> PC drives correct data errors that are important to PC applications, but the
> same level of error correction is not needed for video streaming and can
> obstruct the flow of video, resulting in a choppy presentation. The Showcase
> solution avoids unnecessary and disruptive error correction. If the Showcase
> ...


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

t_h said:


> Russdog requested "not a lot of chit chat" in the FAQ he's put together, so i'll put this here and see if it has any legs.


I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration about that.
I was mainly trying to discourage the, "Hey, Bubba, how you doin'?" posts.
However, I think your post here may have nuked some noobs too, so just as well it's here ;-)



t_h said:


> I've been thinking this whole e-sata/performance/capacity thing with regards to glitchiness or lack thereof. [stuff deleted]
> 
> But most of the photos, in particular those of the later HR22/23's, the later HR10's, and the Tivo HD I opened up all have "AV" type disk drives.
> 
> ...


Your hypothesis is not consistent with my experience with a WD10EACS in an Antec, and another 2 of them in a RAID box. (No VoD or PC playback however.)

The features of my performance issues have not correlated in any way with "heavy duty use". 
Recording 2 HD streams while jumping around while playing back a 3rd recorded program never phased either setup. 
The only thing my performance issues appear to correlate with is the db getting heavily populated. 
Whether it's the number of recordings vs. the amount of program info stored, I have no idea. But that's what it correlates with. 
I have had very serious responsiveness issues when recording nothing (except the buffer) and looking at SD, and I have also had no performance issues of any kind when doing the more-heavy duty stuff.

My hunch is that whatever we're doing while using the HR's doesn't phase the HDD's one bit. 
I've certainly never seen any indication that their capabilities are being taxed. Now, the db is another matter.

As for why D* would spend extra to use A/V drives that offer no apparent performance advantages, beats me. 
But, personally, I would not assume it's because D* made astute technical judgments. 
If they made astute technical judgments, then the db would not have the issues it evidently does, nor would their software have so many unsolved problems. 
I could easily believe some VP had to make a decision, the manufacturer reps were singing the praises of AV drives, and he swallowed it, rather than stick his neck out and risk blame for a bad result if the reps' hype was right.

But you could be right, I really don't know. It's just not consistent with what I'm seeing.


----------



## Blademan (Jun 3, 2004)

I have an Antec with Seagate 1.5 TB drive with a boatload of stutter in many circumstances:

Watching live TV = OK
Watching live TV while recording 1 program = OK with some stutter
Watching buffered TV (say 1-2 mins behind live) while recording 1 program = mainly unwatchable
Watching any taped program while recording another = completely unusable
Never had this issue with any other DVR, but they were all SD
Looks like I might have to invest in a "DVR" drive, and relegate this drive to data use.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

Blademan said:


> I have an Antec with Seagate 1.5 TB drive with a boatload of stutter in many circumstances:
> 
> Watching live TV = OK
> Watching live TV while recording 1 program = OK with some stutter
> ...


We've seen similar reports about Seagates. Yet others swear by them.
I don't recall seeing such reports re: the WD's (for whatever that's worth).


----------



## claimjumper (Dec 16, 2008)

What Part Number and Firmware do you have? Are you aware of the need to upgrade the firmware according to Seagate spokesperson? Many people are having problems.



Blademan said:


> I have an Antec with Seagate 1.5 TB drive with a boatload of stutter in many circumstances:
> 
> Watching live TV = OK
> Watching live TV while recording 1 program = OK with some stutter
> ...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Blademan said:


> From the Seagate page on their Showcase DVR product:
> Showcase Storage vs PC External Drives





> If the Showcase storage solution can't read a bit, it skips it and continues reading in order to provide a crisp, clean, uninterrupted flow of video-because most likely that one bit amounts to a single pixel in one second of a video stream.


 This doesn't apply to DirecTV DVRs, because the data is compressed, and with MPEG-4 "a bit" will be more than a "single pixel".


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> Google did an in house study with their servers running "server drives" and "generic drives" and found zero benefits with "server drives".


I've read the study and I agree with that. The primary difference between a "server" or "enterprise" drive and a "generic" one is that the server drive presumes its attached to a RAID controller and gives up retries well before a generic drive will, figuring the raid controller will put the data somewhere else. Way better than having the drive retry a write fault for 2 minutes.



> Recording three HD streams, would amount to less than 40 Mb/s, which seems well below the capabilities of current drives.


I understand, but I think the logic here is flawed. A "generic" drive in a PC running a benchmark produces the nice straight line results. But when you're writing and reading a bunch of different video streams in real time, that cache thats tuned for straightline performance gets invalidated an awful lot. I know that some of the earlier hard drive security camera setups disabled the cache altogether as that drastically improved performance. As I'm reading it, the AV drives break up the cache and try to provide up to 12 different cache sets specifically tweaked for read or write operations.



> their price most likely can't be compared to "over the counter" prices. Volume purchases has its advantage.


Agreed. I've sold hardware in the billion dollar range before. But I never gave up my premium product for a price at or below the price point for my base product. And I strongly doubt that WD and Seagate are either. I'm similarly sure that directv isnt paying even a dollar extra per unit for something they dont need.

Realize that I'm pulling this stuff from a whole bunch of observations and have no actual data. I'm trying to figure out why some people have no problems, some have a few and some have lots.

It'd be pretty cool if someone from directv or one of the mods who seems to be getting recommended products fed to them to say yea or nay on this matter.

If a whole bunch of people dont believe they need the AV externals because they havent been presented with any actual facts and buy something else, that sets all of those people up for "I told you so!" failure down the road.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

"Flawed"? :lol: [hey I said I was no expert on drives]
Still think 40 Mb/s isn't taxing the drives though.

"Why some do and others don't" has been an unknown from day one with these DVRs.
Some say it's a memory leak.
I tend to think it's hardware [but I'm an old hardware guy]. Crappy made in China. :lol:

"I would think" eSATA drives would work better if they were made for A/V, since the early ones were more "super Zip drives", than for a DVR.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

russdog said:


> If they made astute technical judgments, then the db would not have the issues it evidently does, nor would their software have so many unsolved problems.


But consider that Directv doesnt support eSata at this time, doesnt sell a product with more than 500GB, and the only word we've had has been a recommendation thrown out to buy external 7200rpm AV drives.

So their existing product may perfectly support the configurations they're selling, and they expect to make changes before they release a larger drive model, support eSata, and tell us which drives it'll work properly with.

Which maybe they already did...



> I could easily believe some VP had to make a decision, the manufacturer reps were singing the praises of AV drives, and he swallowed it, rather than stick his neck out and risk blame for a bad result if the reps' hype was right.


Man, I want to work for your VP's. Mine used to scrutinize every penny we spent and every hour of time, then give us half the money and half the manpower. 

It certainly may be inconsistent with what you're seeing. Plug a network into that box, get some VOD and PC viewing going, and get a pair of 1080i high bitrate HD shows recording while you're watching another one. Make sure you have 50 series links where half of them are on at least a couple of times a day. Then you'll be right about where I am.

It may be that you're seeing a combination effect...the high priority video recording/playback is swamping out your disk, and its got enough bandwidth to handle a smaller db, but when the larger db kicks in, and the lower priority user interface piece gets left out.


----------



## claimjumper (Dec 16, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> "a bit" will be more than a "single pixel".


That sounds funny but I know what you mean.

However, my guess is that with error correcting that bit can be corrected or 'handled' such that it still wont matter and just keep moving on.

The hardware in the receiver probably handles this - not the hard drive of course.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

t_h said:


> But consider that Directv doesnt support eSata at this time, doesnt sell a product with more than 500GB, and the only word we've had has been a recommendation thrown out to buy external 7200rpm AV drives.
> 
> So their existing product may perfectly support the configurations they're selling, and they expect to make changes before they release a larger drive model, support eSata, and tell us which drives it'll work properly with.
> 
> Which maybe they already did...


Well, I agree that's one possible scenario.
Another possible scenario is that the main problem is their db, and they won't go over 500GB HDD's until the db is re-done.
I don't know what the truth is, but my experience is consistent with the db-theory, not the taxing-the-HDD theory. 
Again, I tax the HDD with HD as much as is possible (AFAIK, anyway) and that's not where the problems show up.
Not saying that everybody's story is the same as mine, but I don't know of contradictory experience.
Are you sure that your experience contradicts the db-theory? (I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, this is an honest question.)



t_h said:


> Man, I want to work for your VP's. Mine used to scrutinize every penny we spent and every hour of time, then give us half the money and half the manpower.


I don't believe D* management is competent enough ;-)



t_h said:


> It may be that you're seeing a combination effect...the high priority video recording/playback is swamping out your disk, and its got enough bandwidth to handle a smaller db, but when the larger db kicks in, and the lower priority user interface piece gets left out.


Not sure exactly what you're saying. 
Are you saying that the db-problem is not really a db-problem but is a HDD-bandwidth-while-multitasking problem that appears only sometimes? 
Even when full, their db is still tiny by db standards. Not sure how that would tax the HDD's ability to do things, but maybe I just don't understand yet.

Perhaps the most annoying aspect of this is that there are really only 2 possibilities:
1. D* knows exactly what the story is, and they just won't tell us, so we flounder around and guess, or...
2. D* isn't on the ball enough to know.
Neither possibility is exactly heart-warming.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Not trying to warm any hearts here, but:

1) DirecTV will never "tell us". They do "hear us".
2) DirecTV "Technical" shouldn't be sold short.
3) Given "how little" they have for resources in these DVRs, they got them doing a lot for us.
4) Given #3, db "issues" make way more sense than [any] hard drive [IMO]


----------



## claimjumper (Dec 16, 2008)

D* "Technical" people were the ones that made you have those two little gagets hanging off the back of your receiver.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

claimjumper said:


> D* "Technical" people were the ones that made you have those two little gagets hanging off the back of your receiver.


[OT] 
So? 
Since the H/HR20s came out before the FCC approved the Ka-lo frequencies [what those "little ga*d*gets" do], seems like a "smart move". Should something have not worked "as planned", it makes more sense [cents] to swap BBCs than scrap receivers [IMO].


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

claimjumper said:


> D* "Technical" people were the ones that made you have those two little gagets hanging off the back of your receiver.


I'm sure that's an entirely different group of "Technical" people.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, back in the old days when I participated in these kinds of forums in Tivocommunity.com we had similar problems and guess what? Directv and Tivo got together and restructured the database to increase speed and eliminate such things as pixellation, macro blocking, stuttering, etc. and it worked.

Why would they go to this length? Because they knew they had a problem and it had to be resolved and so they finally bit the bullet and did it at whatever cost there was. 

I also think this puppy needs a little faster processor too.

However, there are alot of other factors that need to be looked at and isolated in a test situation. Things such as bad connectors or not having compression fittings or connectors that cause problems with Ka-Lo signals in the high frequency range, bad tuner, bad or cheap BBCs, bad LNBs, "static electricity buildup" due to improper grounding or no grounding which interferes with the electronics of the DVR particularly in regards to the 22 KHz tone that needs to be sent along with the 13 or 18 volt signal to retrieve a particular range of channels from a particular transponder which has been requested by the DVR. 

So there are alot of factors to be looked at to solve all of these problems and not just the database structure but I definitely feel that the db is one problem that needs to be looked at soon.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> Well, back in the old days when I participated in these kinds of forums in Tivocommunity.com we had similar problems and guess what? Directv and Tivo got together and restructured the database to increase speed and eliminate such things as pixellation, macro blocking, stuttering, etc. and it worked.
> 
> Why would they go to this length? Because they knew they had a problem and it had to be resolved and so they finally bit the bullet and did it at whatever cost there was.
> 
> ...


#1 Ka-Lo [coming from the dish] is "only" 250-750 MHz, which is the LOWEST band.
#2 22 KHz [not MHz]


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

russdog said:


> Well, I agree that's one possible scenario.
> Another possible scenario is that the main problem is their db, and they won't go over 500GB HDD's until the db is re-done.
> I don't know what the truth is, but my experience is consistent with the db-theory, not the taxing-the-HDD theory.
> Again, I tax the HDD with HD as much as is possible (AFAIK, anyway) and that's not where the problems show up.
> ...


What I'm seeing are a whole series of symptoms, and i'm looking for a "unified field theory" that explains them. And trying to make that compatible with why some people with the same hardware have problems when others dont.

A frequent explanation is that something is wrong with the hardware or install. The problem that I have with that one is that the box will work great for days or weeks at a time, then struggle for several days.

Stepping back from the art of screaming "You piece of @%[email protected]" at the receiver, its occurred to me that the worst problems expose themselves on weekends when i'm often recording two concurrent streams of live sports at high resolutions and bitrates, when I'm doing VOD or Directv2pc while doing multiple recordings.

So some combination of a bandwidth limitation coupled with usage model coupled with coincidences of overuse with the limitation producing symptoms seems to make sense.

Heres another observation: on the HR20-100's that I have, the default is to leave the playlist sort at "by date". You can change it to another option but when you pull up the playlist, it defaults back to "by date". Unless I'm mistaken, other HR's allow the change in sort to persist, but the HR20-100 requires the "iamanedgecutter" keyword search to give you that option.

Why? Is it because having the unit sort by other than date stresses it and theres something about the HR20-100 that is slower/weaker than the other models? I have seen some photos of the HR20-100 with non AV drives. I havent seen pictures of any other model with a non AV drive.

Or maybe its CPU is slower?



> Not sure exactly what you're saying.
> Are you saying that the db-problem is not really a db-problem but is a HDD-bandwidth-while-multitasking problem that appears only sometimes?
> Even when full, their db is still tiny by db standards. Not sure how that would tax the HDD's ability to do things, but maybe I just don't understand yet.


Cause and effect backwards. Its not the db thats causing the problem, its display UI performance showing the contents of the database thats falling prey to higher priority recordings when the database reaches a certain size.

I wonder how many procedures the HR has to run to see if a show it wants to record already exists, has been recorded in the last 30 days, that theres space to record it, etc. And how often they run.

One other observation: I pause the PIG/PIL when I'm doing stuff in the menus. I can hear the disk drive absolutely going bananas at times, especially when deleting 3-4 hour HD shows. Sounds like a tin can full of rice being shaken.



> Perhaps the most annoying aspect of this is that there are really only 2 possibilities:
> 1. D* knows exactly what the story is, and they just won't tell us, so we flounder around and guess, or...
> 2. D* isn't on the ball enough to know.
> Neither possibility is exactly heart-warming.


Its pretty clear to me from having read quite a few threads going back a long way on this board that directv would like us to know as little as possible about how the innards of the product work. They dont want any hacking or data extraction to occur outside of what their software does.

A lot of businesses also dont want to give the customer too much information that may result in undesirable reactions, whether those are rational or irrational.

What if they gave us a piece of information that said that 15% of their dvr's had a disk drive in them that would make them work funny or break every now and then? What if they told us that a whole model line of receivers like the HR20-100 had some performance inadequacy that they were barely skirting...barely.

Customers with knowledge sometimes turn that knowledge into power. Usually they freak out and want you to spend company resources making them feel better.

Customers fumbling around in the dark making vague guesses are, however, free.

Doug Brott has twice said he recommends the two AV disk based external sata units but hasnt said why. My vague guess of the day is that someone at Directv told him that those were the units that they will eventually support or that the performance is needed or will be needed.

Could be that either directv just wants to officially support a product made for DVR's that they can get the best support for from the major makers, and there is no real need for the AV drives, or that there is.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Russdog, I noticed in the video stuttering thread that you're also having video stutter problems with football games on the broadcast networks.

So am I.

So there are two symptoms: slow UI and stuttering.

Arent football games broadcast in HD on the network locals about the highest volume of data that needs to be read/written? I thought I saw something somewhere that major network sports due to resolution, bandwidth and high speed movement made for the largest HD datastreams. I also get lots of audio brrrps and other glitching on the local news which is 1080i, and on the late night talk shows and some network prime time shows, and a lot of the stuff thats on ESPN and NFL network. The SD stuff and other HD content has few if any problems.

No?

BTW, my problems seem to change over time and in coincidence with s/w releases. My theory is that directv is fiddling with process priorities trying to get everything to play nicely.

Mine doesnt want to do VOD today. Its taken almost an hour to download 25 minutes of kids animation and coughed up the "test connection?" popup a half dozen times in the last half hour.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

[going way OT]
You seemed to have "missed" the MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 conversion [thus dropping the bitrate].
Brrps, studder, [more with my local HD] have been traced down to the Dolby encoders used in the local uplink, by a group effort from DirecTV engineering.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Different direction then. Doesnt processing mpeg4 take much more effort than mpeg2? I also thought that in high motion situations like sports, that the size of an mpeg4 channel wasnt that different from mpeg2.

Would the local uplink problem also relate to problems with ESPN and the NFL network?

Seems to me that a problem with dolby encoders would affect sound, but not video stuttering or skipping.

I looked through the h/w first looks, and there are different broadcom chips used in the HR20 vs the 21-23. The 20 uses a broadcom 7038 while the 21-23 use a 7401. Both run at the same clock rate The 7401 has an emulated FPU while the 7038 has a hardware FPU. The 7038's memory throughput has also been benchmarked at a much higher rate than the 7401.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

t_h said:


> Different direction then. Doesnt processing mpeg4 take much more effort than mpeg2?
> 
> Is there a dedicated mpeg4 processor in the HR's?
> 
> ...


"Yes" MPEG-4 decoding is more "CPU" intensive, and done in a chip.

"Seems to me", was my "first take" too, but it does affect video too, I was told. [I'm not going to go through all of it here, but "IT DOES"].

"What chips" and which version of Linux, only relates to this thread [please remember "the topic"] as to which model DVR may work better with which eSATA.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> Like I said, that any old drive works for some/most people isnt the thing. Its whether it works for a high end user thats the question.


Can't imagine a much higher end user than I am, and I have no problems with two 2TB Cavs (which are performing much better now thanx to VeryOldSchools suggestions about "refreshing" the drives by restarting the units). I don't know what kind of drives are in the enclosures.



> In my opinion, it also brings a whole bunch of "issues" into range of an underperforming drive as a cause. Is this the cause of audio brrping? Video glitching? Poor VOD performance? Hangs, freezes, lockups, gray screens, etc.


The only time I get that "blurping" sound is when I am using my 21-700 in my hidey hole. And that DVR is not in the best of shape. I don't recall ever hearing that sound on my three 20-700s. The other two 21-700s that I have don't make that noise. Makes me wonder just how badly I have screwed up the 21-700 in my hidey hole. First I used it with two 20-700s on a cheap HDMI switch, then I hooked up a Seagate Xtreme 1.5 to it that caused several lockups and went back to BB after a week of use.



> I dont have any numbers, but I'd bet that the majority of Directv's customers dont even know theres an eSata port on the back of the unit, let alone have an external drive attached. I'll bet we're a minority.


I think you correct in your assumption that we are in the minority of people that actually take advantage of the eSATA function. This has been pointed out to me in several threads.



> Plus we're just dipping into this over the last year or so. In the tivo world where disk changeouts and additions have been going on for a long time, the AV drive is strongly recommended in their FAQ. Directv and tivo are putting it in the box and requiring/recommending it.
> 
> If its unnecessary, then why are they going to the trouble and spending profit dollars on it?


Logic. Ah, if it only prevailed more with the HRs...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> We've seen similar reports about Seagates. Yet others swear by them.
> I don't recall seeing such reports re: the WD's (for whatever that's worth).


I just hooked up another X to one of my 20-700s and while watching football games yesterday I did experience a couple freezeups. Minor annoyance, corrected by skipping back once both times, but I only have a few programs on it and can't help but wonder what will happen if I load it up. If I get lockups, this will be the last X I purchase. Would rather get another 2TB Cav. Never took one of the Cavs apart, but I think I remember reading that they have WD drives in them. My two Seagate 1TB drives work perfectly, both use the Barracuda drives.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

claimjumper said:


> What Part Number and Firmware do you have? Are you aware of the need to upgrade the firmware according to Seagate spokesperson? Many people are having problems.


Can you tell us how to upgrade the firmware? I'd call Seagate, but that usually entails a long wait for a tech to come on the line.

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

rich584 said:


> Can't imagine a much higher end user than I am, and I have no problems with two 2TB Cavs (which are performing much better now thanx to VeryOldSchools suggestions about "refreshing" the drives by restarting the units). I don't know what kind of drives are in the enclosures.


Most likely western digital greenpowers, non AV.

But there are two of them in there, and the enclosure is spreading the read/write operations between them, so you've more or less doubled the disk units throughput on reads, writes, and caching operations.

With the single 1.5TB drive, its one disk trying to do it all.

A mirrored pair of drives in an enclosure (as opposed to a bonded pair) split the reads, but not the writes. The HR by default is always writing one stream and reading the same stream. When dual recording, its writing two streams and reading one. When dual recording and VOD'ing, its writing three streams and reading one.

So for performance and reduction of performance limitations, two disks bonded to act like one may perform quite a bit better than a mirrored pair setup, which would outperform a single disk...but since the HR may write quite a bit more in real time than its reading, the advantage of the mirrored set is limited.

Problem with a bonded pair of 1TB's making 2TB's is that you've more than halved the MTBF. Either drive fails and the pair fail. Its more than a halving because drives usually fail fairly soon or not for a long time, and the mtbf carries that 'long time' weighting against a large number of drives. Drives dont fail as a smooth function against time. So a drive with 500,000 hours will probably go for close to the 500,000 hours or nowhere near it. Not very many drives fail in the middle.

So by bonding a pair, you've doubled your odds of getting a rogue bad disk that will croak within a few months, rather than reduced your mtbf to 250,000 hours. If you're looking at it as a function of hundreds or thousands of drives, you get closer to that 500,000 number. If you're looking at it as a function of two, its much, much lower.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> Why? Is it because having the unit sort by other than date stresses it and theres something about the HR20-100 that is slower/weaker than the other models? I have seen some photos of the HR20-100 with non AV drives. I havent seen pictures of any other model with a non AV drive. Or maybe its CPU is slower?


I have alway considered the 100s the worst of the HRs based on my experiences with them. And if you look at the setups of many of the more knowledgeable (not necessarily the ones with the most posts) folks on the forum, you will see few 100s.



> One other observation: I pause the PIG/PIL when I'm doing stuff in the menus. I can hear the disk drive absolutely going bananas at times, especially when deleting 3-4 hour HD shows. Sounds like a tin can full of rice being shaken.


I never hear a sound from my 700s when I do that and I record a lot of baseball (6 hours) and football games (4.5-5 hours) and delete them immediately after viewing unless I am trying to fill up a hard drive to see what will happen. Yet another reason that I wouldn't own (or lease) a 100.



> What if they gave us a piece of information that said that 15% of their dvr's had a disk drive in them that would make them work funny or break every now and then? What if they told us that a whole model line of receivers like the HR20-100 had some performance inadequacy that they were barely skirting...barely.


I've had both the CMG and the PP folks tell me that the 100s are the units that give them the most problems. Takes a bit of prodding to get that admission.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> Most likely western digital greenpowers, non AV.
> 
> But there are two of them in there, and the enclosure is spreading the read/write operations between them, so you've more or less doubled the disk units throughput on reads, writes, and caching operations.
> 
> ...


I try so hard to digest all this and I am learning so, by all means, keep it up. Just answer this question: I am using the two 2TBs at full capacity and as much as possible recording the same shows on each. If one fails, it's not that big a deal, I'll just start over with a new one. Do you think I'm doing the right thing?

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

rich584 said:


> Do you think I'm doing the right thing?


I think $5 a month for an extra receiver with two tuners and its own separate hard drive(s) is the best and cheapest fault tolerance option.

We duplicate most of our favorite shows across two dvr's. Saved my bacon on more than a few occasions.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

t_h said:


> Cause and effect backwards. Its not the db thats causing the problem, its display *UI performance showing the contents of the database thats falling prey to higher priority recordings* when the database reaches a certain size.


My experience of UI slowness is independent of how busy the box is with recordings. 
Neither does it correlate with how full the HDD is. The only thing it correlates with is how full the db is.
An occasional reboot clears the cache of recent stuff and improves UI responsiveness a bit, but not enough.
Both of my HR21's work fine except for this (and the crappy D* "channels you get" data which has the boxes trying to autorecord channels I don't receive... and the broadcast-network-only stutter).

So, there is no reason to suggest that the UI-responsiveness of my boxes is due to anything other than the db.
Dunno what to say about other peoples' boxes.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

t_h said:


> Russdog, I noticed in the video stuttering thread that you're also having video stutter problems with football games on the broadcast networks.
> 
> So am I.
> 
> ...


Yesterday, it happened on FOX.
I believe FOX is 720, which is not the highest bandwidth requirement.

I agree that UI responsiveness and stuttering are two ubiquitous problems.
Not sure why we should think they are both due to the same thing. 
I'm not saying they aren't, just saying there's no reason I know of to assume that they are.
For example, a properly designed db might fix the UI without fixing the stutter, and vice versa.


----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

Just a quick update; now down to 4% remaining. Sound and video were out of sync this morning. Power down fixed it. That has been an infrequent issue for some time. No freezes or any other problems.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> I think $5 a month for an extra receiver with two tuners and its own separate hard drive(s) is the best and cheapest fault tolerance option.
> 
> We duplicate most of our favorite shows across two dvr's. Saved my bacon on more than a few occasions.


Great minds...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> My experience of UI slowness is independent of how busy the box is with recordings.
> Neither does it correlate with how full the HDD is. The only thing it correlates with is how full the db is.
> An occasional reboot clears the cache of recent stuff and improves UI responsiveness a bit, but not enough.
> Both of my HR21's work fine except for this (and the crappy D* "channels you get" data which has the boxes trying to autorecord channels I don't receive... and the broadcast-network-only stutter).
> ...


Seems to me that you are correct about the data base problem. I'm down to 23% available on one 2TB eSATA and I have been restarting it every time I have a chance. This time I had a chance to restart it before I dipped below 30% and it has not slowed down at all. Seems as if between you and VOS something clicked on in my mind and began to make sense. Gotta admit I'm still having a hard time following all this, but I think it's getting clearer.

Add T_H's posts and even thru the confusion I can see light at the end of the tunnel. And I think you and him and VOS are right. Does take some sorting out tho.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

saxon2000 said:


> Just a quick update; now down to 4% remaining. Sound and video were out of sync this morning. Power down fixed it. That has been an infrequent issue for some time. No freezes or any other problems.


I'm down to 23% on one of my 2TBs and that equates to using over 1.5TBs with no problem. Been restarting since I reached 30% Available and no problems. By the way, I see that video and audio sync problem on TBS all the time on all seven of my HRs. I watch Seinfeld reruns all the time and the problem is really evident on that show.

Have you seen a "warning" pop up telling you that your hard drive is almost full?

Rich


----------



## saxon2000 (Oct 25, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I'm down to 23% on one of my 2TBs and that equates to using over 1.5TBs with no problem. Been restarting since I reached 30% Available and no problems. By the way, I see that video and audio sync problem on TBS all the time on all seven of my HRs. I watch Seinfeld reruns all the time and the problem is really evident on that show.
> 
> Have you seen a "warning" pop up telling you that your hard drive is almost full?
> 
> Rich


No. No popup warnings. If I do, I'll post it.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I believe when you reboot you get rid of all of the temporary storage that is left available and then some reorganization takes place which makes things quicker with more memory.

Same thing used to happen on my HR10-150s when they got to that state but I didn't know or realize that I should just go and delete things that I didn't need and then the DVR started pixellating and haveing stuttering problems and sluggishness and everyone said "You need to replace your hard drive." I did but I lost all of my recordings so now I run with RAID1 Mirroring Setup and I don't have those problems.

Just can't wait until the new 2 TB drives come out designed for A/V by Western Digital.


----------



## Beast (Jun 30, 2008)

Hi Rich

Down to the wire so to speak. 6% free space. The only restart I have done was to down load the latest CE. I do not see any noticeable change in the menu response time. What I do see are times when the DVR is recording and im watching a recording and then enter the recordings list it gets a bit slower than normal. But after some seconds it will respond close to normal speed.

I have my show listed with the oldest on top. So I am keeping an eye on those shows to see if they start to drop of as the disk continues to fill. Or if I crash, I hope not.
I will keep you posted.

I must say I am glad this experiment is close to the finish. What a job to wade through all those listings. LOL


----------



## Blademan (Jun 3, 2004)

richierich said:


> ...
> However, there are alot of other factors that need to be looked at and isolated in a test situation. Things such as bad connectors or not having compression fittings or connectors that cause problems with Ka-Lo signals in the high frequency range...


Lack of compression fittings? And here I was just thinking I'm being retentive to make my own compression fittings for the Ka-Lo dongle.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Beast said:


> Hi Rich
> 
> Down to the wire so to speak. 6% free space. The only restart I have done was to down load the latest CE. I do not see any noticeable change in the menu response time. What I do see are times when the DVR is recording and im watching a recording and then enter the recordings list it gets a bit slower than normal. But after some seconds it will respond close to normal speed.
> 
> ...


We do appreciate your efforts. This morning I am a 21% Available on one of my 2TBs and nothing adverse is happening. Hard to believe that something as simple as "refreshing" by restarting from the menu has allowed me to reach this point. I am well over 1.5TBs of capacity and it looks as if I might make it all the way. VeryOldSchool was right on the button with his advice. And he doesn't even have an eSATA!

Have you seen any warnings that your hard drive is nearly full?

I just hooked up an X 1.5 Tuesday last week on one of my 20-700s and it is running well except for a couple of freezeups during a football game. Same problem I had with the other X 1.5 on a 21-700. I do a lot of jumping around during football games and I believe that caused the freezeups. Minor annoyance. Jumped back one time and got the thing going again. Think I'll avoid football games on this eSATA.

Try to get to the point where one program deletes automatically to make room for more recordings, then delete all your unwanted programs and go back to normal operating conditions. That will complete the test and you can be assured of having the complete capacity of the eSATA if you need it and another of our questions will be answered. Can't begin to thank you enough for participating in this exercise.

Rich


----------



## John4924 (Mar 19, 2007)

richierich said:


> .....
> 
> Just can't wait until the new 2 TB drives come out designed for A/V by Western Digital.


Do you have any idea of the timing for these new drives?

Thanks,
John


----------



## Beast (Jun 30, 2008)

Hi Rich

Well all done. The drive went all the way down to 0% free space, while continuing to record new material. Old shows not marked (Untill I delete) were being removed to make space. Never got any message (warning) that the disk was almost full. As I was now deleting watched shows to return everything to normal operations, it was painfully slow to respond untill I got about 11% free space available again, then things started to move at a bit better speed. I am now in the process of building back my preferred record list. I had changed it all up in order to fill the disk. I doubt I will see this amount of disk usage any time in the near future, unless I go on a long vacation.

This completes the successful test of a FA-X 1.5tb drive connected to an HR21-700.


----------



## claimjumper (Dec 16, 2008)

You guys that are trying to use the 1.5TB should post your Part Number and Firmware Number as well to help others and for in the future.

There has been a big problem with Seagates 1.5TB drives and people are upgrading their firmware or just sending the drives back. It is a massive problem. It could also be causing you problems on the receivers as well.

There are threads around here about the topic.

The part number and firmware are on the label or can be viewed using tools.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Beast said:


> Hi Rich
> 
> Well all done. The drive went all the way down to 0% free space, while continuing to record new material. Old shows not marked (Untill I delete) were being removed to make space. Never got any message (warning) that the disk was almost full. As I was now deleting watched shows to return everything to normal operations, it was painfully slow to respond untill I got about 11% free space available again, then things started to move at a bit better speed. I am now in the process of building back my preferred record list. I had changed it all up in order to fill the disk. I doubt I will see this amount of disk usage any time in the near future, unless I go on a long vacation.
> 
> This completes the successful test of a FA-X 1.5tb drive connected to an HR21-700.


Thanx, again. Glad to hear all went well. Please keep an eye on this thread in case something pops up that might have an impact on you.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

claimjumper said:


> You guys that are trying to use the 1.5TB should post your Part Number and Firmware Number as well to help others and for in the future.
> 
> There has been a big problem with Seagates 1.5TB drives and people are upgrading their firmware or just sending the drives back. It is a massive problem. It could also be causing you problems on the receivers as well.
> 
> ...


So once we get the part number and firmware info, what do we do? Call Seagate? Or is there a site we can download from?

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> So once we get the part number and firmware info, what do we do? Call Seagate? Or is there a site we can download from?
> 
> Rich


"I would hope" that Seatools has an "update" option within it. I went to Seagate.com after "hearing" about firmware updates and found "zero".


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/support/downloads/other_downloads/cuda-fw

The firmware updater is a binary image with a bundled piece of software that identifies the drive and flashes it, I dont think its part of seatools. You have to specifically request it from seagate, although its probably floating around the interwebtubes somewhere

I need to check up on the current situation, but the problem with these was that they'd lock up under a high load. The firmware release solved the freeze problem but IIRC it caused a reduction in performance.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

New firmware AD14 seems to solve all problems. Drives with sd04 or sd14 can have problems but they also may not. Drives with firmware sd15 and up are okay.

The initial fix misread the cache size and gave you a drive with a small or no cache.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I recently received a PM from a member who noted that when he changed his list from "Date (New)" to "Title (A-Z)" not only did the "Titles" change to the alphabetical listing, all the programs within folders changed to alphabetical order based on their titles.

The effectively makes the "Play" option on folders useless. To clarify, the programs within folders normally will play in the order they were recorded, without having to go back to the list to select programs within folders, which becomes necessary if you have the alphabetical listing selected. 

What I think should have been done was list the movies and folders alphabetically and leave the contents of the folders in the order they were recorded. 

I am bringing this up on this thread because as I get more and more movies and series (in folders) it becomes harder to select the shows unless you can use the "Sort" option. 

This won't affect a light user but heavy users who are used to recording a program such as "Brotherhood" and watching it in it's entirety using the "Play" option that allows you to watch the whole folder containing that program in the chronological order it was recorded in, will be unable to use it. And you cannot change the sort order within a folder.

You might think that this means little, but fill up a 1TB to 2TB eSATA and you will see how long it takes to find a program without using the sort option and once you use it to view the playlist alphabetically, using the "Play" option screws up the order of the shows within the alphabetized folders. 

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

So now you want an over taxed db to work twice as hard? :lol: [or should it be , or even :eek2:]


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Further, stuff like "recent searches" gets alphabetized rather than appearing in most recent order.

Seems like the "alpha sort" affects all sorts of things.

The alpha sorting of the contents of folders seems counterintuitive, but then so is "save until I delete" not actually saving until you delete. We have to root through 12-15 shows in a folder to find the oldest one. A few times we screwed up and then were looking at each other during the "previously on..." segment where there was stuff we didnt remember seeing...

BTW, we're also presuming theres a "database". It may be that the HR builds the show/show info/folders dynamically every time you hit the list button, from the available recordings.

I still wonder why the ability to make the alpha sort 'sticky' on the HR20-100 requires the 'iamanedgecutter' keyword, while other models have this as a regular option.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

[IIRC] all of the soft/firmware is stored on a 1 Megabyte chip.
There is 256 Megabytes of memory, with a 512 swap file.
Yet since this is "a computer" some want it to work like their dual core CPU with two gigabytes of RAM.

All references to "being an edge cutter" really belong in the cutting edge forum.


----------



## claimjumper (Dec 16, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> [IIRC] all of the soft/firmware is stored on a 1 Megabyte chip.
> There is 256 Megabytes of memory, with a 512 swap file.
> Yet since this is "a computer" some want it to work like their dual core CPU with two gigabytes of RAM.
> 
> All references to "being an edge cutter" really belong in the cutting edge forum.


I want it to work like my first Atari Space Invaders game machine did - never had a single problem.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> Yet since this is "a computer" some want it to work like their dual core CPU with two gigabytes of RAM.


I'm well aware of the capabilities of a 300MHz processor. The problem comes around if the developer puts too much of a load on the machine for its specifications and it doesnt perform well. If the developers wanted to put features on the product that it cant handle, perhaps they should have improved the specifications for the newer boxes and phased the older ones out.

Saying "Its a slow POS, what do you expect?" doesnt exactly assuage the customer experience issues.

About a million years ago when timesharing systems were all the rage, I was involved with a fairly in-depth study that determined that while people always like things to happen quickly, consistency of response time was far more desirable. People would rather have something that always finished in exactly 10 seconds than something that would finish in 1 second and the next time in 20 seconds. We used to put dead space loops into some applications to make the response time always a consistent number.

When I hit a remote control button and it takes one second, and the next it takes 10, its frustrating.



> All references to "being an edge cutter" really belong in the cutting edge forum.


In that case, shouldnt the keyword, used as I described it, be removed from the HD DVR Tips and Tricks documents in the FAQ section, which is outside the CE forum?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

t_h
I didn't call it a POS. 
Please don't "put words in my mouth".

I've tried to post some information, and a few ideas/thoughts, in an attempt to help.

Cutting Edge "things" is to stay in that forum.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> So now you want an over taxed db to work twice as hard? :lol: [or should it be , or even :eek2:]


Yup, I want this "overtaxed data base" on this overgrown calculator to work intuitively. I think when they added the sort feature they could have foreseen this. Going to a folder full of shows that must be seen in chronological order and hitting "Play" is one of the truly great features of the HRs and they managed to screw it up.

Rich


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Yup, I want this "overtaxed data base" on this overgrown calculator to work intuitively. I think when they added the sort feature they could have foreseen this. Going to a folder full of shows that must be seen in chronological order and hitting "Play" is one of the truly great features of the HRs and they managed to screw it up.
> 
> Rich


I agree that they really should be sorting the shows within a folder by date, no matter how the top level folders are sorted. However, the ability to "group play" multiple shows was added on a significant amount of time after the DVRs were released. I don't think it's fair to say that they could have foreseen this need. Before group play it was a convenience/ease of use issue. Now that group play is here, it is certainly a functionality issue.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

So when I want to Calculate something where do I look in the Menu for the Calculator Function as I can't seem to find it?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> Further, stuff like "recent searches" gets alphabetized rather than appearing in most recent order.
> 
> Seems like the "alpha sort" affects all sorts of things.
> 
> The alpha sorting of the contents of folders seems counterintuitive,





> but then so is "save until I delete" not actually saving until you delete.


Another sore spot. The good folks at D* actually managed to program the HRs to lie. "Save until I delete" seems like a pretty simple command, and I have to admit I rarely (want to say never, but...) use the record and save 10 shows function, but I bet other folks do and are confused by the "saved" shows just falling off as new "saved, but doomed to extinction" show is recorded.



> We have to root through 12-15 shows in a folder to find the oldest one. A few times we screwed up and then were looking at each other during the "previously on..." segment where there was stuff we didnt remember seeing...


My experience exactly. And if they had just added the ability to sort within a folder, this wouldn't be a problem, but if you try to do that, it sorts the whole Playlist and puts you back to square one again.



> BTW, we're also presuming theres a "database". It may be that the HR builds the show/show info/folders dynamically every time you hit the list button, from the available recordings.


No data base. Hmm. This should drive Russ right up a wall. Can this be possible?



> I still wonder why the ability to make the alpha sort 'sticky' on the HR20-100 requires the 'iamanedgecutter' keyword, while other models have this as a regular option.


That "100" in the model number is explanation enough, I would think. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

claimjumper said:


> I want it to work like my first Atari Space Invaders game machine did - never had a single problem.


Simpler times. That was a good game. I watch my son play all the X-Box games and they all look the same.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

DogLover said:


> I agree that they really should be sorting the shows within a folder by date, no matter how the top level folders are sorted. However, the ability to "group play" multiple shows was added on a significant amount of time after the DVRs were released. I don't think it's fair to say that they could have foreseen this need. Before group play it was a convenience/ease of use issue. Now that group play is here, it is certainly a functionality issue.


No criticism meant, but I don't understand (nothing new there) your post. By "group play", I gather that you mean hitting the "Play" button on a folder, is that correct? And if it is correct, why couldn't they have foreseen what effect that would have on folders, doesn't seem that complicated, does it?

I come from an industrial environment (chemical plants) and a mistake such as this could have catastrophic results in that environment (yes, I realize this isn't the best analogy, but it's what I know). Every formula had to be thoroughly tested with the worst case scenario in mind. And that wasn't that hard to do.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> So when I want to Calculate something where do I look in the Menu for the Calculator Function as I can't seem to find it?


It's right by the button that enables DLBs. :lol:

Rich


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

richierich said:


> So when I want to Calculate something where do I look in the Menu for the Calculator Function as I can't seem to find it?


I believe that you first have to do the keyword search CALCULATORON :lol:.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

DogLover said:


> I believe that you first have to do the keyword search CALCULATORON :lol:.


Good thing you added that smilie. I can just see thousands of folks typing that keyword in and expecting a calculator to pop up. (And before anyone says it, yes, I would have been one of those folks. :lol


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Good thing you added that smilie. I can just see thousands of folks typing that keyword in and expecting a calculator to pop up. (And before anyone says it, yes, I would have been one of those folks. :lol


I debated the joke, because even with the smilie some people may try it. Heck, I haven't tried it, maybe it would work...


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> t_h
> I didn't call it a POS.
> Please don't "put words in my mouth".
> 
> ...


We're both doing the same thing, just trying to figure things out. Unfortunately while speculating and empirical testing might eventually bear fruit, its frustrating to work in the dark.

But I'm still not particularly interested in being chided for talking about something thats widely discussed in public documents that are widely read. Its a keyword search that changes the functionality of the feature that we're discussing, and has nothing to do with the cutting edge process.

As for the POS, I didnt put anything in your mouth. The hardware is roughly the same as similar products that do similar things, in some instances more. So its a little bristly to hear that we shouldnt have reasonable expectations for the products performance because the platform isnt as capable as a modern computer.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

DogLover said:


> I debated the joke, because even with the smilie some people may try it. Heck, I haven't tried it, maybe it would work...


I used to teach Excel classes and you wouldn't believe the stuff that was embedded in that program. I think one of the versions had a "flight simulator" embedded in it. Of course, you couldn't type flight simulator in and get it, you had to go thru a procedure to get it, but it was there. I found games in some versions. I had to read the Microsoft Excel manuals and they detailed how to get to them. Ever read one of those manuals? They were huge, but I read them so that I could answer questions that always came up.

Now, who will be the first person to type your keyword in? I must admit I'm tempted.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

DogLover said:


> I debated the joke, because even with the smilie some people may try it. Heck, I haven't tried it, maybe it would work...


I wonder how many people are looking for the "DLB" button? :lol:

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Now, who will be the first person to type your keyword in? I must admit I'm tempted.
> 
> Rich


 Whatever you do don't type "IWANTTIVO" :lol:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Whatever you do don't type "IWANTTIVO" :lol:


I'll keep that in mind. That reminds me, I've got to put my TiVos on eBay soon. Have to figure out my wife's new bazillion dollar digital camera first. I do love these technical challenges.

By the way, I'm still at the 19% Available mark even tho a bunch of shows were recorded last night. Be interesting if it stays there, no? I now have a bunch of shows that suddenly came up marked with an exclamation mark that means they will be deleted when room is needed. Another milestone!

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Post 387 and you "may have it working"? :hurah:

Now if we could just get your resets down to once a week, which is all I do and that is only for software testing. [well maybe two as sometimes the software doesn't boot correctly the first time]


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Post 387 and you "may have it working"? :hurah:
> 
> Now if we could just get your resets down to once a week, which is all I do and that is only for software testing. [well maybe two as sometimes the software doesn't boot correctly the first time]


I reset the HR as soon as I see the Playlist slow down. Couple two three times a week. In uncharted waters I am.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I reset the HR as soon as I see the Playlist slow down. Couple two three times a week. In uncharted waters I am.
> 
> Rich


 I know you're "running scared" with this, but I'd give it a while [from the first sign of a slow down] to see if it "gets over it". There are times that mine will slow down, which "seems to be" related to what is called "housekeeping" [background processes, like having just received more guide data and figuring out what to do with it]. If it doesn't clear up [30-60 min], then go for the reset.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I can't find the "DLB" button either. I must be getting old and blind.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> I can't find the "DLB" button either. I must be getting old and blind.


Maybe just one of those....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I can't find the "DLB" button either. I must be getting old and blind.


It's right next to the MRV button on the Playlist window near the calculator.

Rich


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

rich584 said:


> It's right next to the MRV button on the Playlist window near the calculator.
> 
> Rich


to clarify, they are both under the menu-something better heading..


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Ah yes I found it next to the MRV Button. 

Thanks as I am going to try the MRV right now to see how it works seeing as I am all Networked and just waiting with baited breath to see it work.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

What're you using for bait? Worms or flies?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Recorded a few more shows last night and I am still at 19%. VOS mentioned in a recent post on this thread that he realized I was "running scared". Now I'm running terrified. I have to record several more show quickly and see if this thing is stuck at 19% even tho the shows continue to record. 

Haven't seen any shows not marked to save fall off, but yesterday I had three (I think) shows with the triangle with the exclamation mark in the middle of the triangle denoting that if room was needed they would be deleted and today I have fourteen marked in that manner.

I will now set the HR to record several shows and see if the Available percentage decreases. I hope it does, I do, I do.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Maybe just one of those....


He leaves himself wide open and this is the best you can do? :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Whew! Made it to 18%. Must have been right on the edge. No lockups, couple freezeups, but aside from that, everything is OK. 

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Down to 14% Available and running good. No problems whatsoever (now watch it blowup). Should reach 10% or less today and I betcha I don't see any warning popup about hard drive capacity when I hit it.

So far, we've had a 750 fill up with nothing but slow response and no hard drive capacity warning. A 1.5 Xtreme fill up with no problems and no hard drive warning. If this 2TB fills up completely, we can be assured that the 20-700 will support a 2TB eSATA.

Been an ordeal and I'll be glad when it's over, and I think I'll buy another Cavalry 2TB for my last 20-700 and if all goes well, I should be set for a while.

Rich


----------



## cover (Feb 11, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I recently received a PM from a member who noted that when he changed his list from "Date (New)" to "Title (A-Z)" not only did the "Titles" change to the alphabetical listing, all the programs within folders changed to alphabetical order based on their titles.
> 
> The effectively makes the "Play" option on folders useless. To clarify, the programs within folders normally will play in the order they were recorded, without having to go back to the list to select programs within folders, which becomes necessary if you have the alphabetical listing selected.
> 
> ...


This has been a minor annoyance to me every since I got the HR20 and started sorting by alpha. If the HR10 TiVo was smart enough to sort the primary list alphabetically but in order recorded within folders, why can't these newer boxes do it? It is very unintuitive--and as far as I can see, pretty useless-- to have to have a series episodes within a folder sorted by alpha rather than date. It is a pain to have to scroll through 10 or more episodes in a folder trying to figure out which one is next in order.

DirecTV has done a lot to improve the usability of these boxes over the past couple of years, but this is still a glaring omission that should be easy to fix. I wish they'd quit focusing efforts on things like MRV and VOD until they can take care of usability issues like this one and overall reliability.

I'm also still waiting on a fix for the issue where one tuner never recovers after rain fade.

Back to topic, though, do I understand correctly that at least two folks are successfully using a Seagate Freeagent Xtreme 1.5 GB with no problems?

Thanks


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

cover said:


> This has been a minor annoyance to me every since I got the HR20 and started sorting by alpha. If the HR10 TiVo was smart enough to sort the primary list alphabetically but in order recorded within folders, why can't these newer boxes do it?


The folks that make TiVos have been at it for a lot longer than D* has. I realize this is an extremely annoying issue, but I think it is something that was overlooked by the designers of the software.



> It is very unintuitive--and as far as I can see, pretty useless-- to have to have a series episodes within a folder sorted by alpha rather than date. It is a pain to have to scroll through 10 or more episodes in a folder trying to figure out which one is next in order.


I agree. And the larger the drive the more annoying it becomes. Hopefully they will fix it sometime soon. Or not, who knows?



> DirecTV has done a lot to improve the usability of these boxes over the past couple of years, but this is still a glaring omission that should be easy to fix. I wish they'd quit focusing efforts on things like MRV and VOD until they can take care of usability issues like this one and overall reliability.


I think they focus more on the ''squeaky wheel" than on what must seem too them an obscure issue. I doubt if that many people even use the sort function.

Lots of people want MRV and DLBs, which I don't understand (I do understand how MRV works, but why anyone would use it is beyond me. I have the same problem with DLBs, another thing lots of people want, but seems useless to me) and they are the "squeaky wheels" as of this moment. Nobody really expects DLBs to come to the HRs, the TiVos will solve that problem, but that "What are your thoughts on DLBs" thread that Stuart Sweet started a long time ago is still running and still "squeaking".



> I'm also still waiting on a fix for the issue where one tuner never recovers after rain fade.


I really believe that is a symptom caused by something out of whack with your dish, multi-switch or cabling, not the HR itself.



> Back to topic, though, do I understand correctly that at least two folks are successfully using a Seagate Freeagent Xtreme 1.5 GB with no problems?


Beast has one running on a 21-700 (I think) with no problems and just filled his up so we know that the 21-700s will support a 1.5TB drive and I have one on a 20-700 that seems to be running properly. There is, apparently, some issue with "firmware" on the Seagate drives and there is a post on this thread that addresses that issue. I went to the link on that post and didn't see anything about the 1.5 drives, but the 1TB and 500G drives were listed as having faulty firmware. I have two 1TB Seagate drives and both seem to be working properly altho they have the "faulty" firmware.

Rich


----------



## John4924 (Mar 19, 2007)

cover said:


> ...
> 
> Back to topic, though, do I understand correctly that at least two folks are successfully using a Seagate Freeagent Xtreme 1.5 GB with no problems?
> 
> Thanks


I notice that Amazon now has them for $189.99

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-FreeA...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231783931&sr=8-1

About $20 lower than last week...looks like they are to the 'time to buy' price


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

John4924 said:


> I notice that Amazon now has them for $189.99
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-FreeA...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231783931&sr=8-1
> 
> About $20 lower than last week...looks like they are to the 'time to buy' price


I'd check with Seagate as soon as I got one home and see how to update the firmware or if you need to. If you have problems and have to update the firmware at a later date after recording a bunch of shows, I think you would lose those shows, probably reformats the hard drive. I have one that probably needs the update, but I have a lot of shows on it and it is running as it should. Perhaps this summer I will update it.

Rich


----------



## w3syt (Feb 17, 2006)

Just a note that the Seagate Baracuda ST31000 1TB is on sale. And I installed it in an MX-1 enclosure on one of my HR20's. It works beautifully.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

Antec MX-1 *at fry's* for $20 + shipping.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> Antec MX-1 *at fry's* for $20 + shipping.


Where have you been? I've got the 2TB almost filled. Should fill it completely this weekend. It and the HR20-700 are working flawlessly and now I'm thinking of trying to go to 3TB. The adventure continues...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

w3syt said:


> Just a note that the Seagate Baracuda ST31000 1TB is on sale. And I installed it in an MX-1 enclosure on one of my HR20's. It works beautifully.


I think that's one of the models that needs new firmware. There is a post on how to do that on this thread.

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

russdog said:


> Antec MX-1 *at fry's* for $20 + shipping.


Those were sold out by about 9am yesterday. Apparently they had about ten of them for sale and are now content to get some free traffic driven to their site where maybe you'll buy something else while you're there.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> Those were sold out by about 9am yesterday. Apparently they had about ten of them for sale and are now content to get some free traffic driven to their site where maybe you'll buy something else while you're there.


What are they, the West Coast's answer to Best Buy? Altho to give BB some credit, I've never seen them pull a stunt like that.

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Basically what BestBuy has with much more computer related stuff, electronic components, bulk wire, etc. Cheap prices, lots of employee turnover, tough to return products and if you manage to get them to take something back, they put it back in the box and put it back on the shelf.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

t_h said:


> Those were sold out by about 9am yesterday.


If you snooze, you lose ;-)


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Where have you been? I've got the 2TB almost filled. Should fill it completely this weekend. It and the HR20-700 are working flawlessly and now I'm thinking of trying to go to 3TB. The adventure continues...
> 
> Rich


What's helping? Frequent restarts?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

russdog said:


> What's helping? Frequent restarts?


Well, how to explain? I read your posts and tried to understand them. I read t_h's posts and tried to understand them. I read VOS's posts and tried to understand them. And I read them all over and over. And after a while, I began to understand them. Not to the point that you guys do, but enough to understand and believe that you were all right in your statements and assumptions.

I'll never be a "geek". I wish I had paid more attention years ago to how computers worked (hardware and software), but I have always been obsessed by baseball. And I had to learn to be an electrician. And I do love to party. And I always had an IT department at my beck and call.

So, reading and trying to figure out what to do has been an ordeal, an interesting ordeal. Anyhow, I took my time filling up the hard drive, didn't force it to deal with a whole lot of recordings in a brief time and did reboot at any sign of "slowdowns" of any sort.

I think, and if I have read t_h's and VOS's comments and suggestions correctly, that you were right in the first place about the data base being the culprit. And VOS's suggestion to "refresh" the hard drive from time to time seems to be spot on. T_h has worked with hard drives for years and his input was invaluable.

I will reach the point where the hard drive is completely full by tomorrow and the unsaved programs will begin to be automatically deleted to make room for more programs. When that happens, I will delete a lot of programming and use both 2TB eSATAs with full confidence that I can reach the full capacity of either one.

In a nutshell, you were all right, I think, just coming at the problem from different directions. Same thing happens with electricians. Give six electricians the same job and they will come up with six slightly different ways to accomplish the task, and, they will all be right (assuming you can find six electricians of equal competence, not an easy thing to do).

I will post after reaching full capacity and will have some positive and negative things to say about some of the posts on this thread.

But, you were the first one to point at the data base, and for leading us in that direction, you deserve a hearty "Well Done".

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I believe that it is not just the Database but also the amount of work that the CPU has to perform such as Series Links, etc.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I believe that it is not just the Database but also the amount of work that the CPU has to perform such as Series Links, etc.


But don't you think that the SLs are part of the database? Serious question. I don't know the answer. I just assumed that they were based on my experiences using databases.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

When I am speaking of the Database Structure I am referring to type of structure to retrieve and store the video data fields.

The Series Links are part of the Housekeeping Maintenance portion of the drive which is approximately 100 gig and is a separate entity. I think the CPU is overworked along with having too much video storage capcity and data retrieval is the longest process in data processing. 

Just my opinion and I wonder if they ever tested this puppy with 2TB of video recordings on it with a lot of Series Links, etc.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> When I am speaking of the Database Structure I am referring to type of structure to retrieve and store the video data fields.
> 
> The Series Links are part of the Housekeeping Maintenance portion of the drive which is approximately 100 gig and is a separate entity. I think the CPU is overworked along with having too much video storage capcity and data retrieval is the longest process in data processing.


So much for having all this straightened out in my mind. Anyone disagree? There has to be a "tie in'' to the data base, doesn't there? As to the CPU: I thought we had determined that the processors in these things are equal to a 2002 Windows computer, so, yeah, there must be a lot of pressure on the CPU.



> Just my opinion and I wonder if they ever tested this puppy with 2TB of video recordings on it with a lot of Series Links, etc.


I am almost through doing just that. I am at less than 1% Available and will reach full capacity in a couple hours or sooner. And I have a bunch of SLs on it. And no warnings about hard drive capacity. Soon, very soon.

This has really gone a whole lot smoother than I thought it would. Last weekend I watched every football game and never got so much as a freezeup.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I started to jump in before, but "bailed" and waited for richierich.
I look at the database as "the load" and the CPU as the generator.
Given enough generator power, you can have a large load. If on the otherhand your supply isn't that great, you'd better not have a big load.
I don't think you can seperate the two [really] in the way the system functions.
The Database has/is the recordings, planned recording, and the history of past recordings. This is what the CPU is needing to "filter through".
I'm not sure the "2002 Windows computer" is that good of a comparison either.
I used to refer to a slow computer has being an "oh 86", from the olds days with 286 [16 bit], 386 [first 32 bit], and finally "the faster" 486. I don't think "this CPU" has even reached the level of a Pentium [586], but it doesn't have to run Microsoft either, so the code is much smaller/cleaner/more efficient. It's very "task oriented", which Windows isn't, as it's "general" tasking by nature and has/needs "bunches of resources" to function.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I started to jump in before, but "bailed" and waited for richierich.
> I look at the database as "the load" and the CPU as the generator.
> Given enough generator power, you can have a large load. If on the otherhand your supply isn't that great, you'd better not have a big load.
> I don't think you can seperate the two [really] in the way the system functions.
> ...


Just read this and am trying to process it. Perhaps a clearer explanation of what the database on the HRs is would clarify it for me.

I'm used to thinking in terms of "Loads" that are being energized, ultimately, by a transformer or, in the case of 4160VAC motors directly energized by a feeder that is fused and fed by a larger stepdown transformer that produces the 4160 by stepping down a larger voltage. Never worked with higher voltages than 4160. Anyhow, that makes your example a bit confusing for me.

I guess the first thing I have to get straight is: What, exactly, is the database and what does it do? It would seem to me that if the SLs are not part of the database, they must be "linked" in some way, which would make them "part" of the database. Is this wrong?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I look at the database as "the load" and the CPU as the generator.
> Given enough generator power, you can have a large load. If on the otherhand your supply isn't that great, you'd better not have a big load.


Just reread your post a couple times and I agree with this, sort of. I think I'm having a hard time visualizing a CPU as a generator. But then, I can't think of another way to describe it other than as a device that takes information and processes it according to the protocols that are built into the CPU.



> I don't think you can seperate the two [really] in the way the system functions.


Does this statement mean that the SLs are, indeed, part of the database?



> The Database has/is the recordings, planned recording, and the history of past recordings. This is what the CPU is needing to "filter through".


But how can it function without access to the SLs?



> I'm not sure the "2002 Windows computer" is that good of a comparison either.


I was quoting someone else. I don't have the tech knowledge to argue this point.



> I used to refer to a slow computer has being an "oh 86", from the olds days with 286 [16 bit], 386 [first 32 bit], and finally "the faster" 486. I don't think "this CPU" has even reached the level of a Pentium [586], but it doesn't have to run Microsoft either, so the code is much smaller/cleaner/more efficient. It's very "task oriented", which Windows isn't, as it's "general" tasking by nature and has/needs "bunches of resources" to function.


OK, this I understand. I went thru all the "86" evolutions too. But when did the 586 come out? I remember having my first 386 in the early 90s, or late 80s (I think, my rememory is, as I've stated before, warped by too much partying.)

And I understand your point regarding being very "task oriented". What I don't get is how the SLs and the database cannot be linked and if they are linked, how can the SLs not be part of the database? Sounds like a "circular argument", doesn't it?

Now I'm completely confused and will go outside and confer with Fred.

Later.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

The Series Links are software logic designed to perform a particular function such as to determine what programs (which are in essence data records) are to be recorded or written to the database.

The database is the collection of the data records containing data fields which to the laymen is the collection of video recordings which have been translated into data records.

The software or intelligent logic that is used to warehouse these records into the database is a separate function of the Directv CPU. One is to house the information and the other is the logic to determine which records will be housed in the database.

Both of these can cause an overloading or overworking of the Processor if many things are going on at once. Therefore, alot of Series Links along with a database filled with alot of recordings particularly smaller recordings will cause issues with an overloaded or overworked processor.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Most 2002 computers didnt have to handle 3-5 HD video streams, take real time guide data updates and do real time scheduling of all sorts of events based on time, the guide data and other factors. Granted the HR has some specialty chips to help with the video decoding, and faster memory and hard drive components.

If your 2002 windows computer went out to lunch for 3-4 seconds, nothing bad really happened. Not quite so with the HR's. About the only thing the box can defer without recording/playback glitching is the user interface. Thats what we're seeing. So that tells me the box is pretty busy.

BTW, the cpu in the HR's has a lot in common with the ones you could find in an iMac G3 around 1999. So I'm not sure its even quite up to 2002 par.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> OK, this I understand. I went thru all the "86" evolutions too. But when did the 586 come out? I remember having my first 386 in the early 90s, or late 80s (I think, my rememory is, as I've stated before, warped by too much partying.)
> Now I'm completely confused and will go outside and confer with Fred.
> 
> Later.
> ...


 "Pentium" was used instead of "586" because Intel lost the court case to copyright "numbers". They wanted to "own" 486.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> The Series Links are software logic designed to perform a particular function such as to determine what programs (which are in essence data records) are to be recorded or written to the database.
> 
> The database is the collection of the data records containing data fields which to the laymen is the collection of video recordings which have been translated into data records.
> 
> ...


So, the SLs have no link whatsoever to the database? I think what is confusing me so much is that I have used databases at work extensively and I do understand how they function. In fact, I have taught classes on databases at a college. What I'm having difficulty with is I've never come across separation of data from databases within what, to my mind, is a logical extension of that database.

I don't know how else to express this and it is frustrating the living daylights out of me.

Well, let me sit back and see if one of you can explain this in a way that I can understand. And reread the previous posts. I really thought I had a clear (for me) idea of how the database interacted with the other software in the HRs. Obviously I'm wrong again.

But, however it was accomplished, I filled my 2TB to it's full capacity of 2TBs and nothing adverse happened. What I thought would happen did, indeed, happen. The shows that were not marked to "save" rolled off to make room for the new programming and I never got a warning screen concerning the hard drive being full or close to full.

Not in a good mood right now (Eagles lost) and will come back tomorrow when the trauma has subsided.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

No database expert [here], so I think of this as excel and the SLs [each] would seem to be "a cell" in a workbook/sheet.

As for: "SHOCKINGLY I never got a warning screen ". Since they weren't setup to keep, hasn't it [DVR] already been "told" that it was alright to delete these when needed?


----------



## bdcottle (Mar 28, 2008)

I don’t know how the databases in the HR are organized but here’s my guess.
I think there are 3 databases.
Database 1 would be the guide data.
Database 2 would be the series link data; its records are queries that are run against the guide data. When it finds a record that matches a series link query, it copies that record to the recorded shows database and it shows up in the TODO list.
Database 3 would be the recorded shows data that would include the TODO list, playlist and history.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> No database expert [here], so I think of this as excel and the SLs [each] would seem to be "a cell" in a workbook/sheet.


I've taught Excel classes too (had to read the manual each time, and I don't know how to "use" it for accounting purposes, but I can teach people the basics). Just checked with my wife and Excel is a spreadsheet/database program. She has been using it at work since she got out of college and is what I would consider an "Excel Expert :lol:". Still seems to me that there must be a "tie in" between the database and the SLs that would make the SLs part of the database. Interesting argument, _*RR's*_ arguments in a previous post seem to call for a separation of the two, but I can't see it. One thing I've learned working with electricity is that sometimes "Ya just gotta believe".

As for: "SHOCKINGLY I never got a warning screen ". Since they weren't setup to keep, hasn't it [DVR] already been "told" that it was alright to delete these when needed?[/QUOTE]

I think they would have dropped off whether they were marked to "save" or not. I got a PM saying that in 2006 and early 2007 the message was there. I haven't done it, but I will with an internal drive with "saved" programs and see if the message will pop up. I doubt it will happen because the HRs seem to think that the command "save until I delete" means "save until the HR decides to delete it". Not my thought, *t_h* brought it up when we were talking about the "save 10 episodes" command. If you mark them to "save", the first ten recordings begin to fall off as new programs are recorded. So, either the HR is a liar (can computers lie?) or the HR thinks that the "I" in "save until I delete" refers to itself rather than the person who is programming the recorder.

I just restarted a 20-700 after unhooking it's eSATA and will try to fill it up today. Should be able to find out the answer either today or tomorrow.

Huh. The HR internal was at 6% full and when I marked the programs to save I did get the warning. Now let's see what happens when I fill it up. Think I'll go back and edit SHOCKINGLY out of that post. I just set 13 shows to record and save on 78 and 79 (don't know if they are still MPEG2) and if that doesn't get me to "full" I'll do the same thing tomorrow. Have to plug the eSATA back in before eight o'clock tonight.

Ain't this fun? :lol:

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Ain't this fun? :lol:
> 
> Rich


Only if Fred is still talking to you after what you did to Gennie.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Only if Fred is still talking to you after what you did to Gennie.


Fred is pretty upset. It keeps snowing, but only an inch or so and it's driving him nuts.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

"Databases" may vary in perception/function.
MS access is an apps I've never been able to make heads or tails of, while excel I can "bump around in" and get something to work.
If the HR has three databases, that are inter-connected [to function], they would seem to be more "sub-sets" of the same database, to me.
I'm sure anybody that seriously understands and works with them, may "look at" this differently.
Things I don't fully understand, I tend to look at "with an overall view" of their function, as this "works for me", since their output [or lack] is what I want to comprehend/grasp.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bdcottle said:


> I don't know how the databases in the HR are organized but here's my guess.
> I think there are 3 databases.
> Database 1 would be the guide data.
> Database 2 would be the series link data; its records are queries that are run against the guide data. When it finds a record that matches a series link query, it copies that record to the recorded shows database and it shows up in the TODO list.
> Database 3 would be the recorded shows data that would include the TODO list, playlist and history.


I don't know either, but if you are correct, the three still must be intertwined, wouldn't you think? And if they are intertwined, that makes one database, no?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Databases" may vary in perception/function.
> MS access is an apps I've never been able to make heads or tails of, while excel I can "bump around in" and get something to work.
> If the HR has three databases, that are inter-connected [to function], they would seem to be more "sub-sets" of the same database, to me.
> I'm sure anybody that seriously understands and works with them, may "look at" this differently.


I have taught Access classes a couple of times and I have grown to despise it. A much simpler to use database is "File Maker Pro". That is intuitive and easy to understand. Access is the worst Microsoft software program I have ever used. If anybody wants to argue that point, I won't reply.

I just asked my wife and she is used to using Excel as a database. Her response was that if they are intertwined they are one database.



> Things I don't fully understand, I tend to look at "with an overall view" of their function, as this "works for me", since their output [or lack] is what I want to comprehend/grasp.


That was what I meant when I said "Ya gotta believe". Just knowing how to make something work is usually enough, I couldn't make a fluorescent tube but I have made many work.

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

We're also still presuming theres a database as far as the playlist is concerned.

I'm sure a database is used to manage the program guide. But there isnt necessary a formal 'database' for playlist info.

It may be stored in a simple table, or it may be generated dynamically when you push the button from discrete show data on the disk. Could be a linked list, could be a table with an index pointer to each playlist items show data, maybe it just reads headers and builds the list.

If thats the case, then more entries would mean more processing and a lot more disk IO to get the results concocted for display.

Considering the original models could store a fairly small number of shows in HD, and even the newer 500GB models also only hold a small number of shows, having the file system just be a linked list of shows or a table with index pointers to each separate piece of show data that was part of the shows header would be quite reasonable.

Doubling or tripling that might push something over the edge or just take more processing time than can be afforded.

For Rich's sake, lets illustrate it a little bit.

You've got a room full of guys. One is getting phone calls from all the networks telling him about shows coming up. He writes all of those on a huge white board. If one is new, he adds it in date/channel order. If something changes, he erases and rewrites whats new. If something gets taken away, he wipes it off the board. When the showing is over, he removes that information as well.

Another guy has a list of up to 50 series links. Every minute he looks at his list of shows, autorecords and individual recording requests, scans the whiteboard for a match, and turns the record buttons on and off as necessary.

Another guy gets requests for VOD's, and orders copies of those recordings to be transmitted and recorded locally.

Another guy has people asking him for copies of the recordings. He has to sift through a stack of them to find the right one and plays it for them.

Another guy manages the recordings, making sure to get rid of any no longer needed, and he has to either keep a list or make one up on demand.

Another guy is talking to a customer, who may ask him for information on the guide, which he gets from the white board. Maybe information on what any of the other guys are doing. Maybe for a list of shows already recorded.

Now the reality is that theres only one guy, and he has to do all of these things at the same time. Since thats impossible, he has to prioritize which things to do and respond to in an order of importance.

What we've done is to take the guy who manages the recordings and give him 3-6 times as much work as he was trained to do. Perhaps he's got the ability to do a whole lot more than he was trained, but we dont know that.

And unfortunately, nobody is going to tell us!


----------



## Blademan (Jun 3, 2004)

Seagate 1.5TB removed to check for firmware fix. Old internal drive seems so fast: menus, scrolling. Ability to watch buffered show, watch another while recording another. Dunno if I will reattach external since it sucked so bad...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> We're also still presuming theres a database as far as the playlist is concerned.
> 
> I'm sure a database is used to manage the program guide. But there isnt necessary a formal 'database' for playlist info.
> 
> ...


Thank you, that makes it clearer. I can live with that explanation. My wife looked at your post and said, "It's still a database." Your explanation makes more sense and considering that I think women are a different species than we are...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Blademan said:


> Seagate 1.5TB removed to check for firmware fix. Old internal drive seems so fast: menus, scrolling. Ability to watch buffered show, watch another while recording another. Dunno if I will reattach external since it sucked so bad...


I was gonna do that with mine, but it is working so well that I've been putting it off. Please tell us what you find out from Seagate.

What model HR are you using it on? I had problems with one on a 21-700, but *Beast* seems to have had no problems on his X on a 21-700. In fact, if you look back on this thread, you will see that he filled his up to full capacity with little or no trouble. Mine is on a 20-700.

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Rich -

Anything can be called a 'database' if one wants to argue the point.

The point I was making is that most true modern databases will spit out results just as quickly with a few thousand entries as a few hundred.

What we're seeing seems to be a linear slow down as more "entries" are added.

Which makes it seem more like a manually accessed table or linked list than an indexed or true database.

Going back to our "bunch of guys" analogy, its a guy with a bunch of index cards spread over a desk (each representing a show) as opposed to a guy who has a color coded cheat sheet with all the shows on it already in order, who can immediately pick out any of those shows by the distinct color.

If when you click 'playlist' the guy has to scrounge up all the index cards and shuffle them into the proper order and then riff through them to find the shows you want, thats inefficient and would take a lot of time and effort. And in the meanwhile the same guy has to be doing all that other stuff noted above.

Databases are powerful, but take a lot of resources to implement, although I know directv has licensed one or more db products. Its possible that they limited the use of the database to things like the program guide and did the series links and show data with something simpler that worked with less resources...with a smaller disk and fewer shows.

Theres a reason why the SL list is limited to 50 and direct hasnt released a 750 or 1TB disk drive in their receivers. And why a 1-2TB receiver is slow and needs rebooting occasionally to clear up sluggishness and a 300/500GB model isnt and doesnt.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> Rich -
> 
> Anything can be called a 'database' if one wants to argue the point.


The wife do like to argue, and I suppose she has a point, technically. I do prefer your example which leads back to our not knowing enough about these things and not being told anything. Proprietary knowledge I understand, but if some of our members who volunteer to be beta testers are more knowledgeable about this than we are, that information should be shared to some point.



> The point I was making is that most true modern databases will spit out results just as quickly with a few thousand entries as a few hundred.


The older ones did too. I worked in a large maintenance department and was the first person to have a computer on my desk in that department. The old adage "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king." was certainly true in my case. After upper management saw the products of my computer usage, I became the "go to guy" for the computers that all managers and supervisors were forced to start using. Fortunately, they were Macs. And at the time, we didn't have an IT department. I made damn sure I kept that edge. Because of that, I got to retire at the ripe old age of 52 (longer story, don't want to bore you).



> What we're seeing seems to be a linear slow down as more "entries" are added.
> 
> Which makes it seem more like a manually accessed table or linked list than an indexed or true database.


This is what I couldn't understand. I do realize that we are not running Windows and it's underlying DOS programming on the HRs and don't need the processors for that purpose, but am I wrong in expecting processors to handle a full hard drive or one close to full?



> Going back to our "bunch of guys" analogy, its a guy with a bunch of index cards spread over a desk (each representing a show) as opposed to a guy who has a color coded cheat sheet with all the shows on it already in order, who can immediately pick out any of those shows by the distinct color.
> 
> If when you click 'playlist' the guy has to scrounge up all the index cards and shuffle them into the proper order and then riff through them to find the shows you want, thats inefficient and would take a lot of time and effort. And in the meanwhile the same guy has to be doing all that other stuff noted above.


I think that is a simple analogy that anyone can follow.



> Databases are powerful, but take a lot of resources to implement, although I know directv has licensed one or more db products. Its possible that they limited the use of the database to things like the program guide and did the series links and show data with something simpler that worked with less resources...with a smaller disk and fewer shows.
> 
> Theres a reason why the SL list is limited to 50 and direct hasnt released a 750 or 1TB disk drive in their receivers. And why a 1-2TB receiver is slow and needs rebooting occasionally to clear up sluggishness and a 300/500GB model isnt and doesnt.


And isn't that reason likely to be the least powerful processors they could put in the HRs? My wife had problems like this with Macs and her massive spreadsheets. After awhile they would slow down to a crawl. She was constantly getting her Macs either replaced with more powerful ones (read processors) or upgraded with more RAM. Soon as she got a new, more powerful Mac, the spreadsheets went back to normal. This went on for several years. And it was always the memory or the processors. Is that not what we are seeing?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Blademan said:


> Seagate 1.5TB removed to check for firmware fix. Old internal drive seems so fast: menus, scrolling. Ability to watch buffered show, watch another while recording another. Dunno if I will reattach external since it sucked so bad...


Didn't see my 1.5 on the list, or my two 1TBs either. Whew!

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> The Series Links are software logic designed to perform a particular function such as to determine what programs (which are in essence data records) are to be recorded or written to the database.
> 
> The database is the collection of the data records containing data fields which to the laymen is the collection of video recordings which have been translated into data records.
> 
> ...


Don't you think we need more powerful processors?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Yesterday, in response to a post by *VOS* I filled up an internal drive on a 20-700 with programs all marked to "save". The internal was at 6% Available and took only a couple of hours to completely fill. All programs were marked to "save".

Once the internal drive reached it's full capacity, nothing else recorded. I didn't expect this to happen since the "keep until I delete" command does not work when recording 5 or 10 episodes. In that case the "saved" recordings drop off as new ones are recorded. That is what I expected to happen. Didn't.

When I marked the 94% of the internal's recordings to save and hit the "List" button, a dialog box popped up saying that I was nearing full capacity. So, in this instance, Mr. TenBox was correct.

I've filled up many hard drives, but never saved every program. Apparently when the TenBox techs filled up the their 2TB eSATA they marked all the programs to save. So for those of us who doubted the TenBox folks, they were correct, altho, for the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would fill a hard drive up with "saved" programs. I did not expect them to do that and questioned their statements that they saw the dialog box stating that the drive was nearly full. It pops up at 10% Available, by the way. I went back to a post earlier in the thread that I made about the dialog box and at that time I posited that they might have "saved" all the recordings. Never heard anything from them and forgot about it. _*VOS*_'s post reminded me of that.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TenLab said:


> Just to be clear: the TenBox TB2000 fills to maximum capacity with every HR2x.
> 
> The TenBox does not have a problem, Rich does with his HR20 and his setup
> (which is not a TenBox).


I just got thru filling up a 2TB Cavalry on a 20-700. Virtually no problems. There is nothing wrong with my HR20-700 or my setup ("which is not a TenBox"). I did pay over $400 for my Cavalry, but they can be bought for $239 now.

I did have what turned out to be a minor problem when I first tried to fill one up. But that was easily resolved by one of our übergeeks.

The one other thing I had to do with the two Cavs was drill two holes thru the wall and put them in my great room, which is large enough to swallow the fan noise of the Cavs. But, I have a 1.5 Xtreme in that family room and I am thinking of putting that one in the great room also because of the fan noise.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

You can setup the recording defaults to "keep until I delete" and then everytime you setup a recording/SL it's "a keeper", which seems to be how Tenbox did theirs.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Glad to see you guys starting to understand what I was implying all along and that is with the Processor and the DB structure it can't handle the load because they probably never intended for it to be this size and they probably never tested it with a 1.5 or 2 TB hard drive so they didn't properly stress test it under the most stringent conditions.

I believe that when you approach filling 2 TB of data with alot of Series Links and other things taking up the priorities of the CPU it gets to a point where it is doing more than it was required to do, it is being MAXED out or pushed to the Limit of it's intended capacity.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

The processor may not be the limitation. Real databases can require a significant code footprint and quite a bit of memory for tables and indexes.

Maybe the coding effort to implement a database for the playlist just wasnt given the greenlight in favor of other features. After all, directv doesnt support esata and doesnt sell a drive over 500GB.

So it'd be pretty frickin far down the list of important stuff to do as far as they're concerned.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

t_h said:


> The processor may not be the limitation. Real databases can require a significant code footprint and quite a bit of memory for tables and indexes.
> 
> Maybe the coding effort to implement a database for the playlist just wasnt given the greenlight in favor of other features. After all, directv doesnt support esata and doesnt sell a drive over 500GB.
> 
> So it'd be pretty frickin far down the list of important stuff to do as far as they're concerned.


That is why Directv and TIVO changed the database for the Directivo several years ago as they were having similar slowdowns when the DB was getting MAXED out along with alot of other software problems that taxed the CPU so they Restructured the DB and tweaked other things to Optimize the Performance of the DB to alleviate this problem.

I believe at some point they will probably have to look at what they did then and do it again for the HR2Xs to Alleviate this Slowdown or Sluggishness caused by overloading the CPU with labor intensive work that it was not designed to handle.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Theres also a significant difference in how the two products are architected.

A lot of those "Please Wait..."'s that everyone likes to complain about are the tivo doing some things in advance while it seems that the directv product likes to do a lot of stuff in real time.

All that snappy real time stuff sure lets you enable all sorts of active features and gives you the most up to date experience, but it also means that when things are "busy" in the box, the least important tasks have to be deferred. From what I've seen, the least important task is the user interface.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> You can setup the recording defaults to "keep until I delete" and then everytime you setup a recording/SL it's "a keeper", which seems to be how Tenbox did theirs.


Yeah, I made that mistake once and had to change every movie that I didn't care too much about. I guess that it doesn't make any difference how the TenBox folks did it. I do find it strange that they had to actually fill one up. I would have thought that they would have tested it before putting it on the market.

Strange that the command "Keep until I delete" works differently in two different situations, no?

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Yeah, I made that mistake once and had to change every movie that I didn't care too much about. I guess that it doesn't make any difference how the TenBox folks did it. I do find it strange that they had to actually fill one up. I would have thought that they would have tested it before putting it on the market.
> 
> Strange that the command "Keep until I delete" works differently in two different situations, no?
> 
> Rich


I guess I need a "refresher course" in "the other way" it works.
If I selected "keep 10", I'd figure it would start dropping them to record #11. Are you saying it should give me a message that it's going to do this? I've "already told it" to do this.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Glad to see you guys starting to understand what I was implying all along and that is with the Processor and the DB structure it can't handle the load because they probably never intended for it to be this size and they probably never tested it with a 1.5 or 2 TB hard drive so they didn't properly stress test it under the most stringent conditions.


I think on some level we all knew the problem was the processors and the load put on them. Verbalizing that knowledge was difficult. Which brings me to this: Why don't we have better processors in the HRs? If *t_h* is correct, and I don't doubt him at all, the processors we are using are way out of date. Newer, more powerful processors couldn't cost that much, could they? I'm not talking about 2009 vintage processors, but rather, say, 2005 vintage processors.



> I believe that when you approach filling 2 TB of data with alot of Series Links and other things taking up the priorities of the CPU it gets to a point where it is doing more than it was required to do, it is being MAXED out or pushed to the Limit of it's intended capacity.


You know, the 2TB filled up so easily, I'm truly tempted to buy a RAID enclosure like yours (since you already know how to get it too work and I'm not big on reinventing the wheel) and throwing two 1.5TB hard drives in it. Just got a feeling that I could make it to 3TBs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I guess I need a "refresher course" in "the other way" it works.
> If I selected "keep 10", I'd figure it would start dropping them to record #11. Are you saying it should give me a message that it's going to do this? I've "already told it" to do this.


No message, the programs just drop off as new ones are recorded. *t_h* pointed this out to me and I couldn't believe it. Tried it, and he was right. That's why I expected the HR to do the same thing when it was full (the internal with all programs marked to save) and was sorta shocked when it didn't. Same command ("Keep until I delete"), two different results. Who'd a thunk it? And no message shows up on the HRs when you reach full capacity and have "unsaved" programs that drop off to make room for more.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

This is kind of like asking why my first computer didn't come with a 3 GHz dual core CPU. [Or when as Boeing engineer was asked about the B-17 developements, "well" we could have built a B-52].
The chips used were the best "at the time" of the design.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> No message, the programs just drop off as new ones are recorded. *t_h* pointed this out to me and I couldn't believe it. Tried it, and he was right. That's why I expected the HR to do the same thing when it was full (the internal with all programs marked to save) and was sorta shocked when it didn't. Same command ("Keep until I delete"), two different results. Who'd a thunk it? And no message shows up on the HRs when you reach full capacity and have "unsaved" programs that drop off to make room for more.
> 
> Rich


 I still don't understand:
For an SL there is keep "X number" or keep all.
Then below is "keep until I delete" or disk is full. This "option" is a higher priority as it will interact with other SLs and either cause a recording not to record or ask you [pop-up message] to delete recording to make space.
What or where does it do [act] something different?


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

On every television recording product except the HR's, if you tell it to record 10 episodes and "keep until I delete", it'll record ten and then stop.

The logic is pretty simple. You've told it to record up to ten, and you've told it not to delete them until you specifically tell it to, so after recording ten, it must stop until you do something, either increasing the number to record or deleting a show. However, the HR decides that these are two mutually exclusive decisions with no dependency, and that the deleting a show doesnt count unless you're out of disk space altogether.

This is rather crucial for kids who like to watch 15 different shows, and wants to watch the same ones over and over for a while, then get something different. The HR thwarts this by deleting the oldest of the 10 and recording a new one, even though you told it to "keep until *I* delete". The HR becomes the "I" in this matter.

This forces me to delete series links after a full five or ten are recorded, delete shows that he gets bored with and recreate the series links when the list is exhausted.

Tivo, Mythtv, etc all behave in a manner that presumes "I" is the user, and not the recording device. They record ten and then stop. When I delete one, it'll record another one.

My wife also likes to watch old syndicated shows like MASH. She wants 2-3 episodes around, but doesnt care if she has the most recently broadcast ones, any old will do.

It'd be one thing if there was a benefit to the manner directv does it in, but unless you run out of disk space, it has no function or benefit and is simply ignored.

Not removing the series links results in the dvr being in a constant record mode of kids shows and old syndicated shows, and makes watching live tv impossible.

On the CPU, the model directv uses is common among dvr products. There are newer, much faster ones that will no doubt end up in a future product (if they arent in there already under a heat sink nobody wants to pry off). But other recording products do all the things an HR does with the same cpu and without these sorts of response time issues with larger hard drives.

Which seems to indicate that the coding could be more efficient, organized differently. Or throwing faster hardware at it would solve it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

t_h said:


> On every television recording product except the HR's, if you tell it to record 10 episodes and "keep until I delete", it'll record ten and then stop.
> 
> The logic is pretty simple. You've told it to record up to ten, and you've told it not to delete them until you specifically tell it to, so after recording ten, it must stop until you do something, either increasing the number to record or deleting a show. However, the HR decides that these are two mutually exclusive decisions with no dependency, and that the deleting a show doesnt count unless you're out of disk space altogether.
> 
> This is rather crucial for kids who like to watch 15 different shows, and wants to watch the same ones over and over for a while, then get something different. The HR thwarts this by deleting the oldest of the 10 and recording a new one, even though you told it to "keep until *I* delete". The HR becomes the "I" in this matter.


It seems like there would need to be another "option" to please everybody.
"I like" the current method as "it fits" recording primetime "first run" shows, if I go on vacation [say]. I setup "save 10" which gives me two weeks worth, and then drops off the oldest if I'm gone longer. This means I can keep the last two week's worth of shows and not come back to find "last night's show" didn't record. One member of my household watches old re-runs and needs to keep on top of them as either the disk does get full, or a folder will have so many shows that there are too many to watch.
I doubt there will ever be a perfect solution. While you may want 10 recording and then stop, others would rather have the most current shows.


----------



## saryon (Aug 12, 2007)

houskamp said:


> From What I was told: Hr20 has a 2tb limit while the HR21 has a much higher (16tb?) limit.. this is due to version of OS (linux) on the boxes..
> Wether there are other limits I don't know..


Not sure why that would be, ext3 has had an 8TB limit and that's what shows up on the esata if you hook it up to a PC.


----------



## kcroyaljosh (Sep 12, 2006)

I have a seagate free agent 1.5TB drive. I have a HR20-700, what problems am I going to incur when hooking it up to my box? I sometimes download the CE's as well. I have pictures and music on my freeagent, will I lose this stuff during the resets? I have tried to read up on this thread and I can't follow it very well. Can someone give me an overview? I would appricate it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

kcroyaljosh said:


> I have a seagate free agent 1.5TB drive. I have a HR20-700, what problems am I going to incur when hooking it up to my box? I sometimes download the CE's as well. I have pictures and music on my freeagent, will I lose this stuff during the resets? I have tried to read up on this thread and I can't follow it very well. Can someone give me an overview? I would appricate it.


As soon as you hook up the 1.5 the HR will format the drive and anything that was not recorded on that HR will be lost. After that, you will be able to view anything recorded on the HR that formatted the 1.5. If you have to restart or reboot the HR, nothing will be lost. You just have to remember that the eSATA and the HR are "married" to each other. The eSATA will not play any programs on any other HR.

Once you understand the above, you will have no problems. I have one 1.5 on a 20-700 and it works fine.

Can't understand this thread? Sorry about that, but it evolved into several people arguing fine points. And for the most part, it has been a real learning experience for me.

To sum it up, the 20-700 will support at least 2TB hard drives. That we know for sure.

Clear? If not, feel free to ask questions.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

kcroyaljosh said:


> I have a seagate free agent 1.5TB drive. I have a HR20-700, what problems am I going to incur when hooking it up to my box? I sometimes download the CE's as well. *I have pictures and music on my freeagent*, will I lose this stuff during the resets? I have tried to read up on this thread and I can't follow it very well. Can someone give me an overview? I would appricate it.


 First off, everything on the free agent will be "lost" because it will be reformated when you connect it to the HR20.
"We ask" that CE questions be posted in the CE forum.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Can't understand this thread? Sorry about that, but it evolved into several people arguing fine points....
> 
> Rich


 NO, You're wrong! :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

I might also argue that it involved devolution rather than evolution...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> It seems like there would need to be another "option" to please everybody.
> "I like" the current method as "it fits" recording primetime "first run" shows, if I go on vacation [say]. I setup "save 10" which gives me two weeks worth, and then drops off the oldest if I'm gone longer. This means I can keep the last two week's worth of shows and not come back to find "last night's show" didn't record. One member of my household watches old re-runs and needs to keep on top of them as either the disk does get full, or a folder will have so many shows that there are too many to watch.
> I doubt there will ever be a perfect solution. While you may want 10 recording and then stop, others would rather have the most current shows.


As long as you are happy with it, what else matters? The reason I brought it up was that the "keep 10 shows until I delete them" seemed to behave in a manner that I did not expect. And then the internal hard drive, when full of "saved" programs did not do what I expected it to do, drop off the "saved" shows as the "keep 10 shows until I delete them" did.

As long as I know what to expect from a device, I am pretty comfy with that device. I was just surprised by the difference in interpretation of what seems like the same command in two different situations. No problem, no issue, now that I know what to expect.

To jump on the CPU issue. I agree with you that they used the best (well maybe not the best, but close) processors that were available at the time. And I really don't have any issues with performance. But ever since I got my first computer (middle 80s), I've been after more power and more memory. I even had to put in a, I can't remember what it was called exactly, special processor that allowed me to run a CAD program in my first PC. Something like a math or arithmetic processor. That will drive me nuts now. What was that called? Somebody help me. I barely remember the 80s. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> I might also argue that it involved devolution rather than evolution...


No wonder the poor guy's confused. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> NO, You're wrong! :lol::lol::lol:


Nothing new there. I always think I'm wrong. All someone has to do is question a statement I've made and I assume I'm wrong. That's what being a Raging Pessimist is all about. :lol:

Where's _*RR*_ when you need him?

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> As long as you are happy with it, what else matters? The reason I brought it up was that the "keep 10 shows until I delete them" seemed to behave in a manner that I did not expect. And then the internal hard drive, when full of "saved" programs did not do what I expected it to do, drop off the "saved" shows as the "keep 10 shows until I delete them" did.
> 
> As long as I know what to expect from a device, I am pretty comfy with that device. I was just surprised by the difference in interpretation of what seems like the same command in two different situations. No problem, no issue, now that I know what to expect.
> 
> ...


 "Coprocessor" [aka 387].
Since I date back to the "dark ages", I look at "the options" and deal with how they work for me [I adapt to them instead of expecting them to for me]. Did you have use a HP 11/12 calculator? They were great [at the time] but "worked backwards" with what was called "polish logic".


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Coprocessor" [aka 387].
> Since I date back to the "dark ages", I look at "the options" and deal with how they work for me [I adapt to them instead of expecting them to for me]. Did you have use a HP 11/12 calculator? They were great [at the time] but "worked backwards" with what was called "polish logic".


Thank you. Math coprocessor. That's what it was called. Never had that calculator, but I did have a dual speed HP computer. You could choose between 8 and 12 Megahertz. (Does that sound right?)

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

I agree, for those with a smaller hard drive who record a lot of stuff and let older stuff drop off, that sort of option is useful.

But my issue is that its not doing what it says. It doesnt keep until *I* delete.

What it needs is three options

- Delete if disk full
- Keep until disk full, then delete other stuff first
- Keep until I delete

It says its #3, but its really #2. Yeah, I know...

Or a "delete behavior" modifier which asks a 3rd question, "When limit reached, continue recording over oldest or stop?"

So I wont argue that its useful. I'll argue that it doesnt do what it says, and its behavior is inconsistent with both logic and all of the other similar recording products, which may be confusing to users moving from another product to directv's.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

t_h said:


> I'll argue that it doesnt do what it says, and its behavior is inconsistent with both logic and all of the other similar recording products, which may be confusing to users moving from another product to directv's.


I won't "argue", and since I have no "preconceived" idea of how it "should work", it's easier for me to "adjust".


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I won't "argue", and since I have no "preconceived" idea of how it "should work", it's easier for me to "adjust".


Excerpt from the _*Book of Fred*_: "It's good to be adjustable."

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> I agree, for those with a smaller hard drive who record a lot of stuff and let older stuff drop off, that sort of option is useful.
> 
> But my issue is that its not doing what it says. It doesnt keep until *I* delete.
> 
> ...


Ah, logic. Where hast thou gone? Not to the land of the HRs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I won't "argue", and since I have no "preconceived" idea of how it "should work", it's easier for me to "adjust".


I did have a preconceived idea. That's what threw me when a poster asked what happens to programs that are in the (dare I do this, I do!) "ten box". My reply was that when the ten program limit was reached no more recordings would be accepted. _*t_h*_ quickly corrected me and that led to this discussion.

Rich


----------



## SepticDeath (Dec 7, 2006)

saryon said:


> Not sure why that would be, ext3 has had an 8TB limit and that's what shows up on the esata if you hook it up to a PC.


Actually, (dtv units) are using Silicon Graphics XFS file system. Silicon Graphics created it some time ago, and it was created for fast transactions. As I watched this thread and listened to people say that the 2.4 kernel was limited to x TB, and the 2.6 was limited to X TB, I wanted to jump in, But figured that it really didn't matter, in 2.4 XFS was 32bit and could handle 16tb is 4k page sizes, and 64TB in 16k page sizes, in kernel 2.6 it went full 64 bit and went to max of 9 million terabytes. I'm not saying that the DTV box can do this, just correcting those making blanket statements about the linux kernels.

interesting reading ->//oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SepticDeath said:


> Actually, (dtv units) are using Silicon Graphics XFS file system. Silicon Graphics created it some time ago, and it was created for fast transactions. As I watched this thread and listened to people say that the 2.4 kernel was limited to x TB, and the 2.6 was limited to X TB, I wanted to jump in, But figured that it really didn't matter, in 2.4 XFS was 32bit and could handle 16tb is 4k page sizes, and 64TB in 16k page sizes, in kernel 2.6 it went full 64 bit and went to max of 9 million terabytes. I'm not saying that the DTV box can do this, just correcting those making blanket statements about the linux kernels.
> 
> interesting reading ->//oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/


All that talk never sunk in anyhow. Don't know enough to understand the really technical talk. I will read that link. Thanx.

Rich


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

rich584 said:


> To sum it up, the 20-700 will support at least 2TB hard drives. That we know for sure.
> 
> Clear? If not, feel free to ask questions.
> 
> Rich


I was almost about to start another thread on this subject, but thought I'd jump in here, as maybe I'll find an answer quicker.

Yes, despite several folks claiming from the start of the release of the HR20-700, that total sata capacity (and, eSATA as well) was well above the 2TB 'barrier', as soon as several folks tried larger arrays where the HR's didn't 'see' anything above that, the idea was shot down.

Since, there have been several folks, who have come and gone, who have reported that other 'newer' models (with apparently differing Linux versions), that supported larger disc sizes.

So... The question I was asked in the last month or so, is there any models (HR21/22/23?) that have VERIFIED support for larger array's? (or, has the HR20-700's or even it's first cousin, the HR20-100, had it's s/w loads upgraded to support larger)

If folks would verify which model they have, and how large an array they have (again, verified by the amount of recorded material on it), is there out there?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

1948GG said:


> I was almost about to start another thread on this subject, but thought I'd jump in here, as maybe I'll find an answer quicker.
> 
> Yes, despite several folks claiming from the start of the release of the HR20-700, that total sata capacity (and, eSATA as well) was well above the 2TB 'barrier', as soon as several folks tried larger arrays where the HR's didn't 'see' anything above that, the idea was shot down.
> 
> ...


From TenBox site:


> DirecTV Plus HD DVRs are not ready yet to function with 3TB external capacity. Until then, the TenBox TB3000 works perfectly when setting the "Box Mode" to Mirror Drive configuration, safely recording programs as duplicate on its 2 1.5 TB HDD, so programs are not lost in the event of single drive failure.


http://www.tenbox.net/features/features.htm


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

1948GG said:


> I was almost about to start another thread on this subject, but thought I'd jump in here, as maybe I'll find an answer quicker.
> 
> Yes, despite several folks claiming from the start of the release of the HR20-700, that total sata capacity (and, eSATA as well) was well above the 2TB 'barrier', as soon as several folks tried larger arrays where the HR's didn't 'see' anything above that, the idea was shot down.
> 
> ...


All I can tell you for sure is that the 21s and 22s will support at least 1.5TB. Nobody has reported a setup that exceeds the 1.5TB mark.

And, for sure, you can easily reach 2TB with the 20-700s, don't know about the 20-100s. I reached 2TB on one of my eSATAs and think I could have gone farther had I a setup that would allow for 3TB.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> From TenBox site:
> http://www.tenbox.net/features/features.htm


Yup, and the 2TB and 3TB TenBox models can be had for the low price of $1299. That is not a typo.

Rich


----------



## WaltL (Feb 20, 2007)

*HR20-700 running software version 0x2ca.*

For some time I've had a 750 Gig FreeAgent installed on my other HR20-700 and experienced no problems.

Today I attempted to install an Antec MX-1 and 1T WD10EADS OEM Hard Drive. I unplugged the HR20, connected the hard drive then powered it up and then plugged the HR20 back in.

During the booting process at the point where the screen indicated it was "Formatting the Hard Drive", after about 3 or 4 minutes, I got the following error.

*"A problem has been detected in the storage device.*

*This may be a simple initialization error or a critical fault. *
*Please reboot the box now. That may fix the problem.*

*If you already rebooted the box and the problem persists, *
*please contact DirecTV support center."*

I tried rebooting 3 or 4 times with the same result. Both the drive and the fan are running as well as the front light. 

I then tried connecting the Hard Drive to my PC and Laptop via USB but could not get any connection or icon in "My Computer" on either pc.

I am not sure where to turn. Do you think it is the enclosure or the drive? 

To my dismay once I booted the box without the external drive it had formatted my internal drive.

Any help would be most appreciated.


----------



## rotohead (Nov 29, 2007)

That sound's like a failed external drive and if you're back on the internal drive and working fine then you should return the drive for replacement. Unless I'm misreading your problem.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

WaltL said:


> I then tried connecting the Hard Drive to my PC and Laptop via USB but could not get any connection or icon in "My Computer" on either pc.


You wont get an icon in windows for a drive that has no partition on it. If you're running XP, go into control panel, administration, disk management (this is all from memory, I havent used XP in a while) and see if you see the drive show up with no partitions.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

It does sound like a problem with the Antec or the WD hard drive. You might want to just put your 750FAP on the HR in question and turn it on. You shouldn't lose anything, it shouldn't reformat the FAP, but at least you will know that the HR can handle an eSATA.

Make sure you use the same eSATA to eSATA jumper cable you have been using with the FAP. Of course you won't be able to play the recordings on the FAP, but you should see them on the Playlist. If that works, shut down and swap eSATA to eSATA cables and see if the Playlist comes up or you get the error message. Might just be a bad jumper cable that came with the Antec enclosure.

If everything checks out, _*t_h*_ is your best bet for info.

Rich



WaltL said:


> *HR20-700 running software version 0x2ca.*
> 
> For some time I've had a 750 Gig FreeAgent installed on my other HR20-700 and experienced no problems.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rotohead said:


> That sound's like a failed external drive and if you're back on the internal drive and working fine then you should return the drive for replacement. Unless I'm misreading your problem.


Does sound as if either the Antec or the hard drive is screwed up, but it might be the jumper cable too. Fortunately he has another HR with an eSATA to help him troubleshoot.

Rich


----------



## WaltL (Feb 20, 2007)

I have already returned the old drive and ordered a new one. At your suggestion I took a chance and substituted my 750 FAP from the other HR20. It booted up great and I could see everything in the list.

So I then tried the 750 FAP with the Antec eSata cable. That also worked great. So at least I know the HR20 is capable and the Antec cable is good.

When the new WD10EADS comes should I just mount it in the Antec and try it or should I do some checking on a PC first. When I tried the Antec assembled drive on my XP and my Vista laptop I didn't even get any indication that the PC's saw the USB.

I should have remembered that without a partition I wouldn't get an icon. 

I don't have sata on my XP and it wouldn't be very easy on the laptop. Any suggestion to eliminate the Antec as the problem would be appreciated. 

Thanks to everyone for the help.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WaltL said:


> I have already returned the old drive and ordered a new one. At your suggestion I took a chance and substituted my 750 FAP from the other HR20. It booted up great and I could see everything in the list.
> 
> So I then tried the 750 FAP with the Antec eSata cable. That also worked great. So at least I know the HR20 is capable and the Antec cable is good.
> 
> ...


I kinda doubt the Antec is the problem. Don't recall ever seeing a post where someone has had a bad one. Doesn't mean that you're not the first, but I would suspect the hard drive and I wouldn't do anything to the new one except put it in the Antec and hook the whole thing up to your HR. Seems as if the people that have the most problems are those that hook up a drive to a computer and then try to use it as an eSATA. That drive you are getting is a 3GB/s and not a 1.5GB/s, right? And a 7200RPM, not a slower one?

Rich


----------



## WaltL (Feb 20, 2007)

That is correct a 1T.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WaltL said:


> That is correct a 1T.


Please let us know what happens. Be interesting if it is the Antec.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

So, after filling up one of my 2TB Cavalrys, and doing it quite nicely, I figure I'm set with eSATAs for a while.

A few days ago, while replacing a non-functioning thermostat in my house, I hear this grinding noise. Sounded for all the world as if glass was being ground up. Then it stopped. Since it was only 10 degrees outside, I figured the thermostat was the most important thing and concentrated on that. 

Finished up and looked around and didn't see or smell smoke, then walked out to my family room and one of three 20-700s had the blue ring on. Figured it must have been a download and turned the other two on. Both rings were off, which is how I leave them normally. The 700 with the ring on was the one I had the 2TB Cav on when I filled it up. 

Figured the grinding noise was the HR. Then I turned the TV on and had a picture and all my stations. Go to the Playlist and only two shows are on it. Obviously the internal drive. Pull the plug and reboot. Still on the internal. 

Go out to the room I had been working in and checked the eSATAs and one was not blinking. Pulled the power supply out and measured the voltage with a Fluke. Dead. So I take the power supply out of the other 2TB and plug it into dead one. Immediately, the grinding noise starts. Quickly unplug, no damage to the power supply.

So anyhow, the 2TB is dead and buried. Did my filling it up cause this to happen? Probably didn't help. Or just a coincidence? The other one is still going strong. 

Didn't lose and valuable recordings. I think this will be my last Cavalry. Think I'll stick with the Seagates.

Rich


----------



## WaltL (Feb 20, 2007)

WaltL said:


> I have already returned the old drive and ordered a new one. At your suggestion I took a chance and substituted my 750 FAP from the other HR20. It booted up great and I could see everything in the list.
> 
> So I then tried the 750 FAP with the Antec eSata cable. That also worked great. So at least I know the HR20 is capable and the Antec cable is good.
> 
> ...


*The replacement hard drive arrived today, mounted it in the MX-1 and it booted right up and worked just fine.*

*Thanks to everyone for all the help. Walt*


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WaltL said:


> *The replacement hard drive arrived today, mounted it in the MX-1 and it booted right up and worked just fine.*
> 
> *Thanks to everyone for all the help. Walt*


Troubleshooting by elimination. Best we can do without laying eyes and hands on the equipment.

Glad everything worked out well. Still haven't read a post about a bad Antec. You would think that a company such as WD would do some testing before shipping. I do remember a lot of failed WD drives on TiVos. But then, in all fairness, I remember a lot of failed drives on TiVos, not just WDs. The way the HRs work seem to cause less hard drive failures than the TiVos did.

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

At least the WD's in the tivo's didnt sound like a coffee can full of marbles, like the original Quantum drives did.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> At least the WD's in the tivo's didnt sound like a coffee can full of marbles, like the original Quantum drives did.


Actually I did have a couple 20-100s that sounded as if a rattlesnake was living inside them.

Heard anything from *Russdog*? Seems to have disappeared.

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

He's watching tv.

We're using computers connected to other computers to talk about things that record tv and expound on what a ridiculous amount of tv we can actually record, while apparently rarely watching it.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

t_h said:


> At least the WD's in the tivo's didnt sound like a coffee can full of marbles, like the original Quantum drives did.


You buy CHEAP, you get CHEAP!!!


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Sometimes you buy expensive and still get cheap.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

t_h said:


> Sometimes you buy expensive and still get cheap.


And that is VERY SAD but I have some friends who want to play the "STATUS GAME" and then they come back crying to me and I just say " Sorry, don't want to hear it!".


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> He's watching tv.
> 
> We're using computers connected to other computers to talk about things that record tv and expound on what a ridiculous amount of tv we can actually record, while apparently rarely watching it.


So, you haven't really been in touch with him?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> And that is VERY SAD but I have some friends who want to play the "STATUS GAME" and then they come back crying to me and I just say " Sorry, don't want to hear it!".


I have in-laws like that. Can't understand why we have so many TVs and associated equipment. Got sick of explaining and have answered "Because we can" to those questions.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

There is Nothing Wrong with being Frugal but sometimes it pays to buy a better more expensive product because in the long run it will actually save you money.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> There is Nothing Wrong with being Frugal but sometimes it pays to buy a better more expensive product because in the long run it will actually save you money.


That works most of the time. If you can afford to do that. Not a good philosophy to follow when choosing restaurants.

Rich


----------



## Folin (Jun 19, 2007)

Any thoughts re: 5400rpm vs. 7200rpm drives? Should I be leaning toward 7200rpm Green drives (assuming less power and less heat)?

Had been running a 1TB FAP for about 5-6 months now w/ good success. However, in the last couple of weeks, "new" recordings are suffering from disastrously long pauses/freezes. I can go back to a month or more ago archived movies and they seem to play fine.

I was hitting 70-80% capacity and deleted a ton of shows, newer and older...got down to 40% capacity but have the same issue on the newer recordings. So figuring the drive has some bad sectors on it maybe...will look to RMA. Assume the issue is heat related and specifically due to no fan in the FAP casing.

So either leaning toward a MX-1 w/ 1.5TB drive (re: question above) or looking for strong word on the newer Xtremes from Seagate (do not appear to have a fan either though). This on an HR20, so any eSATA should work out pretty well (other than WD My Books).


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I am using the WD20EADS 2 TB Drive and have had no problems and it runs cooloer and very quiet so if you are looking at an internal drive I would go with this one or if you can't afford it go with the 1.5 TB or 1 TB version of it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Folin said:


> Any thoughts re: 5400rpm vs. 7200rpm drives? Should I be leaning toward 7200rpm Green drives (assuming less power and less heat)?
> 
> Had been running a 1TB FAP for about 5-6 months now w/ good success. However, in the last couple of weeks, "new" recordings are suffering from disastrously long pauses/freezes. I can go back to a month or more ago archived movies and they seem to play fine.
> 
> I was hitting 70-80% capacity and deleted a ton of shows, newer and older...got down to 40% capacity but have the same issue on the newer recordings. So figuring the drive has some bad sectors on it maybe...will look to RMA. Assume the issue is heat related and specifically due to no fan in the FAP casing.


Have you disconnected the eSATA and used the internal drive for a couple days? That will tell you whether the problem is in the HR and/or your "system" or in the eSATA itself. Personally, I've never had a problem with an FAP.

I called Seagate about the lack of a fan and I was told that a special plastic had been developed for the case and that a fan was not needed. They do get kinda warm-to-hot to the touch, but I've never had one fail in the manner you're reporting.

You're talking about "freeze-ups". That's much better than "lock-ups". When you started having problems at 70-80% you should have gone to the menus and restarted the HR, with the eSATA attached and powered up. In other words, just restart the HR, leave everything else alone. That might work. It has worked for me many times and has done nothing a couple times.



> So either leaning toward a MX-1 w/ 1.5TB drive (re: question above) or looking for strong word on the newer Xtremes from Seagate (do not appear to have a fan either though). This on an HR20, so any eSATA should work out pretty well (other than WD My Books).


If I was gonna go for a large hard drive in an Antec MX-1, I'd get one of the WD 2TB drives that *RichieRich* is so happy with. The bigger the hard drive the longer it takes to get to that magic 70% full point where the problems begin to occur.

I have two 1.5 Xtremes on two 20-700s. A lot of people report that they work well with 21s. Tried one once and had problems. Plan to try again with an HR22 soon. I have absolutely no problems with either of the Xtremes, but don't begin to approach 70-80% full. And that seems to the point where *the capacity of the hard drive in the eSATA begins to adversely affect the HR*. And that's when the problems begin. So, the larger the hard drive, the longer it takes to reach that magic figure of 70% full.

I'd get the Antec and the 2TB WD drive. Best solution. Most bang for your buck. By the way, the Xtremes do have fans and they are fairly quiet.

One other thing, 2TBs is a lot of storage. I've got a 2TB eSATA and it's overkill. The Seagate 1.5s might be a wiser choice. They only come with a 3 year guarantee as opposed to the 5 year guarantee of the FAPs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> I am using the WD20EADS 2 TB Drive and have had no problems and it runs cooloer and very quiet so if you are looking at an internal drive I would go with this one or if you can't afford it go with the 1.5 TB or 1 TB version of it.


He's thinking of an Antec MX-1 enclosure. Easy way out. Better than an eSATA "in a box". And they seem to work with every HR. Mine are great. I think I paid about $30-40 for them at Amazon.

Rich


----------



## carl.066 (Jul 24, 2008)

rich584 said:


> He's thinking of an Antec MX-1 enclosure. Easy way out. Better than an eSATA "in a box". And they seem to work with every HR. Mine are great. I think I paid about $30-40 for them at Amazon.
> 
> Rich


There have been a number of people who've already replaced the HR23-700 500G internal drive with a WD20EADS with no problems. However, I agree with you that it makes better sense to use the external MX-1, with its cooling and shielding features than to rip open a brand new HR23 (which voids the warranty). For me, I'm going that way.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Man....2000 GIG of storage.....thats alot of HD!


----------



## Folin (Jun 19, 2007)

Rich584, I did go into the HR menu and restart it, with the eSATA attached and powered up. No change unfortunately. 

I did remove the FAP for a bit, checked out one or two old shows on the internal but didn't think to record and make sure that it was still replaying ok. I'll do that tonight/tomorrow.

update: Just unplugged it from the HR, slapped it onto my PC w/ SeaTools. SeaTool doesn't see the drive, giving: Fatal Error Device Discover: Index and length must refer to a location within the string. parameter name: length System.String InternalSubStringWithChecks(Int32, In32, Boolean).

Working up an RMA. I have no idea whats up w/ the above error, but it sure doesn't look good. Or is this due to the HD software?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

carl.066 said:


> There have been a number of people who've already replaced the HR23-700 500G internal drive with a WD20EADS with no problems. However, I agree with you that it makes better sense to use the external MX-1, with its cooling and shielding features than to rip open a brand new HR23 (which voids the warranty). For me, I'm going that way.


Of course, I know nothing about opening the HRs up. I have opened a lot of TiVos and installed hard drives, and while that was simple, it wasn't as simple as using an Antec enclosure (MX-1). Haven't seen one post that reports problems with the Antec. And they seem to work with every HR.

There is one advantage to using eSATAs that I don't see much about: if you're having problems, reformatting the HR sometimes helps. If you have an eSATA attached, simply pulling the cord on the eSATA and reformatting the HR without the eSATA connected seems to produce positive results.

I'd wait a little while until the price comes down on the WDs. Drives me nutz when I pay $300 for something and two weeks later see it on sale for $150. But if you gotta have it, you gotta have it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Folin said:


> Rich584, I did go into the HR menu and restart it, with the eSATA attached and powered up. No change unfortunately.
> 
> I did remove the FAP for a bit, checked out one or two old shows on the internal but didn't think to record and make sure that it was still replaying ok. I'll do that tonight/tomorrow.
> 
> ...


Beyond my knowledge. You might want to PM *t_h* and see if he can help you. He knows a lot about hard drives, I just know how to use them.

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Folin, what version of seatools are you using? I've heard that some versions of seatools give this error while others dont. Google seatools 1.1.0.21 and if that one gives you the same error, try 1.1.1 or another vendors disk tools. Seatools sort of stinks.

Also, whats the bios setting for the drives...raid, ahci or ide/disabled?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> Folin, what version of seatools are you using? I've heard that some versions of seatools give this error while others dont. Google seatools 1.1.0.21 and if that one gives you the same error, try 1.1.1 or another vendors disk tools. Seatools sort of stinks.
> 
> Also, whats the bios setting for the drives...raid, ahci or ide/disabled?


Thanx for replying to him so quickly. I'm lost when it comes to diagnostics.

Rich


----------



## Folin (Jun 19, 2007)

t_h said:


> Folin, what version of seatools are you using? I've heard that some versions of seatools give this error while others dont. Google seatools 1.1.0.21 and if that one gives you the same error, try 1.1.1 or another vendors disk tools. Seatools sort of stinks.
> 
> Also, whats the bios setting for the drives...raid, ahci or ide/disabled?


I just tried the latest version direct from seagate, which I assume is 1.1.0.21 and then I d/l'd 1.1.1 and tried that...exact same error when it first scanning for supported drives. Far as I'm concerned, I've got a FAP w/ some bad sectors...RMA is in place.

Not sure which "drives" you refer to...my PC's drives? There are 2x500GB's setup in RAID1. The FAP I plugged into a USB2.0 port.

The first time I did it, I think XP Pro recognized it as a Free Agent and/or Seagate. But subsequently it just shows up in "safely remove hardware" as a USB Mass Storage Device" but no drive letter gets assigned for it.

I can see it, with 3 partitions, under Disk Mgmnt. All show as healthy/unknown partitions. But the only options for each partition is "Delete Partition" and "Help". Can't assign a drive letter, assume this is more the dvr software vs. XP than anything.

The original HD in the HR20 has been running late last night and all day today...recording, pausing, buffer, etc. all working as they should.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Alright, we're sort of getting somewhere. When you said you put the drive in the PC I thought you meant you'd removed the disk from the enclosure and put it inside the pc on a sata cable.

I dont think seatools works with usb drives (if it does, only certain versions do), and it doesnt work on raid sets either so I think its correct in saying it cant find a drive to work with.

XP wont show a drive letter on an esata off of an HR. The disk is formatted for linux and not FAT/FAT32/NTFS. So thats pretty much expected as well.

I'd have to go looking but theres a way to kick the HR into a diagnostic mode when its starting up, and to have it do an extended disk/file system test that takes a couple of hours. My bet is the disk may be good, but you've got some file system problems. The test might resolve it.

I dont think any 'good/bad' determination can be made with XP with the drive in its USB case. If you hooked it up with esata to the PC you might get seatools to run on it.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

I think I found it. Power everything off, hook up the esata, power on the drive, wait 10 seconds and power on the receiver. When it gets to "receiver self check" hit the SELECT button on the remote.

It'll come up in a diagnostic mode that lets you do a variety of tests. IIRC theres a short disk test, a long disk test, and a file system test. Do them all.

If it passes the tests, it was probably a file system inconsistency and the file system test may have fixed it. Reboot and check to see if it still has the problem.


----------



## Folin (Jun 19, 2007)

t_h said:


> I think I found it. Power everything off, hook up the esata, power on the drive, wait 10 seconds and power on the receiver. When it gets to "receiver self check" hit the SELECT button on the remote.
> 
> It'll come up in a diagnostic mode that lets you do a variety of tests. IIRC theres a short disk test, a long disk test, and a file system test. Do them all.
> 
> If it passes the tests, it was probably a file system inconsistency and the file system test may have fixed it. Reboot and check to see if it still has the problem.


Tried the above t_h, thanks for helping out here. But absolutely no response at all when hitting "SELECT" at the receiver self-check screen...just keeps on trucking into the next start-up phase. Never got a chance for disk or file system tests.

I agree, I can't diagnose the issue 100% to say this is a hardware vs. software issue...but without proper diagnostic tools from Seagate for the given usage (HD DVR) and symptoms, I feel like I'm shooting rubber bands in the dark and trying to hit a gnat.

I'd rather just RMA it and get on to recording/watching shows again...hey, it's March Madness time!!

Hopefully, they send an Xtreme in its place (if they truly run cooler than the FAPs) or at one that least one that runs a little cooler. I'll do a better job of not getting past 60% usage, if I can help it, on the next one as well.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

[Dumb question] Did you use the front panel or the remote "select"?


----------



## Folin (Jun 19, 2007)

Remote!! Ok, one more try w/ the front panel....bbl.

Ok, same result using the button on the deck itself...this FAP is outta here.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Folin said:


> Remote!! Ok, one more try w/ the front panel....bbl.
> 
> Ok, same result using the button on the deck itself...this FAP is outta here.


Most times you run into trouble, the easy way out is just that. After reading your posts and the answers to them, you're doing just what I would do. Now, all you gotta do is hope your new eSATA doesn't do the same thing. Let us pray.

Rich


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Another FAP causing troubles, shocker....Sorry for your loss.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> [Dumb question] Did you use the front panel or the remote "select"?


Oh fooey, I said 'remote' and its the front panel. Thanks for covering up my goof...


----------



## Folin (Jun 19, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Another FAP causing troubles, shocker....Sorry for your loss.


It might be a good idea to run a poll re: FAP (and their out-of-box ilk) vs. MX1 (and their DIY ilk) and see how long folks have been running w/ no issue? I know 5-6 months doesn't really cut it for me...and the real bummer is I was running behind on a # of shows and intending to catchup offseason. Ahh well.

I was sooo close to buying a MX1 from a Circuit City at ~$25...but I didn't and when this went bad, they were already shut down.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Folin said:


> It might be a good idea to run a poll re: FAP (and their out-of-box ilk) vs. MX1 (and their DIY ilk) and see how long folks have been running w/ no issue?
> 
> I was sooo close to buying a MX1 from a Circuit City at ~$25...but I didn't and when this went bad, they were already shut down.


The best things about the MX-1s are their ability to work with any HR, the FAP only works on the 20s, and the fact that you can always update an MX-1 by simply putting a larger drive in it.

That said, I think both work very well and I've never really had a problem with either. Amazon has the MX-1s at a reasonable price. Considering the flexibility of the MX-1, I always recommend that first. The one drawback I've read about, and I didn't have trouble with this, is the "pictographic instructions". You do have to study the instructions a bit, but it's easy once you grasp the instructional format.

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

The "institutional knowledge" at other web sites that have been attaching esatas to their receivers for around 2 years is that the mx-1 is the best enclosure choice for maximum compatibility and minimal problems.

Pull up this thread:
http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=370784

And search for "What are good drives to use". You'll get a table of disks and their characteristics, followed by a table of enclosures and their features.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

One quick note on the mx-1. The original came out saying it supported "up to 750GB" drives. In a subsequent update, Antec noted that the drive would support 1TB drives. While they may have said something about 1.5 and 2.0 support, I havent seen it yet. Should work, but check it out first.

Edit: I looked around some more, and it appears the 1.5 and 2.0 drives work fine in the mx-1.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

t_h, that lit all stems around the largest capacity drives that were available at the time. I don't believe there is any size limit to the drive that can go in an MX-1, since there are really no active electronics that talk to the drive in the box, its just the interface.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

On the esata side I think thats true. On the USB 2.0 side, there are some active parts that act as the host interface and there could be some limitations in that part of it that might have some troubles. Other enclosures have such limitations on the USB side.

Otherwise, for esata use theoretically the enclosure should be invisible to the drive and the HR.

As I noted in the edit above, I found people using both the 1.5 and 2.0's in the mx-1. One guy was having some slow speed issues that seemed to go unresolved, but perhaps that was a problem with his 1.5 drive and not the enclosure.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> On the esata side I think thats true. On the USB 2.0 side, there are some active parts that act as the host interface and there could be some limitations in that part of it that might have some troubles. Other enclosures have such limitations on the USB side.
> 
> Otherwise, for esata use theoretically the enclosure should be invisible to the drive and the HR.
> 
> As I noted in the edit above, I found people using both the 1.5 and 2.0's in the mx-1. One guy was having some slow speed issues that seemed to go unresolved, but perhaps that was a problem with his 1.5 drive and not the enclosure.


Did you happen to check on how much capacity he had left? Would be interesting to know.

Rich


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

They werent using them on DVR's, just general computer use.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> They werent using them on DVR's, just general computer use.


A couple years ago, we had a thread asking which was harder on a hard drive (pun unintended), a DVR or a PC. Never did come to a conclusion as I recall, but I'm willing to say that a DVR (at least a TiVo) is harder on a hard drive (did it again, unintentionally) than a PC. Just an opinion based on experience. Don't want an in-depth technological discussion to ensue, I won't understand it.

Rich


----------



## Folin (Jun 19, 2007)

Just got the RMA. Guess they're out of FAPs now as they sent a recert'd Xtreme (FAX?). So hopefully this will run cooler and longer...LONG LIVE THE FAX!

Popped it on the PC via USB and it shows up fine. I did not run the "software installer" prompt. Figure the HR will overwrite everything on it anyway (think I actually went into the old FAP and deleted everything I saw, but not sure that's necessary).

Is it know what version HD's are in these units? Are they on the DVR designed list noted over at tivocommunity? Never mind, just looked over there again and Seagates are only updated for 750GB and less....

EDIT: after searching/reading, I went ahead and installed the FAX software. Ran the hardware Test, it passed. Also told it to "never" shutdown.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm pretty sure it never would have gotten enough breathing room to shutdown the drive, but it never hurts.

Yep, the HR will just write its file system right over the s/w on the disk. Good idea to test it first on a PC. At least it wont hurt anything.

Thats got a standard seagate drive in it. Its not certified for 24x7 or DVR usage, just a general purpose drive.

As to whether thats good enough? Directv doesnt seem to think so, but many of the users here think it is.

Hope it works out for you.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Folin said:


> Just got the RMA. Guess they're out of FAPs now as they sent a recert'd Xtreme (FAX?). So hopefully this will run cooler and longer...LONG LIVE THE FAX!
> 
> Popped it on the PC via USB and it shows up fine. I did not run the "software installer" prompt. Figure the HR will overwrite everything on it anyway (think I actually went into the old FAP and deleted everything I saw, but not sure that's necessary).
> 
> ...


That eSATA is called an Xtreme. I've got two 1.5TB units and they work perfectly.

Rich


----------



## Tom Z (Aug 25, 2007)

All... I have a HR 22/100 and have the seagate 1.5 TB drive hooked to it. I checked with seagate and they said it is not one of the affective drives with the bad firmware. 

I have had a couple of video freeze-ups and one complete freeze that I had to do a reset to fix. The drive reformatted and I lost what was recorded.

Has anyone else had problems with the HR22 eSATA?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tom Z said:


> All... I have a HR 22/100 and have the seagate 1.5 TB drive hooked to it. I checked with seagate and they said it is not one of the affective drives with the bad firmware.
> 
> I have had a couple of video freeze-ups and one complete freeze that I had to do a reset to fix. The drive reformatted and I lost what was recorded.
> 
> Has anyone else had problems with the HR22 eSATA?


I had those same experiences with a 1.5X on a 21-700. Assumed the Xtremes wouldn't work on the 21s and gave up. I have read a lot of posts by people using the X's on 21s, so I thought I was wrong. I have two 1.5 Xtremes on two 20-700s and they work perfectly.

With the problems you're having, I'd suggest taking the X back and using that money towards an Antec MX-1 enclosure with a SATA hard drive in it. Easiest and most reliable way to go. The Antec seems to work well with every HR. Yeah, you gotta put the things together, but when done, your problems should be over. Seagate has a 1.5 SATA drive and so does WD, I believe. And the Antec comes with a nice long eSATA to eSATA cable. It's easy to put together, try it.

Rich


----------



## Tom Z (Aug 25, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I had those same experiences with a 1.5X on a 21-700. Assumed the Xtremes wouldn't work on the 21s and gave up. I have read a lot of posts by people using the X's on 21s, so I thought I was wrong. I have two 1.5 Xtremes on two 20-700s and they work perfectly.
> 
> With the problems you're having, I'd suggest taking the X back and using that money towards an Antec MX-1 enclosure with a SATA hard drive in it. Easiest and most reliable way to go. The Antec seems to work well with every HR. Yeah, you gotta put the things together, but when done, your problems should be over. Seagate has a 1.5 SATA drive and so does WD, I believe. And the Antec comes with a nice long eSATA to eSATA cable. It's easy to put together, try it.
> 
> Rich


Thanks Rich.. I do have the Antec enclosure and I am using the 1.5 Seagate drive. Are you saying that I should switch drives to a WD or a different Seagate? Or is there another option? I experience issues like lock-up when I switch channels quickly.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tom Z said:


> Thanks Rich.. I do have the Antec enclosure and I am using the 1.5 Seagate drive. Are you saying that I should switch drives to a WD or a different Seagate? Or is there another option? I experience issues like lock-up when I switch channels quickly.
> 
> Thanks for your help.


For some reason I thought you had an Xtreme. Sorry. If I were you, I'd call Seagate back and see if they can do something for you. You might just need a different 1.5 Seagate and they are warrantied for several years. There are different models of hard drives and I know from personal experience that the Barracudas will work with 21s. I also know from "absorption" of info on the forum that a Seagate Pipeline will work with 21s. That may be your best bet.

Just did some quick research and I need to know what model Seagate hard drive you are using. Is it a Barracuda?

In any event, if the 22-100 (which is just a 21-100 with a larger hard drive) keeps freezing up or even worse, locking up (that's when you have to pull the plug to reboot), stop using the external drive immediately. You WILL wreck the HR.

I wrote in a recent post that I had never had an eSATA that adversely affected an HR. I should have clarified that statement to read, "I have never had an eSATA that functioned correctly wreck an HR." In other words, if you have some sort of eSATA and have no problems with it (such as freeze ups or lock ups) then it will not adversely affect the HR in the long run.

Again, if you or anyone else puts an eSATA on an HR and you get freeze ups and/or lockups, get the eSATA off that HR.

I do have one 22-100 that I have never hooked up an eSATA to. But I have never had a 21-100 (same as the 22-100, just a smaller hard drive) that worked with an eSATA.

I do know this: It is very unlikely that the Antec is the problem. If you had no problems before you hooked up the eSATA, then the hard drive in the Antec is probably at fault. Again, I need to know if it is a Barracuda or another model. The Barracuda does come in the 1.5TB size and I suspect that you have one.

One other thing to keep in mind, don't buy into the idea that all HRs are created equally and function as well as each other. That is not true. My opinion is that the 100s are the poorest of the HRs. I'm actually amazed that the 22-100 that I bought, with much trepidation, works as well as it does. Your problem might well be an incompatibility between the HR and the eSATA.

Doing a quick search, I couldn't find a WD 1.5TB. WD does make a 2TB that is quite expensive, but does work as an internal drive in a 23-700. And if it works as in internal, it should work with the Antec enclosure. But the 23-700 is one of the 700s made by Pace and in my opinion the 700s are the best of the HRs.

Get me the model name of your Seagate.

Rich


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

I tried to do the math, which I get is always going to be somewhat inaccurate, and "ciphered" that my 1.5 TB should hold about 330 hours of MPEG-4 HD. I now have exactly 8 hours on it, and it still says 98%. If that newer math holds, I should get around 400 hours, should I not? Regardless, I think Weaknees measurements are somewhat low, as I got more hours on my 1 TB than they estimated, and I got about 53 hours on the internal HDD, which is slightly more than expected.

What should I expect on the 1.5? (please no "it depends on" answers, I intimately know exactly what it depends on already)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

TomCat said:


> I tried to do the math, which I get is always going to be somewhat inaccurate, and "ciphered" that my 1.5 TB should hold about 330 hours of MPEG-4 HD. I now have exactly 8 hours on it, and it still says 98%. If that newer math holds, I should get around 400 hours, should I not? Regardless, I think Weaknees measurements are somewhat low, as I got more hours on my 1 TB than they estimated, and I got about 53 hours on the internal HDD, which is slightly more than expected.
> 
> What should I expect on the 1.5? (please no "it depends on" answers, I intimately know exactly what it depends on already)


currently: 300-100=200/50 hours.
so 1,500-100=1400/350 hours?

"I'd guess" your sample size [8 hours] may simply be too small of a size to get out of the "noise".


----------



## Tom Z (Aug 25, 2007)

Thanks again Rich.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TomCat said:


> I tried to do the math, which I get is always going to be somewhat inaccurate, and "ciphered" that my 1.5 TB should hold about 330 hours of MPEG-4 HD. I now have exactly 8 hours on it, and it still says 98%. If that newer math holds, I should get around 400 hours, should I not? Regardless, I think Weaknees measurements are somewhat low, as I got more hours on my 1 TB than they estimated, and I got about 53 hours on the internal HDD, which is slightly more than expected.
> 
> What should I expect on the 1.5? (please no "it depends on" answers, I intimately know exactly what it depends on already)


One thing you should be ready for is a "bogging down" of your HR when you get close to 30% Available. When that happens, if it does, just restart your HR WITH the eSATA hooked up and that should refresh your HR. When it starts "bogging down" again, restart it again. Do NOT reboot the thing.

Your math is correct and you should get about 400 hours of MPEG4. All the estimates I have seen by all the manufacturers are low. When the HRs first came out they said that we could expect about 20 hours of MPEG2 (all that was available at the time) and I had over 40 hours of movies on one 20-700. A 2TB will give you about 540 hours or so of MPEG4, use that figure for calculations. That will give you just about the right figure for any size hard drive.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> currently: 300-100=200/50 hours.
> so 1,500-100=1400/350 hours?
> 
> "I'd guess" your sample size [8 hours] may simply be too small of a size to get out of the "noise".


Yes, that "Available" meter is about as accurate as a gas gauge in a car. You've got to put a bit more than he has on the hard drive to get a good feel for it. He'll see about 400 hrs of MPEG4.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tom Z said:


> Thanks again Rich.


Tom, you didn't tell me the name of the Seagate drive.

Rich


----------



## Tom Z (Aug 25, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Tom, you didn't tell me the name of the Seagate drive.
> 
> Rich


Rich, it's a Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31500341AS 1.5TB. It keeps locking, so I pulled it out and went back to the internal. I see that you mentioned that the 100 series of HR's are usually the most problematic. Is is worth going to a retailer and buying another HR?


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

Tom Z said:


> Rich, it's a Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31500341AS 1.5TB. It keeps locking, so I pulled it out and went back to the internal.


Did you upgrade the firmware on the drive before using it? The Seagate 1.5 TB drives have serious issues, some of which are partially resolved by upgrading the firmware. Video locking is a common problem with these drives. What firmware is the drive using?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tom Z said:


> Rich, it's a Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31500341AS 1.5TB. It keeps locking, so I pulled it out and went back to the internal. I see that you mentioned that the 100 series of HR's are usually the most problematic. Is is worth going to a retailer and buying another HR?


Aw, nutz. I had hoped it was another model. I've got two 1TB Cudas in MX-1s and they work perfectly. Now, that would leave me to believe it's the HR.

I live in Central NJ, and I can't find anything but HR22-100s anywhere. I'd try Seagate again and try to force the issue. We all know that they had some problems with some model number hard drives (both of my 1TBs are those model number drives, but since they work, I haven't done anything with them), and perhaps they can do something. Perhaps a replacement hard drive might work.

Or you could call D* and get a replacement. That's usually a terrible experience. You never know what you're gonna get. I have the Protection Plan and I have resolved that if another HR fails, I will deactivate it and purchase a new one. I realize I'll lose the money I paid for the deactivated HR, but I'd rather do that then go thru "replacement roulette" again.

Even if you get a replacement hard drive from Seagate, they are not gonna send it to you until they thoroughly test the returned hard drive and if it tests out good, you're gonna get it back.

Perhaps a used 20-700 or a 21-700 on eBay?

Please, let us know what you do and what the outcome of your actions are.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dminches said:


> Did you upgrade the firmware on the drive before using it? The Seagate 1.5 TB drives have serious issues, some of which are partially resolved by upgrading the firmware. Video locking is a common problem with these drives. What firmware is the drive using?


That's what I've been talking about, but his 1.5 is not one of the model numbers that Seagate published regarding firmware. I'd still try to get Seagate to do something.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Rich, is that really true with Seagate?

I just had an old drive replaced. I paid the $20 for express service and they sent me a repaired drive, and shipping label for the return.

I thought they'd have made me jump through more hoops, but it was under warranty, and I could have sent the drive in and waited for a replacement [shipping costs one-way] or paid $20 [basically shipping both ways, along with my credit card in case I didn't return one].

[BTW: it did resolve a very strange problem that none of their software would find]


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> That's what I've been talking about, but his 1.5 is not one of the model numbers that Seagate published regarding firmware. I'd still try to get Seagate to do something.
> 
> Rich


It is my understanding that there is only 1 version of the 1.5 TB drive and that everyone is defective. Those of us who use these drives in our NAS enclosures have been dealing with this issue since day 1.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Rich, is that really true with Seagate?


I don't know for sure, but his drive is relatively new and every time I have sent a drive in that I was convinced was bad, I got it back with a message that said it was fine and had to pay the shipping both ways. With such a new drive, I would think they would run a diagnostic test on it and if it came out OK, he'd get it back. Be interesting to see what happens.

If I had to pick a device that I thought was the problem, you know I'd pick the 100 every time. I did PM him and offer to put it in an Antec enclosure and see if it happened on one of my 21-700s. At least that way, he'd have some idea of what to do. If the drive works on my 21-700, that would make me question the functionality of the 100 he's using.



> I just had an old drive replaced. I paid the $20 for express service and they sent me a repaired drive, and shipping label for the return.
> 
> I thought they'd have made me jump through more hoops, but it was under warranty, and I could have sent the drive in and waited for a replacement [shipping costs one-way] or paid $20 [basically shipping both ways, along with my credit card in case I didn't return one].
> 
> [BTW: it did resolve a very strange problem that none of their software would find]


That was with an old drive. Somehow, maybe (probably) I'm wrong. But a new drive?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dminches said:


> It is my understanding that there is only 1 version of the 1.5 TB drive and that everyone is defective. Those of us who use these drives in our NAS enclosures have been dealing with this issue since day 1.


If there is only 1 Seagate drive that has the 1.5TB capacity, and I can't find another one, wouldn't that be the same 1.5 that I have in my two 1.5TB Xtreme eSATAs? They work perfectly. Not trying to argue, just to learn. Obviously you've got more experience with them than I do.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> That was with an old drive. Somehow, maybe (probably) I'm wrong. But a new drive?
> 
> Rich


 It had two years left on its five year warranty, but had been "problematic" right out of the box. [you know the type of problem: you put together a $2k PC and it's buggy from the start. You run every type of test and everything comes back "OK". Then you start swapping out parts. Finally you pull the drive and run it in another PC for six months, before this one has any problems]


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> If there is only 1 Seagate drive that has the 1.5TB capacity, and I can't find another one, wouldn't that be the same 1.5 that I have in my two 1.5TB Xtreme eSATAs? They work perfectly. Not trying to argue, just to learn. Obviously you've got more experience with them than I do.
> 
> Rich


I have 4 of them in my ReadyNAS+ and haven't had any problems with them either although I am using them for audio, not video. However, a good portion of them have been problematic.


----------



## knoxbh (May 1, 2002)

I have ordered a HR23-700 from ValueElectronics. When it comes in, intend to swap out an HR20-700 that has a eSata external drive attached to it with the HR23 and keep the eSata to go with the HR23. There will no programs left on the external drive when I do this. I ASSUME that since there will no programs on the eSata, I will have the entire drive available to use. Is that true?

Thanks.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

knoxbh said:


> I have ordered a HR23-700 from ValueElectronics. When it comes in, intend to swap out an HR20-700 that has a eSata external drive attached to it with the HR23 and keep the eSata to go with the HR23. There will no programs left on the external drive when I do this. I ASSUME that since there will no programs on the eSata, I will have the entire drive available to use. Is that true?
> 
> Thanks.


You series links will still work and your recordings will show but you will not be able to play them. They are married to the unit the are recorded on so you will need to delete them.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> It had two years left on its five year warranty, but had been "problematic" right out of the box. [you know the type of problem: you put together a $2k PC and it's buggy from the start. You run every type of test and everything comes back "OK". Then you start swapping out parts. Finally you pull the drive and run it in another PC for six months, before this one has any problems]


Huh. Wouldn't consider that drive that old. Maybe Seagate is better about replacing it's drives than other manufacturers.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dminches said:


> I have 4 of them in my ReadyNAS+ and haven't had any problems with them either although I am using them for audio, not video. However, a good portion of them have been problematic.


Oh, that's good to hear. From reading about them, I got the impression that the problem was really wide spread. So those Xtremes I have have the same Cuda 1.5 in them?

I talked to a tech at Seagate the other day and he was really interested in what worked and didn't work with the HRs. They seem to be trying to satisfy each DVR maker and need info.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

knoxbh said:


> I have ordered a HR23-700 from ValueElectronics. When it comes in, intend to swap out an HR20-700 that has a eSata external drive attached to it with the HR23 and keep the eSata to go with the HR23. There will no programs left on the external drive when I do this. I ASSUME that since there will no programs on the eSata, I will have the entire drive available to use. Is that true?
> 
> Thanks.


Yup.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Maybe Seagate is better about replacing it's drives than other manufacturers.
> 
> Rich


[my point in posting]


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> [my point in posting]


After thinking about it, the problems I had returning drives was not with manufacturers, but with sites that sent me large drives for my TiVos. I had one drive in a TiVo that sounded like a typewriter and that came back to me as perfect. I don't think I ever tried to return one to a manufacturer.

Rich


----------



## ME n My HTPC (Mar 27, 2009)

russdog said:


> I know rich has had trouble once he gets near 1.5TB, and I know he's been asking for info about this for a while.
> However, I haven't seen useful answers to his plight.
> 
> Are there other things to indicate a 1.5TB limit on the HR21?
> ...


Ck drive stats... Drives are declared more than users ability to run...I believe the storage capacity is determined before firmware and formatting is performed... Suck's doesn't it!


----------



## ME n My HTPC (Mar 27, 2009)

ME n My HTPC said:


> Ck drive stats... Drives are declared more than users ability to run...I believe the storage capacity is determined before firmware and formatting is performed... Suck's doesn't it!


Also, note that receivers are usually quoted hours of recording space.. Not desnity.


----------



## knoxbh (May 1, 2002)

rich584 said:


> Yup.
> 
> Rich


Rich:

Thanks a lot - I thought that was the correct answer.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

knoxbh said:


> Rich:
> 
> Thanks a lot - I thought that was the correct answer.


You're very welcome.

Rich


----------



## Steve Rhodes (Oct 4, 2006)

rich584 said:


> One thing you should be ready for is a "bogging down" of your HR when you get close to 30% Available. When that happens, if it does, just restart your HR WITH the eSATA hooked up and that should refresh your HR. When it starts "bogging down" again, restart it again. Do NOT reboot the thing.
> 
> Your math is correct and you should get about 400 hours of MPEG4. All the estimates I have seen by all the manufacturers are low. When the HRs first came out they said that we could expect about 20 hours of MPEG2 (all that was available at the time) and I had over 40 hours of movies on one 20-700. A 2TB will give you about 540 hours or so of MPEG4, use that figure for calculations. That will give you just about the right figure for any size hard drive.
> 
> Rich


I've got a 1TB internal in my HR20 (which I usaully run at about 4% available, 96% full) and have never experienced a bogging down. I'm thinking at some point about getting a 1.5TB internal (or if I wait a bit a 2TB internal) from Weakness, which is where I got my 1TB internal.

Is this bogging down something that just happens to some people or most people and does the 1.5TB experience significantly more bogging down than the 1TB?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

The "bogging down" experience that Rich relates to is a slowness of the CPU caused by several factors and we don't understand all of the factors but I believe it is related to the External Drive Configuration and not the Internal Drive Configuration because I have not experienced this condition on my Internal Drives. I believe it has to do with the eSATA connection and controller and an Internal Drive will not experience those problems.

As far as calculations go you simply subtract 100 Meg from the Drive Capacity and then divide by 3.5 Meg and you will obtain how many MPEG-4 hours are available to your DVR. A 1 TB Drive will give you about 258 hours of MPEG-4 Recording. A 2 TB Drive will give you about 540 hours.

Why buy your drive from Weakness when you can get a great drive such as mine for a lot less money from BUY.COM or wherever. I have the 2 TB WD20EADS in my HR23-700 and it works FLAWLESSLY!!! The prices range from about $260 to $300 for the 2 TB Drive which will give you about 540 hours of MPEG-4 Recording Capacity.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve Rhodes said:


> I've got a 1TB internal in my HR20 (which I usaully run at about 4% available, 96% full) and have never experienced a bogging down. I'm thinking at some point about getting a 1.5TB internal (or if I wait a bit a 2TB internal) from Weakness, which is where I got my 1TB internal.


Good to know the "bogging down" effect doesn't happen with an internal. I don't think we've ever gotten a post from someone that has filled his/hers large internal up to the point that you have. But there are some downside issues with what you have done. If you wish to discuss these, PM me.



> Is this bogging down something that just happens to some people or most people and does the 1.5TB experience significantly more bogging down than the 1TB?


Happened with every eSATA, no matter the capacity, that I have tried. Simply going to the menus and restarting the HR usually solved the bogging down problem.

Rich


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Good to know the "bogging down" effect doesn't happen with an internal.
> Happened with every eSATA, no matter the capacity, that I have tried. Simply going to the menus and restarting the HR usually solved the bogging down problem.
> Rich


This certainly supports the notion of increasing capacity by replacing the internal drive given the difference in performance.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dminches said:


> This certainly supports the notion of increasing capacity by replacing the internal drive given the difference in performance.


I seem to remember filling up my 21-700 internal drive and getting the same bogging down results. I know I wrote about it, but I can't find it. Thought it was on this thread. Wish I could think of a way to search for it without getting a lot of hits to wade thru.

Let me see if l can find it.

Rich


----------



## joshalee (Sep 14, 2006)

I'm a newbie to adding an esata external. Quick questions or please point to a thread:
1. Is $107 on amazon a good price for the external esata Calvary 1 TB?
2. I have the first gen H20 HD-DVR (silver). No issues with adding the drive?
3. Can I still record from the two tuners?
4. Are there any type of limitations when moving to the external to store programs?

Thanks


----------



## Steve Rhodes (Oct 4, 2006)

richierich said:


> Why buy your drive from Weakness when you can get a great drive such as mine for a lot less money from BUY.COM or wherever. I have the 2 TB WD20EADS in my HR23-700 and it works FLAWLESSLY!!! The prices range from about $260 to $300 for the 2 TB Drive which will give you about 540 hours of MPEG-4 Recording Capacity.


Easy. Some of us, BUT NOT ME, feel comfortable in opening the case and putting in a new drive. Some of us don't.

Much more importantly for me in the future is that Weakness will copy all of your old programs for us onto your new and larger drive. And, since our household strategy is watch an entire season of episodes (12 or 22 or whatever number of episodes) at one time, our drives stay constantly very full. Hence, there is no time in which we've ever watched everything on the drive and are ready to switch to a clean new drive.

Right now we have 2 HR20s, a 1TB one from Weakness and a 750MB external drive one. Both work great. Both run 90-95% full at all times.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Very good response as being able to save your recordings is an important thing and I had to bite the bullet and lose mine but I had most recorded on my 5 other DVRs so I was good to go.


----------



## ntrance (Aug 18, 2006)

Steve Rhodes said:


> Easy. Some of us, BUT NOT ME, feel comfortable in opening the case and putting in a new drive. Some of us don't.
> 
> Much more importantly for me in the future is that Weakness will copy all of your old programs for us onto your new and larger drive.


I understand your reluctance to open the case, but the procedure to copy the drive was documented on these forums before weaknees even offered the procedure. It's quite to do. See this this thread:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=148760


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> Very good response as being able to save your recordings is an important thing and I had to bite the bullet and lose mine but I had most recorded on my 5 other DVRs so I was good to go.


With TiVos you could save your recordings. Is this not possible with the internal drive replacement?


----------



## Steve Rhodes (Oct 4, 2006)

ntrance said:


> I understand your reluctance to open the case, but the procedure to copy the drive was documented on these forums before weaknees even offered the procedure. It's quite to do. See this this thread:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=148760


After reading this, I am SURE that paying someone else to do it and do it right is a good investment. It reminded me of reading tax forms.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

joshalee said:


> I'm a newbie to adding an esata external. Quick questions or please point to a thread:
> 1. Is $107 on amazon a good price for the external esata Calvary 1 TB?


Yes, but don't let price be your guide. The Cavalrys are noisy and not the best product on the market.



> 2. I have the first gen H20 HD-DVR (silver). No issues with adding the drive?


Nope, the Cav should work perfectly and it comes with an eSATA to eSATA cord. The noise issue isn't so bad if you have a sound system on when you're watching programs. This is not an eSATA you want in a bedroom.



> 3. Can I still record from the two tuners?


Yup, works just like the internal drive.



> 4. Are there any type of limitations when moving to the external to store programs?


No, you should get about 250-270 hours of programming with a 1TB eSATA.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dminches said:


> With TiVos you could save your recordings. Is this not possible with the internal drive replacement?


Not easily. You can do it with a computer hook up. Never tried it, but from what I've read it's not that easy to do. There is a link on the post a couple posts down from this one. Post #574.

Rich


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Not easily. You can do it with a computer hook up. Never tried it, but from what I've read it's not that easy to do. There is a link on the post a couple posts down from this one. Post #574.
> 
> Rich


With Tivos it was simple - just a slightly different linux command.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dminches said:


> With Tivos it was simple - just a slightly different linux command.


A lot of thing were simpler on the TiVos and a lot of things are simpler on the HRs. But, today, you have no option but the HR. Perhaps the TiVo will be a better machine. For now the HRs are what they are.

At the moment, I'm very happy with the HRs as they are now. Doesn't stop me from thinking of getting a TiVo when they come out tho. Just for comparison's sake.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I seem to remember filling up my 21-700 internal drive and getting the same bogging down results. I know I wrote about it, but I can't find it. Thought it was on this thread. Wish I could think of a way to search for it without getting a lot of hits to wade thru.
> 
> Let me see if l can find it.
> 
> Rich


Well, I looked, searched and can't find anything about filling up internals. Might have been PMing with *russdog* for his eSATA FAQ thread, which I see is still active.

I am curious, I could swear the same thing happened to the internal, but I don't feel like going thru that again. Perhaps in a few days, I'm still recovering from hitting balls for the first time this year day before yesterday. I just got no energy at the moment.

Rich


----------

