# How to get >2Tb storage??



## trstew (Feb 22, 2012)

A few weeks ago I hooked up 2Tb of external storage (WD HDD and Thermaltake enclosure) for my HR24. As I already only have 40% left, I'm wondering if I can expand my storage further without buying another 2Tb drive and enclosure and going thru the powerdown, swap, and bootup routine. Can a RAID enclosure with multiple drives be utilized, using the RAID controller to switch between the drives without going thru the old swap routine? In short, what are the alternatives to having to catalogue a collection of 2Tb drives?


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

trstew said:


> ? In short, what are the alternatives to having to catalogue a collection of 2Tb drives?


Remember that your library, or collection, cannot be played on any other DVR if that one were to fail.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't think you have many options. RAID 0 would increase capacity, but if you lose one drive, you lose all data. I don't think there are any economical ways to get RAID5, plus the 2TB limit would still apply.

Swapping drives, you'd have to keep the Series links and such current on both drives.

Sounds like you've done a lot of recording in a few weeks. I thought a 2TB should be able to handle more than 400 hours of MPEG4 HD.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Yeah, today only multiple 2 TB drives is the option for you, just keep relevant series links on each one.


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

I'm guessing the 2TB limit has nothing to do with disk size... it's using a 32-bit file system and they'd have to switch that up to do more than 2TB.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

xzi said:


> I'm guessing the 2TB limit has nothing to do with disk size... it's using a 32-bit file system and they'd have to switch that up to do more than 2TB.


Your guess is plain wrong. Read our recent discussions about the idea ...


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Your guess is plain wrong. Read our recent discussions about the idea ...


Nah. Not interested.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Then you shouldn't post that your opinion without home work.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Here is the Calulation of how many hours of MPEG-4 HD I can Record on my 2 TB HR23-700 which is 528 hours.

Subtract 100 Gb from the drive size (2000 Gb) for housekeeping space reserved by DirecTV.

HD MPEG-4 uses ~ 3.6 GB/hour (or 180 GB for 50 hours).

2000 Gb minus 100 Gb = 1900. 1900 Gb/3.6 Gb per hour = 528 hours of MPEG-4 HD Recording Capacity.

1 TB = 250 hours of MPEG-4 Recording Capacity.
2 TB = 528 hours of MPEG-4 Recording Capacity.



xzi said:


> I'm guessing the 2TB limit has nothing to do with disk size... it's using a 32-bit file system and they'd have to switch that up to do more than 2TB.


I guess you have No Clue about what you are talking about!

Listen to Mr P. Smith if you want to know the Truth.

If not just continue to GUESS!!! :lol:


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

For all practical purposes, if you want more than 2TB of storage at any given time, you need to do that via multiple DVRs, each with 2TB. Using whole-home you can then view any recording from any DVR. You can't get more than 2 TB on any individual DVR, as others have noted.

If you have multiple e-SATA drives, you could swap back and forth between them on a given DVR, but that is awkward at best. Also as noted, recordings can only be played back on the DVR they were originally recorded on (i.e., the disk drive can't be moved from DVR to DVR).


----------



## trstew (Feb 22, 2012)

davring said:


> Remember that your library, or collection, cannot be played on any other DVR if that one were to fail.


So the movies I've got on my external are encoded so that _only that particular receiver _and no other can play them? If my receiver was stolen, for instance, I'd have a 2Tb drive full of essentially useless data? Guess this also means I couldn't plug the drive into a PC or anything else and be able to access the data (or would a PC even read the drive, since it was automatically formatted by the HR24)? Does this have to do more with encoding or the file system (or both)? This would also explain why data on my internal drive can't be transferred, correct? 
Sorry for all the questions, but I'm still trying to get a grasp on the basics...


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

You have everything correct trstew. The exception being, you can copy the drive image to another drive using a computer and the right software, but would have to put it in the same DVR that recorded it for it to play.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

That's we all try to teach you. 

All your questions are self-answered.


----------



## trstew (Feb 22, 2012)

dpeters11 said:


> I don't think you have many options. RAID 0 would increase capacity, but if you lose one drive, you lose all data. I don't think there are any economical ways to get RAID5, plus the 2TB limit would still apply.
> 
> Swapping drives, you'd have to keep the Series links and such current on both drives.
> 
> Sounds like you've done a lot of recording in a few weeks. I thought a 2TB should be able to handle more than 400 hours of MPEG4 HD.


Yes, I'm basically recording 24/7, often 2 films at once. I got 118 movies off the internal 500 Gb drive, so I figured I'd probably get maybe 480 off the 2 Tb... I originally had grand plans for a huge movie collection, but if anything happens to my HR24, I guess I'm SOL! Also, if a HDD went bad, I'd lose 480 movies... Yikes - kinda risky to build a large collection this way, eh?


----------



## trstew (Feb 22, 2012)

Davenlr said:


> You have everything correct trstew. The exception being, you can copy the drive image to another drive using a computer and the right software, but would have to put it in the same DVR that recorded it for it to play.


I guess no amount of wizardry would enable one to play a drive on any other DVR - the movie studios are doing their best to sell DVDs, as seemingly this would be the only way to build a large collection (unless you had a timeless receiver that would never fail or become obsolete!)...


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

There's nothing we as end users could do to make them play on another dvr and any discussion of it would be against the board policies as dbstalk doesn't support breaking your agreement with the provider but you are ultimately right. Things are setup this way by directv to keep the content distributors happy.


----------



## mreg376 (Mar 6, 2012)

"evan_s" said:


> There's nothing we as end users could do to make them play on another dvr and any discussion of it would be against the board policies as dbstalk doesn't support breaking your agreement with the provider but you are ultimately right. Things are setup this way by directv to keep the content distributors happy.


Or if you could figure out exactly which component in a DVR identifies it to the hard drive...and then transplant it.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Sort of misconstrued ... other provider manage to use DRM for EHD and allow to SHARE these with all DVRs on your account (indirectly provide ability to move between DVRs using EHD)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

mreg376 said:


> Or if you could figure out exactly which component in a DVR identifies it to the hard drive...and then transplant it.


Perhaps you come to late to the aspect ... the factor mentioned so many times here ... well, just for you: ENCRYPTED.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

trstew said:


> I guess no amount of wizardry would enable one to play a drive on any other DVR - the movie studios are doing their best to sell DVDs, as seemingly this would be the only way to build a large collection (unless you had a timeless receiver that would never fail or become obsolete!)...


Well, you can always get a HD capture device, and instead of recording the movies to your DVR, you could record them to your computer, and then burn the file to a DVD. That is about the only current way of archiving movies from DirecTv without using their equipment and restrictions.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

mreg376 said:


> Or if you could figure out exactly which component in a DVR identifies it to the hard drive...and then transplant it.


There's nothing that identifies the hard drive. The content on the drive is encrypted using the access card and receiver ID.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"P Smith" said:


> Sort of misconstrued ... other provider manage to use DRM for EHD and allow to SHARE these with all DVRs on your account (indirectly provide ability to move between DVRs using EHD)


Though don't those customers have to move things off the internal drive to the external? I seem to remember things couldn't be recorded/played directly off the external.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Half memories  - you can play from EHD, but could only MOVE existing recordings from internal.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I don't think you have many options. RAID 0 would increase capacity, but if you lose one drive, you lose all data. I don't think there are any economical ways to get RAID5, plus the 2TB limit would still apply.
> 
> Swapping drives, you'd have to keep the Series links and such current on both drives.
> 
> Sounds like you've done a lot of recording in a few weeks. I thought a 2TB should be able to handle more than 400 hours of MPEG4 HD.


400-500+ hours depending on the content. The capacity seems to be content driven. That's one of the reasons I have for not wanting a 34. Five tuners are gonna fill up a 2TB external drive rather quickly.

Should take a lot longer to fill up the 24, but I try to keep my 10 2TB drives at about 50% of capacity and if I don't keep an eye on them they fill up rather quickly.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> You have everything correct trstew. The exception being, you can copy the drive image to another drive using a computer and the right software, *but would have to put it in the same DVR that recorded it for it to play.*


And there again is the great weakness of the HRs. We've been asking for any HR in an account to be able to read and play any HDD recorded by any HR in the same account for years and what do we get...Pandora?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trstew said:


> Yes, I'm basically recording 24/7, often 2 films at once. I got 118 movies off the internal 500 Gb drive, so I figured I'd probably get maybe 480 off the 2 Tb... I originally had grand plans for a huge movie collection, but if anything happens to my HR24, I guess I'm SOL! Also, if a HDD went bad, I'd lose 480 movies... Yikes - kinda risky to build a large collection this way, eh?


You simply can't trust the HRs in that respect altho they've become much more dependable. If you need to access a great number of movies, subscribe to NetFlix and just use the HRs for content you can afford to lose. Don't try to archive content unless you have a whole bunch of HRs that you can back up content on. I've got twelve active HRs and over 20TBs of recording capacity and I still subscribe to NF for the very reasons I stated above.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evan_s said:


> There's nothing we as end users could do to make them play on another dvr and any discussion of it would be against the board policies as dbstalk doesn't support breaking your agreement with the provider but you are ultimately right. Things are setup this way by directv to keep the content distributors happy.


I think you can access content the way we should be able to within our accounts with Dish, why not D*? We have pretty much the same content distributors as Dish does.

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Rich said:


> And there again is the great weakness of the HRs. We've been asking for any HR in an account to be able to read and play any HDD recorded by any HR in the same account for years and what do we get...Pandora?
> 
> Rich


I believe we also asked for MRV and HD GUI for years. Maybe even DLB (and was told it wasn't possible if I remember right.)


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I believe we also asked for MRV and HD GUI for years. Maybe even DLB (and was told it wasn't possible if I remember right.)


We asked for the ability to use HRs and HDDs within an account a long time before MRV or the HD GUI. The DLBs might have been asked for right off the bat because the TiVos had that option and the HRs didn't. Still haven't used the DLB option for anything.

There have been threads about the HRs within an account that have gone nowhere because not enough folks use external drives.

Rich


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Thinking out of a box ... Perhaps dish took a patent and DTV can't just implement it ?


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Then you shouldn't post that your opinion without home work.


MBR vs. GPT then


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Thinking out of a box ... Perhaps dish took a patent and DTV can't just implement it ?


I'm doubtful that you could patent something so simple.

DIRECTV does "it" with WHDS so that they're not doing it with their hard drives suggests that they've made a business decision that it isn't going to happen.

Why do it when they can get Rich to pay fees on a dozen Plus HD DVRs?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> I'm doubtful that you could patent something so simple.
> 
> DIRECTV does "it" with WHDS so that they're not doing it with their hard drives suggests that they've made a business decision that it isn't going to happen.
> 
> *Why do it when they can get Rich to pay fees on a dozen Plus HD DVRs?*


That's not a bad point to make, but I think my way of doing things is more of an anomaly than what D* is basing their reluctance to let us have the "within an account" option.

I need, at a minimum, eight HRs to hook up to the eight TVs we use. If they were to allow the "within an account" option would I give up four properly functioning HRs? I kinda doubt it. Just to save ~$20? Nah.

I'd feel a lot more secure tho, knowing I could just swap a large HDD if the HR failed and not lose that programming. And look at how devastated some folks are when their HRs crap out and they lose all their programming.

Rich


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

xzi said:


> MBR vs. GPT then


right, we did discuss it


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> I'm doubtful that you could patent something so simple.
> 
> DIRECTV does "it" with WHDS so that they're not doing it with their hard drives suggests that they've made a business decision that it isn't going to happen.
> 
> Why do it when they can get Rich to pay fees on a dozen Plus HD DVRs?


you forgot TiVo patent(s)

there is another point in technologies DTV vs dish: MRV - why dish doesn't have it ?


----------



## rsblaski (Jul 6, 2003)

evan_s said:


> There's nothing we as end users could do to make them play on another dvr and any discussion of it would be against the board policies as dbstalk doesn't support breaking your agreement with the provider but you are ultimately right. Things are setup this way by directv to keep the content distributors happy.


The ONLY advantage that Dish has is the ability to play recordings on external drives on any dvr registered to an account (and that external drives supplement the internal drives). I truly wish D* would do the same.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rsblaski said:


> The ONLY advantage that Dish has is the ability to play recordings on external drives on any dvr registered to an account (and that external drives supplement the internal drives). I truly wish D* would do the same.


We've tried. And failed. They gotta know what a problem this is and really ought to fix it.

Rich


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

It really depends on what you are looking for.

Dish's method is pretty much a manual archive solution. You record to the internal hd and manually move recordings to an external hd. If you run out of space on the internal hd your new recordings won't go to the external. They will either not record or auto delete things to make space. The advantage is you can use cheaper usb hds and it augments your internal hd space. It is also tied to the account so you can play back on any receiver on the account. If you are looking for longer term storage this obviously works well.

Directv's method is simply a replacement. This means there is nothing manual needed but you don't get the combined space and you need esata to match the internal hd. This is great for a busy receiver that records lots but the recordings don't necessarily stay around for to long.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evan_s said:


> It really depends on what you are looking for.
> 
> Dish's method is pretty much a manual archive solution. You record to the internal hd and manually move recordings to an external hd. If you run out of space on the internal hd your new recordings won't go to the external. They will either not record or auto delete things to make space. The advantage is you can use cheaper usb hds and it augments your internal hd space. It is also tied to the account so you can play back on any receiver on the account. If you are looking for longer term storage this obviously works well.


Sounds like a lot of work and you'd have to have some way of keeping track of what's on which HDD, no?



> Directv's method is simply a replacement. This means there is nothing manual needed but you don't get the combined space and you need esata to match the internal hd. This is great for a busy receiver that records lots but the recordings don't necessarily stay around for to long.


I guess the way I use D*'s DVRs is the only way to really ensure that I don't lose any recordings. Are there any added costs to using Dish's method?

Rich


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Rich said:


> Sounds like a lot of work and you'd have to have some way of keeping track of what's on which HDD, no?


If you have multiple drives you use for different recordings or you move your drives around you would have to keep track of them.



> I guess the way I use D*'s DVRs is the only way to really ensure that I don't lose any recordings. Are there any added costs to using Dish's method?
> 
> Rich


Last time I researched it there was a one time fee to activate the capability. I think it was 50$ but I'm not positive.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evan_s said:


> If you have multiple drives you use for different recordings or you move your drives around you would have to keep track of them.


Went thru that with VCRs before I discovered DVRs. Racks of tapes, logbooks in duplicate. Had over 500 blank tapes, don't ever want to go thru that nightmare again.



> Last time I researched it there was a one time fee to activate the capability. I think it was 50$ but I'm not positive.


That's not a bad price as long as all your DVRs are included.

Rich


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

evan_s said:


> ...
> Last time I researched it there was a one time fee to activate the capability. I think it was 50$ but I'm not positive.


You did that last time more then two years ago. And didn't bother to check before posting now 

*No fee. Free.* It will cost you the USB enclosure and a drive if you will use something like BlacX.

Before that it was one time $40 fee for an "activation" of EHD feature.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rich said:


> That's not a bad point to make, but I think my way of doing things is more of an anomaly than what D* is basing their reluctance to let us have the "within an account" option.


It wasn't the point I was trying to make though.

My point is that DIRECTV has the means to establish account-wide HD sharing but they choose not to. To suggest that it is due to some other hardware or software limitation is poppycock.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> It wasn't the point I was trying to make though.
> 
> My point is that DIRECTV has the means to establish account-wide HD sharing but they choose not to. To suggest that it is due to some other hardware or software limitation is poppycock.


Especially taking in account - HW wise (not the CAM) both companies using same chips (means DVR recordings encrypted by common chips).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Especially taking in account - HW wise (not the CAM) both companies using same chips (means DVR recordings encrypted by common chips).


The issue is decrypting, not encrypting. It is a critical distinction.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rich said:


> Are there any added costs to using Dish's method?


None over and above the cost of the hardware and human effort involved in moving programs.

It is pretty cool having small collection of hard drives that will work with most any DVR versus having multiple DVRs with their associated hard drives.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> The issue is decrypting, not encrypting. It is a critical distinction.


No issue at all.
Decryption as symmetrical function with using same DVR key and encrypted content.


----------



## trstew (Feb 22, 2012)

Rich said:


> 400-500+ hours depending on the content. The capacity seems to be content driven. That's one of the reasons I have for not wanting a 34. Five tuners are gonna fill up a 2TB external drive rather quickly.
> 
> Should take a lot longer to fill up the 24, but I try to keep my 10 2TB drives at about 50% of capacity and if I don't keep an eye on them they fill up rather quickly.
> 
> Rich


Speaking of capacity, if you're going to use an entire drive, is it advisable to leave a certain % unused? Also, as you have ten of 'em, would you advise any HDD manufacturers to stay away from - seems most people go with WD, but aren't there others that are well-suited for this type of application?


----------



## trstew (Feb 22, 2012)

RunnerFL said:


> There's nothing that identifies the hard drive. The content on the drive is encrypted using the access card and receiver ID.


Does Direct ever require you to change/update access cards (seems to me that Dish once told me my card was out of date - they were gonna send me a "new" card but never did). _If_ you had to change cards, would you still have access to your EHD stuff, i.e., would another card have the same key as the old one?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

trstew said:


> Does Direct ever require you to change/update access cards


If they identify that the current version cards are compromised, they release a new version after fixing the security hole. This hasnt happened in a LONG time.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trstew said:


> Speaking of capacity, if you're going to use an entire drive, is it advisable to leave a certain % unused? Also, as you have ten of 'em, would you advise any HDD manufacturers to stay away from - seems most people go with WD, but aren't there others that are well-suited for this type of application?


I try to keep mine about 50-60% full. I've got an HR24-500 that's got ~ 19% of capacity left. I'm just trying to see if the 24s suffer from the same problems the other HRs do when you fill them to 30% of capacity. But, I'm not even sure the other HRs still are susceptible to bogging down when the HDD reaches the 30-20% Available mark. Used to be, you got them that full and the HR would really slow down. That's why even a 1TB isn't enough for some of us. Doesn't matter the size of the HDD, just the percentage of capacity used matters (or used to).

That 24-500 shows no sign of bogging down BTW.

We've had so much good luck with the WD drives that it seems sensible to just keep on using them. Some members have installed Seagate 5400RPM HDDs in/on their HRs and they seem to be working well. Right now, I'd stick with the WDs.

Rich


----------



## trstew (Feb 22, 2012)

Not knowing anything (even less than now!) a few weeks ago, I used 98% of my HR24-200's (Samsung?) internal capacity. I can't say as I noticed any difference between then and when it was 50%, but then I wasn't looking for any kind of slowdown...


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

trstew said:


> Not knowing anything (even less than now!) a few weeks ago, I used 98% of my HR24-200's (Samsung?) internal capacity. I can't say as I noticed any difference between then and when it was 50%, but then I wasn't looking for any kind of slowdown...


The smaller(stock) drives dont seem to be affected as much as a larger drive. I suspect due to the size of the database/indexing etc, that would be much larger on larger drive. I didnt notice any slowdowns on a "fuller" drive until I went above a 1TB drive. I don't notice the slowdown near as much anymore, I suspect they have improved the efficiency of that code.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I have 2 of my 5 HR24-500s filled up to 80% and I can't see any Slowdown at all so I don't think it matters any more.

Rich and I used to experience this a couple of years ago on older Models but I haven't seen this at all on my HR24-500s or my 2 HR23-700s.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trstew said:


> Not knowing anything (even less than now!) a few weeks ago, I used 98% of my HR24-200's (Samsung?) internal capacity. I can't say as I noticed any difference between then and when it was 50%, but then I wasn't looking for any kind of slowdown...


As I said, I'm not sure if the 24s are subject to this "bogging down" effect when loading up the HDD. For all I know, none of the HRs do this anymore. Can't test that statement, don't have any HDDs other than my 500's that are over 50% full.

Rich


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Now you could buy 4 TB drive(s) - Fry's has Hitachi for $289. :eek2: SATA, 7200 RPM, 64MB buffer, 6 Gbps interface speed.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

P Smith said:


> Now you could buy 4 TB drive(s) - Fry's has Hitachi for $289. :eek2: SATA, 7200 RPM, 64MB buffer, 6 Gbps interface speed.


Well, it won't use any more than 2 TB as that is the Limitation that Directv has given us, am I correct?

I heard that is a Kernel Limitation but I remember you stated that it was something else, so could you expound on what how the Limitation is derived.

Also, I still have your External Drive Enclosure. I have just been busy and haven't gotten around to shipping it.

Will do it Soon!!! 

By the way, I paid over $300 for the First 2 TB WD20EADS Drive offered by Western Digital.

What was I thinking. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Richierich said:


> By the way, I paid over $300 for the First 2 TB WD20EADS Drive offered by Western Digital.
> 
> What was I thinking. :lol:


Well it sure wasn't an early bird special...that's for sure... 

Just saw similar name-brand drives for , $120 at Fry's last week. :eek2:

The early bird gets the worm, while the patient bird gets the Caviar (yes, that's a pun). 

2TB is a ton of storage for sure. When it's multiplied in multiple HD DVRs, we call that a TV station library. :lol:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The early bird gets the worm, while the patient bird gets the Caviar (yes, that's a pun).
> 
> 2TB is a ton of storage for sure. When it's multiplied in multiple HD DVRs, we call that a TV station library. :lol:


Well, that was back in April 2010 and I wanted it bad because I didn't want to get my brand new HR24-500 and Activate it and put Recordings on it and then install the 2 TB WD20EADS Drive and then lose those Recordings so I Bit the Bullet and paid a lot but I am glad I did.

All 5 of my HR24-500s work Flawlessly and Fast and maybe one of the reasons is that my Drives are Fast and have a Larger Cache to reduce the need for Paging which could be causing these other issues with those posters who Report Sluggishness as the CPU waits for data to act upon.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

2Tb is a standard Linux limitation, see http://www.webhostingskills.com/articles/how_to_create_a_partition_size_larger_than_2tb_linux You can create a partition size >2Tb with Linux using non-standard tools but I doubt that DirecTV would do that in a production system, see also http://www.unixgods.org/~tilo/linux_larger_2TB.html and many others.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

So is it a Standard Kernel Limitation or another Limitation as I don't want to state it inaccurately but I am not a Linux Guru by any means. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Richierich said:


> All 5 of my HR24-500s work Flawlessly and Fast and maybe one of the reasons is that my Drives are Fast and have a Larger Cache to reduce the need for Paging which could be causing these other issues with those posters who Report Sluggishness as the CPU waits for data to act upon.


The large drive size storage, 7200RPM availability, and larger Cache buffer are indeed all nice things.


texasbrit said:


> 2Tb is a standard Linux limitation, see http://www.webhostingskills.com/articles/how_to_create_a_partition_size_larger_than_2tb_linux You can create a partition size >2Tb with Linux using non-standard tools but I doubt that DirecTV would do that in a production system, see also http://www.unixgods.org/~tilo/linux_larger_2TB.html and many others.





Richierich said:


> So is it a Standard Kernel Limitation or another Limitation as I don't want to state it inaccurately but I am not a Linux Guru by any means. :lol:


In the simplist form...the DirecTV firmware uses the base Linux platform framework, which includes a 2TB maximum storage ceiling.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Richierich said:


> Well, it won't use any more than 2 TB as that is the Limitation that Directv has given us, am I correct?


I'm doubtful that you could even short stroke a 4TB drive to make it work.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In the simplist form...the DirecTV firmware uses the base Linux platform framework, which includes a 2TB maximum storage ceiling.


The "Linux platform framework" literally has no such limitations. Some filesystems implemented in Linux have volume limits in the Exabytes range (10^18). Windows is probably the only popular platform that implements only a few filesystems natively (FATs, NTFSes and a handful of optical disc filesystems).

DIRECTV chose to use the ext3 filesystem and that's where the limitation comes from.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> The "Linux platform framework" literally has no such limitations. Some filesystems implemented in Linux have volume limits in the Exabytes range (10^18). Windows is probably the only popular platform that implements only a few filesystems natively (FATs, NTFSes and a handful of optical disc filesystems).
> 
> DIRECTV chose to use the ext3 filesystem and that's where the limitation comes from.


Sorry...I only take information from DirecTV customers on this topic.

Many could directly counter your point based on a clear understanding of what words were specifically selected in the previous post, but it would be a waste of time to do so. Fact is there is one primary Linus framework used and subsets, and you, of course, chose a subset....just to have a reason to debate. Hook not swallowed.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sorry...I only take information from DirecTV customers on this topic.
> 
> Many could directly counter your point based on a clear understanding of what words were specifically selected in the previous post, but it would be a waste of time to do so. Fact is there is one primary Linus framework used and subsets, and you, of course, chose a subset....just to have a reason to debate. Hook not swallowed.


I cannot confirm nor deny that they used ext3 but if they in fact went with ext3, and a 1k block size, then <gulp> Harsh is right. There is a 2TB limitation with ext3 when using a 1k block size. If however they went with ext3 and used say a 2k block size then the limit would be 8TB.

And by the way ext3 is not a "subset" of Linux. It is a filesystem, one of many, used within Linux.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> The "Linux platform framework" literally has no such limitations. Some filesystems implemented in Linux have volume limits in the Exabytes range (10^18). Windows is probably the only popular platform that implements only a few filesystems natively (FATs, NTFSes and a handful of optical disc filesystems).
> 
> DIRECTV chose to use the ext3 filesystem and that's where the limitation comes from.


If you're gonna get nit-picky you should be a bit more factual. :grin:

While DIRECTV does use ext3 the limiting factor is 1k block size. Larger block sizes can yield larger partition sizes; up to a 32TB partition with a max file size of 2TB. 

I don't have a clue why DIRECTV uses ext3 with a 2TB limit but none the less it's currently a hard a fast limit.

Mike


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> While DIRECTV does use ext3 the limiting factor is 1k block size.


And there's our confirmation. Thanks Mike!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> And by the way ext3 is not a "subset" of Linux. It is a filesystem, one of many, used within Linux.


Thanks for the clarification. Subset was probably the wrong term on my part...variation was probably the right word. Much like formatting hard disks in general on various platforms, there are corresponding choices in block sizes.

In any case...the nit-picking would seem to be clarified now, and confirmation of 2TB limit confirmed.

Cool Beans.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Richierich said:


> Well, it won't use any more than 2 TB as that is the Limitation that Directv has given us, am I correct?
> 
> I heard that is a Kernel Limitation but I remember you stated that it was something else, so could you expound on what how the Limitation is derived.
> ...


It is a limitation of IMPLEMENTATION. 
Current version of Linux inside these DVRs is perfectly working with drives bigger then 2 TB. It would require use a couple other programs (already existing in the Linux) for support it: format, integrity check. 
All of them utilize GPT style of partitioning.
No need to rewrite code, just need change a few scripts; file system support [EXT3+XFS] still the same, so all programs and the kernel will require no time/resources to adapt GPT and support drives bigger then 2 TB.

Implementing GPT does not require reformatting nor change block size.


----------



## rsblaski (Jul 6, 2003)

Rich said:


> And there again is the great weakness of the HRs. We've been asking for any HR in an account to be able to read and play any HDD recorded by any HR in the same account for years and what do we get...Pandora?
> 
> Rich


Right. Something I'll never use instead of something I would always use.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

P Smith said:


> It is a limitation of IMPLEMENTATION.


Certainly true.

Then again...that can easily be cured by adding another HD DVR and doubling the storage. Once has to wonder just how many people are actually "restricted" with having "only" 2TB of storage.

It's likely a case of engineering to the user exceptions as opposed to the mainstream population.

2TB is alot of storage, unless a person wants to start a personal TV station-size video library/archive (Right Richie?) 

So to answer the original OP question...the answer is *get more than one HD DVR*, at least until DirecTV decides there's a viable business reason to change the drive configuration.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

I don't see them changing from ext3, with 1k blocks, ever on the HR series that are out now. Can you just imagine the outcry of customers who's drives get reformatted?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Certainly true.
> 
> Then again...that can easily be cured by adding another HD DVR and doubling the storage. Once has to wonder just how many people are actually "restricted" with having "only" 2TB of storage.
> 
> ...


I find I need two DVRs to get around the recording conflicts caused by those 1-2 minute overlaps...I hate that.

However, you have a point. But, I do have a 2TB drive in my HR21. It's nice to not have to worry about how much free space there is. 

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mike Bertelson said:


> I find I need two DVRs to get around the recording conflicts caused by those 1-2 minute overlaps...I hate that.
> 
> However, you have a point. *But, I do have a 2TB drive in my HR21*. It's nice to not have to worry about how much free space there is.
> 
> Mike


Amateur. :lol:

You're right...that's alot.

We sometimes have to remind ourselves that those of us (me too) who have 2TB or more of storage probably make up <1% of the user population. We're spoiled to some degree.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Amateur. :lol:
> 
> You're right...that's alot.
> 
> We sometimes have to remind ourselves that those of us (me too) who have 2TB or more of storage probably make up <1% of the user population. We're spoiled to some degree.


No doubt. When it comes to my DVRs, I'm am spoiled. 

You're right though. The number of subs with more than the stock hard drive space has got to be pretty small. I'll bet it's more like a tenth of a percent.

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mike Bertelson said:


> No doubt. When it comes to my DVRs, I'm am spoiled.
> 
> You're right though. *The number of subs with more than the stock hard drive space has got to be pretty small*. I'll bet it's more like a tenth of a percent.
> 
> Mike


Then there's those 3-4 folks for which 10TB is simply not enough - and they know who they are. :lol:


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

P Smith said:


> It is a limitation of IMPLEMENTATION.
> Current version of Linux inside these DVRs is perfectly working with drives bigger then 2 TB. It would require use a couple other programs (already existing in the Linux) for support it: format, integrity check.
> All of them utilize GPT style of partitioning.
> No need to rewrite code, just need change a few scripts; file system support [EXT3+XFS] still the same, so all programs and the kernel will require no time/resources to adapt GPT and support drives bigger then 2 TB.
> ...


You're right. It's a MBR vs. GPT thing. Computer-savvy people should be able to get it to work. There's no way D* would upgrade already fielded units, though. You can convert from MBR to GPT without data loss using gdisk. You'd need a third-party tool to change the block size if you wanted to keep your data. Or, you could just use gdisk to format a blank hard disk with larger blocks. You could do all of this preparation in your PC, then put the hard disk in and see if it works or not.

You'd think the HR34 would have been implemented differently to support > 2 TB partitions, though. It already has it's own code/script base and came out after 3 and 4 TB drives have been on the market.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> You can convert from MBR to GPT without data loss using gdisk. You'd need a third-party tool to change the block size if you wanted to keep your data. Or, you could just use gdisk to format a blank hard disk with larger blocks. You could do all of this preparation in your PC, then put the hard disk in and see if it works or not.


And if you do all this you'll find the HR will reformat the disk anyways to meet its specifications.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> And if you do all this you'll find the HR will reformat the disk anyways to meet its specifications.


Yup....every time.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Richierich said:


> I have 2 of my 5 HR24-500s filled up to 80% and I can't see any Slowdown at all so I don't think it matters any more.
> 
> Rich and I used to experience this a couple of years ago on older Models but I haven't seen this at all on my HR24-500s or my 2 HR23-700s.


I contend that it never mattered. Mine are all HR20's. None have ever experienced a slowdown due to the drive being full, and the drives have been full often, including since 2007. I have, in the past, often let the drive fill up and never deleted a thing, allowing the "Until Drive is Full" algorithm to handle it. I have one at 7% currently, and it is just as fast as ever.

Since there is no technical reason why data on a HDD that is not being accessed at the moment would have any affect on the data that is being accessed at the moment, *I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and say that the idea of a HDD or DVR slowing down just because the HDD is full, is probably nothing more than superstition. *You may have cause and effect, but they are not related, they are simply coincidental. Its a jump to an unproven conclusion. Human nature at work. For me to lend any credibility to the theory, I would have to have the actual mechanism of such a phantom slowdown explained to me. Go for it. I'm always eager to learn something new.

PCs? Well, that's different. PCs fragment files, DVRs don't. More indexing? Doubtful; that is based on what is in the guide, not what is on the HDD. Larger DB? I don't think so, because even the catalog DB of a 2 TB drive is pretty small and quickly read. My Macs have some 100,000 files and lord knows how many extents B-tree file fragments on the HDD, and that is not slowing things down, from all appearances. The 1000 or so files you might be able to shoehorn into a DVR's 2 TB drive would hardly make a dent, DB-wise.

If your DVR is slow, point to the usual suspects, and a full HDD isn't one of them. DVRs with empty HDDs also have no or few SLs scheduled. There is one thing that can make a DVR with an empty HDD seem faster, but it is not because the HDD is empty, it is simply coincidental with the fact that there are also no or few SLs on it.

SLs can slow down DVRs because any new recording request has to be vetted against all of the other ones that have standing reservations, serially, one at a time. Delete all of your SLs and leave your HDD full, and your DVR will be peppier the next time you schedule a recording (all else held equal), especially a repeating recording. There is a method to the madness of limiting the SLs to 50, in that it prevents a slower UI, which gets exponentially slower with the number of SLs.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

FYI the D* file system is XFS in real-time mode. It's not going to suffer from degradation when it gets near full.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TomCat said:


> I contend that it never mattered. Mine are all HR20's. None have ever experienced a slowdown due to the drive being full, and the drives have been full often, including since 2007. I have, in the past, often let the drive fill up and never deleted a thing, allowing the "Until Drive is Full" algorithm to handle it. I have one at 7% currently, and it is just as fast as ever.


Sigh... Once again, I tried every size HDD available at the time using 20-700s and various enclosures and every HR did the same thing when they got to ~ 30 to 20% Available on the Playlist meter. They bogged down. Whether you want to believe that is up to you, but it happened every time, didn't matter what enclosure or which HDD or what size the HDD was. Haven't got a clue if D* fixed this issue or not and I'm not gonna go thru all that testing again.



> Since there is no technical reason why data on a HDD that is not being accessed at the moment would have any affect on the data that is being accessed at the moment, *I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and say that the idea of a HDD or DVR slowing down just because the HDD is full, is probably nothing more than superstition.*


*

Nothing more than superstition? Really, Tom?




You may have cause and effect, but they are not related, they are simply coincidental. Its a jump to an unproven conclusion. Human nature at work. For me to lend any credibility to the theory, I would have to have the actual mechanism of such a phantom slowdown explained to me. Go for it. I'm always eager to learn something new.

Click to expand...

An unproven conclusion? Really, Tom?




If your DVR is slow, point to the usual suspects, and a full HDD isn't one of them. DVRs with empty HDDs also have no or few SLs scheduled. There is one thing that can make a DVR with an empty HDD seem faster, but it is not because the HDD is empty, it is simply coincidental with the fact that there are also no or few SLs on it.

SLs can slow down DVRs because any new recording request has to be vetted against all of the other ones that have standing reservations, serially, one at a time. Delete all of your SLs and leave your HDD full, and your DVR will be peppier the next time you schedule a recording (all else held equal), especially a repeating recording. There is a method to the madness of limiting the SLs to 50, in that it prevents a slower UI, which gets exponentially slower with the number of SLs.

Click to expand...

Once again, I have several HRs with 50 or close to 50 SLs on them and none of my HRs are what you vaguely refer to as "slow".

Rich*


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Rich said:


> Sigh... Once again, I tried every size HDD available at the time using 20-700s and various enclosures and every HR did the same thing when they got to ~ 30 to 20% Available on the Playlist meter. They bogged down.
> Rich


I Agree as mine Slowed Down as well and when I Deleted Recordings it Speeded Up but I think Directv changed the way the Database was Structured a while back and that no longer applies as far as my DVRs are concerned.

I was at 8% on one of my HR24-500s and it didn't Slow Down like it did long time ago so I believe Directv corrected the situation thru programming or Database Restructuring.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

unixguru said:


> FYI the D* file system is XFS in real-time mode. It's not going to suffer from degradation when it gets near full.


Now that I have a bit more time...

The 2TB limitation has nothing to do with XFS. It's the layers below XFS. As others have stated - partition table types, etc.

ext3 is the most common Linux file system in use - it is not used in D*. XFS was created by SGI (Silicon Graphics) a long time ago; very high-end robust journaled file system. Real-time mode means data blocks are stored in a separate area (slice/partition) of the disk from metadata. All one needs to do to confirm this is look at the instructions for copying D* drives - it's all XFS. I've done a copy so I can confirm it.

What I meant in the quoted post is that the file system itself is as optimized as you're going to get - *it* is not directly responsible for any degradation due to fullness.

There may be degradation depending on the data and usage pattern. It's not because the file system isn't laying out the data efficiently. Think about what a DVR is doing. Writing 2 and reading 1 HD stream simultaneously. The 2 write streams are going to be physical near each other on the drive; the read stream can be coming from anywhere on the drive. If the writes are near the outer edge and the read is near the inner edge then there are going to be many long (head) seeks from one place to the other. Seeks are the WORST physical delay in a drive. It doesn't matter if it's a 1GB drive or a 4TB drive - full sweep seeks are SLOW. Memory is obviously limited in a DVR so there isn't much buffering. Exhaust a read buffer while waiting for a long seek and you get a pause/stutter. So how can an HR34 handle more streams... more buffers/memory!

Now throw in an occasional recoverable disk error. Buffering is already very slim. "DVR/PVR/AV" drives have firmware with more limited recovery (i.e. spend less time trying to recover).

More memory is an obvious solution. They design these mass-market price-sensitive things to work correctly most the time at the lowest cost. Memory isn't the only thing constrained - CPU speed, disk size, etc. They don't put a pair of drives with RAID1 in because the reliability isn't worth the manufacturing and energy cost to most customers.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Very educational post #85.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Just small addition to the _"*ext3* is the most common Linux file system in use - i*t is not used* in D*"_
Per se, as file system - yes, DVR's data organized by SGI XFS layout. But as partitioning scheme it does.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Richierich said:


> I Agree as mine Slowed Down as well and when I Deleted Recordings it Speeded Up but I think Directv changed the way the Database was Structured a while back and that no longer applies as far as my DVRs are concerned.
> 
> I was at 8% on one of my HR24-500s and it didn't Slow Down like it did long time ago so I believe Directv corrected the situation thru programming or Database Restructuring.


Seems as if they did fix the issue. Since the eSATA function is not "supported", we were not informed. I'm running one 24-500 with a 2TB internal (have no idea which HDDs are in my HRs, completely lost track, but they are all WDs) with ~ 16% Available and 50 SLs and, aside from the GUI issues (still haven't got the new update), it runs fine. I'll check a few of my 20-700s and see what capacity they're at. Later (you know what that means).

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

unixguru said:


> More memory is an obvious solution. They design these mass-market price-sensitive things to work correctly most the time at the lowest cost. Memory isn't the only thing constrained - CPU speed, disk size, etc. They don't put a pair of drives with RAID1 in because the reliability isn't worth the manufacturing and energy cost to most customers.


So did that fact that I Replaced my Internal Hard Drive with a Faster Hard Drive with More Cache and I did it with an HR24-500 which has a Faster CPU and More RAM equate to me having No Problems of Sluggishness???


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Richierich said:


> So did that fact that I Replaced my Internal Hard Drive with a Faster Hard Drive with More Cache and I did it with an HR24-500 which has a Faster CPU and More RAM equate to me having No Problems of Sluggishness???


Everything is relative 

Faster spin will take less time to read/write a given amount. But that time is almost nothing compared to seek time. Seek time doesn't change with spin speed.

More drive cache helps as it reduces the number of seeks needed - instead of "going back" for the next chunk of read data it is already in cache. (Combined with the drive pre-reading entire track.)

Faster CPU doesn't help seeks.

More memory will only help if the software allocates more to stream buffers - which it probably doesn't.


----------



## Sunner73 (Feb 29, 2012)

I am trying to determine how to get the extra storage of 2TB for saved HD recordings that I can keep indefinitely, ie, past the life of the HRxx itself. Maybe by using an external hard drive or by swapping and/or copying the existing recordings onto a new hard drive if I were to "own" the DVR. 

Any solutions?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Sunner73 said:


> I am trying to determine how to get the extra storage of 2TB for saved HD recordings that I can keep indefinitely, ie, past the life of the HRxx itself. Maybe by using an external hard drive or by swapping and/or copying the existing recordings onto a new hard drive if I were to "own" the DVR.
> 
> Any solutions?


Recording are tied the Receiver ID (RID) that it was recorded on. If you remove/disconnect the drive those recordings are not usable any more.

Mike


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Sunner73 said:


> I am trying to determine how to get the extra storage of 2TB for saved HD recordings that I can keep indefinitely, ie, past the life of the HRxx itself. Maybe by using an external hard drive or by swapping and/or copying the existing recordings onto a new hard drive if I were to "own" the DVR.
> 
> Any solutions?


Only PC based capture device like Hauppauge or BlackMagic's cards. And standalone DVD/BR recorders.


----------



## Sunner73 (Feb 29, 2012)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Recording are tied the Receiver ID (RID) that it was recorded on. If you remove/disconnect the drive those recordings are not usable any more.
> 
> Mike


 So...... there is no way to "re-marry" the Hard Drive(s) to another receiver? You would think that somebody would have done that already.

Please note that I'm only referring to "a" process for achieving extra storage for archiving purposes on a "owned" receiver only, as I'm sure it would be a violation of T.O.S. if it was leased.

.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Sunner73 said:


> So...... there is no way to "re-marry" the Hard Drive(s) to another receiver? You would think that somebody would have done that already.


There is no way to "re-marry" a hard drive to a different DVR. If the RID doesn't match the recordings won't play.



> Please note that I'm only referring to "a" process for achieving extra storage for archiving purposes on a "owned" receiver only, as I'm sure it would be a violation of T.O.S. if it was leased.
> 
> .


I understood you were referring to owned DVRs. 

Mike


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

No, there isn't. And as an FYI there is a legitimate way of increasing the space on a leased box, an external drive.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Perhaps some day will come where the eSata is married to the accounts instead of the RID. That would address the ages-old issue of being able to archive content...rather than lose it all when there's ahard drive failure. It would also reduce the storage requirements in some cases where things are duplicated on multiple devices simply to have a backup copy for the same hard-drive-failure reason.

I'm still thinking we'll see it sooner than later. :shrug:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'm still thinking we'll see it sooner than later. :shrug:


DIRECTV seems pretty resolute with respect to the current setup. I see little reason to think otherwise.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> DIRECTV seems pretty resolute with respect to the current setup. *I see little reason to think otherwise*.


Some DirecTV customers (and those who follow the details) might just know a bit more...plenty of things have changed in the past and will continue to evolve in the future.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Some DirecTV customers (and those who follow the details) might just know a bit more...plenty of things have changed in the past and will continue to evolve in the future.


While "plenty of things have changed in the past" , the request for account archiving feature stay for years as sore thumb and there is no hope it will change.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

P Smith said:


> While "plenty of things have changed in the past" , the request for account archiving feature stay for years as sore thumb and there is no hope it will change.


I have reason to believe your assessment is incorrect.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I have reason to believe your assessment is incorrect.


Nothing personal but you also had "reason to believe" that MediaShare would be revamped and that never happened.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

In fairness I thought it would be too.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I have reason to believe your assessment is incorrect.


We've been fighting this battle for years and D* shows little interest in changing the way the HRs are setup.  At this point, I don't care, I'm afraid of what a change like that would bring with it.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> Nothing personal but you also had "reason to believe" that MediaShare would be revamped and that never happened.


That was indeed the plan for some time. The challenge is when the time to implement something exceeds the window of opportunity for its "critical" need and compared with "more important priorities". Anyone familiar with roadmaps (I manage one in another industry) knows that beyond 3-6 months down the road, roadmap content items and corresponding priorities change.

Roadmap plans like this are laid out all the time. While in most cases these things do get done, not everything gets implemented when it comes up for "next in line" deployment. This is just one example.


Rich said:


> We've been fighting this battle for years and D* shows little interest in changing the way the HRs are setup. At this point, I don't care, I'm afraid of what a change like that would bring with it.


Having launched polls on this very topic twice in the past 30 months, and seeing an overwhelming desire for some kind of either household recording storage or general archiving (either one to avoid loss of "prized recordings"), I have been a strong advocate for the important need to address this.

With the launch of the HR34 device, and the increased risk of having one central storage location (as opposed to multiple HD DVRs for example), this is both a continued and timely topic to this day.

Something needs to be done to allow end users to have a means to avoid recording loss from a hard drive failure. The technology exists to support it, including the required ability to assure copyright protection for content.

All that said, recent DirecTV presentations to the financial community have "hinted" that this is now on their roadmap. For that reason, as well as the HR34 added recording loss risk exposure, I suspect we may actually see some form of solution sooner than later.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

The Folks at Morega have told me that they can easily use Nomad for Archiving Purposes if Senior Management at Directv chooses to do so as they have Access to the Customer's Account Number via the Authentication Server so they could just Substitute the Account Number for the RID # and the Directv Software Logic could be altered to look for the Account Number rather than the RID # for verification of DHCP Authority to View those Recordings.

They can also Store the Archived Recordings on a USB External Hard Drive which can then be Transferred back to the Original DVR after it's Internal Hard Drive that Failed has been Replaced by a New Drive.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> *Something needs to be done to allow end users to have a means to avoid recording loss from a hard drive failure.* The technology exists to support it, including the required ability to assure copyright protection for content.
> 
> All that said, recent DirecTV presentations to the financial community have "hinted" that this is now on their roadmap. For that reason, as well as the HR34 added recording loss risk exposure, I suspect we may actually see some form of solution sooner than later.


Currently none of the providers offer protection against HDD failure, and realistically thats not what most are asking for. We want the ability to be able to view our prized recordings on another dvr on our acct if the dvr dies.....


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

CCarncross said:


> Currently none of the providers offer protection against HDD failure, and realistically thats not what most are asking for. We want the ability to be able to view our prized recordings on another dvr on our acct if the dvr dies.....


Those two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> Currently none of the providers offer protection against HDD failure, and realistically thats not what most are asking for. We want the ability to be able to view our prized recordings on another dvr on our acct if the dvr dies.....


True protection? Not at the moment. But it's easy enough to set up an extra DVR to mirror a main DVR. Using multiple DVRs to "backup" important recordings can provide a little piece of mind. At least until the "cloud" storage is ready ...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

David Ortiz said:


> But it's easy enough to set up an extra DVR to mirror a main DVR. Using multiple DVRs to "backup" important recordings can provide a little piece of mind. At least until the "cloud" storage is ready ...


I have 3 DVRs whose Sole Purpose in Life is to Backup my 4 other DVRs.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

CCarncross said:


> We want the ability to be able to view our prized recordings on another dvr on our acct if the dvr dies.....


That would require Directv to Store all of your Recordings on a Server and that ain't gonna happen as it would be Too Expensive.

They would have to Store Virtually Every Recording Possible and that would be Ludicrous.

However, Directv can give us the Ability to Archive via Nomad onto a 2, 3 or 4 TB USB External Drive and with a little software coding change you could even move them from one DVR to another DVR which a lot of people have asked for.

If your Hard Drive Fails you simply Replace it and then tell Nomad which Recordings you want to Restore from Nomad's USB External Drive to that DVR.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Richierich said:


> That would require that Directv Store all of your Recordings on a Server and that ain't gonna happen as it would be Too Expensive.


Store recordings once or 20 million times. Hmmm.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

David Ortiz said:


> Store recordings once or 20 million times. Hmmm.




I suspect what increases the visibility on this issue is the recent release of the HR34 - where one HDD is there, and 1 HDD failure renders things dead in the water for a recording inventory.

It would to make sense (and more importantly satisfy any copy protection requirements) to simply have an eSata on one (or more HD DVR units be assigned based on the household account (and corresponding devices), as opposed to a specific access card.

We'll see what happens down the road.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Archiving is something that every content provider is against due to the very nature of their business. If you can save something permanently on a HD why would you buy their box sets? Why would you buy the movies.

Could a company store a single copy of everything out there and then allow people to access it? Sure it's called On Demand not archives.

I can understand wanting to swap HD's if you're replacing a unit for whatever reason and that may eventually be something that becomes an option (my comment only) but having the ability to access anything that you have had recorded will not be an option unless the business models change significantly and there is no reason to do so from a business standpoint.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Shades228 said:


> Archiving is *something that every content provider is against due to the very nature of their business*. If you can save something permanently on a HD why would you buy their box sets? Why would you buy the movies.


So what would having a storage time limit (before you have to re-archive) do to that theory?

I've heard a contrary view that once you've paid for programming on your HDTV, you shouldn't have to pay for it again either (such as buying a Blu Ray of the exact same thing). It appears there are multiple positions on this topic.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Archiving is something that every content provider is against due to the very nature of their business. If you can save something permanently on a HD why would you buy their box sets? Why would you buy the movies.


I do archive everything I want to archive, and I dont buy box sets or movies. I dont believe in paying for the same thing twice.

Dish allows archiving, Comcast (using a Tivo DVR) allows archiving...What is DirecTv's problem?


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Archiving is something that every content provider is against due to the very nature of their business. If you can save something permanently on a HD why would you buy their box sets? Why would you buy the movies.
> 
> Could a company store a single copy of everything out there and then allow people to access it? Sure it's called On Demand not archives.
> 
> I can understand wanting to swap HD's if you're replacing a unit for whatever reason and that may eventually be something that becomes an option (my comment only) but having the ability to access anything that you have had recorded will not be an option unless the business models change significantly and there is no reason to do so from a business standpoint.


I am watching recordings from August 2011. Multiple shows that I have seasons worth of time invested in. If I want to keep something indefinitely, I'll buy the Blu-ray. But I would hate to have a DVR or HDD failure that would cause me to lose my recordings, some of which do not get released in HD.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> Archiving is something that every content provider is against due to the very nature of their business. If you can save something permanently on a HD why would you buy their box sets? Why would you buy the movies.


We're talking about Archiving all kinds of Recordings not just Movies or Series and such.

I might want to Store a Golf Event or a Significant Historical Newscast or whatever and you can't ask Directv to Record every single thing every day and Store it on a Server.

It would take too much storage space.

So give us the Ability to buy a Large USB External Drive and hook it up to Nomad and them use Nomad to Offload Selected Recordings to the USB Drive for Archival Purposes as we have already paid for the right to View these Recordings.

Now let us move them to whatever DVR we want or to Restore to a DVR after the Internal Drive that dies has been Replaced.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

David Ortiz said:


> But I would hate to have a DVR or HDD failure that would cause me to lose my recordings, some of which do not get released in HD.


EXACTLY!!! 

I have lost 2 Hard Drives and it was Very Painful!!! :nono2:


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So what would having a storage time limit (before you have to re-archive) do to that theory?
> 
> I've heard a contrary view that once you've paid for programming on your HDTV, you shouldn't have to pay for it again either (such as buying a Blu Ray of the exact same thing). It appears there are multiple positions on this topic.


Storage limit increase itself wouldn't be difficult but until DIRECTV starts putting 2TB drives in machines there isn't a reason to do so. Your average consumer has more than enough room to use a DVR as intended.



Davenlr said:


> I do archive everything I want to archive, and I dont buy box sets or movies. I dont believe in paying for the same thing twice.
> 
> Dish allows archiving, Comcast (using a Tivo DVR) allows archiving...What is DirecTv's problem?


Dish allows you to move a HD to another DVR. They do not advertise that you can use a HD to backup all of your programs and keep them forever. It can be done if people are so inclined but it's not the most graceful way of doing something. You could torrent it if you want to so just because something can be done doesn't mean it was intended to be done.

TiVo doesn't care about the content providers needs because they don't have to answer to them. Maybe that's one of the reasons that TiVo is where it is today.

With that said it won't matter to most what the reasons are because they just want what they want. I can understand that but don't expect it to happen. The costs would be astronomical for companies to deal with and they would rather have an on demand service they control. So the best focus would be getting companies to get setup like HBO To GO is and so forth.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Richierich said:


> EXACTLY!!!
> 
> I have lost 2 Hard Drives and it was Very Painful!!! :nono2:


Buy better drives.

!rolling

[You must have known that was coming.... ]

But you, David, and I are pretty much on the same page that there is certainly a viable desire for the ability to store content for extended periods of time.


----------



## dod1450 (Dec 16, 2009)

Is there a way on configuring for Raid 6? I use Raid 6 for Petabyte disk storage



dpeters11 said:


> I don't think you have many options. RAID 0 would increase capacity, but if you lose one drive, you lose all data. I don't think there are any economical ways to get RAID5, plus the 2TB limit would still apply.
> 
> Swapping drives, you'd have to keep the Series links and such current on both drives.
> 
> Sounds like you've done a lot of recording in a few weeks. I thought a 2TB should be able to handle more than 400 hours of MPEG4 HD.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Buy better drives.
> 
> !rolling
> 
> [You must have known that was coming.... ]


They were Stock TiVo Drives in 2 HR10-250s that Eventually Died!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Richierich said:


> There were Stock *TiVo* Drives in 2 HR10-250s that Eventually Died!!!


:lol: Well that explains it...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That was indeed the plan for some time.


Uh huh... I just think your "source", that you're more than happy to tout that you know, was blowing smoke you know where...



hdtvfan0001 said:


> All that said, recent DirecTV presentations to the financial community have "hinted" that this is now on their roadmap. For that reason, as well as the HR34 added recording loss risk exposure, I suspect we may actually see some form of solution sooner than later.


Numerous things have been "hinted" at over the years in various presentations and have still never come to fruition.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Archiving is something that every content provider is against due to the very nature of their business. If you can save something permanently on a HD why would you buy their box sets? Why would you buy the movies.


Exactly... Content providers wouldn't allow "permanent storage" of their content.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> But you, David, and I are pretty much on the same page that there is certainly a viable desire for the ability to store content for extended periods of time.


But a desire doesn't mean you'll get what you want.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dod1450 said:


> Is there a way on configuring for Raid 6? I use Raid 6 for Petabyte disk storage


Using RAID 6 would be like trying to swat a fly with a tank. RAID 1 is all you need.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> Exactly... Content providers wouldn't allow "permanent storage" of their content.


Well, Archiving Recordings is No More a Means of "Permanent Storage" than Storing those Recordings on a DVR, you are just Storing a Copy of your Original Recording on a Backup Storage Device such as a USB External Drive off of a Nomad Device Not for Viewing Purposes but for the Purpose of Archiving.

With Nomad right now you are Storing another version of your Original Recording on Nomad prior to Nomad Offloading a Transcoded Version to your Mobile Device.

Also, you have already paid for the right to Store and View those Recordings on your DVR so why not be able to Archive them for your Own Purposes.

With Nomad you are already Storing those Recordings on Nomad and also your Mobile Device so I don't see a Content Protection Issue.

It is not like I am letting someone else View these Recordings on their Device.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

RunnerFL said:


> Exactly... Content providers wouldn't allow "permanent storage" of their content.


Utterly bee s ! :down:

Then wouldn't be CD, DVD and Blu Ray disks, not telling about VHS cassettes.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Utterly bee s ! :down:
> 
> Then wouldn't be CD, DVD and Blu Ray disks, not telling about VHS cassettes.


There's a difference between a blu-ray that the content providers make and distribute and you holding on to a recording forever.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> There's a difference between a blu-ray that the content providers make and distribute and you holding on to a recording forever.


What is the Difference between me Storing a Recording on my DVR for Viewing versus Storing that same Recording on a Backup External Drive for Purposes of Archiving???

I have already paid for the Right to View and Contain that Source Material on my DVR so what is the Big Deal of making a Copy that only I can use???


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Richierich said:


> What is the Difference between me Storing a Recording on my DVR for Viewing versus Storing that same Recording on a Backup External Drive for Purposes of Archiving???


Depending upon the content anywhere from $20 to $100+. Paying for HBO isn't considered you paying to "own" a movie you record.

I'm not saying the providers are right and I'm certainly not saying that their blu-ray prices are great but it is their content and their copyright.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Fair Use Act does not limiting your copy by time frame.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> Depending upon the content anywhere from $20 to $100+. Paying for HBO isn't considered you paying to "own" a movie you record.
> 
> I'm not saying the providers are right and I'm certainly not saying that their blu-ray prices are great but it is their content and their copyright.


You are talking about Movies and TV Series Stuff and I am just talking about Recording everyday stuff like a Newscast or Diners, Driveins and Dives.

I have Paid for the Right to have those Recordings in my House for Viewing and if I want to make a Copy for Backup Purposes why would they care as long as no one else can View it.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Fair Use Act does not limiting your copy by time frame.


The fair use act doesn't even apply here.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Richierich said:


> You are talking about Movies and TV Series Stuff and I am just talking about Recording everyday stuff like a Newscast or Diners, Driveins and Dives.


Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives IS a TV Series...



Richierich said:


> I have Paid for the Right to have those Recordings in my House for Viewing and if I want to make a Copy for Backup Purposes why would they care as long as no one else can View it.


It doesn't matter why they care, the point is they do.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Really ? ! The CD, DVD, VHS are the copies. Not originals.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Really ? ! The CD, DVD, VHS are the copies. Not originals.


Exactly! Fair Use Act only covers your usage of an original. If you're talking about a recording made by a DVR, which we are but I'm not sure you are, then you do NOT own an "original".


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

CCarncross said:


> Currently none of the providers offer protection against HDD failure, and realistically thats not what most are asking for.


The archive system that brand E uses comes pretty close. The idea being that a drive that isn't plugged in isn't likely to fail. If you're so inclined, you can record a show more than once and make archive copies to different hard drives. None of this necessarily requires external hardware or computers.

Given how easy it would be to implement account-based keys (given that they're already dealing with exchanging keys for WHDS), you pretty much have to assume that DIRECTV is committed to _not_ doing it (unless you have reliable insight to the contrary).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> Uh huh... I just think your "source", that you're more than happy to tout that you know, was blowing smoke you know where...


I'll let them know you said hello, including the part where you're wrong in what was said. 


> *Numerous things have been "hinted" at over the years in various presentations and have still never come to fruition*.


Which is exactly what I said before. Duh.

Me....and my....shaddow.... :nono:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Richierich said:


> The Folks at Morega have told me that they can easily use Nomad for Archiving Purposes if Senior Management at Directv chooses to do so as they have Access to the Customer's Account Number via the Authentication Server so they could just Substitute the Account Number for the RID # and the Directv Software Logic could be altered to look for the Account Number rather than the RID # for verification of DHCP Authority to View those Recordings.
> 
> They can also Store the Archived Recordings on a USB External Hard Drive which can then be Transferred back to the Original DVR after it's Internal Hard Drive that Failed has been Replaced by a New Drive.


I think Nomad sales would skyrocket if they allowed this; they should do it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> I think Nomad sales would skyrocket if they allowed this; they should do it.


A number of others share that perspective with you.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> A number of others share that perspective with you.


Can or are Nomads tied to accounts? Otherwise, people will lend them out.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> Can or are Nomads tied to accounts? Otherwise, people will lend them out.


As they can with DVRs? nomads need to be validated on one's own home LAN, so it's not going to go far or long. I suppose there's a possibility that 30 friends could drop by every evening with iPads and d/l transcodes....but they'd have to be registered as well.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> As they can with DVRs? nomads need to be validated on one's own home LAN, so it's not going to go far or long. I suppose there's a possibility that 30 friends could drop by every evening with iPads and d/l transcodes....but they'd have to be registered as well.


I meant to prevent passing Nomads around to backup your recordings.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Ah, yes, that'd be very hard to do, perhaps next to impossible. Impractical, too, in the extreme. Sorry I misread the q.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Can or are Nomads tied to accounts? Otherwise, people will lend them out.


Nomad isn't but the client software is tied to your account. You have to use your DIRECTV website ID and password to use the client. Once the client talks to nomad, nomad then checks on the validity of the account.

Mike


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> I think Nomad sales would skyrocket if they allowed this; they should do it.


Given the 30 day expiration on nomad transfers, this seems quite unlikely.

What hardware is capable of and what they intend to implement are decidedly different issues. For his part, Michael White has stated in a couple of conference calls that it will all come down to resolving the rights issue.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> Given the 30 day expiration on nomad transfers, this seems quite unlikely.
> 
> What hardware is capable of and what they intend to implement are decidedly different issues. For his part, Michael White has stated in a couple of conference calls that it will all come down to resolving the rights issue.


 Why would they keep the 30 day limit if you're saving to backup? That'd make no sense.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Why would they keep the 30 day limit if you're saving to backup? That'd make no sense.


It is how it works. There is a 30 limit on all transcoded/downloaded programs.

You can't use Nomad to archive recordings.

Mike


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

RunnerFL said:


> Exactly! Fair Use Act only covers your usage of an original. If you're talking about a recording made by a DVR, which we are but I'm not sure you are, then you do NOT own an "original".


Technically, they are copies as CD, DVD, etc.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> It is how it works. There is a 30 limit on all transcoded/downloaded programs.
> 
> You can't use Nomad to archive recordings.
> 
> Mike


I understand that's how it is now, but should they allow archiving as has been discussed here, it'd defeat the purpose of allowing nomad to do the extra stuff like putting in on a new HR.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'll let them know you said hello, including the part where you're wrong in what was said.


Please do...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Technically, they are copies as CD, DVD, etc.


No, they aren't.

You can make copies if you OWN the original. A recording via DVR does NOT give you ownership.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Nomad isn't but the client software is tied to your account. You have to use your DIRECTV website ID and password to use the client. Once the client talks to nomad, nomad then checks on the validity of the account.





Mike Bertelson said:


> It is how it works. There is a 30 limit on all transcoded/downloaded programs.
> 
> You can't use Nomad to archive recordings.


Yeah - what Mike said.

The DirecTV authentication process is tied to the account.


RunnerFL said:


> Please do...


Not sure why you're strangely turning things personal for some bizarre reason. Reporting on what has been publically stated and then blaming me for it not turning out is weird.

Let's move on to the topic at hand.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yeah - what Mike said.
> 
> The DirecTV authentication process is tied to the account.
> 
> ...


I'm not blaming you for anything. Perhaps you're taking things too personally.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> I'm not blaming you for anything. Perhaps you're taking things too personally.


*You* turned things personal with your "blowing smoke" remark.

Let's move on and be productive please.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

trstew said:


> A few weeks ago I hooked up 2Tb of external storage (WD HDD and Thermaltake enclosure) for my HR24. As I already only have 40% left, I'm wondering if I can expand my storage further without buying another 2Tb drive and enclosure and going thru the powerdown, swap, and bootup routine. Can a RAID enclosure with multiple drives be utilized, using the RAID controller to switch between the drives without going thru the old swap routine? In short, what are the alternatives to having to catalogue a collection of 2Tb drives?


So going back to the original question...the answer is...2TB is the current maximum hard drive capacity limit per DVR. Even with raid storage or larger drives, only 2TB per DVR can be utilized. The only current means to increase more overall capacity is via multiple DVRs with multiple hard drives.

This is one of the things that challenges the HR34 situation. If the hard drive goes on that unit (assuming there are no other DVRs), the household loses everything in terms of recorded content. Perhaps that helps motivate a solution for some form of account-based "backup" capability.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> *You* turned things personal with your "blowing smoke" remark.
> 
> Let's move on and be productive please.


Again, nothing was personal. You're making it personal. If you want to make it personal take it to PM.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

There are about 3 different things being discussed here:

The 2 TB limit is kernel limited and while it could be updated, probably without any real issues, however DIRECTV has no reason to do so as they aren't putting HD's that large in machines.

Being able to archive a drive to save recordings when replacing a receiver. This could be possible depending on the failure of the unit if they added the function to make an image creator and loader into the OS. However this would require supporting external HDs officially.

Archiving programs for personal use which at this stage in the game isn't even on anyones radar. For every reason you want to do it the companies have not to do it. The bottom line is because it would negatively impact the bottom line.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Shades228 said:


> There are about 3 different things being discussed here:
> 
> The 2 TB limit is kernel limited and while it could be updated, probably without any real issues, however DIRECTV has no reason to do so as they aren't putting HD's that large in machines.
> 
> ...


Nice attempt to move away for real current implementation of archiving on EHD by a competitor. But not smart being an ostrich.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

P Smith said:


> Nice attempt to move away for real current implementation of archiving on EHD by a competitor. But not smart being an ostrich.


I think you're reading into it too much.


----------



## Sunner73 (Feb 29, 2012)

Richierich said:


> I have 3 DVRs whose Sole Purpose in Life is to Backup my 4 other DVRs.


 It's unfortunate that you have to pay $6 each = $18 "every" month just to have the redundancy.

Think about the $216/yr you could be keeping in your pocket "IF" for example marrying the recordings to the account # instead of the current RID #.

Hopefully someday.....


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Sunner73 said:


> It's unfortunate that you have to pay $6 each = $18 "every" month just to have the redundancy.
> 
> Think about the $216/yr you could be keeping in your pocket "IF" for example marrying the recordings to the account # instead of the current RID #.
> 
> Hopefully someday.....


Money is Not One of My Problems in Life, hence my UserID!!! :lol:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Philip, the CEO of Morega, which developed Nomad has stated to me and HDTVFANBOY at CES 2012 that they would like to Implement Archiving and they could easily do it as it is just Offloading an Image Copy of the Recording without having to Transcode it.

The 30 Day Rule would not apply as it is not Viewable on the USB External Hard Drive.

You also could not Offload the Recording to a Friend's PC unless the PC was Registered and Authenticated by Directv.

You could also Offload it to a 3 or 4 TB USB External Hard Drive without a Problem because you are just Storing Image Copies for later Restoration to a Particular DVR (it could be any DVR that is tied to your Account # Via the Authentication Server).

It is all up to Directv to choose the Path that they want to take if they decide to Allow Archiving and I have been told by Reputable Directv Sources that they are discussing Archiving and will come out with a Method in the not too distant Future.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Richierich said:


> .....and I have been told by Reputable Directv Sources that they are discussing Archiving and will come out with a Method in the not too distant Future.


Of course to some folks...that's considered "blowing smoke"...  


Sunner73 said:


> It's unfortunate that you have to pay $6 each = $18 "every" month just to have the redundancy.


Certainly a valid point.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Richierich said:


> We're talking about Archiving all kinds of Recordings not just Movies or Series and such.
> 
> I might want to Store a Golf Event or a Significant Historical Newscast or whatever and you can't ask Directv to Record every single thing every day and Store it on a Server.
> 
> ...


Satellite broadcasts and DVR are not the only plausible means to provide the functionality that we want. Consider how many copies of any given show are sitting on drives in homes. Why is that storage any more excessive than centralized storage? Storage in the cloud is massive and growing more massive by the second - Google/Youtube/Amazon/Apple/...

Cloud storage is preferable. Minimal redundancy (copies/RAID/replication), robust power (UPS/generators) and cooling, efficiencies of scale, etc, etc.

Every single program that is broadcast is in fact *stored* somewhere and increasingly digitally. Older stuff is probably on original film roll or digital tape. May not be immediately accessible but could be brought online soon enough. Large data centers typically have huge robots that manage digital tape. Worst case, a body has to go pull media off a shelf and mount it in a drive - which can then be cached in online storage. Why not have the content owners provide streams on demand? Delivery services like D* could just be proxies for those streams which would not require them to store anything. They are just a proxy now for broadcasts.

The limitation today is the bandwidth from the content owner to the customer. As the internet bandwidth continues to grow this will eventually not be an issue.

The consumers device should be a cache only. Tell it what you want and it brings it into its cache. Sort of like on demand only predictive - for series pre-cache a certain number of episodes, when you've watched and deleted one it queues up the next. This isolates the viewer from the bandwidth limitations. Who cares if it takes 4 hours to download a 1 hour program. If the consumers device fails just drop in a new one and it re-caches everything the old one had. Only 1 cache/server per home is needed.

With sufficient internet bandwidth there is no need for satellite. Or better yet, convert the satellite service from rebroadcast of hundreds of channels to all on demand delivery. When the same program is requested by multiple consumer devices it can transmit that stream once to all of them.

A fitting pricing model is a minimum subscription for the service and the device in the home plus pay-per-view for every program. Obviously with program cost low enough that it's cheaper for most people than todays model and re-watching a program months later is worth the cost (maybe even charge less per view after the first). Actually, the first view should pay for all the "content" and subsequent views should only charge for the infrastructure to deliver the already-paid-for content. They could even provide a with-commerical and without-commercial with appropriate price difference.

This would be a revolutionary advancement. Maybe it's what Apple is working on. Broadcasting should go the same way as CD and book stores. The content providers would be wise to enable this as soon as possible.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> In fairness I thought it would be too.


Thanks for the reaffirmation Stuart.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Richierich said:


> Philip, the CEO of Morega, which developed Nomad has stated to me and HDTVFANBOY at CES 2012 that they would like to Implement Archiving and they could easily do it as it is just Offloading an Image Copy of the Recording without having to Transcode it.
> 
> The 30 Day Rule would not apply as it is not Viewable on the USB External Hard Drive.
> 
> ...


The one thing that would be hard to get around is being a DIRECTV subscriber. If we leave DIRECTV the recordings are no longer viewable.

To archive it would also have to be some standard format that doesn't require a proprietary client to view the recordings. I'm pretty sure that will never happen so would Morega/DIRECTV go through the effort to allow such archiving if they have no control over the DRM? Would the broadcasters be on board with that?

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

This is the "official" page on the DirecTV site regarding how they support extended storage:

http://news.directv.com/2011/08/11/increase-recording-capacity-on-your-dvr-or-hd-dvr/

This page includes recording time capacities for comparison - the HR34 (aka Whole Home Media Center) had the largest *onboard* storage (twice that of any current HD DVR). Note: they measure things in hours, not HDD size):

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/technology/hmc_receiver


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mike Bertelson said:


> The one thing that would be hard to get around is being a DIRECTV subscriber. If we leave DIRECTV the recordings are no longer viewable.


That's actually a fascinating point Mike.

Since the controls are in place to manage access via subscriber authentication...perhaps that could be leveraged somehow to accomplish household use (only) of external storage. Perhaps that infrastructure could allow DirecTV to enforce and ensure copy protection compliance. :shrug:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That was indeed the plan for some time. The challenge is when the time to implement something exceeds the window of opportunity for its "critical" need and compared with "more important priorities". Anyone familiar with roadmaps (I manage one in another industry) knows that beyond 3-6 months down the road, roadmap content items and corresponding priorities change.
> 
> Roadmap plans like this are laid out all the time. While in most cases these things do get done, not everything gets implemented when it comes up for "next in line" deployment. This is just one example.
> 
> ...


I don't know what to think about this. I do know I won't get a 34 unless D* changes the policy to allow all HDDs on an account to be read by all HRs on the same account. I know, as you do, the technology exists for this change, but at what cost?

The HD GUI really didn't bother my HRs all that much (still haven't received the new NR), certainly not as much as it seems to have bothered other folks and their HRs. I gotta admit I'm a little apprehensive about a change in how the HDDs work inside an account and how well D* will implement that change.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Currently none of the providers offer protection against HDD failure, and realistically thats not what most are asking for. We want the ability to be able to view our prized recordings on another dvr on our acct if the dvr dies.....


Agreed, I've had a whole lot more DVR failures than HDD failures.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> I do archive everything I want to archive, and I dont buy box sets or movies. I dont believe in paying for the same thing twice.
> 
> Dish allows archiving, Comcast (using a Tivo DVR) allows archiving...*What is DirecTv's problem?*


There's a question that begs an answer.

Rich


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> There are about 3 different things being discussed here:
> 
> The 2 TB limit is kernel limited and while it could be updated, probably without any real issues, however DIRECTV has no reason to do so as they aren't putting HD's that large in machines.
> 
> ...


Does anyone remember the original mp3.com? It was an awesome site. You used your own CDs to confirm ownership. You were then able to access those tracks which had already been ripped by mp3.com for streaming to wherever you were signed in. It was a sad day when it disappeared, but it was an idea before its time. Since then, the music industry has been transformed and CDs are near death's door.

What's next at this point is anyone's guess. "Cloud" storage to rescue recordings from dead DVRs? Why not? The push to access TV "everywhere" has certainly laid the groundwork required from a rights standpoint.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

David Ortiz said:


> Does anyone remember the original mp3.com? It was an awesome site. You used your own CDs to confirm ownership. You were then able to access those tracks which had already been ripped by mp3.com for streaming to wherever you were signed in. It was a sad day when it disappeared, but it was an idea before its time. Since then, the music industry has been transformed and CDs are near death's door.
> 
> What's next at this point is anyone's guess. *"Cloud" storage to rescue recordings from dead DVRs?* Why not? The push to access TV "everywhere" has certainly laid the groundwork required from a rights standpoint.


Why use a 'iPhone' to hammering nails ?

All shows must be in the Cloud - all originals, just give/sell access to them.
Dump all the middleman provides (sat, cable, etc ) , give 1 Gb optical cable to each home, make 1 Tb backbones ...

Turn the digital world to us !


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

P Smith said:


> give 1 Gb optical cable to each home, make 1 Tb backbones ...


Love this idea! I'm ready for completely free everything!

I wonder how many $ trillions it'd take to build out? Maybe the Chinese gov't will gift it to the people of these United States.....?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> Love this idea! I'm ready for completely free everything!
> 
> I wonder how many $ trillions it'd take to build out? Maybe the Chinese gov't will gift it to the people of these United States.....?


:lol: Don't expect it to "appear" anytime *soon*...and I suspect you don't. 

There are also still plenty of concerns from corporate America when it comes to cloud use. For applications with secure or sensitive data, those aspects require a sophisticated (and expensive) infrastructure.

At the end of the day...opening up local HDD storage to 2TB (or more some day perhaps) is the easiest and most economical path for the near term.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> Why would they keep the 30 day limit if you're saving to backup? That'd make no sense.


And having the 30 day limit now does?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

The 30 day limit bows to requirements of some content providers for device out-of-home viewing. However, backups for home use only wouldn't necessarily need that limitation.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> The 30 day limit bows to requirements of some content providers for device out-of-home viewing. However, backups for home use only wouldn't necessarily need that limitation.


EXACTLY, EXACTLY (Stated in my Best Jay Leno Voice Imitation)!!!


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

harsh said:


> And having the 30 day limit now does?


Directv is Very Sensitive to Violating Content Protection of Hollywood and does not even want to operate in Grey Areas but that does not Apply to Storing Content without being able to view it as it is Stored.

You would have to have Directv Software to View it on a DVR.


----------



## Notthecableguy (Dec 25, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> At the end of the day...opening up local HDD storage to 2TB (or more some day perhaps) is the easiest and most economical path for the near term.


What are the chances that the HR34, being the newest receiver and a media server to boot, would already allow storage in excess of 2 TB and for whatever reason Directv has chosen not to announce it? Can the Linux cognoscenti tell if the kernel limitation on the earlier machines is replicated on the HR34?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Notthecableguy said:


> What are the chances that the HR34, being the newest receiver and a media server to boot, would already allow storage in excess of 2 TB and for whatever reason Directv has chosen not to announce it? Can the Linux cognoscenti tell if the kernel limitation on the earlier machines is replicated on the HR34?


The HR34 doesn't allow more than 2TB, many of us have tried.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Notthecableguy said:


> What are the chances that the HR34, being the newest receiver and a media server to boot, would already allow storage in excess of 2 TB and for whatever reason Directv has chosen not to announce it? Can the Linux cognoscenti tell if the kernel limitation on the earlier machines is replicated on the HR34?


We discussed the limitation above - look up for "GPT".


----------



## BAHitman (Oct 24, 2007)

Notthecableguy said:


> What are the chances that the HR34, being the newest receiver and a media server to boot, would already allow storage in excess of 2 TB and for whatever reason Directv has chosen not to announce it? Can the Linux cognoscenti tell if the kernel limitation on the earlier machines is replicated on the HR34?


it is not a kernel limitation, it is a choice of partitioning schemes. MBR partitioning (common on a PC) is what has the 2TB limit.

I already tried a RAID setup in my HR34 and it created the same MBR partitioning that is done on the HR2x, Limiting the allowable space to 2TB. this was confirmed by putting the array on my PC an examining the partition table

if DirecTV would add code to format new drives with GPT partitions, the 2TB limit would be gone.

There is a slight chance that there is a hardware limitation, but that likeley preceeds even the HR20...

see related Wikipedia articles on the subjects

_MBR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record _
_GPT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table_


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

See that thread http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2968554&postcount=73


----------



## Notthecableguy (Dec 25, 2005)

Thanks for the references. Boy, its been years since I thought about INT 13h handling and A20 calls. It makes me want to dig up my copy of QEMM for handling virtual memory in excess of 640k.

If those innovators at Microsoft can include GPT in Windows, how hard could it be for Directv to include it on the new boxes?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

If you did read by URL above, you could do that by yourself and make your own Linux [what kind of it you are using, Ubuntu ?] to support GPT (if it not done already).
They're using HDD as pure external storage and for logging, they don't need to change bootloader and after minimal changes in system, the DVRs will support any size of disk storage.
After QA testing for sure.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

P Smith said:


> If you did read by URL above, you could do that by yourself and make your own Linux [what kind of it you are using, Ubuntu ?] to support GPT (if it not done already).
> They're using HDD as pure external storage and for logging, they don't need to change bootloader and after minimal changes in system, the DVRs will support any size of disk storage.
> After QA testing for sure.


For years, Windows running 32 bit systems could only address 2TB of storage. However, there were self-contained Raid Devices that could be inserted in the chain which would allow than 2TB of storage with their own formatting/system addressing the larger sizes for the PC calls (while also allowing Raid 0,1,5,10 etc).

Are there any of these that could be used in place of the D* DVR HD to allow more than 2TB as this would seem to get around the limits in D*'s code?


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> For years, Windows running 32 bit systems could only address 2TB of storage. However, there were self-contained Raid Devices that could be inserted in the chain which would allow than 2TB of storage with their own formatting/system addressing the larger sizes for the PC calls (while also allowing Raid 0,1,5,10 etc).
> 
> Are there any of these that could be used in place of the D* DVR HD to allow more than 2TB as this would seem to get around the limits in D*'s code?


While an interesting technical point, why would one need more than 450 hours of HD (mpeg-4) storage? The drives can't be moved to other DVRs, so when the DVR goes south, the recordings are worthless.


----------



## BAHitman (Oct 24, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> For years, Windows running 32 bit systems could only address 2TB of storage. However, there were self-contained Raid Devices that could be inserted in the chain which would allow than 2TB of storage with their own formatting/system addressing the larger sizes for the PC calls (while also allowing Raid 0,1,5,10 etc).
> 
> Are there any of these that could be used in place of the D* DVR HD to allow more than 2TB as this would seem to get around the limits in D*'s code?


Most of these type systems had their own drivers and if not used LUN's (Logical Unit Numbers) to make the drive appear as more than 1 disk drive in Windows before Windows could use GPT partitions.


----------



## BAHitman (Oct 24, 2007)

hasan said:


> While an interesting technical point, why would one need more than 450 hours of HD (mpeg-4) storage? The drives can't be moved to other DVRs, so when the DVR goes south, the recordings are worthless.


HR34. 5x tuners with a family of 8 with diverse tv interests. I could easily see them burn through many hours of TV...

Besides... maybe someone just "wants" to do it...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

hasan said:


> While an interesting technical point, why would one need more than 450 hours of HD (mpeg-4) storage? The drives can't be moved to other DVRs, so when the DVR goes south, the recordings are worthless.


Considering my 2TB drives have less than 5% free, I can see plenty of reasons why.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Considering my 2TB drives have less than 5% free, I can see plenty of reasons why.


Other than defending business choices that DIRECTV has made, nobody should ever question why anyone wants more storage.

Why DIRECTV made those business decisions is unclear but they seem to remain committed to them. Of course their efforts toward external drives in general has always been kind of a "if you try it, it just might work" gesture as opposed to a full scale commitment.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> Other than defending business choices that DIRECTV has made, nobody should ever question why anyone wants more storage.
> 
> Why DIRECTV made those business decisions is unclear but they seem to remain committed to them. *Of course their efforts toward external drives in general has always been kind of a "if you try it, it just might work" gesture as opposed to a full scale commitment.*


I truly believe we're better off as we are than we would be with D* mandating which HDDs we can use and which external devices we can put them in. Right now, we know how to do it, if they'd just let us use any HDD on any HR in our accounts, I be happy.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

BAHitman said:


> HR34. 5x tuners with a family of 8 with diverse tv interests. I could easily see them burn through many hours of TV...
> 
> Besides... maybe someone just "wants" to do it...


While my heart fills with lust for a 34, I wouldn't pay anything for one and I'm not sure I'd take one without a charge either. Right now I've got 22TBs of storage and most of that capacity is used as backups. If one of my HRs craps out, it's not a big deal.

Besides...I'm one of those guys who just "wants" to do it.....:lol:

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The "just wants to do it" is evidenced by the mention of TB as opposed to hours of content.

Discussing hours takes away from the total because some of it is backups made on different DVRs that aren't interchangeable. The number dwindles further because of your policy of limiting how full the discs are allowed to get to maintain acceptable performance.

Take away the ties to the recording DVR and make it so you don't have to reboot and you'll have something. Being able to conveniently move things around would be icing on the cake.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> The "just wants to do it" is evidenced by the mention of TB as opposed to hours of content.


I just can't seem to have an HR without putting a 2TB drive on/in it. Makes sense to me and my family enjoys it. I'm not the only one using my system.



> Discussing hours takes away from the total because some of it is backups made on different DVRs that aren't interchangeable. The number dwindles further because of your policy of limiting how full the discs are allowed to get to maintain acceptable performance.


I've been letting the HDDs on some of my HRs act primarily as servers and it doesn't seem to make any difference to the MRV system how much an HDD has on it. Also, the 24s don't seem to suffer as much as the older models did when using a nearly full HDD. I'm at the beach this week and I took an owned 24-500 with me that's got 22% capacity left on it and it's been like that for months, even fuller at times and has never slowed down.



> Take away the ties to the recording DVR and make it so you don't have to reboot and you'll have something. Being able to conveniently move things around would be icing on the cake.


Seems like it's so simple, yet we get nowhere every time we ask for it. What possible reason could they have for not allowing HDDs and HRs to be swapped within an account?

Rich


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> The "just wants to do it" is evidenced by the mention of TB as opposed to hours of content.
> 
> Discussing hours takes away from the total because some of it is backups made on different DVRs that aren't interchangeable. The number dwindles further because of your policy of limiting how full the discs are allowed to get to maintain acceptable performance.
> 
> Take away the ties to the recording DVR and make it so you don't have to reboot and you'll have something. Being able to conveniently move things around would be icing on the cake.


TiVo's approach to whole home was cool...copy programs from the DVR where recorded, to the DVR where viewed. This allowed you to move content that was "precious" to an additional DVR. I moved a lot of recordings around before I finally decommissioned most of my DirecTiVos.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Titan25 said:


> TiVo's approach to whole home was cool...copy programs from the DVR where recorded, to the DVR where viewed. This allowed you to move content that was "precious" to an additional DVR. I moved a lot of recordings around before I finally decommissioned most of my DirecTiVos.


So, if you know, why can't we do it now?

Rich


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Rich said:


> So, if you know, why can't we do it now?
> 
> Rich


The old DirecTV Tivos had technology essentially 10 years old, were MPEG2 only (no MPEG4) and security/file security was highly different than today. When D* moved to MPEG4 the tighter security came into play.

But regardless, back to the original question I asked yesterday, does anyone know of an external raid unit that can plug into the D* DVRs and will use its own os/firmware to translate the calls so that more than 2TB can be used?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

You could use 3 or 4 TB drive for the test - no RAID is need. A couple months ago we had hot discussion about the limit and it came to same ending - no, the limit is the same: 2 TB.

About using RAID - yes, you could. Again the info 'what&how-to' already posted here.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The old DirecTV Tivos had technology essentially 10 years old, were MPEG2 only (no MPEG4) and security/file security was highly different than today. When D* moved to MPEG4 the tighter security came into play.
> 
> But regardless, back to the original question I asked yesterday, does anyone know of an external raid unit that can plug into the D* DVRs and will use its own os/firmware to translate the calls so that more than 2TB can be used?


Regardless of what you hook up you'll be limited to 2TB. It's a partition limitation in the OS based on the format that the DirecTV receivers use.

You could hook up a 4TB array but your post-format capacity would still be 2TB.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> But regardless, back to the original question I asked yesterday, does anyone know of an external raid unit that can plug into the D* DVRs and will use its own os/firmware to translate the calls so that more than 2TB can be used?


There is no such magic.

If there is a volume size limit in the underlying DVR operating system, no amount of outboard hardware or software can change it. You cannot install "hooks" into the DVR BIOS as the old Pee Cee devices did.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rich said:


> So, if you know, why can't we do it now?


This is what is known as a "business decision". It doesn't get any simpler than that.

TiVo is generally not a company that was directly beholden to the programming providers but DIRECTV is so the DIRECTV TiVo-based products have some limitations that the standalone products do not. There have been hints to this in discussions that have been posted on DBSTalk previously. Most come from CES interviews.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

P Smith said:


> You could use 3 or 4 TB drive for the test - no RAID is need. A couple months ago we had hot discussion about the limit and it came to same ending - no, the limit is the same: 2 TB.
> 
> About using RAID - yes, you could. Again the info 'what&how-to' already posted here.


The discussion several months ago was about a single hard drive solution that could be used - ie - a 3TB drive.

Just as Windows 9x could not read NTFS file structure, it a NT machine had the NTFS Drive on a share, the Windows 9x could read the files with the NT machine doing the translation.

Just as the old Windows 16 bit systems could connect to Novell Networks with a server running a larger drive than Win 16 could handle.

Just as there is IPv4<>IPv6 translation.

There seems there should be an External Raid Device that would would take the D* calls and allow it to be processed to a larger storage than 2TB, just as there are units that allow this to be done for Windows 32 machines.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Perhaps the key point was missed - implementing GPT - check that discussion's aspect.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> There seems there should be an External Raid Device that would would take the D* calls and allow it to be processed to a larger storage than 2TB, just as there are units that allow this to be done for Windows 32 machines.


Again...

Regardless of what you hook up you'll be limited to 2TB. *It's a partition limitation in the OS based on the format that the DirecTV receivers use. *

You could hook up a 4TB array but your post-format capacity would still be 2TB.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The discussion several months ago was about a single hard drive solution that could be used - ie - a 3TB drive.
> 
> Just as Windows 9x could not read NTFS file structure, it a NT machine had the NTFS Drive on a share, the Windows 9x could read the files with the NT machine doing the translation.
> 
> ...


All of those solutions were supported by adding device drivers into an open operating system (in most of your examples, drivers in the network layer). The DirecTV DVRs are not an open system...you can't add device drivers to them. They don't support any concept of shared disks (a requirement for the examples you note). Bottom line, 2TB is the limit unless DirecTV chooses to change it.


----------



## BAHitman (Oct 24, 2007)

The absolute best you can do, due to the MBR partitioning scheme limitaton of 2TB is to use a RAID array of 3x 750GB HDD's in Raid 0 (or 4x750GB drives in RAID 5 as I am doing) giving you 2,095.4 Gigabytes. You lose a little less than 50Gbyte due to the partitioning Limitation. Note that a 2TB drive is really only 1.86TB in reality so you are actually ~160GB short of 2TB using a 2TB drive

This is what I am doing with the HR34... thus far with success see this thread for info: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2996713#post2996713


----------

