# Series Manager in the cloud?



## Brad00111 (Dec 30, 2007)

So after having a dvr completely die on me (no lights, strange clicking noise and the only thing on the screen is Just a few more seconds....) I find myself wondering if directv will ever sync your series recording list to the cloud. I am not as concerned about the recordings themselves but having no idea what series were scheduled to record on the dvr is a killer. Plus the fact that you have to wait until a show is back on in order to schedule it. All in all. Rey frustrating given there is a tech solution for this issue. 

Interested to hear your thoughts......


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

It certainly is possible, though I would be satisfied with using a usb stick.

It's gotten a bit better on the Genie with Far in Advance, but that's not available for everything.

On the replacement, you could use an external SATA drive.Sat Recordings wouldn't be playable but the Series Manager would carry over.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I think it would be cool if the cloud actually replace the DVR itself. I know that isn't going to happen for a few years yet. I wonder when that did happen would the DVR be replaced by an APP at first or just have HD Receiver connected to the cloud then move to an APP?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

The problem with the cloud replacing the DVR is limited Internet connections and data caps, particularly rural areas.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Brad00111 said:


> So after having a dvr completely die on me (no lights, strange clicking noise and the only thing on the screen is Just a few more seconds....) I find myself wondering if directv will ever sync your series recording list to the cloud. I am not as concerned about the recordings themselves but having no idea what series were scheduled to record on the dvr is a killer. Plus the fact that you have to wait until a show is back on in order to schedule it. All in all. Rey frustrating given there is a tech solution for this issue.
> 
> Interested to hear your thoughts......


Over the years, several methods have been suggested, and everyone one of 'em have been ignored!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

dpeters11 said:


> The problem with the cloud replacing the DVR is limited Internet connections and data caps, particularly rural areas.


Good point about the limited Internet connections and data caps. I guess the cloud wouldn't happen until everyone has 100 Mbps or more internet connections and no data caps?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Drucifer said:


> Over the years, several methods have been suggested, and everyone one of 'em have been ignored!


Your post Just reminded me I did a similar thread about how small the DVR could get awhile ago.


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

TiVo can do it. Why not DirecTV? It can't possibly be that difficult considering the genie is already connected to the Internet 

Sent from the jaws of my Hammerhead!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

There is no reason they can't on a technical level, but it must be optional, not required. I'd still like local backup even with that.


----------



## directv newb (Jun 25, 2012)

Brad00111 said:


> So after having a dvr completely die on me (no lights, strange clicking noise and the only thing on the screen is Just a few more seconds....) I find myself wondering if directv will ever sync your series recording list to the cloud. I am not as concerned about the recordings themselves but having no idea what series were scheduled to record on the dvr is a killer. Plus the fact that you have to wait until a show is back on in order to schedule it. All in all. Rey frustrating given there is a tech solution for this issue.
> 
> Interested to hear your thoughts......


I agree with you 100%, when it comes to your post about the series manager. I would really like it if they could keep the series manager in the cloud so when your new dvr got started up it would set it up with your original settings.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

mrro82 said:


> TiVo can do it. Why not DirecTV? *It can't possibly be that difficult* considering the genie is already connected to the Internet
> 
> Sent from the jaws of my Hammerhead!


The million dollar question that DirecTV has yet to answer.

Maybe when marketing can figure out how to add OnDemand to it, we'll get some type cloud storage.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

directv newb said:


> I agree with you 100%, when it comes to your post about the series manager. * I would really like it if they could keep the series manager in the cloud* so when your new dvr got started up it would set it up with your original settings.


Would you pay an additional monthly fee for any DirecTV cloud feature?

As it will probably take our green to get it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DIRECTV's direct competitor allows backing everything up to the remote control. This requires a lot more discipline on the part of the subscriber but it works in all configurations.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> I think it would be cool if the cloud actually replace the DVR itself. I know that isn't going to happen for a few years yet. I wonder when that did happen would the DVR be replaced by an APP at first or just have HD Receiver connected to the cloud then move to an APP?


If you'd seen Cablevision's implementation of Cloud DVR service (at least on Long Island) you wouldn't feel this way. It's like watching Netflix. Fast Forward & Rewind stink. There is a lag to everything. So good luck if you want to freeze the picture on a given frame. Other than the fact that there are 15 tuners available and you don't have to worry about hard drive failure, there is nothing good about this service.

I have had multiple friends and co-workers tell me that they would dump the Cloud DVR in a heartbeat if they could get their old 2 tuner local DVR's back.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

Dvr in the cloud is a terrible idea. Once that happens you'll likely see content owners push for limits on time shifting in exchange for lower increases on carriage contacts. Much less the bandwidth issues.

As for series manager getting backed up to the cloud, that certainly should be an option.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Brad00111 said:


> So after having a dvr completely die on me (no lights, strange clicking noise and the only thing on the screen is Just a few more seconds....) *I *find myself wondering if directv will ever sync your series recording list to the cloud. I am *not as concerned about the recordings themselves *but having no idea what series were scheduled to record on the dvr is a killer. Plus the fact that you have to wait until a show is back on in order to schedule it. All in all. Rey frustrating given there is a tech solution for this issue.
> 
> Interested to hear your thoughts......


He is wanting it for the list backup, not changing the DVR to the cloud. At least that is what I read.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Want no part of DVR in the cloud - I'm sure it would be slower or issues would exist with how long you can store etc.
Backing up settings to a USB stick or some other mechanism - that could be in the cloud or downloadable to an iPad etc.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

I'd be happy if I could back up the series manager to another DVR (or all of them) on my whole home DVR network. I have no idea why this isn't possible. I have 7 DVRs on my whole home DVR setup. Why can't each of them backup the series manager to the other DVRs?

And while we're at it, why can't they transfer recordings from one DVR to another on the same network? It could be removed from the one DVR at the same time is transferred to the other. 

And another "no brainer" feature would be if there is a recording conflict, automatically schedule the recording on another DVR on the whole home network. You could set the order you want the DVR to check the other DVRs. So if there is a recording conflict, instead of telling toy to cancel something, it automatically sends the recording request to another DVR on the network, and if it is denied then it goes to the next DVR on the list, and you specify the list order on each DVR.

I'd much rather do this all locally than in the cloud. And it seems like it'd be so simple and easy to implement.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> I'd be happy if I could back up the series manager to another DVR (or all of them) on my whole home DVR network. I have no idea why this isn't possible. I have 7 DVRs on my whole home DVR setup. Why can't each of them backup the series manager to the other DVRs?
> 
> And while we're at it, why can't they transfer recordings from one DVR to another on the same network? It could be removed from the one DVR at the same time is transferred to the other.
> 
> ...


That part always amuses me. Until I started doing some programming I always thought that writing some code was "so simple and easy to implement"


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Even before you start the coding, how do you handle cases where someone in the other room sets their own recording that conflicts with the one that was automatically moved to their DVR? What if they attempt to activate trick play during that recording they never set and cancel it mid-recording? Do you attempt to reschedule it? What if it's a network show that isn't scheduled to reair? Do you force a VOD download and potentially cause headaches for people with low data caps or slower connections who are trying to do something else more important at the same time that requires the bandwidth?

All those what if scenarios just require more lines of code, which take up more space, not to mention the CPU cycles needed to process all of it.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

KyL416 said:


> Even before you start the coding, *how do you handle cases where someone in the other room sets their own recording that conflicts with the one that was automatically moved to their DVR? What if they attempt to activate trick play during that recording they never set and cancel it mid-recording? Do you attempt to reschedule it? What if it's a network show that isn't scheduled to reair? Do you force a VOD download and potentially cause headaches for people with low data caps or slower connections who are trying to do something else more important at the same time that requires the bandwidth?*
> 
> All those what if scenarios just require more lines of code, which take up more space, not to mention the CPU cycles needed to process all of it.


Correct, all of that needs to taken in consideration and be written as part of the new code.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

KyL416 said:


> Even before you start the coding, how do you handle cases where someone in the other room sets their own recording that conflicts with the one that was automatically moved to their DVR? What if they attempt to activate trick play during that recording they never set and cancel it mid-recording? Do you attempt to reschedule it? What if it's a network show that isn't scheduled to reair? Do you force a VOD download and potentially cause headaches for people with low data caps or slower connections who are trying to do something else more important at the same time that requires the bandwidth?
> 
> All those what if scenarios just require more lines of code, which take up more space, not to mention the CPU cycles needed to process all of it.


If someone has a recording scheduled on another DVR, then that DVR rejects the request to record from the first DVR. The first DVR then goes down the list and sends the request to the next DVR on the list until one of them accepts it.

If the DVR accepts it, and then a user tries to record on that DVR after the fact, then that DVR sends the request to record to another DVR, and follows the same process.

If someone does something that will interrupt the recording while a recording is in progress, it sends a request to another DVR to finish the recording. It then transfers the first part of the recording to that DVR.

Basically, whole home DVR really becomes a whole home DVR.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> If someone has a recording scheduled on another DVR, then that DVR rejects the request to record from the first DVR. The first DVR then goes down the list and sends the request to the next DVR on the list until one of them accepts it.
> 
> If the DVR accepts it, and then a user tries to record on that DVR after the fact, then that DVR sends the request to record to another DVR, and follows the same process.
> 
> ...


So the DVR is supposed to do a file transfer WHILE recoding the same shows as it transfers.....hmmm and then stitch them together.

I think you are asking for a lot from a very simple machine,


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

peds48 said:


> So the DVR is supposed to do a file transfer WHILE recoding the same shows as it transfers.....hmmm and then stitch them together.
> 
> I think you are asking for a lot from a very simple machine,


No, it's not supposed to do that.

If something happens to interrupt the recording, the receiver then sends a request to a different receiver to record it. When the other receiver starts the recording, the first receiver stops recording and THEN transfers the first part of the recording to the other receiver that is finishing the recording.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> No, it's not supposed to do that.
> 
> If something happens to interrupt the recording, the receiver then sends a request to a different receiver to record it. When the other receiver starts the recording, the first receiver stops recording and THEN transfers the first part of the recording to the other receiver that is finishing the recording.


It seems we are in agreement as that is exactly what I said.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

So the second DVR needs to know the time when it takes over the recording, estimate any delays while the info is propagated thought the network, and start recording from a place it has already missed (because of the delay), then at some point try to stitch both halves to made one recording. Seems anything but "so simple and easy to implement"


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

peds48 said:


> It seems we are in agreement as that is exactly what I said.


It's not any more complicated than watching a recording that is streaming from another receiver, while you record a live broadcast. These DVRs can actually play a recording from another DVR while they simultaneously record an on demand plus record a live broadcast, all at the same time.

So to receive a file transfer while recording a live broadcast and watching a different live broadcast is no big deal. I never said anything about stitching them together, so we're not quite on the same page. Although stitching them together could be pretty simple too. Just a few lines of code at the beginning and end of each file. They could still be separate files but the second file is hidden from view. So you only see the name of the first file, and the total times are added together, with the receiver automatically starting the second file after the first one ends.

It may not be perfect, but it's a million times better than what we have right now. And not all that complicated. Certainly not all that more complicated than what we already have.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> It's not any more complicated than watching a recording that is streaming from another receiver, while you record a live broadcast. These DVRs can actually play a recording from another DVR while they simultaneously record an on demand plus record a live broadcast, all at the same time.
> 
> So to receive a file transfer while recording a live broadcast and watching a different live broadcast is no big deal. I never said anything about stitching them together, so we're not quite on the same page. Although stitching them together could be pretty simple too. Just a few lines of code at the beginning and end of each file. They could still be separate files but the second file is hidden from view. So you only see the name of the first file, and the total times are added together, with the receiver automatically starting the second file after the first one ends.
> 
> *It may not be perfect*, but it's a million times better than what we have right now. And not all that complicated. Certainly not all that more complicated than what we already have.


BINGO! Until it is, it deserves no place on the mainstream


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

peds48 said:


> So the second DVR needs to know the time when it takes over the recording, estimate any delays while the info is propagated thought the network, and start recording from a place it has already missed (because of the delay), then at some point try to stitch both halves to made one recording. Seems anything but "so simple and easy to implement"


No, it doesn't need to do any of that. It just sends a signal to the first receiver when it starts recording, so the first receiver knows when to stop. Once the first receiver receives the signal, it stops recording and sends the file.

So there might be 2 seconds that get repeated, but it's still a million times better than just losing the rest of the recording unless you run to another room or use the crappy phone app to manually record it on another receiver, which is what happens now.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

peds48 said:


> BINGO! Until it is, it deserves no place on the mainstream


Bwahahahaha! I still can't fast forward or rewind YouTube, but I am happy to have YouTube in the receivers. I can't listen to Pandora while I watch muted TV on my genie, but I'm happy to have Pandora. There's a bunch of problems and missing features with the NFL fantasy team on screen app, but I'm happy to have it.

Heck, the whole home DVR feature isn't perfect as it is, that's why this thread exists.

Yes, these features would be very much appreciated, even if the service still wouldn't be perfect with them.


----------



## Brad00111 (Dec 30, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> He is wanting it for the list backup, not changing the DVR to the cloud. At least that is what I read.


Bingo! Cloud dvr is a terrible idea imo, atleast until tech improves. I just want some way to take my series manager and put it in the cloud. This way when a dvr is swapped out you click a button and your series recording list is downloaded to the new dvr.

In a perfect world the series list could be one master list then the cloud assigns it to a dvr based on free tuners, thus eliminating the need to ensure no conflicts (unless of course you fill all the tuners in your home). But that's a pipe dream of course.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

Brad00111 said:


> Bingo! Cloud dvr is a terrible idea imo, atleast until tech improves. I just want some way to take my series manager and put it in the cloud. This way when a dvr is swapped out you click a button and your series recording list is downloaded to the new dvr.
> 
> In a perfect world the series list could be one master list then the cloud assigns it to a dvr based on free tuners, thus eliminating the need to ensure no conflicts (unless of course you fill all the tuners in your home). But that's a pipe dream of course.


But then if your Internet went down you might miss a recording.

The cloud is cool, but I'd much rather have my series manager backed up to all the local receivers, and have the local receivers assign the recording to a free tuner.


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

BlackDynamite said:


> But then if your Internet went down you might miss a recording.
> 
> The cloud is cool, but I'd much rather have my series manager backed up to all the local receivers, and have the local receivers assign the recording to a free tuner.


I think this type of "cloud" that people are talking about would be separate from an internet connection and sent via satellite and stored somewhere within D*'s network, if that would even be possible.


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

mrknowitall526 said:


> I think this type of "cloud" that people are talking about would be separate from an internet connection and sent via satellite and stored somewhere within D*'s network, if that would even be possible.


That wouldn't work as directv satellite is a one way system, think of it has an FM radio station, your radio in your car only receives the signal but has no way of sending info back the the radio station


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

mrknowitall526 said:


> I think this type of "cloud" that people are talking about would be separate from an internet connection and sent via satellite and stored somewhere within D*'s network, if that would even be possible.


mexican-bum already pointed out why that wouldn't be possible. So I'll just say that my version is also a cloud system, it's just your own private cloud that's in your own home.

No extra hardware required, cheaper for directv to implement, and our existing hardware is already doing things that are much more complex. I hope somebody who has some pull at directv reads this thread. Or at least someone at directv who knows where to send suggestions and cares enough to forward this thread to the powers that be.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

What it all boils down to is there needs to be some way to save the series manager and I can't believe it would take the Manhattan Project to get it done. It would be nice if it would update itself every day or so but just having the ability to use the menu to save to your account would be better than nothing.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Yes, all I want is this, the series link manager. Back up to cloud or whatever, but I prefer local and not something like to the remote.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> So I'll just say that my version is also a cloud system, it's just your own private cloud that's in your own home.


Absent a clear definition of what a cloud is, this is a difficult argument to push. Various products claim to help you set up a home cloud and they aren't all compatible or even in the home.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

To me, if it's not out on the Internet, it's not cloud.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

Well it is a cloud in the sense that there is a network of receivers in your home. 

Doesn't Directv refer to this network as a DECA cloud?

It's not "The cloud" that people are typically referring to when they say "The cloud" (they are just typically referring to the Internet). But it's "A" cloud, as the information is stored on a separate device across a network.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Deca is no more a cloud than a cat5 cable is - It;s just another route for data flow - "Cloud" is reserved for off local network Storage Access


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

WestDC said:


> Deca is no more a cloud than a cat5 cable is - It;s just another route for data flow - "Cloud" is reserved for off local network Storage Access


Well in the sense of a TV receiver, a receiver in another room connected to another TV can be considered to not be local.

It's semantics, and with no clear and official definition in this area, it's hard to say it's not correct.

What is considered the local site for a TV receiver? I would definitely say another device in another room would be considered a cloud. Not "The" cloud, but "A" cloud.

The experts at Solid Signal seem to agree:
http://blog.solidsignal.com/content.php/2228-What-is-a-DECA-cloud


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well it is a cloud in the sense that there is a network of receivers in your home.
> 
> Doesn't Directv refer to this network as a DECA cloud?
> 
> It's not "The cloud" that people are typically referring to when they say "The cloud" (they are just typically referring to the Internet). But it's "A" cloud, as the information is stored on a separate device across a network.


The hard drives that are connected to your system on the network ( not in the PC ) in your house are termed "Your own personal Cloud". They are there for all that are on the network to use if they are set up that way. To me I would be acceptable of this being a personal cloud.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> I think it would be cool if the cloud actually replace the DVR itself. I know that isn't going to happen for a few years yet. I wonder when that did happen would the DVR be replaced by an APP at first or just have HD Receiver connected to the cloud then move to an APP?


I have seen the issues with cloud DVR (Xfinity) at my brother's over Christmas. Slow and laggy at best; Horrible at worst. If there are any connection issues at all, you are trapped. I never want to see true cloud DVRs. I want my storage local. I also live with distributed data at work all the time. Inconsistent response is a good day.

That being said, I like the backup option. I just used it for Fios. It backed up (on demand and stored for 30 days only) most of your settings and your season passes. It worked pretty well (not perfectly), but well enough to make transition easier.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> Absent a clear definition of what a cloud is, this is a difficult argument to push. Various products claim to help you set up a home cloud and they aren't all compatible or even in the home.


Great, let us bring marketing terms of "cloud" to muddy the waters. There is no such thing as a home cloud. That is a marketing term.


----------



## kxaz145 (May 1, 2008)

Gents, when swapping out a DVR this is a huge issue in my view. In the past I've made a written list of the shows being recorded. When I upgraded to the Genie 44 I snapped pictures of the TV screen (on old DVR) as I paged through the shows that were being recorded. Then on the Genie I had to search for each show and since I had the Internet connection turned on I was plagued with the same show from everywhere being recorded? I turned off the Internet connection, but am still having the show recorded from other channels. I've spent time cleaning it up, but haven't found a guide on the different sources, even though I set all to record first view only. A flash drive that could trigger 'on screen prompts' through a menu to copy favorites to the flash drive from the old DVR and the reverse when inserted into the new DVR would be great for someone like me


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

I have in the past noted it would be nice to be able to back up one's SLs, favorites, etc to the DirecTV servers as part of our account info. Much like an Apple iOS backup. When a DVR is lost the new one can be replaced and resilvered from that back up. Done.

Nothing extensively complicated nor run time interaction involved. Merely back up the metadata the receiver uses to schedule and make recordings and the other metadata to control set up preferences.

being able to assign said recordings from a master list to subordinate DVRs is more of a tablet app and THAT WOULD BE SUPER TOO but. . .

Don "just a simple metadata backup, and an ability to restore from would go a long way" Bolton


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

lugnutathome said:


> I have in the past noted it would be nice to be able to back up one's SLs, favorites, etc to the DirecTV servers as part of our account info. Much like an Apple iOS backup. When a DVR is lost the new one can be replaced and resilvered from that back up. Done.
> 
> Nothing extensively complicated nor run time interaction involved. Merely back up the metadata the receiver uses to schedule and make recordings and the other metadata to control set up preferences.
> 
> ...


I actually think the list is already there on their storage devices.
I just did a restart and carefully watched all the messages that came to the screen.
The one that was almost to the end of the rebuild said it was rebuilding the Series List.
If it is not on there site, then where is it.
If it is on their site they just need to be able to move this list from the receiver serial number it was made on to the one that replaces it.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> I actually think the list is already there on their storage devices.
> I just did a restart and carefully watched all the messages that came to the screen.
> The one that was almost to the end of the rebuild said it was rebuilding the Series List.
> If it is not on there site, then where is it.
> If it is on their site they just need to be able to move this list from the receiver serial number it was made on to the one that replaces it.


That info is currently stored on a partition that D* holds for firmware and to store PPV content (not all) Downloaded to each and every DVR's Hard drive.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

WestDC said:


> That info is currently stored on a partition that D* holds for firmware and to store PPV content (not all) Downloaded to each and every DVR's Hard drive.


Thanks, that makes sense.

6 years ago I ask DTV why they did not make use of a USB flash drive.
They replied that someone had a patent on using the USB for storage. Surely that patent has expired by now. Even drug patents only last 7 years , supposedly.


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

jimmie57 said:


> The hard drives that are connected to your system on the network ( not in the PC ) in your house are termed "Your own personal Cloud". They are there for all that are he network to use if they are set up that way. To me I would be acceptable of this being a personal cloud.


What about NAS storage devices? I have a WD "My Cloud" external hard drive in my network. It stores everything locally, but offers a web interface you can access from anywhere to access what's on the drive.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well it is a cloud in the sense that there is a network of receivers in your home.
> 
> *Doesn't Directv refer to this network as a DECA cloud?*
> 
> It's not "The cloud" that people are typically referring to when they say "The cloud" (they are just typically referring to the Internet). But it's "A" cloud, as the information is stored on a separate device across a network.


A very restrictive cloud. As nothing can be moved about. And if a piece of it goes down, all the data on that piece is lost. It's cloud with no backup. Which makes it a cloud in name only.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> There is no such thing as a home cloud. That is a marketing term.


The term "cloud" is like the term "dude". It has been so violently misused that it no longer has a primary definition. DIRECTV has misused the term to represent a segment (NOT a subnet) of your LAN.

4K is another term that is well on its way to uselessness as it is being applied to all sorts of things that aren't really 4K in the original sense(s). Just wait and see what happens when the try to differentiate low-bandwidth UHD with full-on, wide gamut, (48fps?) UHD.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> The term "cloud" is like the term "dude". It has been so violently misused that it no longer has a primary definition. DIRECTV has misused the term to represent a segment (NOT a subnet) of your LAN.4K is another term that is well on its way to uselessness as it is being applied to all sorts of things that aren't really 4K in the original sense(s). Just wait and see what happens when the try to differentiate low-bandwidth UHD with full-on, wide gamut, (48fps?) UHD.


So you misuse the word because others do? The "every one is doing it" defense.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

I had assumed this as well. I think the rebuilding is correlation between the schedule list and available guide info.

Don " course I could be full of old boleros too" Bolton



WestDC said:


> That info is currently stored on a partition that D* holds for firmware and to store PPV content (not all) Downloaded to each and every DVR's Hard drive.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> So you misuse the word because others do? The "every one is doing it" defense.


The term applies at different scales just as networks can be looked at at different scales. That someone chooses to believe that it must be on the Internet proper and/or be regularly backed up are their own conditions to give a marketing edge over another brand of cloud.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

It is most likely cloudy here in Oregon though  I am guilty of referring to the DECA fabric as the DECA "cloud" likely as I did fall in to the common reference. At least to my way of thinking DECA and switched Ethernet are fabrics for the transfer of IP packets. Each one represents its own separate network that we bridge via some form of "broadband DECA" adapter.

Don "but Mongo DBA geek not notwork engineer" Bolton


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> So you misuse the word because others do? The "every one is doing it" defense.


If "everyone else" is referring to something in a certain manner that was previously incorrect, then the definition has obviously changed.

English is a dynamic language. Definitions change all the time. There is no supreme ruler who determines the definitions of terms. The definitions are recorded based on how they are used by the masses.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

lugnutathome said:


> It is most likely cloudy here in Oregon though


Mostly cloudy as it happens but it was partly cloudy until you mentioned it. 


> I am guilty of referring to the DECA fabric as the DECA "cloud" likely as I did fall in to the common reference. At least to my way of thinking DECA and switched Ethernet are fabrics for the transfer of IP packets. Each one represents its own separate network that we bridge via some form of "broadband DECA" adapter.


DECA runs on a different medium but it still belongs to the home network. Segment is the term that seems to get the most use in this situation.

In my experience, the cloud must incorporate some sort of host or server that does the back-end stuff (serving up content, directory services, backup, etc.) and that doesn't really exist in the DECA "cloud" (yet). By rights, a Home Media Center should provide these services but that may be why it is called a Genie instead of an HMC.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

harsh said:


> Mostly cloudy as it happens but it was partly cloudy until you mentioned it.
> DECA runs on a different medium but it still belongs to the home network. Segment is the term that seems to get the most use in this situation.
> 
> In my experience, the cloud must incorporate some sort of host or server that does the back-end stuff (serving up content, directory services, backup, etc.) and that doesn't really exist in the DECA "cloud" (yet). By rights, a Home Media Center should provide these services but that may be why it is called a Genie instead of an HMC.


Yes, you absolutely can serve up content from one device to another. That is how the whole home DVR service works, one DVR streaming content to another DVR. The directory and backup is what I'm saying should be done on other devices, but I don't think there is a way to do that yet. The serving up content from one device to another is done in the DECA "cloud" though.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I believe that the cloud is defined by most folk as how harsh described it. Marketing, schmarketing!


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

While it's just semantics to scale from the 'DECA cloud' to the Internet Cloud, I think most anyone could agree that 'Backup to the Cloud' would mean backup Series Links to DirecTV servers (or somewhere in the cloud).

USB drives would also work. . . that's the first I've heard that there's a patent restricting that. . . seems to work on PCs everywhere!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> Yes, you absolutely can serve up content from one device to another.


MRV is peer-to-peer and that probably doesn't meet anyone's definition of cloud.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

harsh said:


> MRV is peer-to-peer and that probably doesn't meet anyone's definition of cloud.


Well that brings us back almost full circle.

It's already already been stated by someone that plenty of network hard drives are marketed as cloud backup and storage solutions. There are probably millions of these devices in use. I'm sure a lot of the people using them think they fit the definition of a cloud backup and storage device. Maybe not "the" cloud, but certainly "a" cloud.

Also, pretty much every illegal file sharing network is peer to peer, and they're all considered "cloud" networks. They use the Internet, but they're still peer to peer.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> Also, pretty much every illegal file sharing network is peer to peer, and they're all considered "cloud" networks. They use the Internet, but they're still peer to peer.


I suspect you aren't familiar with the state of file sharing networks. I use them occasionally to download Linux distributions and I always see many different peers contributing to my downloads. It is very rarely a one-to-one relationship. That said, I don't consider these networks to be a cloud other than in the OS agnostic sense.

Cloud comes more from not knowing (and not needing to care) what is at the center of it all and perhaps ideally, it is a cluster of smaller servers working together. This progresses to my ideal of people forgetting about Windows Servers and the standards-abhorrent software they often run.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

harsh said:


> I suspect you aren't familiar with the state of file sharing networks. I use them occasionally to download Linux distributions and I always see many different peers contributing to my downloads. It is very rarely a one-to-one relationship. That said, I don't consider these networks to be a cloud other than in the OS agnostic sense.
> 
> Cloud comes more from not knowing (and not needing to care) what is at the center of it all and perhaps ideally, it is a cluster of smaller servers working together. This progresses to my ideal of people forgetting about Windows Servers and the standards-abhorrent software they often run.


File sharing networks may not be 1 to 1, but they are peer to peer. There is no central server handling the sharing, it's a peer to peer network. You are connected to more than 1 peer, just as a whole home DVR can be connected to more than 1 DVR.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> File sharing networks may not be 1 to 1, but they are peer to peer.


The issue within the DIRECTV network is how do you decide where everything is stored. A peer to peer model suggests that everyone keeps a copy but as we know, some boxes can barely maintain their own settings, much less that of peer boxes.

If you replace the repository box, the whole process starts over.

Backing up to the remote makes more sense centralized backup.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

harsh said:


> The issue within the DIRECTV network is how do you decide where everything is stored. A peer to peer model suggests that everyone keeps a copy but as we know, some boxes can barely maintain their own settings, much less that of peer boxes.
> 
> If you replace the repository box, the whole process starts over.
> 
> Backing up to the remote makes more sense centralized backup.


Your could create a list on each receiver of as many of your receivers as you want.

You when you set up your whole home DVR sharing list, you can also decide if the receiver is going to back up the series manager to each of those receivers.

Right now, if I go into settings and whole home DVR status, I see a list of all the receivers that have access to the whole home DVR. It wouldn't be all that complicated to also have a check box after each one to enable the series manager backup to that receiver.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> Your could create a list on each receiver of as many of your receivers as you want.


Unless you have only one receiver. I'm not sure that some of the earlier models have the resources to handle the additional load of backing up their fellow boxes.


> Right now, if I go into settings and whole home DVR status, I see a list of all the receivers that have access to the whole home DVR. It wouldn't be all that complicated to also have a check box after each one to enable the series manager backup to that receiver.


When the box has been replaced, how does it know where to get the backup data from?

The advantage of using the remote is that every receiver has a remote where there may not always be another receiver. Someone with a single box surely needs security at least as robust as someone with multiple boxes.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> Unless you have only one receiver. I'm not sure that some of the earlier models have the resources to handle the additional load of backing up their fellow boxes.When the box has been replaced, how does it know where to get the backup data from?The advantage of using the remote is that every receiver has a remote where there may not always be another receiver. Someone with a single box surely needs security at least as robust as someone with multiple boxes.


Of course, those of us who use universals and put the original remotes away sans batteries.....


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Of course, those of us who use universals and put the original remotes away sans batteries.....


Exactly. If it was in the remote, we'd need to get the original remote out on occasion and update it. And it would need to be stored in non volatile memory.


----------



## DaveC27 (Apr 14, 2010)

BlackDynamite said:


> No, it's not supposed to do that.
> 
> If something happens to interrupt the recording, the receiver then sends a request to a different receiver to record it. When the other receiver starts the recording, the first receiver stops recording and THEN transfers the first part of the recording to the other receiver that is finishing the recording.


I don't think you'd need to transfer the file to the 2nd machine, just put something in the file to say at the end of this file go to Machine #3 to complete showing this file. Transfering the 1st part of the show to a 2nd machine would be problematic as what would happen in the 3rd machine had to interrupt its record and start recording on a 4th PVR you'd then have Machine 2 sending its file to machine 4 and machine 3 sending its bit to machine 4 and machine 4 trying to append

Much easier for Machine2 to say at the end of this recording start reading from machine 3, then Machine 3 say at the end of this recording start reading from Machine 3


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Exactly. If it was in the remote, we'd need to get the original remote out on occasion and update it. And it would need to be stored in non volatile memory.


A directv central storage is better.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> A directv central storage is better.


I personally just want to be able to plug in a usb stick and copy things over, though stored at DirecTV would allow an automated process.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

Probably the simplest, both from a programming stance and "user experience" , is the USB stick backup. It's a Linux system at heart, so enabling automount of the stick, and copying of the series manager file is trivial. Updating the user interface is NEVER trivial, but at least for this operation it would not require a lot of additional code space. For DirecTV's sanity, let them require a "special" USB stick that's been formatted just for this purpose. (Most likely just a 4Gig stick that's been formatted with an EXT3 file system). When you plug in the stick you get a pop-up that asks if you want to back up your Series Manager, update/replace an existing backup, or restore your Series Manager if a backup already exists. Just my .02 ......


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Personally, although there are dozens of technical solutions - a simple USB backup would be great. Stick it in and let it happen - I can't imagine why you'd need 4GB but with today's prices for those who really cares. Simple is much, much better.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

harsh said:


> Unless you have only one receiver. I'm not sure that some of the earlier models have the resources to handle the additional load of backing up their fellow boxes.
> When the box has been replaced, how does it know where to get the backup data from?
> 
> The advantage of using the remote is that every receiver has a remote where there may not always be another receiver. Someone with a single box surely needs security at least as robust as someone with multiple boxes.


So I'm thinking it could work like this.

When you set up whole home DVR on a receiver, you select which receivers are allowed to access that particular receiver. This is how it works currently.

In my pipe dream, when you select that receiver, or view the status of receivers that have access to the play list, you also have an option for backing up the series manager to that receiver.

You would also have an option to restore backups. It would simply be the name of the receiver that it came from.

So, I have a receiver I call master bedroom, another receiver I call basement, another receiver I call weight room. These are the names shown in the whole home DVR, and also what they are called in the directv app.

So in my pipe dream, in the settings menu I would have an option to restore a series manager backup. If I click that, it lists all the receivers on the home network. I would select a receiver, and it lists all the backups on that receiver. Say I'm currently using the weight room receiver, and my backup is saved on the basement receiver. So I select the basement receiver to view the backups stored on it. I would see one named master bedroom, another named weight room. I know this new receiver is going to the weight room, so I pick that restore file. And if I haven't done so already, I name the new receiver weight room so I know which one it is in my list.

If you only have 1 receiver, then backup to a flash drive. I'd rather backup to one of the many networked hard drives in the many receivers in my house though. Keeps things simpler.

The hardware is already in every DVR, so no need to require additional hardware (remotes).


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> So I'm thinking it could work like this.
> 
> When you set up whole home DVR on a receiver, you select which receivers are allowed to access that particular receiver. This is how it works currently.
> 
> .


that is NOT how it works, you can either share with ALL our not share at all. You can't pick and choose

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

elaclair said:


> Probably the simplest, both from a programming stance and "user experience" , is the USB stick backup. It's a Linux system at heart, so enabling automount of the stick, and copying of the series manager file is trivial. Updating the user interface is NEVER trivial, but at least for this operation it would not require a lot of additional code space. For DirecTV's sanity, let them require a "special" USB stick that's been formatted just for this purpose. (Most likely just a 4Gig stick that's been formatted with an EXT3 file system). When you plug in the stick you get a pop-up that asks if you want to back up your Series Manager, update/replace an existing backup, or restore your Series Manager if a backup already exists. Just my .02 ......


Asking customers to plug something in equals a nightmare. 99% would immediately flip the machine around and things would come unplugged, then some would even require a call to service to figure out how it goes back. Then there some that would try and plug it into the esata port, or worse, have a am21 plugged in and have to unplug that then plug it back in.. And that's after the nightmare of trying to explain to someone how it works and sending them a stick in the first place.

Online silent backups that keep in sync would be perfect. It would also allow them to open a portal and make it so you could manage your stuff online. It should include channel lists as well...

And then if you get a new one, have one simple menu that says copy settings, and give a list of the stored options. Basically the exact same way you can do know with copying genie settings to minis. Simple and done.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

peds48 said:


> that is NOT how it works, you can either share with ALL our not share at all. You can't pick and choose
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


Maybe so, it's been a while since I set mine up so memory is a bit foggy.

I do know for sure if you go into whole home status it lists each receiver, 1 by 1, and gives a status for sharing and a status for deletion (which I assume is permission for that receiver to delete recordings saved on the current receiver).

It wouldn't be much to also add an option to store backup files right there.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Asking customers to plug something in equals a nightmare. 99% would immediately flip the machine around and things would come unplugged, then some would even require a call to service to figure out how it goes back. Then there some that would try and plug it into the esata port, or worse, have a am21 plugged in and have to unplug that then plug it back in.. And that's after the nightmare of trying to explain to someone how it works and sending them a stick in the first place.
> 
> Online silent backups that keep in sync would be perfect. It would also allow them to open a portal and make it so you could manage your stuff online. It should include channel lists as well...
> 
> And then if you get a new one, have one simple menu that says copy settings, and give a list of the stored options. Basically the exact same way you can do know with copying genie settings to minis. Simple and done.


The main problem with having the backup online is that would require Directv to maintain servers to do it. I doubt they want the added expense of a server farm that could handle backups and restorals for their tens of millions of customers and even more receivers.

Plus you'd need an active Internet connection, which a lot of people don't have.

I think it'd be cheaper and easier to do it with existing hardware. All we need is a firmware update. Doesn't cost directv much to implement, and there is no recurring cost to directv after it's implemented.

It just seems silly to me that we have a network of DVRs all talking to each other, streaming big HD movies to each other, yet they can't backup a small series manager file to each other.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> I do know for sure if you go into whole home status it lists each receiver, 1 by 1, and gives a status for sharing and a status for deletion (which I assume is permission for that receiver to delete recordings saved on the current receiver).


Correct, if you set to share, it shares with ALL receivers, you can't pick and choose. If you set up NOT to share, it wont share with ANY receiver. Again, can't pick and choose.

Deletion works the same way, kinda. If you set to allow deletion, all receivers can delete, you can't pick and choose. If you DONT allow deletion, NONE of the receivers can delete, just locally.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> It wouldn't be much to also add an option to store backup files right there.


Adding the verbatim to allow back up on the GUI would not be too much, what happens in the background is another story!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Inky makes the point I was just pondering. Few here would have a problem with a USB flash drive, but nightmares are likely with less experienced folk.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

What about backing up to the directv app on your droid, iPhone or iPad? It's already on your network, and those devices have more advanced UI designs to accomplish the workflow of such a thing.

I always wished my iPhone could tap into and actually VIEW the to do list and series manager. Then tap and drag to reorder things, hit a button to submit the new priorities to the DVR in focus.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> The main problem with having the backup online is that would require Directv to maintain servers to do it. I doubt they want the added expense of a server farm that could handle backups and restorals for their tens of millions of customers and even more receivers.
> 
> Plus you'd need an active Internet connection, which a lot of people don't have.
> 
> ...


Well for one DIRECTV already has huge server farms. And two it's not that much space. I don't think we'll ever see a solution for non genies either. How many genies get installed that are not Internet connected? I doubt many overall.

Now having clients backup server settings might be An interesting option.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Well for one DIRECTV already has huge server farms. And two it's not that much space. I don't think we'll ever see a solution for non genies either. How many genies get installed that are not Internet connected? I doubt many overall.
> 
> Now having clients backup server settings might be An interesting option.


Directv has huge server farms, I agree, but they're already performing the important functions they were set up to perform.

If directv had server farms with no use for them then somebody would be fired for it.

It's not much storage required. Well, for tens of millions of receivers it would add up, but not all that much space is required.

However, the processing power required and the bandwidth required would both be enormous. With tens of millions of receivers out there, the servers would have to be ready to handle tens of thousands of backups/restorals at any given time.

Any server farm that can handle tens of thousands of file transfers at any given time is going to be very expensive. And the Internet connection with enough bandwidth to handle it is also going to be very expensive.

It'd be much cheaper to just roll out a firmware update to allow the receivers to do it on their own LAN amongst each other.

I can't believe you don't find it absurd that these receivers (on a whole home dvr) are already networked and talking to each other, sending huge HD movie files to each other, yet they can't send a small series manager backup file to each other.

Everything is in place already, just need a firmware update.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Adding the verbatim to allow back up on the GUI would not be too much, what happens in the background is another story!


It wouldn't be too much coding. Certainly not as much nor as complex as many of the features already in place.

You tell it to write the series manager to a file (and it is likely already a file, which is how the receiver reads it). Just add code that specifies where to store a backup file for other receivers, how to send a copy of that file to other receivers, and how to replace the file with a backup from another receiver.

There's probably a few minor things I'm leaving out, but this isn't all that complex. Most of the functionality is probably already written into the OS, just need to put in some code to make it visible in the GUI.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> Directv has hive server farms, and they're already performing certain functions.
> 
> If directv had server farms with no use for them then somebody would be fired for it.
> 
> ...


I think you are forgetting something about backing them up to other receivers.. The only ones that could do backups are DVR's, as there's no way there is enough space on a h25, etc...

How many of their customers do you think have no more than one dvr vs those who have more than one dvr? Ill bet its something like 85% to 15%. At most. Maybe less. And now with Genies, its getting to be even smaller the amount of actual receivers, since most are using clients and not receivers after the main genie. So implementing anything that works for only 15% is useless is far as I am concerned, Its a waste of resources.

Whatever they implement needs to work for all settings on all their boxes for any customer, not just the one who has beyond a normal houses number of dvrs.. ( Or at this point in time now just genies forward, and leave the legacy equipment in the dust. I can get on board with that, but it needs to work for anything current and going forward. I honestly don't think we will ever see this type of feature for anything that isnt a genie.)

And I am looking bigger anyway. I want and expect them to have full control online of their dvrs, and his backing up of settings can be built into that as a larger project all rolled into one.

And my point was as much or more so about the infrastructure and bandwidth as much as it was simply about storage space. They can add some storage space to their current server farms and then use the backbone they already have in place for vod for this system. That was my reasoning on that part of it...

In fact, when you think about it, they have these dvrs send them tons of info as it is now, so how is that handheld? I think the hardware end is more in place than the software end, but who knows.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I think you are forgetting something about backing them up to other receivers.. The only ones that could do backups are DVR's, as there's no way there is enough space on a h25, etc...
> 
> How many of their customers do you think have no more than one dvr vs those who have more than one dvr? Ill bet its something like 85% to 15%. At most. Maybe less. And now with Genies, its getting to be even smaller the amount of actual receivers, since most are using clients and not receivers after the main genie. So implementing anything that works for only 15% is useless is far as I am concerned, Its a waste of resources.
> 
> ...


Well that 85% to 15% ratio is pure speculation on your part. I doubt it's accurate. Everyone I know has more than one DVR.

And if directv is really sitting on a bunch of server processing power that they have no plans to use, and a bunch of Internet bandwidth that they have no plans to use, then someone needs to be fired. That stuff is not cheap.

If the on demand servers and their Internet connection are really so under utilized they could handle all of this without skipping a beat, then they should use them for more streaming of live programming.

Using server farms to do this in the cloud would be insanely expensive, likely requiring an extra monthly fee for us to use the service.

Backing it up to other DVRs on the same network would be a fairly trivial firmware update with nothing else required. Simple, inexpensive, and would be very much appreciated.

They could also put in the option to back up to a flash drive for the people with only 1 DVR. That might be more costly and complex to do than backing up to other DVRs though, depending on if there really is a patent on that and what functionality that USB port is capable of.

Either way, I'd prefer to just backup to the hard drives already on the network. And that would also be the cheapest and easiest to implement (therefore most realistic chance of seeing it happen).


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well that 85% to 15% ratio is pure speculation on your part. I doubt it's accurate. Everyone I know has more than one DVR.
> 
> And if directv is really sitting on a bunch of server processing power that they have no plans to use, and a bunch of Internet bandwidth that they have no plans to use, then someone needs to be fired. That stuff is not cheap.
> 
> ...


This whole thread is nothing but speculation. Why would DTV care about backing this up at an expense with no return on the money spent ?
I have had to replace 1 DVR since 2009. It took me about 30 minutes to rebuild my Series Manager from memory and I am 71 years old. I had 37 of them set up.

I have 1 DVR, my friend has just 1 and my neighbor across the street does not have one at all.

When AT&T takes us over they will readily make use of the Server Power that is also in speculation. I don't have a clue for what they will use it but they will put it to work doing something.

My statements on what will or won't be done are speculation like this whole thread. This thread and a few more similar in nature are a total waste of time and energy since we can not affect anything that DTV is or is not going to do in the future. Yep, I just wasted some of my time and energy here.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> A directv central storage is better.


Alas, such a device and the software to use doesn't seem to exist so it is presumptive to say that it is better than any other solution.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> You would also have an option to restore backups. It would simply be the name of the receiver that it came from.


The issue of replacing a receiver is one of the primary reasons for doing a backup. How do you replace a receiver in your pipe dream?


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

harsh said:


> The issue of replacing a receiver is one of the primary reasons for doing a backup. How do you replace a receiver in your pipe dream?


You would connect it the same way you do right now. Only you would have an option in the settings to restore a series manager file. If you select that option, you're then shown a list of files, each named after the receiver that created it.

So if I'm restoring a file to a new receiver in my weight room, I'd choose the backup file named weight room. Or I could choose any other file if I wanted to. It would simply add the shows to the ones already existing on the receiver. It doesn't have to delete or replace anything, just add it to whatever the receiver already has saved in the series manager.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> This whole thread is nothing but speculation. Why would DTV care about backing this up at an expense with no return on the money spent ?
> I have had to replace 1 DVR since 2009. It took me about 30 minutes to rebuild my Series Manager from memory and I am 71 years old. I had 37 of them set up.
> 
> I have 1 DVR, my friend has just 1 and my neighbor across the street does not have one at all.
> ...


It's not all speculation, there are some facts in this thread too.

Fact: It would be cheaper and easier to implement a feature where DVRs backup to other networked devices (DVRs) than it would be to implement an online backup solution. Much cheaper and easier.

Fact: When you replace a DVR, it's impossible to schedule some shows that were saved in your series manager because they aren't on the schedule anymore. Remembering them is only part of it. If the show isn't coming back on for 6 months then you're going to find it very difficult (impossible) to add it to a series manager. Restoring a backup file could fix this.

Fact: Corporations like directv don't spend the money on server farms and high bandwidth Internet backbone connections unless they have plans to use them. This is always true, but probably even more so if they are trying to get purchased by an even larger corporation.

Fact: Millions of customers would be happy if this were rolled out. It would give directv something to show off in their commercials.

I understand you don't personally care for this, as you pointed out. But this thread wouldn't exist if nobody else wanted it. And please don't think you represent a majority of the people who pay for TV services, have elaborate setups, want the best TV service, etc, especially if you're 71 years old. Directv is not and has never been the cheapest. Directv is known to be the best, not the cheapest. So if you don't care for improvements and added features, then maybe directv isn't the best option for you.

Also, directv has people who read these threads. To say this thread is a total waste of time is simply not true. Yes, it's probably a total waste of time if you don't care about the feature. But if it's something you really want then speaking up about it is definitely not a waste of time. This thread doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen, but at least there is a chance someone at directv notes the suggestion and someone decides it's a good idea and moves forward on it.

Kind of like voting. Whether your guy wins or loses, he probably would have won or lost even if you hadn't voted. It doesn't mean it was a waste of time for you to vote.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

This is a value added service which could be very nice for some customers and completely unused by others.

Seems to me many people are over-thinking it though. DirecTV wants people with internet connected DVRs, so make the backup feature a genie-only, internet-connected only receiver option. The backup file itself would be very small. All you need is a .CSV with the program name, channel, and series recording options. We might as well not even discuss backing up the recordings themselves because I doubt the content-owners would allow it. The list itself is more important than the recorded shows anyway (at least for me).

From there, they could integrate the series manager into your DirecTV account page on the website and with the app. I think it would be very nice to not only have a backup of my series manager in the cloud, but to be able to manage it from there as well. You could use guide-data from as far out as available and wouldn't be burdened by what the DVR has for guide data.

Heck, I'd pay $2-3/mo for it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Don't give them any ideas...unless maybe if it was added as a part of Whole Home service (without raising that fee).


----------



## prushing (Feb 14, 2007)

Uverse already can display recordings on your dvr, scheduled recordings, etc. You can't export them, back them up, etc unless you copy the website screens or text.

You need to also backup the episodes that have been recorded, if not for any older series that you are trying to record repeats, you will end up recordings you have already watched. 

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

prushing said:


> You need to also backup the episodes that have been recorded, if not for any older series that you are trying to record repeats, you will end up recordings you have already watched.


Is that how the first-run/repeat functionality really works (I don't know so looking for clarification)? I assumed (bad to do, I know) that it looked at the first-aired date and went from there.

For that matter, again I'm more concerned about the list itself - just having a backup would be a win. I can live with a few dupes in my new DVR's list if it means I don't have to keep a list and take 6 months to get everything rescheduled. With the addition of the series and season numbers in the program info, that also helps.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

dpeters11 said:


> Don't give them any ideas...unless maybe if it was added as a part of Whole Home service (without raising that fee).


If we want to be realistic about a feature request like this that would require some engineering hours and extensive testing, nothing is free (remember Free HD for life?)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

rmmccann said:


> Is that how the first-run/repeat functionality really works (I don't know so looking for clarification)? I assumed (bad to do, I know) that it looked at the first-aired date and went from there.
> 
> For that matter, again I'm more concerned about the list itself - just having a backup would be a win. I can live with a few dupes in my new DVR's list if it means I don't have to keep a list and take 6 months to get everything rescheduled. With the addition of the series and season numbers in the program info, that also helps.


Yes it is based somewhat on first aired date. (It can record a latter episode if it misses the first due to conflicts,partial recording, etc) Which is why some shows that air in Canada first are not recorded under new only when they premiere her because technically they are not new.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> It's not all speculation, there are some facts in this thread too.
> 
> Fact: It would be cheaper and easier to implement a feature where DVRs backup to other networked devices (DVRs) than it would be to implement an online backup solution. Much cheaper and easier.
> 
> ...


You keep saying someone should be fired if they have that much ability now in their servers. I say how can they not have that much. They need it because there is no way the need for Video On Demand servers and such is constant always. They have to be able to handle surges. Heck I imagine they have normal ebbs and flows as it is.

This is something that doesn't need to be updated constantly all the time. They could have it set to update any changes from the receiver to the web at say 3am once a day ( no changes made today, no sending in updates), and update immediately everywhere anytime you access and alter something remotely via a web interface.

And consider this, they are already using their servers to sync some things as it is. Like start watching a Video On Demand show online and don't finish it it will be sitting on your DVR to finish watching on your TV if you want.

Also, sorry, it just doesn't take that much space. A few TB most for everyone? We aren't talking about video files. We are talking about two basic databases, one for series links and one for channels lists. That'd need to be linked via an account, via a rec I'd, (to link to the already present database showing the receiver names that already exists today) and the I'd number for the series. Same thing for favorites lists but add one more small column for favorites list number.

I can't fathom why you think this would take so much bandwidth and space. Heck replay TV worked over a dial up modem!

They obviously have a heft database already set up for everyone's accounts, simply linking one more database to it should not be that difficult.

And you way over estimate how many people have multiple DVRs. You may know a lot of people, but It's small % overall. But as I said before, anything that would require a customer to plug something into the units just for this and then unplug it isn't going to fly. It's opening a can of worms. So any solution has to work for those with one DVR.

How many of the new customers they have added in the last two years that got genies do you think actually also paid for additional DVRs? Not many....

Far in advance helps with setting future shows that aren't in the guide yet for recording series. Another thing I have discovered that works well to find shows like that, do a search for an actor in the show, then look at their filmography, then you can set a recording for a series that way. Lot of work, but, right now it's one way to do it...


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> You keep saying someone should be fired if they have that much ability now in their servers. I say how can they not have that much. They need it because there is no way the need for Video On Demand servers and such is constant always. They have to be able to handle surges. Heck I imagine they have normal ebbs and flows as it is.
> 
> This is something that doesn't need to be updated constantly all the time. They could have it set to update any changes from the receiver to the web at say 3am once a day ( no changes made today, no sending in updates), and update immediately everywhere anytime you access and alter something remotely via a web interface.
> 
> ...


This is pretty long, so if you're going to skip it, at least read the part about the spying. Nobody has considered that yet. And the part about backing up to a pc. It was mentioned before by someone else but pretty much ignored. (and why can't I edit a post in the android app? have to sign in with a browser to edit a post, lame)

Yes, someone should absolutely be fired if they spent millions of dollars on a server farm with no intentions to use it.

And yes, I know directv has servers right now. My point is, they are already in use and any extra potential they may have is already planned for use by something else.

The on demand servers are not available for this. They are still expanding the on demand service, as you pointed out. They're not going to forget about any future on demand expansion just so they can re designate the planned server use to this new series manager backup feature.

And yes, I realize that it's only a small file. But a small file from tens of millions of customers adds up pretty quick. Most networks would not be able to handle that. Just pinging a network, which is much smaller than this hypothetical file, from a small fraction of that many people all at once, is a DDoS attack that will shut a network down. They have to make sure it's able to handle such traffic, and that is very expensive.

So while it may only be a few TB at most, that means there could be multiple GB coming through all at once. That is more than your average Internet connection can handle, and much more than your average server can handle. And this is if the traffic is spread out, so it'd be somewhat constant. If it was set to do it at a certain time, as you suggest, then there would be lots more traffic at that time with less throughout the rest of the day. So every day at 3 am or whatever they'd get slammed with a TB of data, all at once. Then they'd still have GBs going out all day as people restored backup files.

And the receivers would still need a firmware update anyway to enable this.

Just skip all the extras. Do the firmware update because that would be required no matter what. But no need for an extra server farm and extra staff to maintain the new server farm. Just enable the receivers to use the hardware already in place. Keep it simple. Even the folks with only 1 DVR have the ability to (right now) display pictures on screen that are saved on their computer. And there's that directv to pc thing that I never used which allows you to stream to your computer over the LAN. So the folks with only one DVR can backup to another network device instead of another DVR. PC, phone, network hard drive, etc.

There's really no need for directv to set up and maintain a server farm to do something we already have the hardware to do. I'd rather not be forced to pay extra for a service that would not be 100% reliable.

Plus, I don't really want them spying on me anymore than they already are. One of my friends from out of town was staying with me for a few days last year while he was in town. He signed in as me on the directv app on his phone. I keep the pay per view purchases password protected, but other than that there are no restrictions on the receiver in my guest room.

I was getting "Adam and Eve" porn commercials on all of my receivers for months after he left. I don't know what he was watching or doing on his phone, but I have no doubt that those commercials came about because directv was spying on his activities.

If given the choice, I'll keep it simple and store my backups locally. It can be just as automated as you suggested. Just using my own equipment instead of a huge, off site server farm.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> If we want to be realistic about a feature request like this that would require some engineering hours and extensive testing, nothing is free (remember Free HD for life?)


I'd be OK with it as part of whole home, but not $3 on top of that.

Or maybe part of the protection plan includes protection of series links.

But I already pay for those, I'm sure it wouldn't be popular to have that in the Protection Plan.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> This is pretty long, so if you're going to skip it, at least read the part about the spying. Nobody has considered that yet. And the part about backing up to a pc. It was mentioned before by someone else but pretty much ignored. (and why can't I edit a post in the android app? have to sign in with a browser to edit a post, lame)
> 
> Yes, someone should absolutely be fired if they spent millions of dollars on a server farm with no intentions to use it.
> 
> ...


In the days of CDN and large carrier networks - the bandwidth and load issues are already addressed for other purposes. Multiple data centers can provide this as well as a level of redundancy to allow for a pleasant experience for everyone. Aside from that - everything is always rolled out in stages. This update would be no different and would allow DirecTV to stagger the hit on their servers and minimize negative impact. Additionally, it's not like this file has to be backed up every day or every time a change is made. It could be a weekly backup or one that is only flagged when a change in one of the lists is detected. It doesn't have to be a constant stream of data from millions of customers.

Secondly, although I can appreciate and somewhat share your concern about the spying and privacy issues, you'd be naive to think that this file would contain any information they don't already know about you and your viewing habits.



dpeters11 said:


> I'd be OK with it as part of whole home, but not $3 on top of that.
> 
> Or maybe part of the protection plan includes protection of series links.
> 
> But I already pay for those, I'm sure it wouldn't be popular to have that in the Protection Plan.


That would give me a reason to actually pay for the protection plan. To each his own - I personally don't see this happening for some time anyway. Maybe DirecTV will surprise us all and roll it out in a soonish future release, free of charge.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You can opt out of most the data collecting (really its about what you watch, not personal info of banks etc) on the web site about your personal info gathering from your dvrs...


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> You can opt out of most the data collecting (really its about what you watch, not personal info of banks etc) on the web site about your personal info gathering from your dvrs...


Where do you do that? I can't find anything about opting out of data collection from your DVR. The only thing I could find was opting out of tracking how you use the directv.com website.


----------



## prushing (Feb 14, 2007)

BlackDynamite said:


> Where do you do that? I can't find anything about opting out of data collection from your DVR. The only thing I could find was opting out of tracking how you use the directv.com website.


It's in the account preferences or something like that

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Where do you do that? I can't find anything about opting out of data collection from your DVR. The only thing I could find was opting out of tracking how you use the directv.com website.


Looks like they added a few items. Go to their website, under My Account > My Settings. Private Watching appears to be new, but only seems to cover on-demand content.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> Looks like they added a few items. Go to their website, under My Account > My Settings. Private Watching appears to be new, but only seems to cover on-demand content.


Private watching also only appears to cover the device you're browsing the site with.

For what it's worth, my private watching was already enabled so that's definitely not what they were using to spy when my buddy was in town last year. Private watching seems to just keep on demand content that you viewed on that device from showing up on your DVR or in your recently watched list. It's more about keeping your viewing private from the test of your family. It doesn't say anything about keeping it private from directv or being used for ads.

I bet if you enable private viewing and then watch a couple nasty movies, your wife may not find out you watched them, but you'll be getting "Adam and Eve" porn and adult toys ads on your TVs for several months.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Only "A&E" ad I've seen lately seems to fall into late night Viacom programming. Not sure whether it's being inserted at the DVR level or broadcast live. Wouldn't call it porn, though. It's the one with the "Edna" character. (Truth be told, if I were buying those type of products I'd much rather have "Edna" ring them up and pay her cash than have everyone from the NSA to the Post Office, -not to mention the credit card companies and everyone in between- knowing what I bought, how much I paid, etc. Not that anyone would actually give a rip anyway - much less "Edna.")

As far as personal viewing info? I've no real reason to not to believe it's already being collected, especially real-time viewing data from those machines that are net-connected. That info's probably already been shared with D*'s prospective buyer, among other entities.

IIRC, the fine print in the customer agreement from a few years back, while claiming only anonymous data were collected, in the very next paragraph stated that personal info (including viewing data) would be shared with law enforcement if D* were ordered to. I don't think I can verify this now, and the customer agreement fine print changes every year or so, so that statement has been amended by now. (It's also entirely possible I don't completely RC.)

As to my feelings on series manager backup I think that folks with the "protection plan" at least should be able to "upload" it every so often, either by phone or internet connection. Then, when that particular DVR is replaced, the data could be "pushed back," maybe even "trickled" via satellite if not the first two methods. I do realize, of course, that there are plenty of potential problems with any method.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> Inky makes the point I was just pondering. Few here would have a problem with a USB flash drive, but nightmares are likely with less experienced folk.


Okay, maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I get the impression that users who would interested (or even care) about having the backup would be able to handle the USB stick, but I get where inkahauts is coming from.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

elaclair said:


> Okay, maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I get the impression that users who would interested (or even care) about having the backup would be able to handle the USB stick, but I get where inkahauts is coming from.


I don't know a single person who wouldn't love to see their settings be moved without hardly any work from an old DVR to a new one.

The key is they wouldn't want to really do much work because that's when it gets complicated.

Whatever they implement I am sure DIRECTV feels that it needs to be easy for ones who can't do complicated.


----------



## woj027 (Sep 3, 2007)

Don't most of the DVR's have a USB port? How about being able to "back up" your series list on your own?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

woj027 said:


> Don't most of the DVR's have a USB port? How about being able to "back up" your series list on your own?


All HD DVRs have USB port(s) at the very least they are used for the AM21.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> All HD DVRs have USB port(s) at the very least they are used for the AM21.


.

Which then might cause someone to unplug the am21 while trying to work it. Not to mention how any people would try to plug it into the esata port!


----------



## woj027 (Sep 3, 2007)

I was just trying to think outside the cloud, obviously I didn't think of those who's head was in it.

I was thinking you don't have to leave the USB stick in the DVR, you just plug it in when you need to back up your Series. Maybe a reminder pops up when you add something? 
is your series list saved on the HD or on onboard memory (BIOS)? if on board, Could it be part of the software (BIOS) when your hard drive fails that when it blue screens you can "save your series lists"


I'm not talking about saving actual shows, just the series manager list.

Obviously I'm not a computer programmer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express..


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

woj027 said:


> I was just trying to think outside the cloud, obviously I didn't think of those who's head was in it.
> 
> I was thinking you don't have to leave the USB stick in the DVR, you just plug it in when you need to back up your Series. Maybe a reminder pops up when you add something?
> is your series list saved on the HD or on onboard memory (BIOS)? if on board, Could it be part of the software (BIOS) when your hard drive fails that when it blue screens you can "save your series lists"
> ...


Series manager settings are saved on the hard drives. So are favorites lists in the guide.

This is the reason using a USB won't work for people who have to replace a defective unit unless they backed it up right before. It's something that needs to happen constantly IMHO.

There is one device customers can put on their network they could probably use for this, a genie go..... But how many have one?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> The key is they wouldn't want to really do much work because that's when it gets complicated.


The problem isn't so much the complexity (although the RC7x has precipitated a rather large menu tree) as the discipline to do it before it is too late.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

harsh said:


> The problem isn't so much the complexity (although the RC7x has precipitated a rather large menu tree) as the discipline to do it before it is too late.


This is exactly right. Most don't think about backing up their data until it's too late. This could be tested in CE via USB to make sure it works, but long term it really should be an automatic thing to DirecTV servers.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

Or we could just have it automatically back up to other DVRs, PCs, Phones, networked hard drives, etc, on your network. Not complicated, doesn't cost Directv any money outside of a firmware update, and shouldn't cause any headaches for tech support.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Or we could just have it automatically back up to other DVRs, PCs, Phones, networked hard drives, etc, on your network. Not complicated, *doesn't cost Directv any money *outside of a firmware update, and shouldn't cause any headaches for tech support.


Let's just do some simple math here (I'm going to make some rather broad assumptions):

I have an Excel file that contains information on land liens for MN - there are a total of 137,405 rows in this file and 20 columns for data each row. This file is 8MB in size and likely contains way more data than any DVR backup file would.

Knowing this, let's assume that the DVR backup file (which I contend could be a simple .CSV file with the necessary information) is 1MB in size.

DirecTV has 20 million subscribers, give or take.

Assuming every customer has a DVR that would need a backup file (we know this isn't true - and I also contend this should be a genie-only feature or net-connected receiver only), that gives us a total storage capacity need of:
20,000,000 MB OR ~19,500 GB OR ~19 TB

That's absolutely peanuts for storage capacity needs with a company of DirecTV's size and subscriber count. Considering this is also non-critical data that will need to be refreshed from time to time, it doesn't have to have scary expensive redundancy or backup options built-in. You can always pull data from the DVR if the server copy is lost.

Furthermore - HD streaming probably averages 4Mbps (or roughly 500MB/s). It would take roughly 2 seconds to receive the 1MB backup file at that speed.

I can't see this being any type of strain on DirecTV data centers, especially since most data centers have a huge surplus of download bandwidth (receive bandwidth) simply because data centers are designed to send data to customers, not receive. They also have large (fast) connections. You stagger this properly there is no bandwidth issue.

Now - if we're talking about backing up recordings and cloud DVR functionality, that's a WHOLE different ball game. THAT would be expensive.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Or we could just have it automatically back up to other DVRs, PCs, Phones, networked hard drives, etc, on your network. Not complicated, doesn't cost Directv any money outside of a firmware update, and shouldn't cause any headaches for tech support.


Another thing I forgot to add: if you want a tech support headache - set up any operation to rely on customer equipment. At least when you run your own "cloud" you can control compatibility. I can't imagine the insane amount of phone calls they'd receive if they tried to back up to the millions of different hardware and software combinations out there for both computers and smart devices. Considering that not every customer has a second DVR, that also limits their options.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> Let's just do some simple math here (I'm going to make some rather broad assumptions):
> 
> I have an Excel file that contains information on land liens for MN - there are a total of 137,405 rows in this file and 20 columns for data each row. This file is 8MB in size and likely contains way more data than any DVR backup file would.
> 
> ...


I have no idea why you guys keep saying Directv has all this extra server hardware and extra bandwidth that they have absolutely no intention to ever use. I can guarantee you every bit of bandwidth and server hardware they have is either in use right now, designated as a redundant backup in the event something else fails, or planned for a future function that was spelled out when they asked for the funding to acquire it.

Corporations don't put themselves up for sale when they have a habit of wasting money on server farms and high bandwidth Internet backbone connections that they have no plans to ever use. And they don't have the staff on hand to maintain this extra server farm either.



rmmccann said:


> Another thing I forgot to add: if you want a tech support headache - set up any operation to rely on customer equipment. At least when you run your own "cloud" you can control compatibility. I can't imagine the insane amount of phone calls they'd receive if they tried to back up to the millions of different hardware and software combinations out there for both computers and smart devices. Considering that not every customer has a second DVR, that also limits their options.


It doesn't have to be anything that is more complicated than what is already in place.

These DVRs already transfer (stream) huge HD movies to each other on a whole home DVR setup. They also let you play videos, music, and pictures from devices on your home network, and use your phone as a remote control.

It's not a stretch to have the receiver send that small file you mentioned to any of the devices that it's already networked to and sharing files with.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> I have no idea why you guys keep saying Directv has all this extra server hardware and extra bandwidth that they have absolutely no intention to ever use. I can guarantee you every bit of bandwidth and server hardware they have is either in use right now, designated as a redundant backup in the event something else fails, or planned for a future function that was spelled out when they asked for the funding to acquire it.
> 
> Corporations don't put themselves up for sale when they have a habit of wasting money on server farms and high bandwidth Internet backbone connections that they have no plans to ever use. And they don't have the staff on hand to maintain this extra server farm either.
> 
> ...


Consider that they are already doing smart searches via the web and NOT locally on DVRs that are internet connected.

The infrastructure is there

There is no way imho that this would require more bandwidth since it could easily share the smart search bandwidth, or any number of pipes that are already open to the receivers. This is such a small amount of data to both transmit and store.

You'd never be doing a smart search at the same time it needs to update a series list, and they need to be able to run searches on millions of boxes at once at the same time.

And who is to say they haven't already funded this and have its infrastructure in place because it was put in with other stuff,but they are just waiting on the software now?

And I'll say it again, it has to work for everyone, so anything to other devices in the home won't work because not everyone has more than one DVR, in fact very few do, and many don't even have pcs that could interact properly with it.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> I have no idea why you guys keep saying Directv has all this extra server hardware and *extra bandwidth t*hat they have absolutely no intention to ever use. I can guarantee you every bit of bandwidth and server hardware they have is either in use right now, designated as a redundant backup in the event something else fails, or planned for a future function that was spelled out when they asked for the funding to acquire it.
> 
> Corporations don't put themselves up for sale when they have a habit of wasting money on server farms and high bandwidth Internet backbone connections that they have no plans to ever use. And they don't have the staff on hand to maintain this extra server farm either.
> 
> ...


Not to be rude, but you obviously know little to nothing about data centers. We're talking about DOWNLOAD bandwidth availability and data centers almost ALWAYS have excess of this because of what I mentioned before. Data centers are designed to PUSH data, not receive it. Problem is, when you order a large connection (fiber, etc) it comes as symmetrical bandwidth. A 100Mbit pipe is 100Mbit download + 100Mbit upload, or 200Mbit aggregate. Most of that 100Mbit download is left idle. This is the bandwidth that would be utilized for receiving backups. That's not conjecture, that's just plain and simple fact.

Secondly, as inkahauts stated - the infrastructure is there. This process is not going to add a lot of undue stress on their existing servers. It just isn't. Additionally, these systems are designed to scale. You can't build yourself into a box with a solution that can handle X, when X might be Y+Z in a year's time.

Third - I work in IT. I know how customers are with technology. Expecting them to be able to set anything up that is slightly technical is essentially hari-kari for your support staff. Customers are stupid (no offense to anyone out there), and putting something together like this will likely result in the feature sitting idle or unused for most of the customer base. Unless you mandate something like it only being compatible with iOS devices, you're going to be troubleshooting a lot of weird compatibility and configuration problems.

I've stated before I think this should be a Genie feature, not a general DVR feature. I don't know the numbers, but I'd suspect the number of Genie homes out there with an additional DVR is less than 10%, which leaves backing up to another DVR a very poor proposition for most customers.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

If this does come, I do see it as only being a Genie feature. I don't see them making this large of a change on HR2x's. Genies are also more guaranteed to have an Internet connection. There are of course those out there that are not, but that's probably a minority.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> Not to be rude, but you obviously know little to nothing about data centers. We're talking about DOWNLOAD bandwidth availability and data centers almost ALWAYS have excess of this because of what I mentioned before. Data centers are designed to PUSH data, not receive it. Problem is, when you order a large connection (fiber, etc) it comes as symmetrical bandwidth. A 100Mbit pipe is 100Mbit download + 100Mbit upload, or 200Mbit aggregate. Most of that 100Mbit download is left idle. This is the bandwidth that would be utilized for receiving backups. That's not conjecture, that's just plain and simple fact.
> 
> Secondly, as inkahauts stated - the infrastructure is there. This process is not going to add a lot of undue stress on their existing servers. It just isn't. Additionally, these systems are designed to scale. You can't build yourself into a box with a solution that can handle X, when X might be Y+Z in a year's time.
> 
> ...


I actually know quite a bit about data centers and data lines. And I can guarantee you they will require both upload bandwidth AND download bandwidth. Or are you suggesting that we backup our series manager with no confirmation from the server that the backup was successful, and more importantly, no way to restore it?

You are just speculating about the number of customers that only have a genie and nothing else. I think it's a pretty safe bet that more customers have HR2X DVRs than customers that have Genies. I know genie has been the new thing for the last 2 years, but even so, I was set up with several HR24s 2 years ago (in addition to a genie). They gave out HR2X receivers for many years, and only recently stopped (if they've even stopped).

I agree that introducing something new is usually a nightmare for support. But I am not suggesting anything new. I am saying the DVR is already networked to and exchanging files with several other devices. These devices include other DVRs, PCs, phones, and other devices on your home network.

This is how it already works right now. You can play music, videos, and pictures which are on other devices on your home network. Again, this is already there and works fine. So to also have your DVR send and receive a series manager backup file to one of these devices that it's already exchanging other files with is no big deal. It'd be no more of a headache for support than playing music from your PC already is.

And it wouldn't require any extra server hardware, no extra bandwidth, and no extra staff. It's the simplest solution.

If someone doesn't have a PC or phone, then they probably don't have Internet either. And if they do have Internet, then they can get a networked hard drive, cheap computer, or a phone. But my guess is they wouldn't even care about this feature. Like the older guy who posted earlier who obviously had a computer (he posted in this thread) and still said he didn't care about the feature.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Consider that they are already doing smart searches via the web and NOT locally on DVRs that are internet connected.
> 
> The infrastructure is there
> 
> ...


Chances are smart search is already utilizing one of those existing pipes. They probably planned for smart search (and who knows what else) when they ordered the pipe in the first place. I doubt they just came up with a smart search idea and immediately rolled it out on some spare servers and spare data line that they just had sitting around collecting dust.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> I actually know quite a bit about data centers and data lines. And I can guarantee you they will require both upload bandwidth AND download bandwidth. Or are you suggesting that we backup our series manager with no confirmation from the server that the backup was successful, and more importantly, no way to restore it?
> 
> You are just speculating about the number of customers that only have a genie and nothing else. I think it's a pretty safe bet that more customers have HR2X DVRs than customers that have Genies. I know genie has been the new thing for the last 2 years, but even so, I was set up with several HR24s 2 years ago (in addition to a genie). They gave out HR2X receivers for many years, and only recently stopped (if they've even stopped).
> 
> ...


First point: yes, all connectivity is two way, however it is not 1:1. In this case, it's probably going to be closer to 3:1 or 4:1, maybe less. TCP ACKs do not require much throughput. Pushing the config back out is only necessary if either you are recovering your lists or if they allow some type of management on their website - even still this would only be a small file to indicate the change - you wouldn't need to push the whole file back to the client unless it was a wholesale change.

Second point: I feel this should be a Genie-only feature. DirecTV is also pushing the internet connected receiver. To me, this seems like a no brainer to utilize this and further push their customer base into the config they'd want. Moving forward, installs are going to likely only have Genies and Minis anyway. There's still several million SD-only installations out there.

Third: in order to do data exchange, you still need to have a piece of software on the other device to actually talk back and forth. Are you suggesting they write an app for iOS, Android, Windows Phone, Windows PCs, Mac OSX, and the multitude of other options out there? This could maybe be done with DLNA, but you have to assume the other devices are going to support it, or provide software to enable it.

I just feel it would be easier for DirecTV to implement it using their system and the internet. We obviously disagree on this, but it is what it is.

At any rate, I'd still welcome the ability to back up, regardless of format or method.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> First point: yes, all connectivity is two way, however it is not 1:1. In this case, it's probably going to be closer to 3:1 or 4:1, maybe less. TCP ACKs do not require much throughput. Pushing the config back out is only necessary if either you are recovering your lists or if they allow some type of management on their website - even still this would only be a small file to indicate the change - you wouldn't need to push the whole file back to the client unless it was a wholesale change.
> 
> Second point: I feel this should be a Genie-only feature. DirecTV is also pushing the internet connected receiver. To me, this seems like a no brainer to utilize this and further push their customer base into the config they'd want. Moving forward, installs are going to likely only have Genies and Minis anyway. There's still several million SD-only installations out there.
> 
> ...


On the first point, I think you're missing the intended purpose. We want to backup our series manager so we can then restore it if ever needed. So between millions of receivers backing up and restoring these files, that would absolutely require significant upload and significant download bandwidth. They receive the file from us using their download bandwidth, then send the same files back to us when we restore using their upload bandwidth.

On your second point, I do not feel it should be a genie only feature. I have 7 DVRs, only 1 of them is a genie. Am I in the minority? Probably. But it still wouldn't be very smart to upset all of their highest paying customers. It would be a real slap in the face to all of us paying extra for all these DVRs (Directv will only let you have 1 genie, the rest have to be HR2X) if they said it only worked on Genies. Unless they were willing to replace all my HR2X DVRs with Genies, which we know isn't going to happen.

On your third point, these apps already exist. They'd need to be updated to add this functionality to them, but there are already Directv apps for IOS, Android, Windows, etc. And yes, you'd need a device capable of doing it (via DLNA). Just like you'd need a flash drive to do it via USB or an Internet connection to have it saved to a Directv server. Again, you can stream pictures, videos, and music from your home network on your Directv DVR right now, and there are Directv apps on all the major platforms today already, so the framework is already in place. It's just a simple software update to enable it. The same software update that would be required anyway if Directv were to set up a server farm to handle the backups. Only they wouldn't need all the extra hardware, extra data line, and extra staff to maintain it.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> On the first point, I think you're missing the intended purpose. We want to backup our series manager so we can then restore it if ever needed. *So between millions of receivers backing up and restoring these files, that would absolutely require significant upload and significant download bandwidth. They receive the file from us using their download bandwidth, then send the same files back to us when we restore using their upload bandwidth*.
> 
> On your second point, I do not feel it should be a genie only feature. I have 7 DVRs, only 1 of them is a genie. Am I in the minority? Probably. But it still wouldn't be very smart to upset all of their highest paying customers. It would be a real slap in the face to all of us paying extra for all these DVRs (Directv will only let you have 1 genie, the rest have to be HR2X) if they said it only worked on Genies. Unless they were willing to replace all my HR2X DVRs with Genies, which we know isn't going to happen.
> 
> On your third point, these apps already exist. They'd need to be updated to add this functionality to them, but there are already Directv apps for IOS, Android, Windows, etc. And yes, you'd need a device capable of doing it (via DLNA). Just like you'd need a flash drive to do it via USB or an Internet connection to have it saved to a Directv server. Again, you can stream pictures, videos, and music from your home network on your Directv DVR right now, and there are Directv apps on all the major platforms today already, so the framework is already in place. It's just a simple software update to enable it. The same software update that would be required anyway if Directv were to set up a server farm to handle the backups. Only they wouldn't need all the extra hardware, extra data line, and extra staff to maintain it.


I understand the intended purpose, what I don't understand is your logic here. It's not like every customer is going to be backing up or restoring at the same time. Once the backups are completed, it's maintenance mode to take care of changes. Unless you have 100,000 or more customers have their DVRs fail at the same time, then hit the server for their backup copy over the course of the couple hours, I don't see a problem here.

As for the rest - I don't think it would upset anyone anymore than they already do on a regular basis. Even Apple stops providing software updates for devices after so long - why should DirecTV keep adding features to DVRs that are 5+ years old in design?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> On the first point, I think you're missing the intended purpose. We want to backup our series manager so we can then restore it if ever needed. So between millions of receivers backing up and restoring these files, that would absolutely require significant upload and significant download bandwidth. They receive the file from us using their download bandwidth, then send the same files back to us when we restore using their upload bandwidth.


Do they? The DVRs are checking in all the time and who says backups need to be instantaneous. They could be in the middle of the night during bookkeeping (if they are on demand, they will hardly ever happen to any real extent). And the series manager data is actually pretty small. What are we talking about? Up to 100 entries with about 6 fields each? Trivial. Far more data is being pushed up and down from DirecTV all the time.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> I understand the intended purpose, what I don't understand is your logic here. It's not like every customer is going to be backing up or restoring at the same time. Once the backups are completed, it's maintenance mode to take care of changes. Unless you have 100,000 or more customers have their DVRs fail at the same time, then hit the server for their backup copy over the course of the couple hours, I don't see a problem here.
> 
> As for the rest - I don't think it would upset anyone anymore than they already do on a regular basis. Even Apple stops providing software updates for devices after so long - why should DirecTV keep adding features to DVRs that are 5+ years old in design?


They probably have hundreds of people (or more) replacing receivers every single day. Even though it's a small file, that is a lot of bandwidth required to service all of them. It all adds up. And, just as important, they need to be ready to service thousands (or more) of them in case it ever comes to that. They don't want the system crashing just because some new virus targeted DVRs and took out millions of receivers. If that ever happened, they'd have to be ready to restore all of them.

And it would absolutely upset me if Directv told me the receivers they set me up with 2 years ago weren't going to be compatible with the backup feature. I spent good money on these receivers. And, again, I also got a genie at the same time. I would have got genies all around but Directv would not let me. They said they have a limit of 1 genie per household, and even if I somehow got another one from a 3rd party, they wouldn't activate it on my account. So they had their installer come with 6 HR24s and a genie, and the HR24s cost me the same exact amount as the genie (I think they were like $200 each).

So yeah, you better believe I'd be upset if Directv told me they were implementing a feature I really want but it wouldn't work on 6 of the receivers they sold me 2 years ago. And I bet I'm not the only one in that situation, and not the only one who would be upset about it.

Am I in the minority? Probably. But this minority is a group of the highest paying customers, so it'd be wise to not give us a slap in the face like that.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Do they? The DVRs are checking in all the time and who says backups need to be instantaneous. They could be in the middle of the night during bookkeeping (if they are on demand, they will hardly ever happen to any real extent). And the series manager data is actually pretty small. What are we talking about? Up to 100 entries with about 6 fields each? Trivial. Far more data is being pushed up and down from DirecTV all the time.


I agree far more data is being pushed up and down Directv all the time. Abs far more data than that is planned to be pushed up and down in the future.

The point is Directv would not set up a server farm or a high bandwidth data connection if they didn't have a use for it. If they had extra server hardware and extra bandwidth available, it'd either be earmarked for some future use that they're working on rolling out, or they'd downgrade so they weren't paying for stuff that they have no use for.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> They probably have hundreds of people (or more) replacing receivers every single day. Even though it's a small file, that is a lot of bandwidth required to service all of them. It all adds up. And, just as important, they need to be ready to service thousands (or more) of them in case it ever comes to that. They don't want the system crashing just because some new virus targeted DVRs and took out millions of receivers. If that ever happened, they'd have to be ready to restore all of them.
> 
> And it would absolutely upset me if Directv told me the receivers they set me up with 2 years ago weren't going to be compatible with the backup feature. I spent good money on these receivers. And, again, I also got a genie at the same time. I would have got genies all around but Directv would not let me. They said they have a limit of 1 genie per household, and even if I somehow got another one from a 3rd party, they wouldn't activate it on my account. So they had their installer come with 6 HR24s and a genie, and the HR24s cost me the same exact amount as the genie (I think they were like $200 each).
> 
> ...


Hundreds of receivers a day, with at most a 1MB file. Sorry, that's really not a lot of bandwidth. Even at 1000 users for the day at 1MB, that's roughly 1GB - about half the size of your average on-demand HD movie download.

As for your money spent - it may upset you, but you're leasing the equipment. BMW doesn't feel sorry for you if you buy a new 5 series a month before the new models come out that has some killer feature you want. They don't just upgrade you unless you pony up the cash.

I'm inclined to believe that if you spend as much as you claim, a call to DirecTV would certainly warrant retention doing something to make you happy. Adding features to old hardware that you yourself decided to lease out of pocket may not be one of those things.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> Hundreds of receivers a day, with at most a 1MB file. Sorry, that's really not a lot of bandwidth. Even at 1000 users for the day at 1MB, that's roughly 1GB - about half the size of your average on-demand HD movie download.
> 
> As for your money spent - it may upset you, but you're leasing the equipment. BMW doesn't feel sorry for you if you buy a new 5 series a month before the new models come out that has some killer feature you want. They don't just upgrade you unless you pony up the cash.
> 
> I'm inclined to believe that if you spend as much as you claim, a call to DirecTV would certainly warrant retention doing something to make you happy. Adding features to old hardware that you yourself decided to lease out of pocket may not be one of those things.


So they'd need 1GB in bandwidth then. That's not a cheap connection. It may not cost as much as whatever they have for on demand or whatever else, but it's still a significant expense. Especially for a corporation trying to make itself marketable for another corporation to buy.

BMW would never tell me "We won't allow you to own more than one of that model. If you get someone else to sell you another one, we'll remotely make sure it isn't functional."

This isn't a case of me buying something before the new model came out. I bought the new model too (leased, whatever). I told them I wanted 7 genies. They told me there is a limit of 1 genie per household. So they would only let me get 1, plus 6 HR24s. This is not a case of me not spending the money for the latest and greatest. The cost for each of the HR24s was the same as the genie.

I'm pretty sure retention would not be able to swap my receivers for genies. Unless they got rid of that rule, then even if I tried to pay full price for a bunch of genies, they wouldn't be able to sell them to me (or lease them, whatever) just as they weren't 2 years ago.

Call Directv and tell them you want 7 DVRs. I bet they bring you the exact same setup they brought me. It's not outdated. HR24 is still the latest non genie DVR, and you are still only allowed to have 1 genie.

So, again, I'd be pretty upset if the hardware they forced me to accept, witch is still the latest model, was deemed obsolete with no option to replace it. It'd be one thing if they said "it's a genie only feature, and you can upgrade those receivers to genies for x amount of dollars." I'd still be upset, but that's at least leaving an option. But as pissed as I'd be, it pales in comparison to how pissed I'd be if they said "it's a genie only feature, and since you already have a genie, you can't get anymore genies. And even if you buy another genie from a 3rd party, we won't activate it."

I'm sure I'm not the only person to have a genie plus at least one other DVR. There are probably millions of us. So it would upset a lot of people, and these people are obviously paying more than most other residential customers.

They would be incredibly foolish to roll out a much desired feature and say it only works on genies, and you can only have 1 genie. There is no way they'd do that.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> Or we could just have it automatically back up to other DVRs, PCs, Phones, networked hard drives, etc, on your network. Not complicated, doesn't cost Directv any money outside of a firmware update, and shouldn't cause any headaches for tech support.


So are you going to take responsibility for setting everyone up with some safe place to store their data? Entering in a Wi-fi password is hard enough, much less trying to set up and access shared directories. What if they don't have any other suitable networked devices?

Everything new causes headaches for tech support.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> Far more data is being pushed up and down from DirecTV all the time.


Pushing down is easy assuming that the device it is intended for recognizes the information as being for it. An avenue for pulling in is a whole different issue and depends on mechanisms that may not be available. Consumers probably understand that you need an always-on broadband connection for apps and certain on-demand titles but could you reasonably force the same requirement for a backup and restore process?


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

harsh said:


> So are you going to take responsibility for setting everyone up with some safe place to store their data? Entering in a Wi-fi password is hard enough, much less trying to set up and access shared directories. What if they don't have any other suitable networked devices?
> 
> Everything new causes headaches for tech support.


Well that's the thing, the framework for this is already in place. You can already watch tv on your pc using Directv to pc. You can already play music, videos, and pictures from your home network on your DVR. So the DVRs are already exchanging files to and from your home network. This backup file would be no different.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> *So they'd need 1GB in bandwidth then. That's not a cheap connection. It may not cost as much as whatever they have for on demand or whatever else, but it's still a significant expense. Especially for a corporation trying to make itself marketable for another corporation to buy.*
> 
> BMW would never tell me "We won't allow you to own more than one of that model. If you get someone else to sell you another one, we'll remotely make sure it isn't functional."
> 
> ...


This confirms my suspicion that you misunderstood a few things about data centers, bandwidth and file sizes.

File sizes are measures in bytes. Bandwidth (internet connections) are measures and sold in bits per second. A 1MB file is not the same as a 1Mb connection (notice the capitalization). 8 bits fit into 1 byte. To put this into further perspective:

I have a 60Mbps download, 6Mbps upload connection at my home. The amount of data I can download in a second is roughly 7.5MB, or about 7.5x the size of our pretend backup file. I can upload approximately 0.75MB of data in one second. So..

It would take me roughly about 2.5 minutes to download 1GB of data. Conversely, it would take me about 23 minutes to upload that amount of data. This is on my home internet connection.

Most data centers are going to be equipped with at least a couple of 10Gbps connections, which is well over 100x the speed of my connection and 1000x my upload. In other words, it would take no time at all to complete this type of transfer at full wire speed, and would not even put a small dent in available bandwidth at the site. Run most of these operations in the middle of the night and you'd never know they were happening. Hence my bandwidth argument all along.

As for the other part of your argument - I don't know DirecTV's reasoning (nor do probably any of us) why it's limited to 1 genie per account, but I would guess it has something to do with some technical limitations. The reason I say this is I would guess a large part of the install base is going to be using a SWM8, and to have more than one genie and utilize all 5 tuners on each, you'd need a SWM16. Unless the customer is willing to foot the installation bill, it doesn't work out to their benefit to have to do a large upgrade.

Seeing the SWM13 leads me to believe they are going to try to make that the minimum going forward, and work on increasing that in the future, which would mitigate the tuner issue.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> This confirms my suspicion that you misunderstood a few things about data centers, bandwidth and file sizes.
> 
> File sizes are measures in bytes. Bandwidth (internet connections) are measures and sold in bits per second. A 1MB file is not the same as a 1Mb connection (notice the capitalization). 8 bits fit into 1 byte. To put this into further perspective:
> 
> ...


I'm well aware of the way data and bandwidth is measured. I make these posts from my phone, and the auto correct changes a lot of things that I don't always catch. That's why most of my posts are edited, me going back and fixing those things. I must have missed that one. I had originally typed "1 gig" (which is how I say it) and my auto correct changed it.

I have 2 SWM16s, so I don't think that's the reason they limit you to 1 genie. I don't know why they do, but I don't think it's because of the number of tuners.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Yes, you have the ability to feed 32 tuners, but the average guy has no where near that. Most max out at 8.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> I agree far more data is being pushed up and down Directv all the time. Abs far more data than that is planned to be pushed up and down in the future.
> The point is Directv would not set up a server farm or a high bandwidth data connection if they didn't have a use for it. If they had extra server hardware and extra bandwidth available, it'd either be earmarked for some future use that they're working on rolling out, or they'd downgrade so they weren't paying for stuff that they have no use for.


But you set things up for peak demand. It is not 100% utilized most of the time and you do have extra space, extra bandwidth. Not multiple amounts but marginal amounts. The point is we are talking incremental data requirements not huge amounts. And simple small file backups can be managed around larger demands like on demand searches and deliveries.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> I'm well aware of the way data and bandwidth is measured. I make these posts from my phone, and the auto correct changes a lot of things that I don't always catch. That's why most of my posts are edited, me going back and fixing those things. I must have missed that one. I had originally typed "1 gig" (which is how I say it) and my auto correct changed it.


Even still, your original post doesn't make any sense. They wouldn't need any additional bandwidth as their existing capacity could more than handle this type of traffic. Again, they wouldn't roll this out in droves to every customer at once, so they're not going to get hit with 20mil upload requests.

At work we routinely push/pull 4-10GB/day on 100Mbps/15Mbps without overloading the connection. This is no big deal. We're not talking about constant bandwidth saturation like you would see if they were streaming HD content to thousands of customers, we're talking about blips of data.

You're also limited by the other end with any transfer, so a customer may only be able to push something to DirecTV at 512Kbps - sure the transfer will take slightly longer and may be noticeable to the customer, but it's not going to affect DirecTV. That's why this sort of thing would only happen either on-change or overnight.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well that's the thing, the framework for this is already in place. You can already watch tv on your pc using Directv to pc. You can already play music, videos, and pictures from your home network on your DVR. So the DVRs are already exchanging files to and from your home network. This backup file would be no different.


Backup is different because it requires writing data to a server and media servers aren't designed to accept arbitrary content from clients via DLNA.

You can't inject content onto a DIRECTV DVR through DIRECTV2PC and the Media Player application can't send content to your DLNA server.

To effect this kind of storage, you need a network share (eg. CIFS or NFS) with write permissions.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

harsh said:


> Backup is different because it requires writing data to a server and media servers aren't designed to accept arbitrary content from clients via DLNA.
> 
> You can't inject content onto a DIRECTV DVR through DIRECTV2PC and the Media Player application can't send content to your DLNA server.
> 
> To effect this kind of storage, you need a network share (eg. CIFS or NFS) with write permissions.


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

It looks like there's an extension for this under mobile devices, however I think in principle you're exactly right and DLNA would not be a good fit for this application as it's designed for media.

Honestly, the best bet for local backups is going to have to be some type of USB device (flash drive, USB hard drive, etc). At least then, the DVR would have a set of standards and would know what to expect, instead of trying to interface with customer devices which will be all over the map.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Living_Network_Alliance
> 
> It looks like there's an extension for this under mobile devices, however I think in principle you're exactly right and DLNA would not be a good fit for this application as it's designed for media.
> 
> Honestly, the best bet for local backups is going to have to be some type of USB device (flash drive, USB hard drive, etc). At least then, the DVR would have a set of standards and would know what to expect, instead of trying to interface with customer devices which will be all over the map.


It wouldn't be a huge deal for Directv to push a minor update to their apps which enabled this type of file transfer.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> But you set things up for peak demand. It is not 100% utilized most of the time and you do have extra space, extra bandwidth. Not multiple amounts but marginal amounts. The point is we are talking incremental data requirements not huge amounts. And simple small file backups can be managed around larger demands like on demand searches and deliveries.


Yes, you set things up for peak demand. That is my point. You can't go taking their resources that are set aside for something else (even if it is only for peak demand) and re allocating them for this. And you have to be ready for peak demand here too.

As I said previously, you can't have the whole system crash when some new virus takes out a bunch of DVRs and everyone is restoring backup files at the same time. And you certainly don't want that to crash the on demand system if the backup feature is using the same servers, data line, etc.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> It wouldn't be a huge deal for Directv to push a minor update to their apps which enabled this type of file transfer.


You know, for someone as concerned about spying as you are, you don't seem to have any quibbles with DirecTV having read/write access to your personal devices. If you know they are spying on you based on what you watch, why would you think they would be any more trustworthy when given the option to totally data-mine you via your personal devices?

At least when this functionality is limited to dumb devices or between their equipment and their servers, the data they have access to is only viewing habits.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Yes, you set things up for peak demand. That is my point. You can't go taking their resources that are set aside for something else (even if it is only for peak demand) and re allocating them for this. And you have to be ready for peak demand here too.
> 
> *As I said previously, you can't have the whole system crash when some new virus takes out a bunch of DVRs and everyone is restoring backup files at the same time. And you certainly don't want that to crash the on demand system if the backup feature is using the same servers, data line, etc.*


If this happens, they're going to have a lot more problems than just IT resources. You won't be able to get through on the phone, let alone schedule a repair. Your average Joe (the bulk of the customer base) will be completely clueless on how to recover from this sort of thing on their own.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> You know, for someone as concerned about spying as you are, you don't seem to have any quibbles with DirecTV having read/write access to your personal devices. If you know they are spying on you based on what you watch, why would you think they would be any more trustworthy when given the option to totally data-mine you via your personal devices?
> 
> At least when this functionality is limited to dumb devices or between their equipment and their servers, the data they have access to is only viewing habits.


Well I'm also totally fine with the backup file storage being limited to other DVRs.

However, Directv apps already have read/write access on the devices they are installed on. They'd just need a minor update to handle this new type of file.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> If this happens, they're going to have a lot more problems than just IT resources. You won't be able to get through on the phone, let alone schedule a repair. Your average Joe (the bulk of the customer base) will be completely clueless on how to recover from this sort of thing on their own.


Agreed, it would be a huge problem. But it would be orders of magnitude worse if the on demand system went down for everyone and the backup/restoral system went down for everyone at the same time.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Agreed, it would be a huge problem. But it would be orders of magnitude worse if the on demand system went down for everyone and the backup/restoral system went down for everyone at the same time.


I don't think it would be any worse that having one system down vs the other. An outage is still an outage and you're going to have angry customers one way or the other.

I don't see as many customers being cranky about the backup/restore system being offline as those who want their on-demand content, however.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> However, Directv apps already have read/write access on the devices they are installed on. They'd just need a minor update to handle this new type of file.


Sending and receiving SHEF messages is not the same thing as read/write filesystem access. The backup device would need to implement the SHEF protocol to query the receiver's recording preferences and store them. Come restoration time, it would have to transmit the corresponding SHEF commands back out to a different receiver with an arbitrary SHEF address (determined by IP address and client number).


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

harsh said:


> Sending and receiving SHEF messages is not the same thing as read/write filesystem access. The backup device would need to implement the SHEF protocol to query the receiver's recording preferences and store them. Come restoration time, it would have to transmit the corresponding SHEF commands back out to a different receiver with an arbitrary SHEF address (determined by IP address and client number).


I am looking at the permissions for the android app right now.

It says:
Photos/Media/Files 
Modify or delete the contents of your SD card
Read the contents of your SD card

That is how android specifies read/write access. The app already has it. It would just need a minor update to enable handling the backup files. But the read /write access the other poster mentioned is already there. It wouldn't require any new permissions.

And it wouldn't really need anything special to handle the backup files. They could all be done on the receiver. The receiver just looks for a backup file on whatever device you tell it to, then it restores whatever backup file you tell it to restore. No need to track IP address or receiver ID or any of that. Transfer the file to the receiver's hard drive and then the receiver saves it wherever the current series manager file is saved.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> I don't think it would be any worse that having one system down vs the other. An outage is still an outage and you're going to have angry customers one way or the other.
> 
> I don't see as many customers being cranky about the backup/restore system being offline as those who want their on-demand content, however.


It would absolutely be worse. The outage from the virus wouldn't affect as many people by itself as it would affect if it took the whole on demand system down with it. And it would be a lot easier to recover from the virus if the backup/restore system was not also down.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> It would absolutely be worse. The outage from the virus wouldn't affect as many people by itself as it would affect if it took the whole on demand system down with it. And it would be a lot easier to recover from the virus if the backup/restore system was not also down.


How do you figure it's going to take the on demand system down with it? We've already established the bandwidth requirements for backup/restore are nil, even at higher volume.

Furthermore, for this mythical virus (I think you actually mean worm) to work, the DVR would have to have a method of users installing apps or some other attack vector other than the DVR itself. You can't browse the web on these things, you can't install your own apps on them. The only way you can communicate with them outside of the remote is via DLNA. So the malicious code would first have to infect a PC or other device, then find some exploit in DLNA that would allow it to write data to the DVR.

That sounds like a whole lot of trouble for someone to go through - for what? It would be far more valuable for an attacker to infect DirecTV systems internally and gain access to customer information, including financial data. The only type of attacker interested in this sort of thing would be a script kiddie, which this would certainly be outside his/her realm of knowledge. It's more likely a DDoS attack would happen than a virus on a DirecTV DVR.

I'm sorry, but your entire argument is strawman.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> How do you figure it's going to take the on demand system down with it? We've already established the bandwidth requirements for backup/restore are nil, even at higher volume.
> 
> Furthermore, for this mythical virus (I think you actually mean worm) to work, the DVR would have to have a method of users installing apps or some other attack vector other than the DVR itself. You can't browse the web on these things, you can't install your own apps on them. The only way you can communicate with them outside of the remote is via DLNA. So the malicious code would first have to infect a PC or other device, then find some exploit in DLNA that would allow it to write data to the DVR.
> 
> ...


I don't know about these particular DVRs, but there has been malware that attacked DVRs in the past. There have also been attacks on routers, Playstations, etc.

And if that were to happen to Directv and almost everyone tried to restore at around the same time, the system would have to be able to handle it without crashing. In addition to that, if the worm/virus/trojan/bot/whatever then decided to start sending receiving large files non stop to the backup server, you wouldn't want it taking the on demand service down with it.

We have absolutely not established the requirements are nil. The requirements may be nil in comparison to on demand or whatever, but it still does have its own requirements that would have to be maintained if it's on a server farm.

You may not deem the risks as likely to happen, but they are still risks that Directv would have to prepare for before they rolled the service out.

If we're going to say a backup to a flash drive is out of the question because there is a risk that millions of idiots will overwhelm tech support because they don't know how to stick it into a USB port, then we certainly can't ignore the risk that putting this service on the same servers/data lines/etc as other services puts those other services at risk. Not only because those services would suddenly have less resources allocated to them, but because if there is ever a problem with the backup service or may take the other services down with it.

And we also can't ignore that however nil you deem the required resources to be, they are still greater than a local backup would require.

Have the DVRs backup to other DVRs. Directv doesn't need to set up servers or data lines for it, and doesn't need any extra staff to maintain it. If someone only has 1 DVR, they can backup to phones, computers, etc. And if they don't have phones, computers, etc, then they probably don't have Internet access anyway. And we could always throw in the option to backup to a flash drive. Covers all the bases and it's much simpler to set up than the online backup. Doesn't require any extra resources on Directv's part. All we need is a firmware update on the receivers and an update on the Directv apps.

The simplest solution is usually the best solution.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> I don't know about these particular DVRs, but there has been malware that attacked DVRs in the past. There have also been attacks on routers, Playstations, etc.
> 
> And if that were to happen to Directv and almost everyone tried to restore at around the same time, the system would have to be able to handle it without crashing. In addition to that, if the worm/virus/trojan/bot/whatever then decided to start sending receiving large files non stop to the backup server, you wouldn't want it taking the on demand service down with it.
> 
> ...


I've done the math for everyone and made a few assumptions, none of which are out of line. I can say with certainty the make believe backup files would be no larger than 1MB and would in all likelihood be much smaller (unless they decided to include recordings as well, which would not only be a huge deal but would totally refute my argument).

I'll also agree with you that the simplest solution is often the best - and from my standpoint what could be simpler than not having the customer do ANYTHING - let the installer hook the box up and connect it to the internet (like they already do). BOOM, done.

I appreciate the back and forth - it's certainly been interesting. I'm bowing out though as I think we've both made our points. Said it before and will say again - I'd still welcome the feature in any way, shape or form.

Have a good one!


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> Yes, you set things up for peak demand. That is my point. You can't go taking their resources that are set aside for something else (even if it is only for peak demand) and re allocating them for this. And you have to be ready for peak demand here too.


No, you don't. If allow users to backup on demand, you just tell them that the resources are not available, try later. Or you do it in the background every day or every few days during down times. To schedule something like that is trivial, Actually. they do that kind of time management on individual boxes for updates. If the box sees recent human activity or is recording something, it postpones an update. That kind of resource management happens in every data center in the world and in large LANs and WANS everywhere.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

rmmccann said:


> I don't think it would be any worse that having one system down vs the other. An outage is still an outage and you're going to have angry customers one way or the other.
> 
> I don't see as many customers being cranky about the backup/restore system being offline as those who want their on-demand content, however.


The backup restore system is trivial in terms of user satisfaction versus on demand. I've used Fios's backup and if it does not backup, you just do it later.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

This thread is pretty funny really. 

Personally I believe there's a lot of over thinking on some of this and not enough realism. 

There's no way DIRECTV would be smart in trying to allow anyone to backup their stuff to their own personal devices, from a USB stick to a pic. It's just to much work trouble and to many calls to IT when something doesn't work right and cables get plugged in wrong etc. DIRECTV prefers you not touch your boxes as much as possible in general. Also any of these solutions kills the feature for 90% of their customers who'd never try any of that anyway. 

It needs to be as seem less as copying favorites lists from genies to minis. Which is super simple right now. 
Mir needs to not be dependent on any other DIRECTV devices in home because not all customers would have more than one device.

This leaves us with Internet backup. Does everyone have one? No but more do than don't and more will than have one DVR etc too...

It could be set to work in conjunction with on demand for bandwidth purposes. There's no reason that won't work just fine if their servers are in the same buildings. If there's zero bandwidth available because you and everyone else is streaming on demand at one time then the box just waits till on demand streaming is over or slows down the streaming of its not being watched. We know they can throttle that as needed. 

Just me thinking this is the best and easiest way to accomplish all this. 

And doing all this would also open the door to being able to control them via the web too.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> I've done the math for everyone and made a few assumptions, none of which are out of line. I can say with certainty the make believe backup files would be no larger than 1MB and would in all likelihood be much smaller (unless they decided to include recordings as well, which would not only be a huge deal but would totally refute my argument).
> 
> I'll also agree with you that the simplest solution is often the best - and from my standpoint what could be simpler than not having the customer do ANYTHING - let the installer hook the box up and connect it to the internet (like they already do). BOOM, done.
> 
> ...


Well that would be the simplest if that was really all it entailed. But you left out the part about setting up and maintaining the server farm. That's far more complicated than not doing anything at all.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> No, you don't. If allow users to backup on demand, you just tell them that the resources are not available, try later. Or you do it in the background every day or every few days during down times. To schedule something like that is trivial, Actually. they do that kind of time management on individual boxes for updates. If the box sees recent human activity or is recording something, it postpones an update. That kind of resource management happens in every data center in the world and in large LANs and WANS everywhere.


As trivial as you think it may be, it's still without a doubt gong to be more complex and more expensive than not setting up any servers for this. Localized backup is by far the cheapest and simplest solution for Directv to roll out.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> This thread is pretty funny really.
> 
> Personally I believe there's a lot of over thinking on some of this and not enough realism.
> 
> ...


Directv already allows customers to use external hard drives so a USB stick is not out of the question. The only potential problem with the USB stick is if someone else holds a patent on it like another poster said.

Directv isn't going to want to spend money on the back end system. It costs money to maintain a server farm, no matter how trivial you guys think it is. Many people would be upset if they charged a monthly fee for this.

It's pretty funny that you guys keep arguing how trivial and simple it would be for them to set up and maintain a server farm for this, while you also say it's too complex to do the same thing without the expensive additions.

By far, the most trivial and simple solution would be for DVRs to backup to each other on a whole home DVR setup. All it would require is a firmware update and customers don't have to touch the receivers.

The next simplest solution is to have it backup to phones, computers, etc. All it would require is a firmware update and app updates. Customers still don't have to touch the receivers.

The next simplest after that is to have the flash drive backup. All it requires is a firmware update, but the customers have to touch the receiver, and there may be a patent which prevents it (according to someone else in this thread).

The most complicated and costly solution is to have it done online. Directv would still have to update the firmware, probably still have to update the apps so people could schedule it from the apps, and they'd have to set up and maintain server hardware and high bandwidth data lines. The customer wouldn't have to touch the receiver, but staff would need to be on hand to maintain the servers.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

There's no "server farm to set up"! All handled within existing hardware on both ends.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> There's no "server farm to set up"! All handled within existing hardware on both ends.


We've been over this, but Directv doesn't have servers sitting around collecting dust with no intended purpose.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

BlackDynamite said:


> We've been over this, but Directv doesn't have servers sitting around collecting dust with no intended purpose.


You seem to be the only one who thinks that existing servers can't handle this drop-in-the-bucket increase in load. And, yes, several people have made that very point, different words.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> You seem to be the only one who thinks that existing servers can't handle this drop-in-the-bucket increase in load. And, yes, several people have made that very point, different words.


No, people have said the existing data lines could handle the extra bandwidth, and even that claim is pretty shaky. I haven't seen anyone claim the existing servers could handle the extra functionality. That would be a preposterous claim.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It's only shaky to you. I wouldn't be surprised if DIRECTV has the bandwidth and space there already expecting access and control remotely with backup in the first place. And they just haven't gotten it into the firmware yet. 

eSata is unsupported. And very very very few use it. 

You still don't seem to catch on it needs to work the same for everyone whatever they implement. And saying you have to have more than one box is forcing extra cost and just won't work for the vast majority since it won't do squat for anyone without multiple DVRs which is not the norm. Most people have one DVR. One genie and clients is the norm install now so they need a solution for that configuration first and foremost. 

And you way over estimate how bad an idea telling customers to plug in USB flash drives is for this. I'm the IT guy for all my neighbors. Not one of them would be comfortable doing that. That's a normal subscribers feelings on these kinds of things. Otherwise no one would even have a DVR made by a cable company. They'd all have dish, DIRECTV, or a TiVo.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> No, people have said the existing data lines could handle the extra bandwidth, and even that claim is pretty shaky. I haven't seen anyone claim the existing servers could handle the extra functionality. That would be a preposterous claim.


We have all been saying it.

BTW, it is no different than an existing problem reporting mechanism they currently use which basically collects data into a file and returns it to the directv servers.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> We have all been saying it.
> 
> BTW, it is no different than an existing problem reporting mechanism they currently use which basically collects data into a file and returns it to the directv servers.


Well let me just stop you right there. There is absolutely no chance, zero, that they'd install the software to make this work on the on demand servers and have them run this in the background. It would not end well and they would never attempt it.

The I.T. guy that was posting about this was pretty clear that they would need new hardware in his opinion, but they could use the same data line, in his opinion. In my opinion, they couldn't use any of it.

Seriously there is just no way they'd have the on demand servers also running the software for a backup app, and handling all that traffic at the same time. If you want to argue they'd use the same server farm, but add new hardware for this, that's one thing. But it's just nuts to say they could add this without any new hardware at all.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, since this is speculative about a service we may not ever see, and has been mired in arguments, I will try to bow out.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> It's only shaky to you. I wouldn't be surprised if DIRECTV has the bandwidth and space there already expecting access and control remotely with backup in the first place. And they just haven't gotten it into the firmware yet.
> 
> eSata is unsupported. And very very very few use it.
> 
> ...


Directv may very well have bandwidth and hardware reserved for this. It doesn't change the fact that it costs extra for that bandwidth and hardware.

Esata works. They went out of their way to put esata ports on the receivers. They could have left those off if they wanted. So they could easily allow USB backup. If someone isn't comfortable with it, nobody is forcing them to use it.

What I'm proposing here would make it work the same for everyone. 
1: Backup to other DVRs on a whole home. Everyone would have this option. 
2: In addition to option 1, you could also back up to your home network. Everyone would also have this option. And if they don't have a home network, then the online backup you propose probably would work for them anyway. 
3: Flash drive backup. In addition to the other 2 options, this is there for people that prefer this route. Some people may not be comfortable with this, so you'd have to put clear instructions on the TV screen, maybe even with a video. They go into the settings and have clear instructions how to do this right there. And if they don't want to do this, they have the other 2 options.

All 3 of those are much better options than telling customers they have to pay another $5 per month for the backup service. Because, despite what some of you may think, there is zero chance they get this up and running on their existing servers, and not much more of a chance they get this up and running on existing data lines. This is a new project that requires new resources. They might have planned for this and already purchased the stuff, and if that's the case, you can bet it will come at a price to us. If we use our own hardware and Directv doesn't need to maintain anything or pay for a data line, then we could get it for free. It'd be similar to having Pandora, YouTube, etc functionality at no extra cost to us.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well let me just stop you right there. There is absolutely no chance, zero, that they'd install the software to make this work on the on demand servers and have them run this in the background. It would not end well and they would never attempt it.
> 
> *The I.T. guy that was posting about this was pretty clear that they would need new hardware in his opinion, but they could use the same data line, in his opinion. In my opinion, they couldn't use any of it.*
> 
> Seriously there is just no way they'd have the on demand servers also running the software for a backup app, and handling all that traffic at the same time. If you want to argue they'd use the same server farm, but add new hardware for this, that's one thing. But it's just nuts to say they could add this without any new hardware at all.


Don't put words in my mouth, please.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> Don't put words in my mouth, please.


Well can you clarify? I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I'm pretty sure you were saying they'd set up new hardware in an existing server farm.

Are you saying they would just install additional software on the existing on demand servers and have them run it simultaneously? Please clarify.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well can you clarify? I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I'm pretty sure you were saying they'd set up new hardware in an existing server farm.
> 
> Are you saying they would just install additional software on the existing on demand servers and have them run it simultaneously? Please clarify.


I don't know your technical understanding, so if any of this is completely confusing or is too basic I apologize in advance.

The hardware is already there. They no doubt MUST have shared storage (Network Attached Storage or NAS) and probably blade servers (basically just computers with CPUs and RAM, for bulk processing of information) to feed their on-demand services, reporting services, website, payments, etc. You don't have to build physically separate hardware and network services to logically (and for all intents and purposes, segregate) traffic. Doing so would be incredibly expensive, not only because of the duplication of existing resources, but because of power and cooling costs as well.

Using existing technologies like virtualization, VLANs, MPLS, etc they can essentially roll out a virtual service that piggy backs on this existing hardware and can provide this functionality without having to add any physical hardware. These services can be incredibly resilient, and because these virtual servers are simply bits of data (they present themselves as files and folders on storage media), you can build in hardware redundancy elsewhere to either give you a backup data center, or (more likely) scale and load balance the traffic that hits these services across the country. Using things like IP Address geo-location, the system can automatically route this traffic to the nearest data center. You'll see this already with services like Netflix, Amazon Video, and others. A lot of these companies will allow larger carriers to actually host servers in their own ISP data centers so that the content is closer to the user.

When you were talking about engineering for peak demand - they already do this, but they do so based on average peak load. If you always built for peak demand (say something like Christmas or something where tons of people are likely to be home), most of the year you're going to have a ton of hardware that is sitting there doing nothing. That's why they design these systems to be easily scaled. When your original average peak load is no longer average and you are seeing a need for more, you can plug in a couple additional servers and handle it immediately.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> I don't know your technical understanding, so if any of this is completely confusing or is too basic I apologize in advance.
> 
> The hardware is already there. They no doubt MUST have shared storage (Network Attached Storage or NAS) and probably blade servers (basically just computers with CPUs and RAM, for bulk processing of information) to feed their on-demand services, reporting services, website, payments, etc. You don't have to build physically separate hardware and network services to logically (and for all intents and purposes, segregate) traffic. Doing so would be incredibly expensive, not only because of the duplication of existing resources, but because of power and cooling costs as well.
> 
> ...


Okay, so I'm confused. You say they can do this without adding additional hardware, and then you go on to explain how easy it is to use additional hardware because it's easily scaled and there are 3rd party data centers that could be used, etc.

I will say this again, the software to make this backup system work on the server side would absolutely not be running in the background on existing on demand servers. You can say whatever you want about your credentials, but you know as well as I that Directv would NEVER do that. This is a large corporation with over 20 million customers, not some small business with a file server for their 20 employees.

If you're really trying to say that you honestly believe Directv would (or even could with no diminish in service) run this on their existing on demand servers, then I have to believe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and not arguing what you honestly believe.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Okay, so I'm confused. You say they can do this without adding additional hardware, and then you go on to explain how easy it is to use additional hardware because it's easily scaled and there are 3rd party data centers that could be used, etc.
> 
> I will say this again, the software to make this backup system work on the server side would absolutely not be running in the background on existing on demand servers. You can say whatever you want about your credentials, but you know as well as I that Directv would NEVER do that. This is a large corporation with over 20 million customers, not some small business with a file server for their 20 employees.
> 
> If you're really trying to say that you honestly believe Directv would (or even could with no diminish in service) run this on their existing on demand servers, then I have to believe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and not arguing what you honestly believe.


I'm kind of explaining two things at the same time which is why I think you are confused with my post. The systems are designed to be scalable. I'm just stating that because as load grows (from on-demand or whatever), they will eventually have to add resources. This piece is immaterial to the argument at hand: the existing hardware that is already deployed would be adequate to support a backup service like what has been discussed.

The only reason they would need to upgrade is because of increase in on-demand and other "heavy hitter" services, not because of (this type) online backup. My backup scenario (and what the thread was originally discussing) is backing up a checklist of information. We're not backing up recordings, or pictures, or any other large media files. We're backing up glorified .CSV (comma separated values) files. These are SMALL. They are a trickle, and even in bulk would be a trickle. The resource load would be nothing.

Even under your "nightmare" virus scenario (which is as likely to happen as the moon crashing into the Earth), the recovery wouldn't (and couldn't) be in the volume you are worried about just because of sheer lack of manpower. DirecTV technicians would be the ones doing the vast (think 90%) majority of the repairs, not the customer themselves. Even if every trained technician were in the field doing a restore at the same time, it would have almost no effect on the on-demand services. It may be a little slow on the backup/restore side, but wouldn't be enough to "diminish" or take down the on-demand service. The software and hardware which is already deployed has functionality built-in that can be set up to control load in this very scenario.

The second piece is that there is already other services piggybacking off of the on-demand hardware because the hardware wasn't put in place SOLELY for on-demand - that would be incredibly short-sighted and a poor use of both money and resources. I think this is your biggest misconception about the whole imaginary situation. The hardware may have been built with the primary purpose of on-demand (because rolling out any service of this nature would have certainly required investment in new hardware), but that same hardware is being used by other services already - I can promise you that.

Lastly, I do honestly believe what I have said here many, many times because I've already laid out the facts for you. If I was arguing for the sake of argument, I'd just resort to the same tactics others use when they have no leg to stand on - insults. I can call your mother a nasty name if you want me to, but that won't get us anywhere.

Rather than sit here and argue back and forth about the same crap - could we just agree to disagree on the method and just agree the feature IN GENERAL would be WONDERFUL TO HAVE?


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

Drucifer said:


> Would you pay an additional monthly fee for any DirecTV cloud feature?
> 
> As it will probably take our green to get it.


People would do it.

I have a new Apple iPod Touch. The iCloud costs $25.00 per year. Now, with a DVR Cloud, it would probably be $100 per year. For people who have some unique programming&#8230;they'd go for it. You get the $100 out of the way. Or DirecTV slaps on $8-plus per month. (However it's handled.) The DVRs have been around long enough that people know they are using them. And subscribers are more than ready for a Cloud.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> I'm kind of explaining two things at the same time which is why I think you are confused with my post. The systems are designed to be scalable. I'm just stating that because as load grows (from on-demand or whatever), they will eventually have to add resources. This piece is immaterial to the argument at hand: the existing hardware that is already deployed would be adequate to support a backup service like what has been discussed.
> 
> The only reason they would need to upgrade is because of increase in on-demand and other "heavy hitter" services, not because of (this type) online backup. My backup scenario (and what the thread was originally discussing) is backing up a checklist of information. We're not backing up recordings, or pictures, or any other large media files. We're backing up glorified .CSV (comma separated values) files. These are SMALL. They are a trickle, and even in bulk would be a trickle. The resource load would be nothing.
> 
> ...


Okay, well we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I am 99% sure the on demand servers are not being used for anything else. And in the unlikely event they are being used for anything else, that just makes it even less likely that Directv would continue to add other processes to the same servers.

On demand is still growing. There is more content and more channels added all the time. There are also more and more channels being live streamed. If there is any extra resources available on these servers, surely they're already earmarked for this planned expansion of services.

I do agree with you though that I'd be happy however they rolled it out. I wouldn't be too happy if they hit me with an extra monthly fee to use it though.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well let me just stop you right there. There is absolutely no chance, zero, that they'd install the software to make this work on the on demand servers and have them run this in the background. It would not end well and they would never attempt it.
> The I.T. guy that was posting about this was pretty clear that they would need new hardware in his opinion, but they could use the same data line, in his opinion. In my opinion, they couldn't use any of it.
> Seriously there is just no way they'd have the on demand servers also running the software for a backup app, and handling all that traffic at the same time. If you want to argue they'd use the same server farm, but add new hardware for this, that's one thing. But it's just nuts to say they could add this without any new hardware at all.


Try reading again. They have a problem reporting mechanism. Not the on demand servers mechanism. It sends a debug file to servers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

There is an issue of "least common denominator" that everyone seems to be taking liberties with. Not everyone has always-on broadband access.

Some don't even have a home LAN. Others have only their APIPA addressed DECA LAN).

USB is clumsy and easy to frag if you don't have a dedicated drive and figuring out how to save and restore the settings from multiple receivers may not be all that trivial.

Not everyone has a smart phone or handheld device capable of running a mainstream app.

What everyone does have access to is a remote control. They may not use it, but it comes with. Once paired, it can update the new receiver with the old preferences. No naming or keeping track of codes required. Such a remote wouldn't have to be huge, have dozens of buttons or otherwise be undesirable. The cost would surely be less than a dollar more.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> Okay, well we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I am 99% sure the on demand servers are not being used for anything else.


There's a very good reason for that. Performance tuning is based on lots of assumptions. Poking with lots of little XML packets at a network that is designed to pour out data in large streams is a serious upset. It is a lot like why you shouldn't run computerly stuff over your DECA LAN.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

harsh said:


> There's a very good reason for that. Performance tuning is based on lots of assumptions. Poking with lots of little XML packets at a network that is designed to pour out data in large streams is a serious upset. It is a lot like why you shouldn't run computerly stuff over your DECA LAN.


I agree. That's actually the point I was trying to make.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

harsh said:


> There is an issue of "least common denominator" that everyone seems to be taking liberties with. Not everyone has always-on broadband access.
> 
> Some don't even have a home LAN. Others have only their APIPA addressed DECA LAN).
> 
> ...


Not that I dislike your approach. I'd actually be happy with pretty much any approach that didn't cost me extra. But your approach isn't 100% either because a lot of people use 3rd party universal remotes.

Yes, they could just store a backup file on the Directv remote and then go back to the universal remote. But it still may not be any easier than sticking a flash drive into a USB port.

If I couldn't backup to other DVRs, and couldn't backup to my home network, then my next personal preference would be to buy a flash drive for for each of my DVRs and just leave them in at all times. Set the receivers to automatically backup immediately after every change, and just leave them in the USB port. And for the people with the over the air tuners plugged into the USB ports, maybe they could use a USB hub and leave them both plugged in at all times. If that's not an option, I guess my next choice would be online backup (if it was no extra cost, I don't want it if I have to pay a monthly fee) and then remote backup.

I'd still welcome remote backup, as I'm sure all of us would. It would just be my last choice. It seems like it's be the most clunky of all of them, with no option for automatic backup. It's orders of magnitude better than nothing, but I'd rather have the receivers do it automatically.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

If we would potentially have it in the Dish method, is that backup stored in ram or nvram/flash memory?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> There is an issue of "least common denominator" that everyone seems to be taking liberties with. Not everyone has always-on broadband access.
> 
> Some don't even have a home LAN. Others have only their APIPA addressed DECA LAN).
> 
> ...


Yeah. All they'd have to do is send millions of remotes out to existing customers. And add the hardware for the boxes to communicate with them. Simple.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

As for no internet connection, aren't receivers required to have either Internet or telephone (modem) connection?


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> As for no internet connection, aren't receivers required to have either Internet or telephone (modem) connection?


No. People have Directv in their cars and motorhomes. They also sell laptop style battery powered units with a built in screen, dish, and receiver for camping.

If you want to order pay per view with your remote you need a phone or Internet connection, and obviously on demand, Pandora, YouTube, etc require the Internet, but other than that it's not required.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

If the AT&T merger goes through, I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years there's some sort of LTE backup connection in receivers if you don't bring your own.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

cypherx said:


> If the AT&T merger goes through, I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years there's some sort of LTE backup connection in receivers if you don't bring your own.


Does AT&T have that sort of thing with their current video services? I know nothing about AT&T's video service, so I'm kind of curious what to expect.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> Not that I dislike your approach. I'd actually be happy with pretty much any approach that didn't cost me extra. But your approach isn't 100% either because a lot of people use 3rd party universal remotes.


What you use daily doesn't preclude setting aside the factory remote for occasional backups.


> But it still may not be any easier than sticking a flash drive into a USB port.


As the USB port doesn't currently support consumer's mass storage devices (one blogger has suggested that they can be used by technicians to flash the firmware), that business decision would need to be reversed. IIRC, the USB port only works with the AM21 and a trio of USB to serial adapters.

Sticking the key into the receiver and actually making and restoring backups are two decidedly different operations. The process of restoring to the same receiver could be relatively simple but restoring to a different receiver may not be nearly so easy. Talking about doing it in grand terms versus coming up with the step-by-step process is a quantum leap in this case.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> As for no internet connection, aren't receivers required to have either Internet or telephone (modem) connection?


The verbiage has transitioned from mandatory to "for optimal performance".

While it is still in there (Customer Agreement section 1(f)), the cow is out of the barn with respect to the "all your equipment is continuously connected to the same land-based telephone line" clause.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

harsh said:


> What you use daily doesn't preclude setting aside the factory remote for occasional backups.
> As the USB port doesn't currently support consumer's mass storage devices (one blogger has suggested that they can be used by technicians to flash the firmware), that business decision would need to be reversed. IIRC, the USB port only works with the AM21 and a trio of USB to serial adapters.
> 
> Sticking the key into the receiver and actually making and restoring backups are two decidedly different operations. The process of restoring to the same receiver could be relatively simple but restoring to a different receiver may not be nearly so easy. Talking about doing it in grand terms versus coming up with the step-by-step process is a quantum leap in this case.


It wouldn't be difficult to restore it to a different receiver. As everyone has been saying, it'd just be a simple .csv file. It doesn't have to be tied to any receiver. It can be named after the receiver that generated the file so you know where it came from, but the receiver restoring it would not care about the name.

My thing is, if flash drive backup was rolled out, I'd want to just plug it in and leave it. Whatever the backup method is, I'd want it to be automatic. The remote seems to be the only option that can't be automatic.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> If we would potentially have it in the Dish method, is that backup stored in ram or nvram/flash memory?


I'm not certain but I doubt that remotes have much volatile memory.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> It can be named after the receiver that generated the file so you know where it came from, but the receiver restoring it would not care about the name.


This presumes that everyone (and/or their professional installer) has gone to the effort of assigning meaningful names to their receivers and that finding a file on a USB key isn't a lot of steps with a non-negligible chance of overwriting or restoring the wrong file. I wouldn't recommend CSVs due to the complexities of parsing quotes and commas appearing in the text. I much prefer using tabs to commas. I'd also suggest using a different extension even if the file is a known type as modern operating systems seem to favor offering to let you edit files with extensions that they recognize.


> My thing is, if flash drive backup was rolled out, I'd want to just plug it in and leave it.


Having a backup device actively connected to the device that it is backing up has NEVER been good backup policy. I suppose it could be arranged to mount and dismount the flash drive when it is not actually doing its thing but this may cause timing issues. Don't overlook that since USB mass storage isn't implemented, this isn't currently possible.


> Whatever the backup method is, I'd want it to be automatic. The remote seems to be the only option that can't be automatic.


I just went through the backup process on my Hopper and it had automatically backed up its settings to both the Hopper itself and the remote recently so in the case of the Hopper, it is automatic.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> Having a backup device actively connected to the device that it is backing up has NEVER been good backup policy.


I guess you haven't heard of Time Machine. it backs up hourly (by default) so it requires a hard drive that is constantly attached to the main machine.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I think the AB is a PC kind of guy. No?


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> It wouldn't be difficult to restore it to a different receiver. As everyone has been saying, it'd just be a simple .csv file. It doesn't have to be tied to any receiver. *It can be named after the receiver that generated the file so you know where it came from, but the receiver restoring it would not care about the name.*
> 
> My thing is, if flash drive backup was rolled out, I'd want to just plug it in and leave it. Whatever the backup method is, I'd want it to be automatic. The remote seems to be the only option that can't be automatic.





harsh said:


> *This presumes that everyone (and/or their professional installer) has gone to the effort of assigning meaningful names to their receivers *and that finding a file on a USB key isn't a lot of steps with a non-negligible chance of overwriting or restoring the wrong file. I wouldn't recommend CSVs due to the complexities of parsing quotes and commas appearing in the text. I much prefer using tabs to commas. I'd also suggest using a different extension even if the file is a known type as modern operating systems seem to favor offering to let you edit files with extensions that they recognize.
> Having a backup device actively connected to the device that it is backing up has NEVER been good backup policy. I suppose it could be arranged to mount and dismount the flash drive when it is not actually doing its thing but this may cause timing issues. Don't overlook that since USB mass storage isn't implemented, this isn't currently possible.
> I just went through the backup process on my Hopper and it had automatically backed up its settings to both the Hopper itself and the remote recently so in the case of the Hopper, it is automatic.


Responding to both of your regarding bolded method: simple way would be to take a hardware hash, receiver serial number, or perhaps a MAC address to identify the receiver. If the ID doesn't match, the restore process can safely assume that the receiver is different than the one that created the original backup file.

I just provided the .CSV as an example, since we really just need to back up text. They could use a small access database type file, or as you said a TSV. Agreed also on the file extension, however they could use any standard data format they want and give it a generic or branded extension (.DTV or .GENIE perhaps?) and the OS/software wouldn't pick up on it - the user would have to manually open the file to figure it out.

If you're going to go with a local backup option doesn't it make the most sense going with something that most receivers will have? A USB port is a pretty safe bet and could be limited so that you can't record video to devices attached to it, which I'm guessing is why they have it restricted in the first place.

For that matter, maybe they could integrate the functionality into the GenieGO - it's already a hard drive and it can sync/backup whenever you refresh the content. Would allow them to sell a few more of these units (huge incentive to actually make a backup method), and wouldn't have to cost subscribers anything additional in monthly fees.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> I guess you haven't heard of Time Machine. it backs up hourly (by default) so it requires a hard drive that is constantly attached to the main machine.


Time Machine with an attached hard drive is not a robust backup solution that will protect you in the event of a hardware meltdown. That configuration is arguably more for those who are sloppy about revision management.

Time Machine in conjunction with a network share is a much more robust solution that is less likely to be "taken out" by malware or a system failure.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> Time Machine with an attached hard drive is not a robust backup solution that will protect you in the event of a hardware meltdown. That configuration is arguably more for those who are sloppy about revision management.


Do you have as much experience with Time Machine® as you do with DIRECTV?


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

Laxguy said:


> Do you have as much experience with Time Machine® as you do with DIRECTV?


I don't think harsh is arguing the functionality of Time Machine. I believe it's truly one of the best backup solutions integrated into an OS anywhere. The issue is that having a drive attached to a computer all the time isn't always best - especially when that device is a laptop (which is mobile). A backup solution that relies on the user to remember to plug it in isn't a reliable one.

However, this isn't really an issue with receivers because they tend to stay put.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> Time Machine with an attached hard drive is not a robust backup solution that will protect you in the event of a hardware meltdown. That configuration is arguably more for those who are sloppy about revision management.
> 
> Time Machine in conjunction with a network share is a much more robust solution that is less likely to be "taken out" by malware or a system failure.


the best back up is the one that gets done. Is serves no purpose to have a back solution when you actually forget to do the back up, which is what normally happens with most back ups.

Is really a treat when you upgrade to a new Mac and use migration assistant from your back up, the end result is like you never left your old computer.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> Do you have as much experience with Time Machine as you do with DIRECTV?


right on!

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

rmmccann said:


> I don't think harsh is arguing the functionality of Time Machine. I believe it's truly one of the best backup solutions integrated into an OS anywhere. The issue is that having a drive attached to a computer all the time isn't always best - especially when that device is a laptop (which is mobile). A backup solution that relies on the user to remember to plug it in isn't a reliable one.
> 
> However, this isn't really an issue with receivers because they tend to stay put.


time machine when is used properly comes in to flavors. A apple router with a hard drive built in which is known as a time capsule, or an apple airport extreme which you can attached a hard drive to it. Or in absence or an apple router you can use an stand alone external drive.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

rmmccann said:


> I don't think harsh is arguing the functionality of Time Machine. I believe it's truly one of the best backup solutions integrated into an OS anywhere. The issue is that having a drive attached to a computer all the time isn't always best - especially when that device is a laptop (which is mobile). A backup solution that relies on the user to remember to plug it in isn't a reliable one.
> 
> However, this isn't really an issue with receivers because they tend to stay put.


One reason I leave my external HDDs with Time Machine detached. The other reason is I back up about once a week. My photos are already stored on several devices, my music is on Match, so fully backed up in the cloud, e-mail and web stuff doesn't need backing up as it's all on servers some where. If I did fancy PS or other creative stuff, I'd back up more often (again).


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

peds48 said:


> time machine when is used properly comes in to flavors. A apple router with a hard drive built in which is known as a time capsule, or an apple airport extreme which you can attached a hard drive to it. Or in absence or an apple router you can use an stand alone external drive.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


I understand that, however if you don't have an all Apple household, you probably don't have an AEBS or Time Capsule to hook up to. There are hoards of installations out there with just a Wi-Fi modem. Lacking the NAS (network attached storage) leaves the user with plugging a drive into their computer. As stated, this works just fine for stationary computers, but isn't ideal for people who move their computers around. That's the only point I was trying to make. :righton:


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> For that matter, maybe they could integrate the functionality into the GenieGO - it's already a hard drive and it can sync/backup whenever you refresh the content. Would allow them to sell a few more of these units (huge incentive to actually make a backup method), and wouldn't have to cost subscribers anything additional in monthly fees.


Yep, and they could do the same with other DVRs that are on the same network. They also have hard drives.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Yep, and they could do the same with other DVRs that are on the same network. They also have hard drives.


Here again, not everyone has an additional DVR nor wants to add one to their account for an additional monthly fee. You are the exception, not the rule.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

ATTDIRECTV first new product. Whole home backup server hard drive that works with computers and DVRs. :lol:


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> Here again, not everyone has an additional DVR nor wants to add one to their account for an additional monthly fee. You are the exception, not the rule.


Well I'm sure there are more people with a second DVR than there are with a geniego.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well I'm sure there are more people with a second DVR than there are with a geniego.


One of your original complaints was the possibility of a monthly fee for cloud backup. It's only fair I can stake the same claim and not have to order another DVR, add to my monthly bill, and extend my contract. :slowgrin:


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> One of your original complaints was the possibility of a monthly fee for cloud backup. It's only fair I can stake the same claim and not have to order another DVR, add to my monthly bill, and extend my contract. :slowgrin:


Correct, I don't want a monthly fee. That's why I was saying you should also be able to backup to your home network or a flash drive.

A geniego costs $100, so it's not really a cheap solution either. That comes out to a little over $4 per month for the life of a 2 year contract.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

There's no way they would support backup to the home network. That opens up a whole lot of things they wouldn't want to get into. And there would be too much change required on the DVR for it to be an unsupported feature.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Correct, I don't want a monthly fee. That's why I was saying you should also be able to backup to your home network or a flash drive.
> 
> A geniego costs $100, so it's not really a cheap solution either. That comes out to a little over $4 per month for the life of a 2 year contract.


That's still $56 cheaper than the additional receiver fee over the life of that two year contract. Plus, I'd own the GenieGo and could sell it later if I cancel my service.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> That's still $56 cheaper than the additional receiver fee over the life of that two year contract. Plus, I'd own the GenieGo and could sell it later if I cancel my service.


Yeah but the additional receiver can let you watch the fight on an extra TV so all your friends can still see when someone stands up, or if someone has a bad viewing angle. Or watch 2 football games at the same time in your man cave, put a TV in your guest room, etc.

Most people have more than 1 TV in their house. Might as well upgrade it to a DVR. Then you won't have any recording conflicts.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Yeah but the additional receiver can let you watch the fight on an extra TV so all your friends can still see when someone stands up, or if someone has a bad viewing angle. Or watch 2 football games at the same time in your man cave, put a TV in your guest room, etc.
> 
> Most people have more than 1 TV in their house. Might as well upgrade it to a DVR. Then you won't have any recording conflicts.


Can a mini do all of those things as well (granted while "borrowing" / "stealing" a tuner from the genie)? I'm asking as I don't have one or know.

My situation is that I'm currently maxed out on my SWM8 and I am not going to upgrade to a SWM16. I have an HR-44 and (3) H25s. If I add anything additional, it would be a mini in my garage. I also don't have any recording conflicts as it stands right now - we simply don't watch that many series (at least not that many which run at the same day/time as others) to have a problem.

We had an HR-34 before and (2) HR-24s prior to that so I don't look forward to going backwards with those painfully slow (relative to the H25 and HR44) boxes. I see no value (for me) in the current crop of 2-tuner DVRs.

I also loath managing series on multiple receivers. If DirecTV really wanted to improve WHDVR, there should be centralized management of the series recordings list.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rmmccann said:


> That's still $56 cheaper than the additional receiver fee over the life of that two year contract. Plus, I'd own the GenieGo and could sell it later if I cancel my service.


From what I understand it may not be worth the $56 to try to convert the GenieGo so it can be sold. Maybe that has changed.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> Can a mini do all of those things as well (granted while "borrowing" / "stealing" a tuner from the genie)? I'm asking as I don't have one or know.
> 
> My situation is that I'm currently maxed out on my SWM8 and I am not going to upgrade to a SWM16. I have an HR-44 and (3) H25s. If I add anything additional, it would be a mini in my garage. I also don't have any recording conflicts as it stands right now - we simply don't watch that many series (at least not that many which run at the same day/time as others) to have a problem.
> 
> ...


If you order a DVR and your SWM is already maxed out, Directv would put in another SWM at no charge. At least I don't think they charged me extra for my 2 SWM 16s when they set me up. As I recall I only paid for each receiver. If you're getting another receiver anyway, might as well get a DVR. Then when your disk is full you can start recording on the other one.

I agree on the centralized series manager though. I think I suggested that earlier in this thread too. This thread has been all over the place though, so I might be thinking about a different thread.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rmmccann said:


> Can a mini do all of those things as well (granted while "borrowing" / "stealing" a tuner from the genie)?


Does DIRECTV allow Genie Minis tuned to the same channel to share a tuner? This would be a big help for tuner utilization in a multi-screen environment.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

In my household it's a moot point; almost everything is watched from a recording, and we have_* multo recorderos. *(OK, attempt at fractured Italian. Lots of recording capacity.)_


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> *If you order a DVR and your SWM is already maxed out, Directv would put in another SWM at no charge*. At least I don't think they charged me extra for my 2 SWM 16s when they set me up. As I recall I only paid for each receiver. If you're getting another receiver anyway, might as well get a DVR. Then when your disk is full you can start recording on the other one.


It's more of a logistics thing with my installation than an expense. My dish is mounted on my roof and the cable is run through the roof (I don't have a CommDeck - we just blackjacked the crap out of the hole) and into the attic, out the soffit and into a cable tv/coax box and fed to the rest of the house. I have a HotShot dish heater installed as well. To upgrade to a SWM16 I'd have to have 3 additional coax drops running through my roof and in my attic. I'd rather avoid that completely. 

I also have never seen my DVR below 80% free recording space, so also not an issue for us. Again, I personally don't have a benefit in another DVR - others might.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

rmmccann said:


> It's more of a logistics thing with my installation than an expense. My dish is mounted on my roof and the cable is run through the roof (I don't have a CommDeck - we just blackjacked the crap out of the hole) and into the attic, out the soffit and into a cable tv/coax box and fed to the rest of the house. I have a HotShot dish heater installed as well. To upgrade to a SWM16 I'd have to have 3 additional coax drops running through my roof and in my attic. I'd rather avoid that completely.
> 
> I also have never seen my DVR below 80% free recording space, so also not an issue for us. Again, I personally don't have a benefit in another DVR - others might.


Swim13 lnb. Just sayin....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> If you order a DVR and your SWM is already maxed out, Directv would put in another SWM at no charge. At least I don't think they charged me extra for my 2 SWM 16s when they set me up. As I recall I only paid for each receiver. If you're getting another receiver anyway, might as well get a DVR. Then when your disk is full you can start recording on the other one.
> 
> I agree on the centralized series manager though. I think I suggested that earlier in this thread too. This thread has been all over the place though, so I might be thinking about a different thread.


We have centralized management right now! That's one of the advantages of having an all genie system.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> Does DIRECTV allow Genie Minis tuned to the same channel to share a tuner? This would be a big help for tuner utilization in a multi-screen environment.


Yep. Can't recall then ever not being able To share tuners or even playback of the same recording.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

rmmccann said:


> Can a mini do all of those things as well (granted while "borrowing" / "stealing" a tuner from the genie)? I'm asking as I don't have one or know.
> 
> My situation is that I'm currently maxed out on my SWM8 and I am not going to upgrade to a SWM16. I have an HR-44 and (3) H25s. If I add anything additional, it would be a mini in my garage. I also don't have any recording conflicts as it stands right now - we simply don't watch that many series (at least not that many which run at the same day/time as others) to have a problem.
> 
> ...


A mini can do everything a DVR can do including double play. The only thing it can't do that a genie can do is pop/pop.

And I don't get why everyone calls it stealing or borrowing. It's utilizing tuners from a pool of tuners in the main unit. The genie will assign tuners based on availability to whoever asks first after prioritizing recordings. Just like an HR24 will let you use a tuner if it's not recording. And if you record everything you watch it will never cause any issues ever that it utilities a tuner from a main genie for live TV.

Two HR24 and one h25 is far less capable than a genie and two minis. Same goes for one HR24 and three h25. Yet no one ever wants to look at the equation I guess.

To come back to topic. There is no way they could store the series manager and such on a client, it doesn't have enough storage I don't think.

It's online or bust. And I don't see it coming to non genies either at this point. Just like season and episode info.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Two HR24 and one h25 is far less capable than a genie and two minis. Same goes for one HR24 and three h25. Yet no one ever wants to look at the equation I guess.


Until the Genie fails, and it will. then you would wish you had a those two DVRs or at least one of them.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> And I don't get why everyone calls it stealing or borrowing. It's utilizing tuners from a pool of tuners in the main unit. The genie will assign tuners based on availability to whoever asks first after prioritizing recordings. Just like an HR24 will let you use a tuner if it's not recording. And if you record everything you watch it will never cause any issues ever that it utilities a tuner from a main genie for live TV.


Because If I only have a Genie and no minis, I don't have to worry about anybody else not being able to watch live TV when I am recording 5 shows.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

inkahauts said:


> Swim13 lnb. Just sayin....


Are these out of test yet? I can about guarantee anywhere in ND is not one of the test markets.



inkahauts said:


> We have centralized management right now! That's one of the advantages of having an all genie system.


Not with multiple DVRs you don't.



inkahauts said:


> A mini can do everything a DVR can do including double play. The only thing it can't do that a genie can do is pop/pop.
> 
> *And I don't get why everyone calls it stealing or borrowing*. It's utilizing tuners from a pool of tuners in the main unit. The genie will assign tuners based on availability to whoever asks first after prioritizing recordings. Just like an HR24 will let you use a tuner if it's not recording. And if you record everything you watch it will never cause any issues ever that it utilities a tuner from a main genie for live TV.
> 
> ...


Because that's exactly what it's doing. When you are watching live TV, you lose an available tuner on the Genie. You can call it sharing, borrowing, stealing, or whatever but at the end of the day it's still one less tuner the Genie has for recordings.

peds48 also made a good point with an all Genie+mini system - when your DVR dies (and believe me, it will) you have no TV. That is the main reason why I didn't go with Minis and opted for H25s. I want to be able to watch TV even if the Genie is dead. Considering my HR-34 had a hard drive failure in less than 2 years, this isn't an unrealistic scenario. I was very glad for those HR25s, otherwise we'd have missed TWD and my wife would've been VERY unhappy with me.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

rmmccann said:


> peds48 also made a good point with an all Genie+mini system - when your DVR dies (and believe me, it will) you have no TV. That is the main reason why I didn't go with Minis and opted for H25s. I want to be able to watch TV even if the Genie is dead. Considering my HR-34 had a hard drive failure in less than 2 years, this isn't an unrealistic scenario. I was very glad for those HR25s, otherwise we'd have missed TWD and my wife would've been VERY unhappy with me.


Is very easy to recommend an all around Genie system when you have multiple DVRs....


----------

