# When will we get a single schedule for DVR



## shaka999 (Dec 12, 2005)

My biggest frustration with the whole home setup right now is having to manually balance shows between our two HR24 DVRs. I keep missing shows because I have 3 scheduled on one DVR and none on the other. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to have a single prioritized schedule. If you can't record something on the requested DVR it gets pushed off to one with an open receiver.

This seems like such an obvious fix that I'm sure its been discussed here before. Anyone know if there are any plans along these lines?

Thanks


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

shaka999 said:


> My biggest frustration with the whole home setup right now is having to manually balance shows between our two HR24 DVRs. I keep missing shows because I have 3 scheduled on one DVR and none on the other. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to have a single prioritized schedule. If you can't record something on the requested DVR it gets pushed off to one with an open receiver.
> 
> This seems like such an obvious fix that I'm sure its been discussed here before. Anyone know if there are any plans along these lines?
> 
> Thanks


I would really like this feature too but doubt we will ever get it. I suspect the DirecTV answer is the new HR34 (early 2012) with 5 tuners and RVU clients.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I think the logic is infinitely harder between DVR's than it is between a DVR and a non-DVR, that is why its not in place.


----------



## shaka999 (Dec 12, 2005)

I just don't see it as being that hard. You setup one DVR in the house as the master. It keeps the list and just tells the others what to record.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I wish I could say "soon." But it won't be soon. There will be something that you'll probably like, but it's still going to be a while.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

shaka999 said:


> I just don't see it as being that hard. You setup one DVR in the house as the master. It keeps the list and just tells the others what to record.


While not "your solution", mine is to spread the series links between my DVRs.
Each has two local networks, with these set to higher priorities than the SAT SLs.
The SAT/cable channels re-air, where the local networks don't.
I haven't missed a recording due to a conflict since.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

shaka999 said:


> My biggest frustration with the whole home setup right now is having to manually balance shows between our two HR24 DVRs. I keep missing shows because I have 3 scheduled on one DVR and none on the other. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to have a single prioritized schedule. If you can't record something on the requested DVR it gets pushed off to one with an open receiver.
> 
> This seems like such an obvious fix that I'm sure its been discussed here before. Anyone know if there are any plans along these lines?
> 
> Thanks


Have you tried doing what many on here have suggested, and split up your DVRs so one records all your series on ABC and NBC, while the other DVR records everything on CBS and Fox? Then make sure all of those shows have the highest priority. This should take care of most of your issues, as most cable channels repeat their shows a few times throughout the week so your DVR will just record them later on if they need to.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

VOS, that is exactly the way I have mine set also. While I will occasionally have an issue with conflicts, it is very seldom now.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

shaka999 said:


> I just don't see it as being that hard. You setup one DVR in the house as the master. It keeps the list and just tells the others what to record.


Currently, because only the H series allows you to choose an available DVR to record on, there doesnt have to be any logic besides the tuner conflict logic already built-in to the DVR, we are the logic. If anyone has the programming stones to do this, feel free to contact the D*, I'm sure they would be more than happy to pay you to correctly write the code.

I would love for an ACTUAL employed programmer to chime in as to how hard or easy they think it might be. I for one, not being much of a programmer, even feel this is a non-trivial set of routines to make this happen.

shaka, say the master dvr in the house goes belly up, then what? You lose your entire list of whats going to record? That would be a disaster.

I really feel that many are not considering all the ramifications of what this might entail to work properly.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I wish I could say "soon." But it won't be soon. There will be something that *you'll probably like*, but it's still going to be a while.


Like huh?

Well I can't see it getting any harder then it is right now. So I'll accept and probably like anything DirecTV does to the current method.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

If you could manage all of your DVR's recordings via the DirecTV website or even the iPad app, I think this could potentially be a great work around until they figure out how to do it on the receiver itself.

Sitting in one spot doing it from an ipad or laptop would be a lot easier than taking a pen and paper and walking room to room ensuring your recordings between DVR's were managed.


----------



## DallasFlier (Oct 24, 2011)

cypherx said:


> If you could manage all of your DVR's recordings via the DirecTV website or even the iPad app, I think this could potentially be a great work around until they figure out how to do it on the receiver itself.
> 
> Sitting in one spot doing it from an ipad or laptop would be a lot easier than taking a pen and paper and walking room to room ensuring your recordings between DVR's were managed.


Agreed, except there's certainly an easier way then your pen/paper/sneakers solution. Go to any TV with a H device, you can manage all your DVR's recordings from that single location.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

DallasFlier said:


> Agreed, except there's certainly an easier way then your pen/paper/sneakers solution. Go to any TV with a H device, you can manage all your DVR's recordings from that single location.


I thought all that H2x receivers could do is set recordings on other DVRs and watch previously recorded stuff. I didn't think they could view the To-Do list or anything like that? (I don't use my H21 very often so I don't remember)


----------



## DallasFlier (Oct 24, 2011)

Beerstalker said:


> I thought all that H2x receivers could do is set recordings on other DVRs and watch previously recorded stuff. I didn't think they could view the To-Do list or anything like that? (I don't use my H21 very often so I don't remember)


Oops, now you have me wondering. I know you can set up recordings on all DVR's, but you may be right about the To-Do list, I'll have to go check.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> I thought all that H2x receivers could do is set recordings on other DVRs and watch previously recorded stuff. I didn't think they could view the To-Do list or anything like that? (I don't use my H21 very often so I don't remember)





DallasFlier said:


> Oops, now you have me wondering. I know you can set up recordings on all DVR's, but you may be right about the To-Do list, I'll have to go check.


You can setup a recording and/or SL and select which DVR, but you can't see any "to do list".


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

DallasFlier said:


> Agreed, except there's certainly an easier way then your pen/paper/sneakers solution. Go to any TV with a H device, you can manage *all* your DVR's recordings from that single location.


Only past. not future, so not ALL.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> While not "your solution", mine is to spread the series links between my DVRs.
> Each has two local networks, with these set to higher priorities than the SAT SLs.
> The SAT/cable channels re-air, where the local networks don't.
> I haven't missed a recording due to a conflict since.


We use that solution, too. It still sucks though. It requires 3 DVRs in the family room which can't pool their recording space and it means that even with MRV, you have to switch to the others to do scheduling.

As for Stuart's comment, the longer "not soon" is, the surer most of us will end up with HR34s. They are a a "better" solution anyway, even though I can't claim to be excited about spending $399 to get it.

As for the notion that this is hard, it's not hard. Where it gets tricky is when things move after the fact. The DVRs need to not only schedule things once, but also make changes as guide data changes, new conflicts occur, etc. Honestly, the code to do this will be borrowed from the HR34. All available DVRs will look like a single tuner bank to, yes, one master DVR. It will dole out the record requests (and also probably be somewhat aware of free space). When things change, it will cancel and reschedule tuners on other DVRs.

It would be somewhat easier if the DVRs actually get dumber and the logic is moved to the cloud because DirecTV could handle the scheduling algorithms on the servers much more quickly and dole out the record requests much faster that way. (The individual DVRs could still hold individual to-do lists so that they wouldn't need to hear from the cloud all the time, much like remote record requests actually get downloaded now.) The problem there is that the DVRs wouldn't understand the other DVRs role in the universe and if you directly changed a DVR, it'd have to have a conversation with the server to see what's happening. But the UI could easily be implemented on a smartphone/tablet/PC in a way that the existing DVRs might have trouble with. (Why trouble? Well 4 DVRs cooperatively managing 200 series lists would probably be slow as molasses; DirecTV's servers on the other hand could deal with that easily, as well as reshuffling your programming requests very quickly if a schedule change occurred.)

Going forward, I suspect DVR customers will get an HR34 if they hint at wanting 2 DVRs and the out of pocket will be adjusted to encourage this. Bolting a single, cooperative scheduler on the existing DVRs is both really easy and really complex.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

shaka999 said:


> My biggest frustration with the whole home setup right now is having to manually balance shows between our two HR24 DVRs. I keep missing shows because I have 3 scheduled on one DVR and none on the other. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to have a single prioritized schedule. If you can't record something on the requested DVR it gets pushed off to one with an open receiver.
> 
> This seems like such an obvious fix that I'm sure its been discussed here before. Anyone know if there are any plans along these lines?
> 
> Thanks





CCarncross said:


> I think the logic is infinitely harder between DVR's than it is between a DVR and a non-DVR, that is why its not in place.


As *CCarncross* stated I don't think the programming would be "easy" for any kind of collaborative scheduling. As others suggested the "easy" solution for anyone with multiple DVR's is to split the 4 main networks (NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS) between the DVR's. As long as those networks have a higher priority than any of the "cable" channels you'll seldom have a conflict.

I think the "easier" programming solution for D* is to allow a receiver or DVR to manage another DVR's playlist (maybe through a dropdown type of menu.) You should be able to select a DVR and manage its specific todo list, series manager, etc. The programming logic for this is vastly more straight-forward, and less confusing from a user standpoint (as it would be the same information you would obtain if you were in front of that particular DVR.)


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

markrogo said:


> As for the notion that this is hard, it's not hard. Where it gets tricky is when things move after the fact. The DVRs need to not only schedule things once, but also make changes as guide data changes, new conflicts occur, etc. Honestly, the code to do this will be borrowed from the HR34. All available DVRs will look like a single tuner bank to, yes, one master DVR. It will dole out the record requests (and also probably be somewhat aware of free space). When things change, it will cancel and reschedule tuners on other DVRs.


The problem with the master DVR logic isn't so much the programming, it's the networking aspect. Currently there's an issue with D* receivers and DHCP. It's also not unusal for a receiver to "drop off" the network (even if that network is HR24 to HR24 with no router involved). These problems would make this approach more difficult, and likely lead to shows being missed.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> The problem with the master DVR logic isn't so much the programming, it's the networking aspect. Currently there's an issue with D* receivers and DHCP. It's also not unusal for a receiver to "drop off" the network (even if that network is HR24 to HR24 with no router involved). These problems would make this approach more difficult, and likely lead to shows being missed.


Not really. Scheduling of recordings is actually fairly rare. Actually doing recording is common, but scheduling is not. Unless receivers managed to be immune to record requests for huge amounts of time they could periodically disappear and reappear regularly.

Assuming the receivers could send an acknowledgement that they know of the recording request, the master would be confident its slaves were going to get the job done.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

markrogo said:


> Not really. Scheduling of recordings is actually fairly rare. Actually doing recording is common, but scheduling is not.* Unless receivers managed to be immune to record requests for huge amounts of time *they could periodically disappear and reappear regularly.
> 
> Assuming the receivers could send an acknowledgement that they know of the recording request, the master would be confident its slaves were going to get the job done.


The bold is the problem in the scenario. The receivers do not always reappear. If the master is the one that drops then the problems are obvious, but if one of the "slave" DVR's drops (especially prior to a recording) then the master has no confirmation that slave will complete its task. Maybe the slave simply dropped off the network (in which case the recording will still happen), but maybe the slave is frozen or an end user cancelled the particular recording.

Given the various network complications that have ocurred with WHDVR I think this implementation might pose some added issues.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> The bold is the problem in the scenario. The receivers do not always reappear. If the master is the one that drops then the problems are obvious, but if one of the "slave" DVR's drops (especially prior to a recording) then the master has no confirmation that slave will complete its task. Maybe the slave simply dropped off the network (in which case the recording will still happen), but maybe the slave is frozen or an end user cancelled the particular recording.
> 
> Given the various network complications that have ocurred with WHDVR I think this implementation might pose some added issues.


This is kind of pointless. You are saying "cooperative DVRs can't work because DirecTV's DVRs have network issues". The correct answer is to solve the network issues. I've had one DVR "drop off the network" in the past 3 months; doesn't seem like the problems are insoluble. The rest of my devices stay on the network 100% of the time; again suggesting the problem is fixable.

Regardless, I'm actually sure they are working on this, sure it will employ similar logic to the HR34, sure it won't ship soon, sure it won't be perfect and pretty sure I'll have an HR34 and won't care. And that most people like me will also have upgraded before this is available.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

The networking issues are irrelevant, since you can schedule a recording from a H2x box today, and doing so from a HR2x is no different.

Today, if you try to schedule a recording from a H2x and the recording can not be scheduled you get a reasonably complete error message back (recording already exists, there is a conflict, etc.). You then choose another HR2x if you have one and try again.

There is NO reason it could not work the same way from a HR2x. If you try to schedule locally and you have a conflict, and you have MRV with multiple HRs, you would have one new option on the resolution menu: "Record on another DVR." This menu brings up the EXISTING remote recording dialogs and code support we have on the H2x today.

Is this a perfect solution? No, it is a reactive rather than proactive solution (it deals with the problem after it occurs, rather than preventing the problem). It also doesn't give you remote access to a unified to-do list, or a unified history. However, it requires ONLY adding one menu item and then calling code that already exists in the H2x software. For that minimal effort, it solves one of the issues multiple DVR households face in scheduling recordings.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

markrogo said:


> ...You are saying "cooperative DVRs can't work because DirecTV's DVRs have network issues"...


I'm saying that this is part of the problem that will need to be addressed for colaborative scheduling to work correctly, but not a sole issue. I do believe your scenario is feasible, I just think that system would be less reliable than the current system we have in place. There have been numerous stories of poor installations, and cheap "all-in-one routers" affecting WHDVR. In the end I don't think D*'s solution will be collaborative scheduling, but rather an ability to remotely manage a DVR from any other receiver/DVR (kind of like a remote desktop connection.)



markrogo said:


> ...I've had one DVR "drop off the network" in the past 3 months...


This is also my case, but any solution would need to work for the masses that may have different problems; they likely "only want the stupid DVR to record a program..."


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Titan25 said:


> The networking issues are irrelevant, since you can schedule a recording from a H2x box today, and doing so from a HR2x is no different.


I think we're talking about different things. I would be for the scenario you're describing in your post, and believe the coding/networking issues would have minimal impact on it. An other poster was describing collaborative scheduling where a DVR would become the "master" and would essentially complete all the scheduling for you.


----------



## dkm4280 (Oct 3, 2007)

The H2x today gives you the choice of which dvr to record on. I like the master idea but would be happy with being given the same choice the H2x gives you.


----------



## shaka999 (Dec 12, 2005)

You know, for a short term answer that would probably solve most problems maybe we just allow DVRs to request a show be recorded on another DVR.

Here is my thought. You have too many shows scheduled to record on one DVR. That DVR then sends out a simple request asking other DVRs if they have the slot open. If so the show is added to their To Do list. This transaction could happen shortly before a show started which hopefully alleviate the problem with schedules changing.

Now, this doesn't solve the complete problem and allow all receivers to be prioritized but it gets most of the way. For me I'd only schedule recordings on my main DVR whenever possible that way it could be prioritized.


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

I would be happy if they just implemented a conflict notice pop-up. They have no qualms about plastering all sorts of banner ads and such all over the place. How hard can it be to let me know (without me looking) that a conflict is going to take place.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> I think we're talking about different things. I would be for the scenario you're describing in your post, and believe the coding/networking issues would have minimal impact on it. An other poster was describing collaborative scheduling where a DVR would become the "master" and would essentially complete all the scheduling for you.


I get what you are saying. The problem with the master/slave approach is that negotiating who is the "master" is a nontrivial issue. Take it from someone that has written similar software in the past - the basic concept is simple, but dealing with error recovery is a nightmare.

The only way to do a truly unified system is to have every DVR store the complete schedule across all the DVRs. Every server would keep a merged to-do list and history list. Every time a recording is scheduled, all the DVRs would be informed, but each DVR would execute only those recordings flagged as local events.

The problem with this approach (besides the programming tasks required) is that you will bump against the memory limits in the DVRs and by extension, the 50 event limit.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Titan25 said:


> I get what you are saying. The problem with the master/slave approach is that negotiating who is the "master" is a nontrivial issue. Take it from someone that has written similar software in the past - the basic concept is simple, but dealing with error recovery is a nightmare.


We're on the same page on this one


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> In the end I don't think D*'s solution will be collaborative scheduling, but rather an ability to remotely manage a DVR from any other receiver/DVR (kind of like a remote desktop connection.)
> 
> "


That's not a solution. That's a feature, to be sure, but is in no way a solution.

Collaborative or cooperative scheduling would use all the tuners in your pool (and the storage space), intelligently.

Scheduling DVR2 while in the UI for DVR1 would be a convenience for those times you already know you want to schedule something on another DVR, but it would hardly allow the DVRs together to make use of your tuner pool intelligently.

I absolutely reject out of hand the notion that one DVR can't act as an intelligent master. By that logic, the HR34 can't work since "OMG, that's too much stuff to manage". Is there some evidence that the HR34 has a significantly different processor or RAM complement than the HR24? If so, then I retract this, if not, one DVR can absolutely act as the master.

The difference between 2-4 HR24s and one HR34 would simply be that the former would find their tuners on other hardware. There, in fact, has to be a master. If all the DVRs simply tried to replicate all the requests, one of them is parceling the requests out or chaos is ensuing.

Again, I've already explained that ideally there'd be a cloud-based "account" for your DVRs to talk to, especially in more complex scenarios. The scheduling algorithms on the DVRs are decent, but sending it to a server that could process at 10-100x the speed of the DVRs would help. The only time things change is when guide data gets added or altered. The latter is the "tricky" scenario, but fortunately since nearly everything is actually getting recorded with this method (unlike a current single DVR scenario), it's not as tricky as it seems.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

markrogo said:


> ....I absolutely reject out of hand the notion that one DVR can't act as an intelligent master. By that logic, the HR34 can't work since "OMG, that's too much stuff to manage". Is there some evidence that the HR34 has a significantly different processor or RAM complement than the HR24? If so, then I retract this, if not, one DVR can absolutely act as the master..


Any "master/slave" solution needs to run not only on the HR24 and 34, but also on the HR20, 21, 22 and 23, which do indeed have different processor and memory capabilities. Secondly, I'm not sure what makes you think the HR24 and 34 have the required CPU and RAM resources to run a master scheduling service. Again, unless you have actually written such code, you don't appreciate the myriad issues that need to be dealt with to make it a reliable system.



markrogo said:


> ...The difference between 2-4 HR24s and one HR34 would simply be that the former would find their tuners on other hardware. There, in fact, has to be a master. If all the DVRs simply tried to replicate all the requests, one of them is parceling the requests out or chaos is ensuing.


No, the most reliable approach is to have NO communication required at recording time. Every DVR on the network simply has a replicated master event schedule. The database would require one more attribute -- the RID of the DVR where the recording is to take place. Each DVR would execute those events flagged with its own RID. That way, the only communication required is at scheduling time, and events could be moved from one DVR to another by updating the RID value. No "chaos" just a reliable system, with a simple data replication protocol instead of a complex resource management and distribution system. Mission critical corporate data systems work this way -- for good reasons.



markrogo said:


> ...Again, I've already explained that ideally there'd be a cloud-based "account" for your DVRs to talk to, especially in more complex scenarios. The scheduling algorithms on the DVRs are decent, but sending it to a server that could process at 10-100x the speed of the DVRs would help. The only time things change is when guide data gets added or altered. The latter is the "tricky" scenario, but fortunately since nearly everything is actually getting recorded with this method (unlike a current single DVR scenario), it's not as tricky as it seems.


While this would work from a technical viewpoint, it requires a significant infrastructure, not the least of which is Internet connections for every MRV LAN. It is the most complicated solution of all, and would mean that DirecTV would have everyone's recording schedules on their servers. While I personally don't have an issue with this, I suspect some would have privacy concerns.

In the end, when it comes to programming, nearly anything is POSSIBLE. However, what is PRACTICAL is a significant subset of the possible. In the real world, we have to live with the deployed hardware. DirecTV is a business, and any investment in development has to be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis. They ARE aware of the issue and they ARE working on a solution. But I can guarantee that whatever they do will work within the current memory and CPU limits and not challenge the 50 events per DVR scheduler cap.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Titan25 said:


> Any "master/slave" solution needs to run not only on the HR24 and 34, but also on the HR20, 21, 22 and 23, which do indeed have different processor and memory capabilities. Secondly, I'm not sure what makes you think the HR24 and 34 have the required CPU and RAM resources to run a master scheduling service. Again, unless you have actually written such code, you don't appreciate the myriad issues that need to be dealt with to make it a reliable system.


I love your constant assumptions that I don't know anything about technology or complex computing systems.

I would, however, agree that running such a system on older hardware could/would cause trouble and perhaps it would be best to limit it to HR24s in that sense.


> No, the most reliable approach is to have NO communication required at recording time.


I didn't say otherwise.


> Every DVR on the network simply has a replicated master event schedule.


I'd love to know how you are achieving that with someone in charge. And how you are managing "all those recordings" on your inferior, older hardware.


> The database would require one more attribute -- the RID of the DVR where the recording is to take place. Each DVR would execute those events flagged with its own RID. That way, the only communication required is at scheduling time, and events could be moved from one DVR to another by updating the RID value.


More or less what I described. One of the DVRs still needs to arbitrate whether this happens. It's not going to just magically occur. Everything I've posted talks about "scheduling time" or when scheduling changes occur -- they do by the way -- or new data comes in. That's why it's hard.


> No "chaos" just a reliable system, with a simple data replication protocol instead of a complex resource management and distribution system. Mission critical corporate data systems work this way -- for good reasons.


You can't just replicate data. Your system now has achieved perfect replication of nothing since none of the DVRs would know what to record or not record. Something actually has to schedule all of the tuners across all of the DVRs. That can't be done without one piece of code running in one place doing it. You can't let the code just run on 4 DVRs and hope that they don't make different decisions simultaneously.

The point about whether the machines all have the whole list or not is a distinction without a difference. Since one machine needs to run the scheduling algorithm, I see no reason why it should tell a DVR that isn't recording something about it. You see a reason to do that. Fine, whatever, it's more redundant that way. Necessary? No.


> While this would work from a technical viewpoint, it requires a significant infrastructure, not the least of which is Internet connections for every MRV LAN. It is the most complicated solution of all, and would mean that DirecTV would have everyone's recording schedules on their servers. While I personally don't have an issue with this, I suspect some would have privacy concerns.


Yes, I agree fully. It would be better however in that scheduling could be handled by computers with lots of processing power, real-time access to guide data, the ability to be aware of free-space constraints on DVRs, etc.
[qupte]
In the end, when it comes to programming, nearly anything is POSSIBLE. However, what is PRACTICAL is a significant subset of the possible. In the real world, we have to live with the deployed hardware. DirecTV is a business, and any investment in development has to be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis. They ARE aware of the issue and they ARE working on a solution. But I can guarantee that whatever they do will work within the current memory and CPU limits and not challenge the 50 events per DVR scheduler cap.[/QUOTE]

Then it can't schedule cooperatively period. Anyone with more than 50 series lists would be automatically ruled out of using it, making it almost entirely useless to the very people who would care.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I assume nothing. I am simply saying that I, personally, have written applications in my life that have tried to make of the members of a peer to peer network into a master for one specific purpose. It can be done, but it is not easy. Certainly client/server applications exist, but a great deal of time, effort and money goes into hot standby servers, ip virtualization switches, stateless programming development, etc. to overcome their basic problem: a single point of failure.

That being said, I see the basic problem in our exchange...you have assumed a logic processor that, when asked to record, say, Walking Dead at 9pm on Sunday on AMC would decide which DVR is best capable of performing that task, out of the constellation available on the LAN. Nice idea, but totally impractical on the DVR hardware available. Decision making in the cloud would be a requirement.

I do not propose doing more than I said earlier...allow remote scheduling from one DVR to another. Let the user decide how to allocate events across DVRs. You may not think that meets the requirements of a "feature" but it ameliorates the immediate problem, and has the virtue of being deliverable quickly and on all existing HD DVRs.

I'm done with this topic. It seems something is coming from DirecTV in this area, so I for one will wait and see what they come up with. In the mean time, I'll do my scheduling from one of my H25s.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Titan25 said:


> I do not propose doing more than I said earlier...allow remote scheduling from one DVR to another. Let the user decide how to allocate events across DVRs. You may not think that meets the requirements of a "feature" but it ameliorates the immediate problem, and has the virtue of being deliverable quickly and on all existing HD DVRs.


Yeah, what you are describing is a "feature", but it's not cooperative schedule nor is it relevant to the query of this thread. Being able to basically hit the "record" button on another DVR while controlling a different one is about 5% of the "getting a single schedule" problem. Apparently, you do see that.


----------



## DallasFlier (Oct 24, 2011)

Titan25 said:


> I get what you are saying. The problem with the master/slave approach is that negotiating who is the "master" is a nontrivial issue. Take it from someone that has written similar software in the past - the basic concept is simple, but dealing with error recovery is a nightmare.





dsw2112 said:


> We're on the same page on this one


Hmm, not sure of the definition of "nightmare" in this case, but that basic programming challenge was solved a LONG time ago in a VERY reliable manner. Its on display every time a modern airliner does an auto-land in marginal weather.

All commercial airliners certified to land in the worst conditions (virtually everything flying today in the western world) have triple-redundant autopilot computers, which operate in master/slave mode during an auto-land sequence. The "fly-by-wire" planes (several Airbus and the new Boeing 787) actually have quad-reduntant autopilots. Trust me, they're pretty damn reliable!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DallasFlier said:


> All commercial airliners certified to land in the worst conditions (virtually everything flying today in the western world) have triple-redundant autopilot computers, which operate in master/slave mode during an auto-land sequence. The "fly-by-wire" planes (several Airbus and the new Boeing 787) actually have quad-reduntant autopilots. Trust me, they're pretty damn reliable!


"And based on a lot better chips than these receivers too"


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

DallasFlier said:


> Hmm, not sure of the definition of "nightmare" in this case, but that basic programming challenge was solved a LONG time ago in a VERY reliable manner. Its on display every time a modern airliner does an auto-land in marginal weather.
> 
> All commercial airliners certified to land in the worst conditions (virtually everything flying today in the western world) have triple-redundant autopilot computers, which operate in master/slave mode during an auto-land sequence. The "fly-by-wire" planes (several Airbus and the new Boeing 787) actually have quad-reduntant autopilots. Trust me, they're pretty damn reliable!


I've actually worked on such systems in the Navy, and know them very well. The ones for carrier based landing didn't work nearly as well :lol: But given the discussion and the hardware at hand, I can't think of a way that analogy even remotely fits here...



veryoldschool said:


> "And based on a lot better chips than these receivers too"


We'd need a book to list the differences between the two :lol:


----------



## melduforx (Mar 23, 2006)

I wrote this a while back. This is a way to keep track of recordings and spread them out across all of your DVRs (or make them record on a single DVR if you want). It is immune to networking issues, because the worst that will happen is you will get multiple copies of the show recorded if a DVR has some network problem...

I've used this solution for something similar (I manage coders for a living) and it works great.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2814296#post2814296



melduforx said:


> LOL. That made my day.
> 
> But the _cloud_ can solve everything.
> 
> ...


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

What looks to be the best way is not use master/slave DVR(and/or) receivers but a new device that would connect to ether Deca or to your router and would serve to offload the task of recorder selection

apply 3 priorities
1(top) record even if its the last available tuner on the last DVR
2 Record but only if its not the last tuner on the DVR (ie so to avoid interrupting someone who's sitting there)
3 record if possible


priority 1 would have to be selected to use so that you don't use up all your tuners by accident

also put in a battery in the device in case the person doesn't have a UPS so you can assure uptime

now add in some code so that the following conditions are met
1. DHCP issue fixed (as most are likely due to crappy consumer routers add in IPv6 which has a link local address that doesn't change and is only used for communication with the local network this way a crappy IPv4 DHCP server won't cause an issue)

2. have DVR's that acknowledge that they have a master not do local recording selection but instead send the request to the master device (which would not be a DVR)

3. I've read that there’s an issue with watching live while its recording fix that too

then the CCK/CCK-W and this device could be merged and if so desired be its own DHCP server for the DECA system or block DHCP and only use link local networking (which is better, i.e. more reliable, on IPv6 than on IPv4)

and all recordings would be requested via the device (even if its a recording on the DVR in front of you) then if the device is down the DVR's return to acting as they do now till it comes back up

also if the recordings requested exceed the 50 todo limit (that I read about) have it hold them till the todo list falls under 45 (to allow some flex room)

However for the DHCP issue one easy fix is to not use crappy DHCP servers but that would currently be beyond the support of D* (I know on my HR20-700 its never fallen off of my DHCP server, though my DHCP server is a windows 2003 server)


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Since the only consumer-grade devices I'm aware of that have any DHCP issues are DirecTV's DVRs, I think it's safe to assume the problem is not with "crappy consumer grade routers". We've personally have dozens of different devices in our home alone not lose DHCP connectivity and in all my time helping friends, family, etc. set up networks, I've never seen problems like the ones DirecTV receivers seem to have.


----------



## sdirv (Dec 14, 2008)

Beerstalker said:


> Have you tried doing what many on here have suggested, and split up your DVRs so one records all your series on ABC and NBC, while the other DVR records everything on CBS and Fox? Then make sure all of those shows have the highest priority. This should take care of most of your issues, as most cable channels repeat their shows a few times throughout the week so your DVR will just record them later on if they need to.


I've had an HD-DVR for some time, just recently cleaned up it's schedule to delete all the shows that have been canceled.

It's schedule is still pretty full.......

A few weeks ago I upgraded to whole home and added a second HD-DVR. The old one upstairs, the new HR24-500 got plugged into the rack in the family room and is getting all the new recordings in it's schedule.

But I still wish I could see the entire list on my "system" when I was using either DVR.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

When a recording is completed, the DVR that it was recorded on is identified in the unified playlist, so why can't D* just add a symbol to the Guide identifying the DVR that a show is set to record on? Even if it was as simple as a white A, B, C on the red background?


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

markrogo said:


> Since the only consumer-grade devices I'm aware of that have any DHCP issues are DirecTV's DVRs, I think it's safe to assume the problem is not with "crappy consumer grade routers". We've personally have dozens of different devices in our home alone not lose DHCP connectivity and in all my time helping friends, family, etc. set up networks, I've never seen problems like the ones DirecTV receivers seem to have.


I've seen quite a number of consumer grade routers that don't handle DHCP leases properly, ie some will forget the lease if the device isn't pingable (not correct behavior) and other things like denying a device a renewal on the DHCP lease so it ether drops off or has to use some funky work around.

some devices misshandle their leases ie some apple items don't remember their lease and just request a new one, and then some consumer DHCP servers don't handle renewals properly so then teh apple device seems good when its actually acting wrong (this was a major issue when the first iPads/iPhones/ect came out, as they acted badly and would consume all the IPs from a proper DHCP server)


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

shaka999 said:


> It keeps the list and just tells the others what to record.


I hope this never happens. I MUCH prefer telling what DVR to record what show myself. I'm capable of balancing my shows just fine and I don't need some AI making decisions for me that it could foul up. I also prefer my recordings for my SL's all on the same DVR as each other, not spread across all of my DVRs.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> While not "your solution", mine is to spread the series links between my DVRs.
> Each has two local networks, with these set to higher priorities than the SAT SLs.
> The SAT/cable channels re-air, where the local networks don't.
> I haven't missed a recording due to a conflict since.


I do the same. I also have one DVR dedicated for movies so I know I can set a recording for a movie remotely and not have to worry if something else is set to record.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Maybe this is too simple, maybe I am just lucky, but ever since I *set each receiver (two DVRs, two receivers) to its own IP,* I've had 0 problems with the network (DECA'ed here). Since I have a 20, 24 and 25, I set the last two digits to those numbers, happens to be 8 digits above the max. number of other devices wanting on the LAN.....



markrogo said:


> Since the only consumer-grade devices I'm aware of that have any DHCP issues are DirecTV's DVRs, I think it's safe to assume the problem is not with "crappy consumer grade routers". We've personally have dozens of different devices in our home alone not lose DHCP connectivity and in all my time helping friends, family, etc. set up networks, I've never seen problems like the ones DirecTV receivers seem to have.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

RunnerFL said:


> I hope this never happens. I MUCH prefer telling what DVR to record what show myself. I'm capable of balancing my shows just fine and *I don't need some AI making decisions for me* that it could foul up. I also prefer my recordings for my SL's all on the same DVR as each other, not spread across all of my DVRs.


Yeah today's AI can often lead to more work for the human.


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

It could be fairly simple
have some if then statments

set X = number of tuners on the local DVR
set Y = number of shows set to record on local DVR

if Y is less than X then record on the local DVR
if Y is equal to X then check the status of other DVR's
If DVR2 has Y = X-1 then check DVR3
If all DVRs have Y = X-1 then see if priority should override the safe gaurd (ie allowing the last available tuner on a DVR to be free for live viewing)
If priority permits override then start over with DVR2 (as DVR1 is already at max tuners used for the time slot)

have the DVR's searched in order of available storage but permitting an override block for cases of commom TV room DVR's that need 1 tuner to be avalable for Live


also add in a menu item for manualy selecting a specific DVR


----------



## DallasFlier (Oct 24, 2011)

DallasFlier said:


> Hmm, not sure of the definition of "nightmare" in this case, but that basic programming challenge was solved a LONG time ago in a VERY reliable manner. Its on display every time a modern airliner does an auto-land in marginal weather.
> 
> All commercial airliners certified to land in the worst conditions (virtually everything flying today in the western world) have triple-redundant autopilot computers, which operate in master/slave mode during an auto-land sequence. The "fly-by-wire" planes (several Airbus and the new Boeing 787) actually have quad-reduntant autopilots. Trust me, they're pretty damn reliable!





veryoldschool said:


> "And based on a lot better chips than these receivers too"





dsw2112 said:


> I've actually worked on such systems in the Navy, and know them very well. The ones for carrier based landing didn't work nearly as well :lol: But given the discussion and the hardware at hand, I can't think of a way that analogy even remotely fits here...
> 
> We'd need a book to list the differences between the two :lol:


I've worked on them too, for Rockwell/Collins Avionics, who developed the first ever CAT-3A autoland system, for the L-1011 - along with many more since.

Titan's statement was:



Titan25 said:


> I get what you are saying. The problem with the master/slave approach is that negotiating who is the "master" is a nontrivial issue. Take it from someone that has written similar software in the past - the basic concept is simple, but dealing with error recovery is a nightmare.


And while yes - there are *lots* of differences between fail-safe autopilots and DVR's, the basic premise of "master/slave" and negotiating who is the master is the same software logic issue in either case (and has been solved, in a system demanding MUCH higher reliability.) That's all I was saying.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

With the HR34 on the horizon, I'm not sure we'll ever get a shared 'To Be Recorded' list. What amazes me, is that nobody at D* realized how limiting Whole Home DVR would be without this feature.

Most customers are not technically savvy, but they do want the ability to know what the master bedroom DVR is set to record while they are sitting in their living room.

D* offers the ability to control multiple DVRs remotely using an i-pad, i-phone or a Laptop, but in order to find out what your Office DVR is set to record, you have to go into your office room, turn on the TV and the DVR and pull up a menu.

Somewhere in the D* think tank, the egg slipped off the toast.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

TDK1044 said:


> With the HR34 on the horizon, I'm not sure we'll ever get a shared 'To Be Recorded' list. What amazes me, is that nobody at D* realized how limiting Whole Home DVR would be without this feature.


You assume facts not in evidence. It was thought of, but there are always tradeoffs in implementing features, and these have to be balanced and prioritized.

I am pretty sure all of us who have Whole House/Home, MRV, whatever, would like that. But there are plenty of ways to manage multiple DVRs in the meantime. I'm also pretty sure that we MRVers aren't a huge portion of anything.


----------



## DallasFlier (Oct 24, 2011)

Titan25 said:


> I do not propose doing more than I said earlier...allow remote scheduling from one DVR to another. Let the user decide how to allocate events across DVRs. You may not think that meets the requirements of a "feature" but it ameliorates the immediate problem, and has the virtue of being deliverable quickly and on all existing HD DVRs.
> 
> I'm done with this topic. It seems something is coming from DirecTV in this area, so I for one will wait and see what they come up with. In the mean time, I'll do my scheduling from one of my H25s.


Agreed, on both counts. Since that capability obviously exists on the H25 (and other Hxx boxes) it seems it would be trivial to implement/deliver, and would certainly be a welcome capability. Until then, I'm with you - with the disadvantage that I have to have (and pay monthly for) both a HR24 and a H25 at my primary viewing location - but at least I get that third tuner which can be nice sometimes.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I presume that if you have one HR34 and all the rest of your TVs use RVU clients, then you have only one to-do list and managing it could probably be done from any TV.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Laxguy said:


> You assume facts not in evidence. It was thought of, but there are always tradeoffs in implementing features, and these have to be balanced and prioritized.
> 
> I am pretty sure all of us who have Whole House/Home, MRV, whatever, would like that. But there are plenty of ways to manage multiple DVRs in the meantime. I'm also pretty sure that we MRVers aren't a huge portion of anything.


Defend it all you want. It's sloppy.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

TDK1044 said:


> Defend it all you want. It's sloppy.


I'm not as much "defending" it as countering broad statements based on supposition.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Laxguy said:


> I'm not as much "defending" it as countering broad statements based on supposition.


We'll agree to differ.


----------



## DallasFlier (Oct 24, 2011)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I presume that if you have one HR34 and all the rest of your TVs use RVU clients, then you have only one to-do list and managing it could probably be done from any TV.


Given that the 99% of us could get a HR34 and a bunch of RVU clients, I presume you're correct.


----------



## DallasFlier (Oct 24, 2011)

Laxguy said:


> I'm not as much "defending" it as countering broad statements based on supposition.


You mean like these?



Laxguy said:


> *It was thought of*, but there are always tradeoffs in implementing features, and these have to be balanced and prioritized.
> 
> I am pretty sure all of us who have Whole House/Home, MRV, whatever, would like that. But there are plenty of ways to manage multiple DVRs in the meantime. *I'm also pretty sure that we MRVers aren't a huge portion of anything.*


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I presume that if you have one HR34 and all the rest of your TVs use RVU clients, then you have only one to-do list and managing it could probably be done from any TV.


There's no doubt you're right, and probably doing a bit more than presuming :lol: The OP started this thread regarding the current WHDVR though.



shaka999 said:


> ...My biggest frustration with the whole home setup right now is having to manually balance shows between our two HR24 DVRs...


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Understood that this thread was originally about the current Whole-Home setup. Not wanting to speak for DIRECTV, it seems like Whole-Home was going to be an answer for those households that only had a need for one DVR but liked the idea of watching programming in every room. It didn't take into account that people also like the idea of pausing live TV from every room.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Understood that this thread was originally about the current Whole-Home setup. Not wanting to speak for DIRECTV, it seems like Whole-Home was going to be an answer for those households that only had a need for one DVR but liked the idea of watching programming in every room. It didn't take into account that people also like the idea of pausing live TV from every room, *or managing that DVR remotely*.


Fixed your post  They should have just kept the name MRV, and nobody would be able to complain. :lol: Whole Home DVR implies more functionality than what we currently have.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I presume that if you have one HR34 and all the rest of your TVs use RVU clients, then you have only one to-do list and managing it could probably be done from any TV.


Your point is well taken, Stuart.

A lot of existing customers may not get an HR34 DVR though. If D* follows their usual pattern, then new customers will be given the bells and whistles HR34 DVR, and existing customers will have to go to a company like the excellent Solid Signal and purchase one there.

In my case, I would aslso have to upgrade from my SWM 8 to a SWM16, because replacing one of my DVRs with the new 5 tuner HR34 would take my tuner count to nine.

And my only reason for even thinking about getting an HR34 is because I can't see a shared list of what is set to record on my DVRs.


----------



## DallasFlier (Oct 24, 2011)

dsw2112 said:


> Fixed your post  They should have just kept the name MRV, and nobody would be able to complain. :lol: Whole Home DVR implies more functionality than what we currently have.


Yep, and since they apparently managed to figure out that people would like to be able to schedule programs on more than one DVR from their H25, how difficult is it to also figure that we'd want that same capability from our HR24??


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Understood that this thread was originally about the current Whole-Home setup. Not wanting to speak for DIRECTV, it seems like Whole-Home was going to be an answer for those households that only had a need for one DVR but liked the idea of watching programming in every room. It didn't take into account that people also like the idea of pausing live TV from every room.


So they understood it would be interesting to pause recorded TV in every room, but not live TV? I don't really buy that. The old, fake, media center demo from several years ago understood the full wish list quite well. I'd say Whole Home DVR was a really good "hack" that provided some of the functionality they knew a lot of people wanted before they got the hardware to provide all of it. And it does a reasonable job, it's just limited.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well, you could say that maybe they didn't understand the need for it. But, with HR34, you can pause live TV from any room, and you have a single box that can record 5 things.

Understand that the most popular setup is still the one DVR/three receiver combo, and if you look forward to it being one HR34/3 clients, it makes sense not to put a lot of effort into collaborative scheduling.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

DallasFlier said:


> You mean like these?
> 
> 
> 
> > I am pretty sure all of us who have Whole House/Home, MRV, whatever, would like that. But there are plenty of ways to manage multiple DVRs in the meantime. I'm also pretty sure that we MRVers aren't a huge portion of anything.


Heh. Somewhat different contexts, no?

In any event, you are right that saying "I'm pretty sure" indicates supposition.

Do you have any facts on what percentage Whole Home makes up of the ca. 20,000,000 subs? Or even a good guess?


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well, you could say that maybe they didn't understand the need for it. But, with HR34, you can pause live TV from any room, and you have a single box that can record 5 things.
> 
> Understand that the most popular setup is still the one DVR/three receiver combo, and if you look forward to it being one HR34/3 clients, it makes sense not to put a lot of effort into collaborative scheduling.


In spite of many of us here having more DVRs than common sense (well I have anyway) I would suspect we represent less than 2% (if not considerably lower) of the overall subscriber base. As more or less tech geeks/junkies our implementations we have here in these forums are so skewed...

Would be interesting to pull that statistic from the subscriber database and see.

From an equipment cost standpoint and ROI, subscribers having many DVRs take far longer to become profitable. Considering the churn rates it may be a loss demographic from the corporate viewpoint.

Being able to present a new solution that covers probably the 2.5 DVR statistic the typical TV addict would need as indicated in their marketing spreadsheets in a single piece of DVR hardware should drive better economies of scale.

Though more expensive than a "normal" DVR I'm pretty certain their up front cost is considerably less than 2 or 3 individual DVRs combined. Add to that the expectation that the TV manufacturers are architecting the individual receiver portion integrated in their sets reducing the number of non DVR receivers. Over time it's a significant hardware inventory cost savings.

While us DVR hoarders certainly would *love* the moon, I suspect all things considered, the spreadsheets have us as a less profitable (if at all) overall demographic and a small enough number to be tolerated but not catered to.

I have this same issue with my home infrastructure which is commercial in scope despite being a single family dwelling and have had to commercially subcontract it's implementation phases.

But give me the ability my H21 and H25 series receivers have to deploy recordings on all the DVRs around my network (and perhaps allow more than 5 DVRs to show in Whole home status) and I could live with that. Quite happily in fact.

Someone could create a simple iDevice/PC style app to manage the DVR series link and manual schedules via manual input. A specialized spreadsheet or something and us geek toy addicts can wallow in that solution.

Don "what would be nice and what is profitable are likely at conflict" Bolton


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

lugnutathome said:


> In spite of many of us here having more DVRs than common sense (well I have anyway) I would suspect we represent less than 2% (if not considerably lower) of the overall subscriber base.


I'd be curious to see the numbers on this. I only have anecdotal evidence, but the folks I know with D* (about 15 or so) all have at least 2 DVR's. All have been with D* for at least 5 years, and for the most part the D* fee structure is an easy reason for having multiple DVR's. More than half of the folks started with the single DVR (and 3 receiver setup), but have been given "free upgrades" over the years. Since the DVR mirror fee is the same as a receiver (and the DVR fee covers all DVR's on the account) there's really no reason to refuse.

A number of the folks I mentioned are not tech savvy (including my parents), but they can understand that a DVR for the same monthly cost of a receiver is a win for them. For this reason, there's a chance that the number of multiple DVR owners might be higher than we think.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

dsw2112 said:


> I'd be curious to see the numbers on this. I only have anecdotal evidence, but the folks I know with D* (about 15 or so) all have at least 2 DVR's. All have been with D* for at least 5 years, and for the most part the D* fee structure is an easy reason for having multiple DVR's. More than half of the folks started with the single DVR (and 3 receiver setup), but have been given "free upgrades" over the years. Since the DVR mirror fee is the same as a receiver (and the DVR fee covers all DVR's on the account) there's really no reason to refuse.
> 
> A number of the folks I mentioned are not tech savvy (including my parents), but they can understand that a DVR for the same monthly cost of a receiver is a win for them. For this reason, there's a chance that the number of multiple DVR owners might be higher than we think.


I would love to see than number myself but I suspect using spreadsheet math they came up with 2.5 sort of like during the Bell breakup the emerging long distance carriers the "six second increment billing sales feature" was used.

Taking business customers monthly bills and dividing the number of minutes by the number of calls pretty much landed at 4.3 minutes. A useless fact derived by non even division despite it all having been in full minute increments. But it was sold quite successfully as "why pay for 5 minutes when you only used 4.3"?

I can see a lot of 2 and possibly 3 DVR homes but in excess of that I'd guess a small percentage only.

I get your knowing non tech subscribers though my father when he was alive would likely have had 3 or four of these had they been invented then and I would have been stuck being his tech support:grin:

Whatever transpires I would really like at the minimum what the non DVR > H20 series recievers can do.

And to be sure my anecdotal evidence is pure POOMA (Pulled Out Of My A**) :grin:

Don "how come the VCR keeps flashing 12:00?" Bolton


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

In any event, it's not the number of two and three receiver households, or two or more DVRs, it's those which are MRV'ed with two or more DVRs, so I bet it's a small number, under 500,000.

.... But anywhere numbers are pulled from, if they appear to make sense, I'm good with that.

And I don't expect those who can supply a hard number are going to do so. sr, db, others.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I think delivering a unified To Do List and unified Series Manager could be done in stages to provide a single To Do List. 

Start with "remote recording". You can already do this in the Guide now on MRV-connected H2x* receivers, selecting a connected DVR on which the program should be recorded. Since this functionality exists, port it to the HR2x DVRs. Seems to me it should be easy: if you hit REC on the HR2x, ask on which of the network connected DVRs to record. Easy, breezy.  (Of course, I'm not on the DIRECTV software, standards, quality assurance, testing and/or documentation teams, so ... "Easy" is relative!)

After "remote recording" is working, move on to an enhancement to the To Do List on connected receivers. Add a a YELLOW options menu, where you can filter the To Do List to show ALL or LOCAL, and have the ability to view, cancel or modify any recording in the list. This would require that each DVR broadcasts its To Do List items to the home network in the same manner that the Playlist broadcasts its playlist. (Not sure if it's "broadcast" or if the data is "pulled" on demand when the interface needs to present it. I think the latter, but it's easier to say "broadcast".)

The above change would of course require enhancements to the Whole Home Settings page to permit or deny remote visibility and management of scheduled recordings. Just as now you can go to Whole Home Settings and choose to allow or deny ability to view the playlist on other receivers or allow or deny the ability to delete recordings remotely, give an option to allow the To Do List to be visible (or not) and to allow remote cancellations (or not).

I think all the above items are highly desirable in a Whole Home environment and would add tremendous value to the users... but I don't expect to see this functionality delivered all at once. I can be patient.


----------



## ak6ar (Dec 13, 2006)

Ok maybe I am going in a slightly different direction on this, but why not just expose the scheduling via api's and see what 3rd parties come up with in this regard? I am not sure there is a big enough demand to invest in this, so let 3rd parties who feel they can add value in this way do it.

Currently the receivers expose what shows are recorded as well as other things via REST api's. If they would expose manipulating the schedule, adding something to the schedule, removing an item from the schedule, showing the scheduled list, and a few more details then people could write a variety of quick and easy 3rd party solutions.

Heck when I ran across this problem I was going to write a simple little ipad app to let me manage/edit/sore the playlist across all of my DVR's but the api's are not exposed. If the api's were exposed, one could experiment with master scheduling or experiment with other ideas. I would love it if they would even expose more via API's, guide data, other items, so we could really see what people come up with that interesting apps.

Its just a thought.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Laxguy said:


> In any event, it's not the number of two and three receiver households, or two or more DVRs, it's those which are MRV'ed with two or more DVRs, so I bet it's a small number, under 500,000.
> 
> .... But anywhere numbers are pulled from, if they appear to make sense, I'm good with that.
> 
> And I don't expect those who can supply a hard number are going to do so. sr, db, others.


Wouldn't expect it. But that not mean Mongo not curious.

Don "Mongo glad is bigger than cat" Bolton


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

ak6ar said:


> Ok maybe I am going in a slightly different direction on this, but why not just expose the scheduling via api's and see what 3rd parties come up with in this regard? I am not sure there is a big enough demand to invest in this, so let 3rd parties who feel they can add value in this way do it.
> 
> Currently the receivers expose what shows are recorded as well as other things via REST api's. If they would expose manipulating the schedule, adding something to the schedule, removing an item from the schedule, showing the scheduled list, and a few more details then people could write a variety of quick and easy 3rd party solutions.
> 
> ...


There is an API known as "IP Control", but since they released it they have taken away a good chunk of the functions. There never was the ability to manipulate series links, guide data, etc though.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

lugnutathome said:


> Wouldn't expect it. But that not mean Mongo not curious.
> 
> Don "Mongo glad is bigger than cat" Bolton


Mongo curious! Curious good. Mongo good!

:lol:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

RunnerFL said:


> There is an API known as "IP Control", but since they released it they have taken away a good chunk of the functions. There never was the ability to manipulate series links, guide data, etc though.


My only hope is that DIRECTV® plans to do the latter via iPad and Droids themselves, or at least contract out for it. 
I guess they don't want people phoning in with questions about why their browser Playlist shows x and y, while their TV Playlist shows y and z, or vice versa- [refreshing would be the answer in many cases.] Same with To Do and series links. At least that's one possible reason I can think of.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

I think that if DirecTV wanted to offer 'U-verse Professional', then they should have called it 'MRV', and people like myself wouldn't have expected more from it. 

But when you call something 'Whole Home DVR', then there is a valid assumption on the part of the customer that you can record and play back on any DVR, and that you will be able to see from one location what is set up to record on all the DVRs in the home.

Like I said in an earlier post......Sloppy.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

TDK1044 said:


> I think that if DirecTV wanted to offer 'U-verse Professional', then they should have called it 'MRV', and people like myself wouldn't have expected more from it.
> 
> But when you call something 'Whole Home DVR', then there is a valid assumption on the part of the customer that you can record and play back on any DVR, and that you will be able to see from one location what is set up to record on all the DVRs in the home.
> 
> Like I said in an earlier post......Sloppy.


I have to disagree. And you know what happens when you assume...


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)




----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

TDK1044 said:


> I think that if DirecTV wanted to offer 'U-verse Professional', then they should have called it 'MRV', and people like myself wouldn't have expected more from it.
> 
> *But when you call something 'Whole Home DVR', then there is a valid assumption on the part of the customer that you can record and play back on any DVR*, and that you will be able to see from one location what is set up to record on all the DVRs in the home.
> 
> Like I said in an earlier post......Sloppy.


I completely agree with whats in bold, and thats what we have, but I don't see where your second statement is a valid assumption at all....I dont know of any provider that does this currently, is there one? U-Verse and FIOS both use a single master DVR multi slave non-DVR setup IIRC, so all the devices in the house can see what is going to record because there is only one DVR in the system and only one to-do list to worry about....and of course you are limited to a few streams based on what bandwidth they can get to your door.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Everyone is coming up with work arounds. Some people like me have added a notepad and pen to our digital arsenal of technology so that we know what is set to record on what DVR in the house, and we don't double up with recordings. Others have assigned DVRs roles, so that they know what is going to record where.

It's pathetic. At the end of the day, it's only TV though.


----------



## DallasFlier (Oct 24, 2011)

Laxguy said:


> In any event, you are right that saying "I'm pretty sure" indicates supposition.
> 
> Do you have any facts on what percentage Whole Home makes up of the ca. 20,000,000 subs? Or even a good guess?


No, all I'd have is a "broad statement based on supposition" so I won't go there. 

FWIW, nothing wrong with making "broad statements based on supposition" in and of itself, if identified as such. But pretty ridiculous to call someone else on it after doing exactly the same thing yourself, huh?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

TDK1044 said:


> Everyone is coming up with work arounds. Some people like me have added a notepad and pen to our digital arsenal of technology so that we know what is set to record on what DVR in the house, and we don't double up with recordings. Others have assigned DVRs roles, so that they know what is going to record where.
> 
> It's pathetic. At the end of the day, it's only TV though.


So how is assigning a role to a DVR "pathetic"? To me it's common sense.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

RunnerFL said:


> So how is assigning a role to a DVR "pathetic"? To me it's common sense.


I was meaning that having to come up with any work around is pathetic. Having said that, as a result of an e mail I got from DirecTV in reply to an e mail I sent them regarding this subject, gives me hope.

It came from the technical division rather than customer service, and it suggests to me that a solution to this may actually be possible in the fruition of time.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

TDK1044 said:


> ....as a result of an e mail I got from DirecTV in reply to an e mail I sent them regarding this subject, gives me hope.
> 
> It came from the technical division rather than customer service, and it suggests to me that a solution to this may actually be possible in the fruition of time.


Dang! I thought it was my earlier post......


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

TDK1044 said:


> I was meaning that having to come up with any work around is pathetic. Having said that, as a result of an e mail I got from DirecTV in reply to an e mail I sent them regarding this subject, gives me hope.
> 
> It came from the technical division rather than customer service, and it suggests to me that a solution to this may actually be possible in the fruition of time.


I don't assign roles to my DVRs as a work around for anything. Even when we didn't have MRV each of my DVRs had a role. When I wanted to watch FOX/CBS and whatever else I assigned to it I watched DVR 1 and if I wanted to watch NBC/ABC and whatever else I watched DVR 2, etc... Nothing pathetic about that it's just common sense.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I don't assign roles to my DVRs as a work around for anything. Even when we didn't have MRV each of my DVRs had a role. When I wanted to watch FOX/CBS and whatever else I assigned to it I watched DVR 1 and if I wanted to watch NBC/ABC and whatever else I watched DVR 2, etc... Nothing pathetic about that it's just common sense.


We do the same thing, using network TV as our DVR divider. That doesn't make it fun or convenient though.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I've been managing my recordings "per network" on multiple DVRs for as long as I can remember. Right now I have 5 DIRECTV DVRs hooked up to the living room TV set up as follows:

TV-24 = Series from CBS-2 and NBC-4
TV-57 = Series from Fox-5 and ABC-7
TV-11 = Series from CW and cable channels such as USA and SyFy
TV-500 = Series from Premiums such as HBO, Sho, Starz
TV-100 = Movies

I can't recall the last time I had a conflict, but if they show up, I refer to my Excel spreadsheet (yes, I have one!) for where I can plug the new series in.

Would a collaborative scheduler make my life easier? Absolutely. But I don't want the DVRs to decide where to record for me - I just want to see what's recording everywhere so I can make the decision where something should be recorded.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

My home-fix method is to use TVapps *flickr*. I have an 4:3 image there that breakdown my DVRs by Channels.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> I've been managing my recordings "per network" on multiple DVRs for as long as I can remember. Right now I have 5 DIRECTV DVRs hooked up to the living room TV set up as follows:
> 
> TV-24 = Series from CBS-2 and NBC-4
> TV-57 = Series from Fox-5 and ABC-7
> ...


Ditto! I use a spreadsheet too, color coded even. :lol:


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Does anyone know of a provider that has collaborative dvr scheduling right now? FIOS, COmcast, TWC, U-Verse? Dont they all use the single dvr approach but you can schedule from any other rooms non-DVR stb?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Ditto! I use a spreadsheet too, color coded even. :lol:


 There's got to be a name for folks like us ... maybe starts with a C and ends with Y? :lol:


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

The point I made to DirecTV was that if I can go to the App on my I-pad, and set recordings and specify the DVR that I want those recordings made on, why can't I then see them in a list?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm sure it's possible. I think the question you need to ask is, why does DIRECTV think it's not worth assigning resources to? Cost of the project? Potential benefit? Number of people who benefit? Marketing value?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> There's got to be a name for folks like us ... maybe starts with a C and ends with Y? :lol:


I'd like to think of that word being "Organized". :lol:

I actually have a workbook comprised of a spreadsheet per DVR, a spreadsheet to let me know what colors are what and another spreadsheet to let me know what DVRs have what storage space, IP, remote codes, etc.

Now as for what others would call people like us, well I'm not sure we could post that here. :lol:


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> I'd like to think of that word being "Organized". :lol:
> 
> I actually have a workbook comprised of a spreadsheet per DVR, a spreadsheet to let me know what colors are what and another spreadsheet to let me know what DVRs have what storage space, IP, remote codes, etc.
> 
> Now as for what others would call people like us, well I'm not sure we could post that here. :lol:


Yeah, I think I know that word. 

I won't share more than this, but here's what I have scheduled to record across all recording devices in my house, broken down by DVR and by channel. Helps me figure out how to realign the recordings... yeah, *that* word really does apply!

And yeah, that's a *LOT *of TV being recorded!!!!!


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> Yeah, I think I know that word.
> 
> I won't share more than this, but here's what I have scheduled to record across all recording devices in my house, broken down by DVR and by channel. Helps me figure out how to realign the recordings... yeah, *that* word really does apply!
> 
> And yeah, that's a *LOT *of TV being recorded!!!!!


Oh, mine is much more detailed than that. Maybe I'll post it when I get home from work.

Each show has its own row where I have the SL#, Day, Title, Time, whether it is airing or on hiatus, channel, if it's in hd, etc. :lol:


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm sure it's possible. I think the question you need to ask is, why does DIRECTV think it's not worth assigning resources to? Cost of the project? Potential benefit? Number of people who benefit? Marketing value?


Speed too?

I still say letting u sat least see the record icons in the guide on every unit from every unit would be enough for 95% of all people, and I can't believe it would be to big of a thing to accomplish. Of course, I still think its crazy CIG doesn't work right on any package at all..


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Oh, mine is much more detailed than that. Maybe I'll post it when I get home from work.
> 
> Each show has its own row where I have the SL#, Day, Title, Time, whether it is airing or on hiatus, channel, if it's in hd, etc. :lol:


Yeah, I have those details, too, but I keep a single consolidated list that I can sort either by DVR or by day. What I posted earlier was just my grand summary, so here's a peek at my details list.

You can see I haven't updated it in a while (ex: Playboy Club is still listed), and I also have some duplicates with series recorded on more than one DVR ... this is why I didn't post the full spreadsheet. I'm a sloppy well-organized person!


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm sure it's possible. I think the question you need to ask is, why does DIRECTV think it's not worth assigning resources to? Cost of the project? Potential benefit? Number of people who benefit? Marketing value?


I don't believe they are especially proactive in designing most of this technology. I think they react to the marketplace and what they hear consumers demanding.

It's probably fair to say that sometimes, someone at DirecTV comes up with a very forward-looking idea and they actually go work on that. But realistically, it's not likely they are sitting around conceiving of every possible idea and doing cost-benefit analyses in a vacuum.

Whole-home DVR feels like one of those things that happened only after the fact. It doesn't appear to have been intended from the get go and after the failure of "Media Center 1.0" to get anywhere near fruition, it appears that DirecTV found a clever way to overlay MOCA and Whole Home on hardware that wasn't even particularly designed for it. Good for them.

That said, there is evidence that whoever tackled the iPad app clearly didn't bothered to be constrained by what the UI of the DVRs themselves allowed. DirecTV has to answer this question: Does it want 100% of people with a desire for single scheduling to ditch their multiple DVRs and demand an HR34 or does it want to encourage some of them to keep their multiple HR2x units? It seems to me the cost-benefit analysis is clear if there are enough multiple DVR homes.


----------



## ts7 (Nov 1, 2011)

"markrogo" said:


> DirecTV has to answer this question: Does it want 100% of people with a desire for single scheduling to ditch their multiple DVRs and demand an HR34 or does it want to encourage some of them to keep their multiple HR2x units? It seems to me the cost-benefit analysis is clear if there are enough multiple DVR homes.


I, for one, would prefer multiple HR24 over a single HR34. A single unit also means a single point of failure. When one of my HR24s dies, I may lose half my recordings but I still have the capability to record and watch recorded shows. If all I had was a single HR34 and it died, I'm out of service, period.

As much as I would like a single schedule/playlist across all DVRs, it is something I'm willing to sacrifice in order to keep redundancy.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

CCarncross said:


> Does anyone know of a provider that has collaborative dvr scheduling right now? FIOS, COmcast, TWC, U-Verse? Dont they all use the single dvr approach but you can schedule from any other rooms non-DVR stb?


Not one person has a comment or information pertaining to this? So many are complaining about D* not having the unified to-do list, but I have seen zero evidence that any other provider has it....anyone? Bueller, Bueller...


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> Not one person has a comment or information pertaining to this? So many are complaining about D* not having the unified to-do list, but I have seen zero evidence that any other provider has it....anyone? Bueller, Bueller...


I don't know if any other provider offers either a unified To Do list or a collaborative scheduler, but that doesn't stop me from wanting a single screen where I can see all upcoming scheduled recordings. It also should not be a factor prohibiting DIRECTV from providing one - there's no shame in being a leader rather than a follower, and although there's some risk there's also some reward.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

ts7 said:


> I, for one, would prefer multiple HR24 over a single HR34. A single unit also means a single point of failure. When one of my HR24s dies, I may lose half my recordings but I still have the capability to record and watch recorded shows. If all I had was a single HR34 and it died, I'm out of service, period.
> 
> As much as I would like a single schedule/playlist across all DVRs, it is something I'm willing to sacrifice in order to keep redundancy.


You may be able to have both, at least that's a fond hope of mine. Redundancy plus a single list, [which I'd be happy to have limited to iPad or laptop, if implementing it on the TV screen were too difficult.]


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Drew2k said:


> I don't know if any other provider offers either a unified To Do list or a collaborative scheduler, but that doesn't stop me from wanting a single screen where I can see all upcoming scheduled recordings. It also should not be a factor prohibiting DIRECTV from providing one - there's no shame in being a leader rather than a follower, and although there's some risk there's also some reward.


I think if no other provider is currently offering it either its not as trivial as the "expert" programmers here think it is....Unfortunately, I think the closest we are going to get in the near future is using an HR34 with the rest of the house on H models and having the 5 tuners available in the HR34...personally I prefer the flexibility to have as many dvrs as I want and MRV so I don't have any limits on the number of tuners i can have, and I'll suffer through not having collaborative scheduling. I have 3 DVR's so I already have more tuners available for recording than an HR34...


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> You may be able to have both, at least that's a fond hope of mine. Redundancy plus a single list, [which I'd be happy to have limited to iPad or laptop, if implementing it on the TV screen were too difficult.]


Agreed, I'd probably pass on the HR34 if I could get my HR24s to just work as one.

As for redundancy, as much as we have a gigantic playlist, I think it's overrated. Between web sites, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and torrents, I'm willing to have the convenience of one record list to manage and limited redundancy knowing I can find everything that might be lost.

We run 4 DVRs right now and could cut that down to 2 including an HR34. That's less space, less power, less monthly fees (perhaps) and the non-HR34 could still provide a modicum of redundancy against the one HR34. That said, we'd probably run the HR24 we keep as some sort of live backup for the things we aren't watching but are instead queueing up for viewing much later. So maybe "overrated" is the wrong way. Maybe it's that distributed DVRs aren't really very redundant to begin with, but are merely not a single point of total failure. Going forward, it's easier to imagine a better system overall.


----------

