# DirecTV set-top boxes to use eXtremeDB Fusion database product



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Press Release	- Source: McObject LLC

*McObject's eXtremeDB Fusion Database Chosen for DIRECTV Set-Top Boxes
Tuesday May 20, 1:00 pm ET*

_ISSAQUAH, WA--(MARKET WIRE)--May 20, 2008 -- McObject® announced that DIRECTV, the leading U.S. satellite television service provider, will integrate the eXtremeDB(TM) Fusion embedded database system into its set-top box software, leveraging eXtremeDB Fusion's hybrid in-memory/on-disk data storage to significantly reduce development time across a range of hard disk-based and disk-less boxes, and to improve processor utilization._

full press release here.....
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080520/0399106.html
and here.....
http://www.mcobject.com/pressroom.php?step=3&article=100


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

That sound really good. My only worry is that our HR2X boxes are too fragile to handle the advanced technology mentioned in that release.

I guess I'll just wait for some of the more techically inclined posters to spell out exactly what this "eXtremeDB Fusion" stuff means.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> That sound really good. My only worry is that our HR2X boxes are too fragile to handle the advanced technology mentioned in that release.
> 
> I guess I'll just wait for some of the more techically inclined posters to spell out exactly what this "eXtremeDB Fusion" stuff means.


Seems to me that it means that we are in for a significant rewrite of the guide data/scheduling portions of the DVR code. Hopefully it also will mean the end of 50 SL limit.

I'm not sure what your worry about "fragile HR2x boxes" is based on. Given the existing scheduling limits, and overall slow processing time of the current software, I'd say that the HR2X boxes can't handle some of the software as it exists today and what is needed is "advanced technology" to replace some poorly designed and implemented software.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Sounds like we are in for one heck of an overhaul for the next generation of GUI. Guide, menus, the works.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

RobertE said:


> Sounds like we are in for one heck of an overhaul for the next generation of GUI. Guide, menus, the works.


Even if the GUI doesn't change, the guide data format sounds like it's going to be overhauled to run on the new DB platform. That means major s/w updates for pretty much all receivers, it seems to me.


----------



## Koz (Sep 16, 2006)

Combine the following facts:
Earl confirmed he is working for Directv.
Earl is a database programmer.
Directv just got a new dabase backbone for their STBs.

Hmmmmm.....


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> That sound really good. My only worry is that our HR2X boxes are too fragile to handle the advanced technology mentioned in that release.
> 
> I guess I'll just wait for some of the more techically inclined posters to spell out exactly what this "eXtremeDB Fusion" stuff means.


Well to me it says currently the non-dvr and dvr recievers are using two different database engines. The eXtremeDB solution seems to be small enough in footprint that it can reside either entirely in EEPROM or can be written to disk additionally - therefore both reciever types can potentially use exactly the same database structure and content. That would certainly make life easier I am sure and bring them closer to a unified platform.

And delving straight into speculation land - it is a database engine so no UI elements should be directly affected (although it may be possible for the UI to easily present even more metadata from the guide info ?). So I am not sure I would expect visible changes - although you could see some speed increases as some of the basic housekeeping tasks could potentially be optimized or eliminated.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

Please no more software updates please just get my box working right and then leave the f'n thing alone


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

I expect to see more accuracy (stability) also since its not dependent on just one already busy component.  the HA Hybrid version looks, on paper, to be a very useful setup for embedded devices.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

RobertE said:



> Sounds like we are in for one heck of an overhaul for the next generation of GUI. Guide, menus, the works.


More Favorite lists too.... All I can say is, "Just Bring it"!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

My guess is that they investigated the code thoroughly, and felt this was the best way to deal with any current or potential performance issues.

It's nice to see them seriously addressing these things.


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

They have nothing to worry about now that Earl is working on the software development


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

bruinfever said:


> They have nothing to worry about now that Earl is working on the software development


Thats not nice - you can't expect Earl is going to show up at the new job and 'fix' everything. And that really is a slap to face of the guys down working in the microcode (well below any database application). I have great respect and awe for folks that work in assembler or even straight C.

But I do agree it is nice to think 'we' have an inside guy .


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Koz said:


> Combine the following facts:
> Earl confirmed he is working for Directv.
> Earl is a database programmer.
> Directv just got a new dabase backbone for their STBs.
> ...


Does JBoss have anything to do with xTremeDB Fusion, or vise versa?

Need to learn JBOSS; Where to start

Makes one wonder ...


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Does JBoss have anything to do with xTremeDB Fusion, or vise versa?
> 
> Need to learn JBOSS; Where to start
> 
> Makes one wonder ...


I was wondering about that thread too, Drew. :lol:


----------



## gslater (Aug 5, 2007)

The press release makes it sound like it will actually improve performance of the boxes by optimizing activity to lower CPU usage for DB tasks and the like, leaving more of that capability for use with media processing where it is needed. Sounds really familiar too. In fact is sounds an awful lot like the Memory and Disk based storage engines for use with MySql.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Does JBoss have anything to do with xTremeDB Fusion, or vise versa?
> 
> Need to learn JBOSS; Where to start
> 
> Makes one wonder ...


Nah - that had to be for his 'old' job - JBoss is like Tomcat or Websphere - an app server for J2EE.

Although - maybe the online system or the scheduler app, or even something that might poke your eye now could be a webservice. Hmmm...


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

gslater said:


> In fact is sounds an awful lot like the Memory and Disk based storage engines for use with MySql.


which begs the obvious question. why not mysql, or even sqlite


----------



## jfalkingham (Dec 6, 2005)

Pretty impressive list of coded and more importantly supported platforms:

http://real-time-database.net/downloads.php?step=2&catID=1


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

If they had half their programmers working on HR2x and half on H2x, now with a single code base for both, they can fire half their programmers. Since the two code bases were presumably tuned for the diskful and diskless devices, respectively, and the new single code base cannot be tuned to the hardware in this way, we can look forward to a slow down in performance of the GUI.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

bhelton71 said:


> Nah - that had to be for his 'old' job - JBoss is like Tomcat or Websphere - an app server for J2EE.
> 
> Although - maybe the online system or the scheduler app, or even something that might poke your eye now could be a webservice. Hmmm...


The inquiry about JBOSS was obviously about his new job. He posted it on the same day he posted his goodbye message.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

tuff bob said:


> which begs the obvious question. why not mysql, or even sqlite


The problem with transactional DBs designed to run 'on anything' is that they aren't optimized to run well for _specific_ applications.

Perhaps this license agreement allows for the hardware they're planning on using.

UPDATE: Rereading the press release, this stuff is real-time where mysql, etc. is not.


----------



## jfalkingham (Dec 6, 2005)

bhelton71 said:


> Although - maybe the online system or the scheduler app, or even something that might poke your eye now could be a webservice. Hmmm...


I think you hit the nail head on. If you have to know jboss, then its more than likely webservice based, perhaps for their online scheduling, or for future services delivered online, ala sling?


----------



## gslater (Aug 5, 2007)

Redlinetire said:


> The problem with transactional DBs designed to run 'on anything' is that they aren't optimized to run well for _specific_ applications.
> 
> Perhaps this license agreement allows for the hardware they're planning on using.
> 
> UPDATE: Rereading the press release, this stuff is real-time where mysql, etc. is not.


My original statement was more about whether the concept of storage engines as used by MySql was the basis for the implementation behind this products apparently similar function.

Also, I don't think this means that performance suffers because it needs to run on various systems either Disked or Diskless. The concept (at least the concept of MySql) is that you tune the Disk storage engine for those systems and then you tune the Diskless storage engine for those systems. The front end (the Query Engine if you will) processes the requests and hands them off to the storage engine for execution. This means you get optimal performance in each environment with a common DB processor. You're codebase could be the same but the database implementation could specify a different storage engine for each, with each being optimized for it's particular environment.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

jfalkingham said:


> Pretty impressive list of coded and more importantly supported platforms:
> 
> http://real-time-database.net/downloads.php?step=2&catID=1


all x86 platforms except for SPARC. None seem relevant to the hardware we believe is in a HR2X.


----------



## deweydm (Sep 5, 2007)

tuff bob said:


> all x86 platforms except for SPARC. None seem relevant to the hardware we believe is in a HR2X.


Ports for Solaris SPARC, but not Solaris x86. At least not listed on the above. What's the HR2x os/hardware? Linux on ???


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

deweydm said:


> Ports for Solaris SPARC, but not Solaris x86. At least not listed on the above. What's the HR2x os/hardware? Linux on ???


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=82621


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve Robertson said:


> Please no more software updates please just get my box working right and then leave the f'n thing alone


That's ignorant. They can't just "leave the f'n thing alone" because the marketplace is constantly changing. The HR2x is very different than it was when it launched, and in another two years it's going to be very different from how it is now. This is a very good thing.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

PSmith said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=82621


You posted a link to a seven page thread about GPL and the HR20 using the Linux OS in response to the question of what processor hardware is the software & OS for the HR20 running on..... not exactly helpful.

If you know the answer about the processor, a simple one sentence reply is the appropriate response, not a link to a seven page thread about the Linux OS and GPL licensing.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> That's ignorant. They can't just "leave the f'n thing alone" because the marketplace is constantly changing. The HR2x is very different than it was when it launched, and in another two years it's going to be very different from how it is now. This is a very good thing.


Only ignorant if you have a box with no issues.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> You posted a link to a seven page thread about GPL and the HR20 using the Linux OS in response to the question of what processor hardware is the software & OS for the HR20 running on..... not exactly helpful.
> 
> If you know the answer about the processor, a simple one sentence reply is the appropriate response, not a link to a seven page thread about the Linux OS and GPL licensing.


Check the First Look thread . . . the hardware info is in there.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

gslater said:


> My original statement was more about whether the concept of storage engines as used by MySql was the basis for the implementation behind this products apparently similar function.
> 
> Also, I don't think this means that performance suffers because it needs to run on various systems either Disked or Diskless. The concept (at least the concept of MySql) is that you tune the Disk storage engine for those systems and then you tune the Diskless storage engine for those systems. The front end (the Query Engine if you will) processes the requests and hands them off to the storage engine for execution. This means you get optimal performance in each environment with a common DB processor. You're codebase could be the same but the database implementation could specify a different storage engine for each, with each being optimized for it's particular environment.


My point was that they appear to be designing a _real time_ system which - as far as I can tell from the mySQL website - requires an extra add-on module(s) among other things for mySQL to run in that configuration. It simply isn't designed from the ground up for real time, whereas the product they've chosen to use is.


----------



## DBEX (Jan 29, 2007)

I'll bet Earl was hired to help work on this...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve Robertson said:


> Only ignorant if you have a box with no issues.


No, it's ignorant either way. Wanting a working box is fine, but saying that they should just get it working and then forget everything else isn't a very realistic view.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

cartrivision said:


> You posted a link to a seven page thread about GPL and the HR20 using the Linux OS in response to the question of what processor hardware is the software & OS for the HR20 running on..... not exactly helpful.
> 
> If you know the answer about the processor, a simple one sentence reply is the appropriate response, not a link to a seven page thread about the Linux OS and GPL licensing.


If you don't need that knowledge you can skip my post, since it was an answer to other person ( check a quotation ), plus better start reading OP question - "*What's the HR2x os/hardware? Linux on ???" *instead of jumping on me without reason.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> No, it's ignorant either way. Wanting a working box is fine, but saying that they should just get it working and then forget everything else isn't a very realistic view.


Maybe for you and many others that is true but I am sure there are plenty of others that feel the way I do.

All we want is a DVR that records and playsback the recording without all kinds of issues that seem to continually pop up on these boxes because D* feels they are Microsoft. The only thing they have in common with them is the fact they release product loaded with bugs just to get it out the door.

This thread is not the place for this discussion so I am dropping it and hope you do the same we agree to disagree


----------



## gslater (Aug 5, 2007)

Redlinetire said:


> My point was that they appear to be designing a _real time_ system which - as far as I can tell from the mySQL website - requires an extra add-on module(s) among other things for mySQL to run in that configuration. It simply isn't designed from the ground up for real time, whereas the product they've chosen to use is.


I really think the points we're both making are two completely separate things. That said, I'll defer to you on the realtime issue. I'm not a MySql programmer although I've had some exposure to it's storage enging concepts since a storage engine has been announced for Db2 and I work primarily in Db2 with some Oracle.

All in all I think any of those (DB2, Oracle, MySql) are too bloated for use in something like this. They probably chose this product because of it's small footprint combined with it's ability to do the job efficiently. In this kind of environment size and performance are nearly as important as functionality.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

I'm just getting into SQL setups, but I think gslater is correct about footprint, especially on/in an embedded device.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

Steve Robertson said:


> Maybe for you and many others that is true but I am sure there are plenty of others that feel the way I do.
> 
> All we want is a DVR that records and playsback the recording without all kinds of issues that seem to continually pop up on these boxes because D* feels they are Microsoft. The only thing they have in common with them is the fact they release product loaded with bugs just to get it out the door.
> 
> This thread is not the place for this discussion so I am dropping it and hope you do the same we agree to disagree


but don't you think altering the embedded database to allow for a more efficient design and implementation will do what you are asking for?


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

David MacLeod said:


> but don't you think altering the embedded database to allow for a more efficient design and implementation will do what you are asking for?


Maybe it will and maybe it will introduce another set of problems. All I am saying is Iwant a stable box and once stable leave it alone. I understand ther is all kinds of functions that will be available in the future with new developments but for me and I am sure a few others all I want is a box that records and plays back very simple for someone with a simple mind.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Steve Robertson said:


> Maybe it will and maybe it will introduce another set of problems. All I am saying is Iwant a stable box and once stable leave it alone. I understand ther is all kinds of functions that will be available in the future with new developments but for me and I am sure a few others all I want is a box that records and plays back very simple for someone with a simple mind.


I would hope using a db engine designed specifically for this type of application would improve overall function. I think we have all had situations occur where it seems the boxes are busy doing housekeeping, etc. If this new software can alleviate or even eliminate some of the processes that are stealing CPU time - that would hopefully improve the overall performance and stability.

And I don't think anyone disagrees with wanting a stable box - but I think we should have a little faith that is a well-informed change. And it is entirely possible this is for a next generation product - and will have no impact on the current batch.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Hopefully moving to a more efficient database will have the same positive effect on GUIDE and scheduling performance we saw on the HR10-250 DirecTiVo, when the move from the 3.x to the 6.x s/w instroduced a new database scheme.

As many will recall, the seemingly endless wait to rebuild the TODO list after scheduling a new season's pass or re-ordering the priority list dropped from several minutes to several seconds. /steve


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

bhelton71 said:


> I would hope using a db engine designed specifically for this type of application would improve overall function. I think we have all had situations occur where it seems the boxes are busy doing housekeeping, etc. If this new software can alleviate or even eliminate some of the processes that are stealing CPU time - that would hopefully improve the overall performance and stability.
> 
> And I don't think anyone disagrees with wanting a stable box - but I think we should have a little faith that is a well-informed change. And it is entirely possible this is for a next generation product - and will have no impact on the current batch.


Well I hope you are right and I am dead wrong that would make me very happy. I guess time will tell.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

what I am wondering, and I have NO proof of this, is if they have found that they can't give stability with the existing setup. this is PURE speculation on my part, but if this was the case then maybe the move is designed primarily to do just that and THEN allow future expansion.
again, just thinking out loud and I have nothing to back this up.


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

bhelton71 said:


> Thats not nice - you can't expect Earl is going to show up at the new job and 'fix' everything. And that really is a slap to face of the guys down working in the microcode (well below any database application). I have great respect and awe for folks that work in assembler or even straight C.
> 
> But I do agree it is nice to think 'we' have an inside guy .


Its called sarcasm and was done with humor. I can't imagine anyone reading my thread that works in coding at DIRECTV would be insulted. We're just happy that one of our own are now working at DIRECTV


----------



## pilotboy72 (Jan 11, 2008)

I think this is a good move. There are some things that are better bought than built, and usually databases are one of those things. And with regards to the engine, whether it's in-memory or on disk, the data has to be persisted somewhere. It's not difficult to use an in-memory file system for data persistence (e.g. a ram disk). From that point, then engine that's used is not relevant -- from the database's standpoint it's a file and filesystem.

Brian


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

P Smith said:


> If you don't need that knowledge you can skip my post, since it was an answer to other person ( check a quotation ), plus better start reading OP question - "*What's the HR2x os/hardware? Linux on ???" *instead of jumping on me without reason.


The problem is that your post didn't provide the knowledge that was being requested. Perhaps you misunderstood the question. When the poster said "Linux on ???", that means that he knows that the OS is Linux and he is asking what hardware it is running on.


----------



## gslater (Aug 5, 2007)

tuff bob said:


> all x86 platforms except for SPARC. None seem relevant to the hardware we believe is in a HR2X.


I believe those are just the evaluation copies. If you browse through their site you see reference to EPG's, STB's, gaming systems, digital televisions, and audio players just to name a few. Certainly doesn't sound like those are restricted to x86. According to their site, they also make the source available (for who knows what price) for porting to other platforms as well.

Edit: They have an impressive list of customers in the consumer electronics industry. I think this is going to be a good move. It may not show up in the current stable of products however. This may be positioning for the next generation of STB's in development. Only time will tell if it impacts current hardware.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

cartrivision said:


> The problem is that your post didn't provide the knowledge that was being requested. Perhaps you misunderstood the question. When the poster said "Linux on ???", that means that he knows that the OS is Linux and he is asking what hardware it is running on.


Perhaps you insist, definitely it was your misunderstanding.
And again, read please - "What's the HR2x *os*/hardware? Linux on ???"

I belive OP did not hire you advocating for teach his meaning.  I would ask himself first.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Perhaps you insist, definitely it was your misunderstanding.
> And again, read please - "What's the HR2x *os*/hardware? Linux on ???"
> 
> I belive OP did not hire you advocating for teach his meaning.  I would ask himself first.


The OP was looking for the OS-hardware combo, as notied by the slash, and the OP knows it's Linux, so the OP was looking for the hardware that Linux is running on. My 2¢, not that I was asked.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

And now, apropos of nothing, there's no guarantee that the eXtremeDB Fusion database product will ever make it into the HR0/21 line of DVRs. For all we know, this will be for the next gen box or even for the whole-home media center DVR that DIRECTV is going to introduce.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> And now, apropos of nothing, there's no guarantee that the eXtremeDB Fusion database product will ever make it into the HR0/21 line of DVRs. For all we know, this will be for the next gen box or even for the whole-home media center DVR that DIRECTV is going to introduce.


You may be right, but I believe the R22 is actually the HD DVR shown in the 2009/10 slot in your graph. Based on the first look description, it seems a pretty safe bet to jump to the conclusion that it's a just a "s/w switch" away from becoming an HR22. And since the current R22 appears to be running the same CE s/w that runs on the HR21, I'm guessing that whatever new s/w is developed for it will be backward compatible with the HR2x's.

So to make a long story short, I believe the new d/b _will _work across all three platforms. I think thia quote from the press release lends some support to the theory that DirecTV will be simultaneously maintaining more than one model DVR and STB with the same s/w:

_"This capability enables DIRECTV to develop a unified software platform and deploy it across a product line containing some set-top boxes with hard disks-to support digital video recording (DVR)-and others without hard disks." _

Just my .02. /steve


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I actually hope you're right, Steve, but I just thought a cautionary note was in order so people just don't automatically assume that the "set top box" mentioned in the press release is the HR20 or HR21 ... it could be, but it may not be. But I hope it is. I'm all for speedier guides, search results, and To Do List population ....


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> The OP was looking for the OS-hardware combo, as notied by the slash, and the OP knows it's Linux, so the OP was looking for the hardware that Linux is running on. My 2¢, not that I was asked.


Thanks for the second opinion saying that what was being asked for was the hardware.

To me, the question *""What's the HR2x os/hardware? Linux on ???"* clearly says that he knows it's Linux and was asking for the hardware that Linux was running on.

PSmith, Sorry if I offended you by saying that you had not answered the question, since you not answering may have been based in part on your misunderstanding of what was being asked, but regardless, keep in mind that that a short answer and a reference link is preferable to replying with nothing but a link to a seven page thread.... or any other link all by itself. Summarize what info is found at the link and then provide the link. That way if you misunderstand the question, you won't send the reader off to search the linked page(s) for info that's not even there.

I would have taken this discussion to PM originally, but your [PSmith] account apparently does not accept PMs.

Now, back to topic......


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> I actually hope you're right, Steve, but I just thought a cautionary note was in order so people just don't automatically assume that the "set top box" mentioned in the press release is the HR20 or HR21 ... it could be, but it may not be. But I hope it is. I'm all for speedier guides, search results, and To Do List population ....


Your caution is noted, but given the wording of the press release that stated that the product would be used to make it possible to support both diskless receivers and DVRs with the same software, I'd be very surprised if it doesn't go into all the current HR2x, H2x boxes, and probably even the R1x boxes.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

OK, let it go.

We spent enough time to substitute his meaning ...
Hope he will come back with less ambiguous question.



cartrivision said:


> Thanks for the second opinion saying that what was being asked for was the hardware.
> 
> To me, the question *""What's the HR2x os/hardware? Linux on ???"* clearly says that he knows it's Linux and was asking for the hardware that Linux was running on.
> 
> ...


----------



## Syzygy (Dec 5, 2005)

P Smith said:


> OK, let it go. We spent enough time to substitute his meaning ... Hope he will come back with less ambiguous question.


Ambiguous to you, maybe, but not to me or *cartrivision*: *"What's the HR2x os/hardware? Linux on ???"* clearly says that he knows it's Linux and was asking for the hardware.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, yes, let's drop this OT subject.

BTW, the .pdf for the First Look at the HR21-100 says:
_"The CPU (model # *BCM7401*) is on the left-center of the board and is covered with a large silver heat sink. The tuner chip (model # BCM4501) can be found in the top right portion of the board."_

Elsewhere I read that the tuner chip is a BCM4501KQME33G and the Ethernet chip is a BCM5325FKQMG.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Syzygy said:


> Ambiguous to you, maybe, but not to me or *cartrivision*: *"What's the HR2x os/hardware? Linux on ???"* clearly says that he knows it's Linux and was asking for the hardware.
> 
> Now that I've gotten that off my chest, yes, let's drop this OT subject.
> 
> ...


I think you need to visit the site more often so there aren't three months between postings and the argument will be fresher in everyone's minds!


----------



## cnmsales (Jan 9, 2007)

What kind of time frame are we looking at for this to be realistic? Will we really see this in current boxes or is this more likely something they will implement for boxes coming up.


----------



## Syzygy (Dec 5, 2005)

Drew2k said:


> I think you need to visit the site more often so there aren't three months between postings and the argument will be fresher in everyone's minds!


Sorry about coming late to the party, but my first post in DBSTalk was only about 10 days ago!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Oh, not again ! 

*deweydm* did ask: "What's the HR2x os/hardware? Linux on ???"

a) *"What's the HR2x os/hardware?"*
- Linux/BCM chips.
b) *" Linux on ???"*
- Yes. On Broadcom BCM7401.

And PLEASE, give him opportunity to follow up by his own post ! He didn't ask anyone to translate his words.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

cnmsales said:


> What kind of time frame are we looking at for this to be realistic? Will we really see this in current boxes or is this more likely something they will implement for boxes coming up.


The HR2x platform is the future, so I would imagine that we'll see it on all of the current HR2x DVRs.


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

Talk about bringing back bad blood!


----------



## kw2957 (Apr 5, 2008)

bruinfever said:


> Talk about bringing back bad blood!


Well I never got around to reading this thread in May so I'm happy that it was bumped. This sounds like some pretty interesting stuff.


----------



## Syzygy (Dec 5, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Oh, not again !  *deweydm* did ask: "What's the HR2x os/hardware? Linux on ???"
> 
> a) *"What's the HR2x os/hardware?" *-- Linux/BCM chips.
> b) *"Linux on ???" *-- Yes. On Broadcom BCM7401.
> ...


You're so funny, P! After I posted the answer you could not/would not give 88 days ago (i.e., BCM7401), finally *you* get around to posting the same answer, almost as if it was yours.

And even if the poser of the original question didn't come back to this thread, I thought that just maybe someone else (maybe even you!) would like to know the HR21 CPU's identity.


----------



## TigersFanJJ (Feb 17, 2006)

kw2957 said:


> Well I never got around to reading this thread in May so I'm happy that it was bumped. This sounds like some pretty interesting stuff.


+1

I can't believe I missed it back then.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I don't think we are too far apart for the knowledge, since review of the DVR posted here; as to HR20's guts - I posted some tidbits back to last year, you could check by yourself.


----------



## Syzygy (Dec 5, 2005)

Drew2k said:


> ... there's no guarantee that the eXtremeDB Fusion database product will ever make it into the HR0/21 line of DVRs. For all we know, this will be for the next gen box or even for the whole-home media center DVR that DIRECTV is going to introduce.


And now, nearly 15 months (5 quarters) after the announcement from McObject that _"DIRECTV, the leading U.S. satellite television service provider, will integrate the eXtremeDB Fusion embedded database system into its set-top box software, leveraging eXtremeDB Fusion's hybrid in-memory/on-disk data storage to significantly reduce development time across a range of hard disk-based and disk-less boxes, and to improve processor utilization,"_ nothing has happened with the HR2x's. So it looks like *Drew2k*'s suggested scenario was the right one -- or else D*'s programmers couldn't figure out how to integrate the new database system into the HR2x software. (Maybe the Fusion database system will show up in the MPEG-4 TiVo! )


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Syzygy said:


> nothing has happened with the HR2x's


How do you know this? Do you have some inside knowledge that the rest of us aren't privy to? Because last time I checked, DirecTV recently moved the H21 and H23 to the same software as the HR2x DVRs. And one of the bullet points for eXtremeDB Fusion just so happens to be:


Syzygy said:


> significantly reduce development time across a range of hard disk-based and disk-less boxes


Coincidence?


----------



## Syzygy (Dec 5, 2005)

Syzygy said:


> ... _and to improve processor utilization._


_That's _what I'm looking for (along with a database that actually _works_).


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Syzygy said:


> _That's _what I'm looking for (along with a database that actually _works_).


You have no idea what the processor utilization is.


----------

