Instead of new image ... a NAS?

graemev

New Member
One thought I had. If you can't install a custom image, might another approach be to have the Streams recorded onto a NAS and then access the content direct from the NAS.

Given that, might the HB-1000S be better?

Of course all this hinges on being able to use an external NETWORKED disk rather than eSATA/USB anyone know if tat is possible?
 
OP
G

graemev

New Member
However that's exactly what my DreamBox ( DM500HD ) does ... and it's using NFS which has write performance issues (idempotent operations e.g inodes) fast to read but slow to write. It writes HD content (unencrypted) just fine.
 

Black Hole

May contain traces of nut
I comment based on our experience with Humax HD-FOX and custom firmware - the HDR-FOX will only record to the internal drive; the HD-FOX has no internal drive but can record to a USB drive; custom firmware can persuade either to view network storage as if it were a USB drive or a folder within the "standard" area, but AFAIK nobody has managed to make a recording across a network.

Extrapolating these observations to the HDR-1000S / HDR-1010S (did you really mean "HB-1000S"?) should give some idea of the difficulties.

The data rate required for a single HiDef feed is not particularly dramatic, but the HD/HDR-FOX are not designed for network recording. The DreamBox clearly is. Can it do more than one though? I have had 5 simultaneous HiDef streams running to/from the HDR-FOX drive.
 
OP
G

graemev

New Member
I was thinking of the Humax HB-1000S (http://www.humaxdirect.co.uk/product.asp?ProdRef=10114)
...I'm coming to this 'cold' I have a FoxSat HDR ... I was just looking to see if they did a FreeView+FreeeSat , My TV does both , I find it useful and the channel sets are different.

In terms of recording, the DreamBox does nothing special. It's a Linux box, all you do is mount (NFS or SAMBA) a filesystem over the location where transport streams and it gets written remotely.
 
Top