What we Know so Far . . .

Ezra Pound said:
The Humax HDR-Fox T2 definitely won't write to a NTFS formatted USB hard drives without the installation of the Custom Firmware package NTFS-3g, so I guess Humax must have changed something in this area for the 2000T, maybe they have implemented NTFS-3g
Click to expand...
I seem to recollect there was a press release from Humax a few months ago the NTFS implementation they were going to use in new boxes. Googled it; try http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...h-performance-fail-safe-recording-1662329.htm
 
I think the new Linux kernel includes NTFS, so if Humax have updated the base software they have acquired the NTFS capability possibly with defects (as per post 180).
 
Starting with kernel 2.6, the kernel ntfs implementation underwent a complete re-write, and does now support limited ntfs writing capabilities. However, since ntfs-3G offers a much more complete solution, albeit in user-space and hence slightly slower, no-one seems to bother with the kernel driver anymore. Interestingly, the documentation for the kernel driver points towards (can't post links yet!) for more information. Following this link takes you to the Tuxera website!!!

I must admit that I'd never heard of Tuxera until Martin's reply above, and from the description, that would appear to be a good solution for hardware manufacturers, satisfying a requirement, whilst protecting themselves from legal issues! But I wonder why Humax don't mention ntfs compatibility in the user manual? Is it an oversight? Or is it not that reliable yet?

To find out what is really in there, we need to be able to shell into the Humax os, but that requires knowledge of (root?) usernames and passwords. Alternatively, since the os is open source, it *might* be possible to figure out what is going on from the source code, but if they are using Tuxera, that would be proprietary / closed source, and wouldn't show up. To get the source code, you need to e-mail Humax, and I haven't done enough posts yet to supply a link!

Interestingly, the list of open source software used includes xfsprogs (for the xfs filesystem). I wonder what they use that for? And why did they choose ext3 rather than the more recent ext4? Perhaps they are using ext3 for the root system, and xfs for media storage? Xfs originated in Irix, and is supposed to be very good with large files........
 
Martin: Thanks for that!

From the download: Kernel version is 2.6.37, so quite an old kernel (3.12 is in release candidate stage). From the config file, "CONFIG_NTFS_FS is not set", so they must be using either ntfs-3g or Tuxera. Fuse is set, as are Ext2, 3 and 4 as well as xfs. This is odd, as it didn't seem to recognise an ext4 drive when I plugged it in! I can't find any reference to ntfs-3g (yet!), so I'm assuming they are using Tuxera for ntfs support.

I've got a spare hdd kicking around - Time to try using it with a variety of formats, methinks!
 
Peter Christy said:
Interestingly, the list of open source software used includes xfsprogs (for the xfs filesystem). I wonder what they use that for? And why did they choose ext3 rather than the more recent ext4? Perhaps they are using ext3 for the root system, and xfs for media storage? Xfs originated in Irix, and is supposed to be very good with large files........
Click to expand...

Until someone takes a disk out of a 2000T and plugs it into something else and has a look, we won't know. What makes you say they're using ext3 rather than ext4? The root filesystem is almost definitely held in flash and will likely be squashfs.

From the example HMT file that Komatoes helpfully posted it can be seen that the recordings are stored in /mnt/hd2/My Video so it is likely that the disk is partitioned in a similar way to the HDR-Fox T2 - three partitions with the second one holding recordings. On the HDR-Fox T2, all three are formatted with ext3 but the 2000 could be using XFS for one or all of them. I suspect, with minimal evidence, that they wouldn't deviate too far from what they know to be reliable.

The kernel that they use is supplied by Broadcom (AFAIK) and then modified slightly by Humax. The HD/HDR-Fox T2 boxes use kernel 2.6.18 and the 2000 uses 2.6.37 (based on the contents of the Humax open source site).
 
EEPhil said:
I'm thinking about getting a 2000t and connecting it to an old 4:3 tv - so I would appreciate your reasons for saying this.
Click to expand...
For 4:3 the display format is like using a Topfield, Inverto (or similar) and gives you no choice for many of the channels. You must watch in letterbox 16:9 for many of the channels when using a 4:3 TV, and for BBC and ITV you must watch in 14:9 when using a 4:3 TV. It is a bug and so may be fixed one day just like the Humax F2-FOXT.
Please see my post elsewhere http://myhumax.org/forum/topic/setting-display-format
 
af123: You could be right about squashfs / flash as squashfs is set. I was under the impression (and I've no idea where I got it from!) that the root system was copied to the hard disk during formatting, and run from there. However, my only previous experience with Humax devices is my 9200, so I bow to those with more knowledge of how Humax operate!

As far as ext3 goes, the handbook is quite specific that only ext3 and vfat are supported for read/write. NTFS is supported for read only. When I saw that they had enabled XFS, I assumed that it was because that is supposed to have better and faster handling of large files, as in HiDef. But that is just a guess. Why else would it be enabled? And since Ext4 is enabled, why doesn't it recognise an Ext4 formatted external drive? Curioser and curioser!

BTW, according to the kernel config file, the processor is a MIPS device. I don't know if this is significant or not.

I have to pick up my wife this afternoon, so may not get any more investigation done before tomorrow......
 
Luke said:
For 4:3 the display format is like using a Topfield, Inverto (or similar) and gives you no choice for many of the channels. You must watch in letterbox 16:9 for many of the channels when using a 4:3 TV, and for BBC and ITV you must watch in 14:9 when using a 4:3 TV. It is a bug and so may be fixed one day just like the Humax F2-FOXT.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Has put me off buying one.
 
Have HDR Fox T2 now and wanted to get a HDR-2000T. Humax tech support say that it can stream recordings to other DLNA devices i.e. not just to another similar Humax, like a Sony TV for instance. Has anyone tried? does this work well with HD recordings? Also does the volume control, control the TV volume even in PVR mode? i.e. unlike the HDR Fox T2. I have been searching for a copy of the user guide online anyone know, where I can get one. This info will help me decide if to get one. I also asked Humax technical support if it is possible there maybe custom firmware for it, and he said that is possible someone would do it, since its just like the HDR Fox T2. Thanks.
 
EdTall said:
I also asked Humax technical support if it is possible there maybe custom firmware for it, and he said that is possible someone would do it, since its just like the HDR Fox T2. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Some recognition from Humax at last, It's about time :):):)​
 
EdTall said:
Humax tech support say that it can stream recordings to other DLNA devices i.e. not just to another similar Humax, like a Sony TV for instance. Has anyone tried? does this work well with HD recordings?
Click to expand...
Has anyone tried?? As far as I can see only one of us has bought a 2000T so far!

We can however extrapolate from HDR-FOX. There is nothing wrong with the DLNA server, it is the nature of the content that causes trouble with the DLNA clients. It is reasonable to assume that HiDef content will still be locked down, and if unlocked (by other means) will almost certainly be beyond the capability of the clients built into the current generation of smart TVs.

It's not the server end that needs to improve, it's the client devices.

EdTall said:
Also does the volume control, control the TV volume even in PVR mode?
Click to expand...
Some of us use Logitech remotes to overcome this.
 
Change of tack, but I didn't think a new thread was warranted. Looking at a thread on the other place indicates that there is only a low power standby option, so if you put the unit into standby it stops the aerial loop through. Can anyone confirm this? I know you can use a splitter and give it its own feed but this is less than ideal. The alternative of leaving the unit on all the time is not great either. Why would they remove the option of standby with loop through? I hope it is nothing to do with the EU as I'm not planning on voting UKIP anytime soon!
 
:nasty:

Not much point having a loop-through at all then. I read that as a bad mistake, possibly to be corrected by firmware update.
 
Re: Loop-through. I live in on the fringes of the Crystal Palace area, so I use a cheap distribution amp to feed my various devices (one output per device). This helps enormously in the summer when the trees are full of (often wet!) leaves! The loop-through only really serves a useful purpose if you are watching the PVR via the aerial lead, as in the early days of VCRs. Otherwise, in a strong signal area a splitter (or in a weak area a distribution amp) works just as well. Remember, the signal is digital, so you won't lose picture quality due to the signal loss with a splitter - it will either work or not work!

EEPhil: Not sure why the 4:3 issue would put you off. Are you seriously intending to watch the output of a HiDef PVR on an old 4:3 TV? Are you sure you are not reading this as buggy display of a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 TV? You have me puzzled!

I don't have any DLNA devices lying around (unless someone can suggest a suitable media player for a Linux computer), or I would check the server capabilities. I should add that I'm on the verge of a house move, so a lot of my stuff is packed away at the moment. The property we are buying is not in a cabled area, and can't see any of the TV satellites either (wooded hill in the way!), hence the interest in HD Freeview!
 
Peter Christy said:
Otherwise, in a strong signal area a splitter (or in a weak area a distribution amp) works just as well. Remember, the signal is digital, so you won't lose picture quality due to the signal loss with a splitter - it will either work or not work!
Click to expand...
Fair enough, as far as it goes, but if the loop-through is useless while the unit is off there is no point fitting it in the first place. Also, a typical installation in a non-technical household (the vast majority of the market I should think) will just have the single wall aerial point, and expect to simply loop through to the TV. The result is that the Humax will be left on all the time (as I have observed in some households) or at best turned off only when the TV is off.

If Humax intend this low power policy to contribute to reduced energy consumption, I think it will have the opposite effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top