Server/Client Benefits

[trini0]

I've been using Sage for a couple of months now, and I want to see
if I can expand it for the other rooms in the house.
I'm contimplating a server/client setup.
But I currently cannot justify the additional expense, as I do not
see a benefit for it, in my scenario.
2 of the 3 rooms with a TV has a PC in it. The 3rd room, is going to get a PC.
In my mind, if all 3 rooms has at least one capture card in their PC.
And they save their files out on the network.
What advantage/benefit does adding another PC (and moving capture cards to it)
to act as a server present?

Hope that made sense.
Thanks

[ke6guj]

Well, software wise it is cheaper to go to a true server/client setup. Only the computer with tuners in it needs to have the Full SageTV software, the others can use the SageTVClient software.

There is no reason why you cant do this with 3 computers, 1 for each TV. 2 of them will be clients, and the 3rd will be the server. You don't need to have an "extra" computer. The server can serve itself at the same time as the others.

Some reasons that you may want to go to an extra computer as a dedicated server is to move a big, noisy, and hot computer away from the viewing area, and to have small, quiet, and cool computers there instead.

[trini0]

Originally Posted by ke6guj

There is no reason why you cant do this with 3 computers, 1 for each TV. 2 of them will be clients, and the 3rd will be the server. You don't need to have an "extra" computer.

The way the house is wired, each room only has one rg6 drop.
So for me I would put the server with the other servers in the utility room,
where all the wiring for video/network comes to a focal point.
Besides, like you said, thats where all the noisy PCs are...

Two ideas came to mind after I posted this topic.
1. If I setup 3 individual PCs with Sage, saving data to the network, when Sage
is operating, the client is writting data to the file server to save the file,
and reading from the file server to view it.
In a server/client setup, the client only has to read whats on the network.

2. If I were to setup 3 individual PCs, all 3 of them would have to be
on if they all had to perform an unattended recording.
In a server/client setup, only one PC needs to be on to record something.

[ke6guj]

Turning one computer into a Sage SErver if the computer is already next to a Tv would not make a big difference in noise or size. Just add in the extra tuner cards to that computer with a cable splitter. As long as that computer is on, then all your recording and serving will be done.

YOu don't have to add all the HD's to it for storage, you could save to a fileserver in the server room.

But if you wanted to keep a tuner card in each computer, you could set up the "clients" as network encoders. One computer would need to be set up as the master server, and it would tell the network encoders what do to. But, if at all possible, I'd recommend keeping all the tuners in one box, so you only have to have that computer, and any fileservers, on. Not all of your Sage computers.

But, if you already have a "server" room with a bunch of servers, whats one more

[blade]

As has been mentioned, if you had a tuner card in each PC one of them would need to be a Sage server and the others setup as network encoders, if not they could not share recordings with each other. It takes more than recording to a shared drive for each PC to interact with one another.

The only thing that makes sense is to put all of the tuners in one PC so the others can use client licenses and the recordings can be shared between machines. It doesn't necessarily have to be a dedicated server, it can still be used as one of your clients.

The biggest benefits of a dedicated server is tucking it away so noise isn't an issue and stability. Most crashes in Sage happen because of the client. It's nice having a dedicated server running 24/7 without interruption.

When I first started using Sage I used one of my clients for network storage and it was a pain when I couldn't reboot or turn it off because Sage was recording to the drive. IMO you're much better off keeping the recording process limited to as few computers as possible.

[toricred]

One other thing to remember is that with the client/server you need one full license for the server ($80) and one client license for each client ($30 each). If you have each room with it's own installation or as network encoders then each will need a full license ($80). Cost-wise it's much better to do the client/server.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by trini0

The way the house is wired, each room only has one rg6 drop.

As noted, you could just get a splitter, maybe a two way splitter and a pair of PVR500s.

So for me I would put the server with the other servers in the utility room,
where all the wiring for video/network comes to a focal point.
Besides, like you said, thats where all the noisy PCs are...

Sounds like you've already got a PC down there, is that right? Why not just move the tuners and SageTV onto one of the existing server(s) that's already there?

Two ideas came to mind after I posted this topic.
1. If I setup 3 individual PCs with Sage, saving data to the network, when Sage
is operating, the client is writting data to the file server to save the file,
and reading from the file server to view it.
In a server/client setup, the client only has to read whats on the network.

2. If I were to setup 3 individual PCs, all 3 of them would have to be
on if they all had to perform an unattended recording.
In a server/client setup, only one PC needs to be on to record something.

FWIW, the network load created by streaming SD is not enough to be concerned about, an SD recording is <10Mbps, and an HD one is <20. If you've got 100Mbps or especially if you've got 1000Mbps network, there's no reason to worry about network utilization.

My best recommendation, would be to move your SageTV license/install to the file server, along with your tuners (maybe add a 500), and then get SageClient licenses for the clients (by the TVs).

[trini0]

As noted, you could just get a splitter

To keep things simple, a splitter wouldn't work, because the lines to the rooms
contains both a satellite and HD OTA feed that are combined (diplexed) in the
utility room.

Sounds like you've already got a PC down there, is that right? Why not just move the tuners and SageTV onto one of the existing server(s) that's already there?

Yes I do.
I've considered it, but I would prefer to keep it separate from the file server.
I could probably run a virtual server just for Sage. I'll have to see about that..

[heffe2001]

Originally Posted by trini0

To keep things simple, a splitter wouldn't work, because the lines to the rooms
contains both a satellite and HD OTA feed that are combined (diplexed) in the
utility room.


Yes I do.
I've considered it, but I would prefer to keep it separate from the file server.
I could probably run a virtual server just for Sage. I'll have to see about that..

If you're combining the HD & Sat signals in the utlity room, you'd have no problems with putting the main server there (with the exception of the added expense), and not using the diplexers at all. Also running Sage under a virtual machine would most likely not work (the virtual machine probably won't see the tuner boards). I'd just run it as a service on that machine, then if sage dies, it'll restart it automatically, just like any other server service. That being said, I don't run my sage on my domain controller (Win 2k3/Exchange/etc), as that machine is an old Dell fileserver box (4200 I believe, can't remember offhand), and storage for it's pretty expensive. Set up a dual-xeon 2.8 machine a little while back, 2g memory, a bit over 1TB storage (need more, waiting on the 500g drives to come down to a reasonable level). System runs transcoding to 2 MVP's, show-analyzer, Sage server and a couple other small tasks, and is never maxed out. Total out of pocket for me on that machine would raise some eyebrows (traded some RC stuff for it that I didn't really have any money in ).

[trini0]

If you're combining the HD & Sat signals in the utlity room, you'd have no problems with putting the main server there (with the exception of the added expense), and not using the diplexers at all.

Yes, it makes sense to have it in the "server' room.

Also running Sage under a virtual machine would most likely not work (the virtual machine probably won't see the tuner boards).

Thanks for the tip.

Im leaning towards a separate box for Sage. I'm going over ebay/newegg to
see whats possible.
I may use some older hardware, that I have here (AMD XP & Motherboard).
Until I can afford something better...

[stanger89]

Why not put Sage on the file server? I can think of no reason not to. As far back as I can remember, Sage has NEVER crashed my server.

[trini0]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Why not put Sage on the file server? I can think of no reason not to. As far back as I can remember, Sage has NEVER crashed my server.

Im not discounting the idea.
At the moment, Im not sure if the fileserver would be able
to hold all of the capture cards, and the network cards that I plan
on putting in there...