An "I won't quit you SageTV" Thread

[Trepidati0n]

Repulled the trigger on SageTV (went from 2.x to 6.x) on a totally new machine. This is what is gonna blow most people away and also a huge reason why I LOVE sage, I went from the Newegg box of parts to a running server with my frist ever extender client in....3 hours.

Things that are probably gonna get me favors from my wife tonight.

1. SageMC is still on high on the WAF
2. Loves the remote with the extender (i.e. no more PC that makes noise)
3. The transcoding (i.e I used DIVX compressed HD source shows) are pretty light on the server (3600 brisbane). Maybe 50% on one core. This means my wife gets a very large increase in the quality of the picture on our old 27" sony tube TV and doesn't need to go into the basement to fire up the PJ.
4. She doesn't have to watch the 20 minute disclaimer in front of her DVD's anymore (I ripped and recoded one) <-- this is really huge

The new box is coming together very quickly. All of her workout videos and the neighbor kids DVD's shoudl soon be up there and quickly accessed. I knew I was missing something was running Sage 2 on old Athalon XP...but WoW.

As a bit of other notes.

1. I use TightVNC for remote work that needs to be done. It is free and it works. It doesn't support file transfer...maybe i'll find something that does that is free.

2. I use an FTP server to move files to and from it. In terms of time efficiency...I swear it is faster than a HDD to HDD transfer on my PC. Maybe a minute seconds to move a 700 meg file

3. I use two seperate drives, one for TV only and the other for media. This prevents a lot of drive seeking. Since it is only the two of us...this should be enough.

In short, I couldn't be happier right now. I might be an exception to the rule...but I'll take it.

[dagar]

Congrats on having a great Sage experience!

My wife (and I) love using Sage as well.

[pawn]

I guess I got to put you down for a while.

[thomaszoo]

Originally Posted by Trepidati0n

As a bit of other notes.

1. I use TightVNC for remote work that needs to be done. It is free and it works. It doesn't support file transfer...maybe i'll find something that does that is free.

Use UltraVNC. It easily does file transfers.

Wayne

[stevech]

file transfers - can't you merely setup windows folder shares? That's what I do.

[src666]

Originally Posted by stevech

file transfers - can't you merely setup windows folder shares? That's what I do.

Windows has some SERIOUS overhead on file transfers - I've never been able to quite figure out why it is so slow, but using FTP or another method that bypasses Window's file services can increase the speed by between 100-500%, in my experience. Smaller files absolutely kill Windows file copies, so it's not as bad with the files from Sage as it is on other data. But it's still a pig.

[mattdcknsn]

You can also use robocopy to easily transfer files and directories between computers. If there is a problem it easily picks up and continues. They do have a GUI version as well. the other benefit of using robocopy is that you can see how fast your avg speed is. It reports at the end.

[FidgetyRat]

Alas, my fiancée does not really grasp the sheer awesomeness of the whole sage + MVP experience. I get little happy goose bumps every time I power up one of the MVPs.

Just knowing that they are absolutely quiet, do pretty much everything the actual server can do (but no web radio sob.) makes me happy.

[Trepidati0n]

Having an interesting issue thought. I tried using the "built in transcode" feature of sage to resize a file

Went from a 3.0GB/hour mpeg2 to a 4GB avi Anybody else have an idea of what went wrong?

[matt91]

Originally Posted by FidgetyRat

Alas, my fiancée does not really grasp the sheer awesomeness of the whole sage + MVP experience. I get little happy goose bumps every time I power up one of the MVPs.

Just knowing that they are absolutely quiet, do pretty much everything the actual server can do (but no web radio sob.) makes me happy.

You should have introduced a really loud, clunky client CPU first. Ideally it would overheat if used for more than, say, 20 minutes. Then you can say "Dear, I really wanted you to be happy with a quiet/easy interface, so I spend lots of time and energy researching just the right solution for you. Here is the MVP." Append "Happy Anniversary/Birthday" as appropriate.

My (unintentional) trick was to start our Sage experience using the TV-out of the PVR-350. Getting around the 350's End of File crash on every show really showed the beauty of the MVP.


Matt

[PhillJones]

Originally Posted by src666

Windows has some SERIOUS overhead on file transfers - I've never been able to quite figure out why it is so slow, but using FTP or another method that bypasses Window's file services can increase the speed by between 100-500%, in my experience. Smaller files absolutely kill Windows file copies, so it's not as bad with the files from Sage as it is on other data. But it's still a pig.

I'm not sure how much this accounts for what you see but windows file sharing seems to be limited to 100Mb/s. I've tested it at work and I get the same speed with FTP on 100Mb/s, file sharing on 100Mb/s and file sharing on 1000Mb/s. If I use FTP, the gig connection manages the transfer 10x faster, as you might expect. I don't know about UltraVNCs file sharing as I never use it inside the firewall.

[stevech]

the Mb numbers cited above - just confirming you mean megabits/sec.

[PhillJones]

Originally Posted by stevech

the Mb numbers cited above - just confirming you mean megabits/sec.

yep, megabits,


100Mb/s == 100BaseT
1000Mb/s == 1000BaseT = Gigabit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10BASE-T

Windows file shareing seems to be incompatible with 1000base-T as far as I can tell and automatically drops down to 100 Base-T.

This is all based merely on observations and siting in the lab with a stop-watch while transferring enormous files so it's possible that there are aspects to this of which I am not aware.

[stevech]

you mean windows file sharing has so much overhead that it cannot fill up the bandwidth capacity of 1000BT, I think.

[flavius]

My iMac and the Sage Server(XP) are both in my gigabit "backbone" and I typically get 400-500bmit using fileshares.

[stevech]

Originally Posted by flavius

My iMac and the Sage Server(XP) are both in my gigabit "backbone" and I typically get 400-500bmit using fileshares.

What brand/model of switch do you have? I just bought a $28 D-Link gigE switch (5 port) and it has a spec of 148Kpps. I measured 280Mbps per Qcheck, for an AMD4200 talking to an AMD1300. This of course is sans Windows file system overhead.

YGWYPF

[flavius]

My main router is a DGL-4300 and I employ one gigabit switch, a Netgear GS605.

[stevech]

Originally Posted by flavius

My main router is a DGL-4300 and I employ one gigabit switch, a Netgear GS605.

The GS605's data sheet says
Forward Rate (10 Mbps port): 14,800 packets/sec
Forward Rate (100 Mbps port): 148,000 packets/sec
Forward Rate (1000 Mbps port): 1,488,000 packets/se

so for gigE, the Netgear claims to be 10 times faster than the $28 D-Link. The D-link says 148,000 pps for the all three rates - I wonder if that's a typo or because it uses an older chipset?

None the less, I haven't gotten Windows file shares to max out 100BT much less 1000BT; perhaps it's because one of the PCs is just an AMD1300 and/or the IDE disks are constraining things. With QCheck (memory to memory and TCP) I saw 200Mbps, but it does only a very short burst of data.

I see that TigerDirect has the Netgear at $29.

[flavius]

One thing comes to mind: proper shielding or lack of interference is also important - as I was told by somebody who does that for a living.

[stevech]

Interesting testing (using cat-6 cables)

tests using QCheck (memory to memory transfers, TCP mode)

DLink switch
From AMD4200 dual core to AMD1300 PC: 200Mbps
From AMD4200 dual core to Pentium-M 2GHz laptop: 490Mbps

With the AMD4200 as the destination, the speeds were from 200 to 300Mbps.

Seems like either the NIC in the AMD4200 is better or the CPU's higher speed = faster gigE speeds.

The D-Link switch, at 490Mbps is bettering their spec of 148,000 pps @ 1000BT. So perhaps their data sheet has a typo. I suspect it is using the same chipset as the comparably priced Netgear where the 1000BT spec has one more zero on it than DLink's spec.

Also FYI:
Speed across WiFi 802.11g running with high signal to noise ratio and 54Mbps mode = 21Mbps best.