|
SageTV Software Discussion related to the SageTV application produced by SageTV. Questions, issues, problems, suggestions, etc. relating to the SageTV software application should be posted here. (Check the descriptions of the other forums; all hardware related questions go in the Hardware Support forum, etc. And, post in the customizations forum instead if any customizations are active.) |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
network encoder & mapped drive
Hi, I will be setting up a network encoder for SageTV and one of the requirement is that "...one main constraint is that all of the drives that are used by the SageTV server for storing video must also appear on the machine running SageRecorder as mapped drives with the same drive letters as the server" My storage now on drive C & D of my server... Is there a way to get around this? My encoder client will also have drive C & D... Can Sage take the "\\server\c" as the drive letter? Or should I rename my client's driver letters to other letters? HMM, now come to think of it, it shouldn't be too bad!
Thanks, Tony I'm getting my EPIA-M with casetronic case tomorrow!!! |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
That's a really good point! You don't need to have the drives mapped if you just use a network share as the video directory!
So set your video directory on the server to be \\server\c and as long as that share is accessible from the network encoder, it'll be able to use it just fine. Cool. Thanks a lot....this makes my life easier, and without doing anymore work!
__________________
Jeffrey Kardatzke Founder of SageTV |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
though it probably won't be an issue, one thing to keep in mind is that transferring large files via a UNC share is slower than mapping a drive...don't ask me exactly why that is, it's just M$...there is UNC overhead involved in a UNC share that isn't there if the share is actually mapped to a drive apparently
i used to work for a network storage company and our test confirmed this in the case of very large single files as i said, it isn't likely to be an issue since there isn't a single transfer of a 2GB file, rather it's being built a bit at a time while it records |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|