On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Scott Harris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scott@webhounds.net">scott@webhounds.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Has anyone considered, or even tried adding a lot of ram to their systems<br>
and using it for the ringbuf location? I mean something like 64Gb of ram.<br>
For SD recording that should provide adequate space for the ringbuf I think.<br>
<br>
Just wondering.....<br>
</blockquote></div><br>-There's not a traditional ringbuffer in myth since the livetv switch was made (.19?)<br>-Even when there was a ringbuffer, it was never a bottleneck AFAIK.<br>-Again, back when there was a ringbuffer I believe its default was somewhere in the 1-4gb size. <br>
<br>What problem is this idea trying to solve? Having 64Gb of ram might go really well if you're doing a LOT of simultanious HD recording if you tune the kernel to be REALLY agressive with its disk caching, but otherwise it woudln't do anything whatsoever.<br>
<br><br>