Feature #4236
SAT>IP Server: Mux handling to "Disabled"
0%
Description
Hi,
I have some troubles with one SAT>IP client that confuses the THE server... when it do some scan it creates (duplicates) entries in the muxes list and makes them to "auto EPG Scan". This confuses the client, and it doesn't work.
Then I suggest to implement a new "Mux handling" mode: The mode "disabled" that indicates "pure transparent mode". So the THE doesn't need to scan anything about the stream... only stream the pids.
http://docs.tvheadend.org/webui/config_general/#satip-server
You agree?
History
Updated by Jaroslav Kysela almost 8 years ago
Updated by Why you don't reject the invalid muxes then? It's better that TVH maintain the muxes itself rather than leave this on the client. Otherwise use a simple SAT>IP sever like minisatip.
Updated by Mono Polimorph almost 8 years ago
Updated by Hi,
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Why you don't reject the invalid muxes then?
Because this action needs to be do it manually for any new duplicate entrie. Futhermore, if I I reject all new muxes in the config, then the startup of a new tuning takes a more long time... as the TVH tries to scan all the mux each time a new tuning is executed.
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
It's better that TVH maintain the muxes itself rather than leave this on the client.
This depends on the client. If the client is a full client, like a hardware TV, then you prefer to not change anyting. In other cases, with software clients you prefer to use the full TVH power. In my home I like to use several clients with the same SAT>IP server (that is the TVH).
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Otherwise use a simple SAT>IP sever like minisatip.
Yes, but TVH can do more tasks, like provide access over Internet with a NAT router on top. As a lightweight server minisatip seems to be ok. However I prefer a TVH as my main central TV Tuner server.
Please, consider my suggestion as it's quite simple: add support for transparent mux handling. This doesn't change anyting if the user doesn't like to use it. It only fixes troubles with some client if the user needs it. It's a good idea?
Thank you!
Updated by Jaroslav Kysela almost 8 years ago
Mono Polimorph wrote:
Hi,
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Why you don't reject the invalid muxes then?
Because this action needs to be do it manually for any new duplicate entrie. Futhermore, if I I reject all new muxes in the config, then the startup of a new tuning takes a more long time... as the TVH tries to scan all the mux each time a new tuning is executed.
Could you explain this exactly? I don't think that there's an extra delay caused by any scan.
Anyway, your suggestion is not easy as you think. TVH supports descrambling on-the-fly for example and this requires the mux scan procedure. Also, implementing "hidden muxes" requires to review many parts of TVH which touches the muxes.