# Tivo - offer option to disable buffering of Live TV !



## teewow (Oct 7, 2010)

I came back from a four week vacation and was aghast to find that both tuners on my Tivo Premiere were locked onto HD channels and were busy buffering video to the hard drive.

I could have turned off the Tivo before going on vacation but then I would forgo the Season Pass shows.

Tivo ... allow us the option to disable buffering ... especially for situations like these ... think GREEN !!!


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

teewow said:


> I came back from a four week vacation and was aghast to find that both tuners on my Tivo Premiere were locked onto HD channels and were busy buffering video to the hard drive.
> 
> I could have turned off the Tivo before going on vacation but then I would forgo the Season Pass shows.
> 
> Tivo ... allow us the option to disable buffering ... especially for situations like these ... think GREEN !!!


If you put it in standby mode it will still do scheduled recording, but won't do suggestions and wot-not (at least that's what I have read, I'm not sure I ever left it in standby long enough to prove that is true).


----------



## lafos (Nov 8, 2004)

The TiVo is always buffering, even in standby. I don't know if buffering HD uses more power than SD, but I doubt it.

The Premiere is a fairly energy-efficient box. It is a minor contributor in my house, between furnace, water heater, security lights, etc. I turn all down as much as possible, but can't shut down the furnace.

Weigh the electricity vs. the value of the shows it recorded while you were gone. If it makes sense, then it might be best to pull the plug.


----------



## teewow (Oct 7, 2010)

lafos said:


> Weigh the electricity vs. the value of the shows it recorded while you were gone.


How about they make it record the shows while I am gone ... but not buffer live TV ? ... my antiquated/awful/awkward Comcast Scientific Atlanta DVR box is able to do just that ... via an ON/OFF button on the front of the box. //


----------



## StringFellow (Apr 17, 2005)

teewow said:


> How about they make it record the shows while I am gone ... but not buffer live TV ? ... my antiquated/awful/awkward Comcast Scientific Atlanta DVR box is able to do just that ... via an ON/OFF button on the front of the box. //


Just because it has an off/on switch doesn't mean it is actually "off". I do not have your specific box, but most DVRs (satellite/cable) turn off the unit's front lights and disable video output. However they are still actually on and processing. In the grand scheme of things, DVRs really do not use that much electricity. Most modern electronics aren't actually off, but instead in standby still using electricity.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Interestingly, the DirecTiVos did disable live TV buffering while in Standby. I'm not sure why the difference.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I guess I am not sure why someone would want this... Power conservation? Would you then need to wait for power-up to start using it?

I can't tell you how many times I have flipped on the tv an found something interesting on. "Hmmm, let me rewind that a bit." 

If any thing I would love to have a 1 hour buffer!


----------



## h2oskierc (Dec 16, 2010)

bradleys said:


> If any thing I would love to have a 1 hour buffer!


This^


----------



## crxssi (Apr 5, 2010)

teewow said:


> I came back from a four week vacation and was aghast to find that both tuners on my Tivo Premiere were locked onto HD channels and were busy buffering video to the hard drive.
> Tivo ... allow us the option to disable buffering ... especially for situations like these ... think GREEN !!!


I seriously doubt it would make any real difference in total power usage if it were not buffering..... unless they were to actually have the unit spin down the hard drive. But spinning the drive up and down and up and down thousands of times could also wear the drive more quickly. CPU load for "recording" of digital streams is almost nil. The power supply still has to be "on", the fans will likely still need to run.

You could always try "standby", but I believe that doesn't really do much.

That said- I am *never* against users having more control and options. Although they should be prioritized, and this one sounds really really really low.


----------



## robm15 (Feb 23, 2004)

From the TiVo Premiere FAQ:

_As an ENERGY STAR compliant DVR, how many watts does the TiVo Premiere consume?

With early software, the TiVo Premiere dissipates 23 watts in standby and 26 watts while recording._

Teewow, why would 3 watts leave you feeling aghast? All I can say is good grief dude, why did you even get a device known to always be on?


----------



## crxssi (Apr 5, 2010)

robm15 said:


> From the TiVo Premiere FAQ: With early software, the TiVo Premiere dissipates 23 watts in standby and 26 watts while recording.[/I]
> 
> Teewow, why would 3 watts leave you feeling aghast? All I can say is good grief dude, why did you even get a device known to always be on?


Yes, I do recall reading that somewhere. It is hardly worth even having a standby mode. It does make one wonder exactly what comprises the measly 3 watts. Also, if that has changed at all since that is "with early software".


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

The right way to look at those numbers is not as "3 watts less", but as "nearly 9&#37; less". Which seems very worthwhile to me.


----------



## crxssi (Apr 5, 2010)

wmcbrine said:


> The right way to look at those numbers is not as "3 watts less", but as "nearly 9% less". Which seems very worthwhile to me.


Of course you are right. But when your TV uses 100 to 200 watts, the AMP uses 50+ watts, the computer uses 250 watts, etc, it just doesn't seem worth the effort to spend time turning on/off standby to save 3 watts. Even if it could save 3 watts a day, 20 hours a day, every day, in my area that is about $0.19 of electricity in a month 

Further speculation- If it got that savings by spinning down the drive, and it shortened the life of the drive even a few percent, the ultimate cost would be far higher over the would-be life of the box.

Not that I am against energy savings, but one could save 2500%+ as much electricity by changing a single high-use incandescent light bulb to florescent.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Well, it doesn't spin down the drive in Standby, as we've established. It doesn't even stop buffering. It just turns off the video output and decoding circuitry, and the front panel lights.

My TiVo is on much more than my TV, too (24 hours a day, vs... less), so the multipliers are different there.

For those who find it too much effort, I made a nice big Standby button on my network remote to make it easy.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Tilting at windmills? An Inspector Jarvet approach to energy conservation? Perhaps.


----------



## zundian (Mar 5, 2008)

Of course if you can afford to go on 4 week vacations, perhaps you shouldn't be worrying about 3 watts/day?


----------



## teewow (Oct 7, 2010)

robm15 said:


> From the TiVo Premiere FAQ:
> 
> _As an ENERGY STAR compliant DVR, how many watts does the TiVo Premiere consume?
> 
> ...


What you grossly ignored was the fact that - had the Premier not been buffering while on Standby (yes, it continues to buffer on standby) ... the power usage would be MUCH lower.

Let me restate it another way ... so as to avoid confusion ... Standby Mode in the Premiere does nothing much as far as energy usage. If they offered the option to disable buffering ... Standby mode w/ buffering disabled would use significantly less energy.


----------



## crxssi (Apr 5, 2010)

teewow said:


> What you grossly ignored was the fact that - had the Premier not been buffering while on Standby... the power usage would be MUCH lower.


Actually, you don't know that. It completely depends on exactly what strategies are chosen for standby mode. Simply not buffering doesn't automatically equate to "MUCH" lower energy usage.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

crxssi said:


> Actually, you don't know that. It completely depends on exactly what strategies are chosen for standby mode. Simply not buffering doesn't automatically equate to "MUCH" lower energy usage.


Unless TiVo turns off the hard drive, but with the TP using only about 24 watts I think too little savings to be concerned about.


----------



## ltxi (Feb 14, 2010)

We're debating the trauma of a 3 watt/24x7 power drain. Wth...this is just nuts.


----------



## djdanska (Sep 30, 2004)

ltxi said:


> We're debating the trauma of a 3 watt/24x7 power drain. Wth...this is just nuts.


I totally agree. I just assumed all dvrs buffer when off. I mean they still have to do work, it needs to stay on to manage scheduled recordings and stuff. Would the tivo premiere even be able to do that with the hard drive turned off/spun down? And if it can, is it healthy for a hard drive to be constantly turning on and off 24/7? I would imagine it would lower the life of the drive.


----------



## teewow (Oct 7, 2010)

ltxi said:


> We're debating the trauma of a 3 watt/24x7 power drain. Wth...this is just nuts.


Hard Drives have a failure rate that is directly correlated to how active the drive is. Buffering 24/7 will reduce hard drive life ... especially the newer hard drives that undergo far less QC (thanks to stiff competition and lower margins).


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

teewow said:


> Hard Drives have a failure rate that is directly correlated to how active the drive is...


I believe Google's observation's have proven the opposite. Here's a layman's explanation of "Googles Disk Failure Experience" relating to disk activity:



> Over work = early death?
> A teenager might want you to believe that, but the Googlers found little correlation between disk workload and failure rates. Since most of us, including enterprise IT folks, have no idea how much work our drives do, utilization is a slippery concept. The authors defined it in terms of weekly average of read/write bandwidth per drive and adjusted for the fact that newer drives have more bandwidth than older drives.
> 
> After the first year, the AFR of high utilization drives is at most moderately higher than that of low utilization drives. The three-year group in fact appears to have the opposite of the expected behavior, with low utilization drives having slightly higher failure rates than high ulization ones.
> ...


----------



## crxssi (Apr 5, 2010)

orangeboy said:


> I believe Google's observation's have proven the opposite. Here's a layman's explanation of "Google's Disk Failure Experience" relating to disk activity:


And I would tend to agree with it. In that study, they are examining the difference in life between heavy and light use of drives. The only difference between the two would be how much the stepper motors are used to move the heads, and the use of the electronics.

Electronics' life doesn't vary much with light vs. heavy continuous on-time use. And the head movement doesn't change the thermal envelope much. Plus they are designed to be used sporadically like that.

But the study has nothing to do with "powering down" the drive- in which we really mean not only making the heads idle, but spinning down the drive (which is where most of the power is going). Drives spin at a constant rate (RPM). Spinning a drive down drastically changes the thermal profile of the drive- cooling it down and then heating it up again when spun up again. This also drastically changes the load characteristics on the bearings. Drive motors simply do not like this thermal cycling. Electronics also do not like thermal cycling- it causes boards, components, traces, etc to expand and contract over and over again.

So while it shouldn't make any real difference in overall drive life if the drive is "used" a little or a lot, I am pretty confident that spinning down the drive repeatedly to save electricity will greatly shorten its life (when it is done frequently). My experience with drives and electronics used in various ways validates my statement, although it is certainly not a scientific study.


----------



## robm15 (Feb 23, 2004)

teewow said:


> What you grossly ignored was the fact that - had the Premier not been buffering while on Standby (yes, it continues to buffer on standby) ... the power usage would be MUCH lower.
> 
> Let me restate it another way ... so as to avoid confusion ... Standby Mode in the Premiere does nothing much as far as energy usage. If they offered the option to disable buffering ... Standby mode w/ buffering disabled would use significantly less energy.


Define MUCH lower. Such a relative term is meaningless since your "MUCH" could be my "insignificant". Your making assumptions with out data and I completely disagree, so here is data for you.

If the hard drive used in the early Premiere models is still comparable to the hard drives used today, according to the FAQ the hard drive is a Western Digital Model WD3200AVVS.

According to the data sheet, found here: http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-701250.pdf, the data usage of a WD3200AVVS during read write is 4.7 Watts. At idle 2.3 Watts. And at standby and sleep it is 0.8 Watts.

So at perfect best, you could be saving 4.7 Watts. In sleep mode you could be saving 3.9 Watts.

Again, this is insignificant in my book. Over one years time this would save me only $2.50.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

robm15 said:


> Define MUCH lower. Such a relative term is meaningless since your "MUCH" could be my "insignificant". Your making assumptions with out data and I completely disagree, so here is data for you.
> 
> So at perfect best, you could be saving 4.7 Watts. In sleep mode you could be saving 3.9 Watts.
> 
> Again, this is insignificant in my book. Over one years time this would save me only $2.50.


It would save me $5.40 so you must be paying under $.08/KWH, but that assuming the TiVo was in deep sleep 24/7, than why have a TiVo at all.


----------



## robm15 (Feb 23, 2004)

lessd said:


> It would save me $5.40 so you must be paying under $.08/KWH, but that assuming the TiVo was in deep sleep 24/7, than why have a TiVo at all.


your right. I pay $0.06 per KWH.


----------



## crxssi (Apr 5, 2010)

lessd said:


> It would save me $5.40 so you must be paying under $.08/KWH, but that assuming the TiVo was in deep sleep 24/7, than why have a TiVo at all.


True. And how much will be saved if the hard drive in an out-of-warranty, lifetime, Premiere dies due to the constant thermal stress of being spun down and up hundreds or thousands of times?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

crxssi said:


> True. And how much will be saved if the hard drive in an out-of-warranty, lifetime, Premiere dies due to the constant thermal stress of being spun down and up hundreds or thousands of times?


+1


----------



## teewow (Oct 7, 2010)

crxssi said:


> True. And how much will be saved if the hard drive in an out-of-warranty, lifetime, Premiere dies due to the constant thermal stress of being spun down and up hundreds or thousands of times?


-1

I am not suggesting spinning down the drive (because Tivo does housekeeping quite frequently). I am asking it to remain idle (no buffering). That google report can be read either way ... idle drives don't necessarily fail more often than a heavily used drive.

On a related note, my Tivo is connected to a UPS. Without a UPS, a hard drive that is constantly thrashing is too much of a risk.


----------



## lafos (Nov 8, 2004)

crxssi said:


> True. And how much will be saved if the hard drive in an out-of-warranty, lifetime, Premiere dies due to the constant thermal stress of being spun down and up hundreds or thousands of times?


And what is the spin-up power draw? The 4.7 watts above was for an operating drive. Haven't checked recently, but in my older computers, the power draw to spin up the platters was 3-5x the running draw.


----------



## crxssi (Apr 5, 2010)

teewow said:


> That google report can be read either way ... idle drives don't necessarily fail more often than a heavily used drive.


Nobody is disputing that an idle drive fails more than an active drive. Only that spinning up/down a drive will cause early failure and spinning it down is probably the only way to gain any meaningful further power savings. I think TiVo did a good job on having a running system use very low power.



> On a related note, my Tivo is connected to a UPS. Without a UPS, a hard drive that is constantly thrashing is too much of a risk.


Mine is too. I think people are insane who don't place things like their computer and TiVo on a UPS. It not only serves to keep it from crashing in short power failures, it also filters and prevents damaging spikes. Fortunately, all my computer and A/V equipment are in one place, so *everything* is connected to a single, larger UPS- printer, monitor, computer, modem, router, amp, TiVo, Wii, 52" LCD, DVD, phone, etc.

Now if they can just provide us with a method to backup our damn settings, ratings, channels, and passes...


----------



## hupjack (Jan 20, 2011)

Teewow's suggestion that the device could cut back on energy use if it didn't buffer while in standby mode seems like an idea worthy of implementation.

Energy consumption by electronics in our home has gone from 8% of our resi bills in in the 1990s to 41% today. Exactly how much of this is from the 40" TV, how much is the DVR, the XBox, the Laptop, vs AC Adapters charging up our mobile gadget is a product of how much power each device uses and the number hours the device is used or is allowed to consume idle power. This 2007 NRDC Study reports annual consumption by device.


We now know that the XBox is a big power hog compared to the play station and Wii.
We know that there is a pretty big range when it comes to power consumption of different TVs too.

Teewow is not the only one suggesting that TiVo could do better with their software to decrease the device's energy consumption.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=427536
http://fivepercent.us/2010/09/22/its-pointless-to-save-a-little/

So why nitpick about a few watts... poor TiVo? I say every little bit counts, and when you add it up across millions of households, it counts a lot! If we follow the logic of "it's only a few Watts difference," or "look how much your 40" TV uses in comparison," then we shouldn't worry about idle standby power from stupid Wall Warts (AC->DC Power Adapters leaching power even when they aren't actively charging a device.)

In my mind: AC Adapter Idle Current, and TiVo 24/7 Buffering are two examples of needless power consumption and we can do better.

In the case of TiVo, the device knows very well what times you use it, and what times you've asked it to record programs. Seems quite trivial to me to put the device into a deeper power savings mode from Midnight to 8 AM (configurable by the user of course), and certainly not to Buffer when in Standby mode. I'm sure Wake-on-Lan can handle any software updates that the service needs to push to their clients.

This concept of intelligently throttling back power consumption in tune with typical usage patterns makes a lot of sense to me. Same thing can happen with appliances from the likes of GE, Panasonic, LG, etc. In fact that's exactly the type of smart energy saving functionality they were showing off this months at CES.

I'm not an expert on HDD longevity, and don't have any comment on the Google HD Study, but isn't storage going to move to Solid State Drives anyway?

I hope if there is a full transition to on-demand and streaming (Google, Apple, Boxee, Roku, etc) that it will result in lower power since the device will no longer be "always on"


----------



## lazarus000 (Jan 24, 2007)

ltxi said:


> We're debating the trauma of a 3 watt/24x7 power drain. Wth...this is just nuts.


buffering 24/7/365 has to reduce the life of the hard drive and TiVo unit.

no reason to buffer when nobody is watching

stupid beyond belief


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

My S2 has been buffering for over 9 years...


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

crxssi said:


> True. And how much will be saved if the hard drive in an out-of-warranty, lifetime, Premiere dies due to the constant thermal stress of being spun down and up hundreds or thousands of times?


Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!! Please pull around to the back so you can claim your prize, a working Tivo Premiere with lifetime.


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

lazarus000 said:


> buffering 24/7/365 has to reduce the life of the hard drive and TiVo unit.
> 
> no reason to buffer when nobody is watching
> 
> stupid beyond belief


Personally I'd rather it "buffer" when I'm NOT watching...


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

pdhenry said:


> My S2 has been buffering for over 9 years...


It's a beautiful thing, isn't it. And here's to many more years of constant non-stop buffering.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

lazarus000 said:


> buffering 24/7/365 has to reduce the life of the hard drive and TiVo unit.
> 
> no reason to buffer when nobody is watching
> 
> stupid beyond belief


Not true. What is stupid is not understanding how things work. My oldest Tivo has been running on the same HD for 9 years as well. My PC has been running almost 24/7 on the same HD for 8 years. Google has done studies showing no correlation between HD life expectancy and intensity of use. In fact, they showed that lesser used drives tend to have a higher failure rate at the 3 year mark. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of an ignorant argument.


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

lazarus000 said:


> buffering 24/7/365 has to reduce the life of the hard drive and TiVo unit.
> 
> no reason to buffer when nobody is watching
> 
> stupid beyond belief


Just because the software is buffering data to the hard doesn't have anything to do with the longevity of the hardware involved. For modern hard drives, it's subjects the components to more stress by the varying temperature changes and stress of starting and deactivating the hard drive and even the lowest quality hard drives are designed for 24/7 operation. The hard drives that series 4 & 5 Tivo devices use are designated for constant operation with the latest "green" certified hard drives using half as much electrical consumption than the hard drives used in Tivos 10 years ago.The amount of electrical amperage consumption would actually be increased if the hard drive spun down and back up every time the Tivo was activated.

I doubt seriously if the hardware and software engineers who designed the method the Tivo uses could be considered "stupid beyond belief", perhaps you should create a better DVR? It amazes me those who are so critical of things which they have little or no understanding of, a little respect goes a long way.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

crxssi said:


> Of course you are right. But when your TV uses 100 to 200 watts, the AMP uses 50+ watts, the computer uses 250 watts, etc, it just doesn't seem worth the effort to spend time turning on/off standby to save 3 watts. Even if it could save 3 watts a day, 20 hours a day, every day, in my area that is about $0.19 of electricity in a month
> 
> Further speculation- If it got that savings by spinning down the drive, and it shortened the life of the drive even a few percent, the ultimate cost would be far higher over the would-be life of the box.
> 
> Not that I am against energy savings, but one could save 2500%+ as much electricity by changing a single high-use incandescent light bulb to florescent.


Well said. I've found that those who complain about 3 watts are penny wise and pound foolish in their energy use. Further, if one is really serious about "green": update major appliances ever 2 years or so, but better still, don't use any, hand wash and hang dry, No PC, No TV, never use A/C nor central heat, and we could close down so many polluting power plants that we needn't worry about climate change and truly be "green" living off the earth as indigenous peoples encourage us to do. But if 3 watts makes someone feel "green" to justify and enable their energy hogging, air polluting lifestyle/devices, so be it.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

Series3Sub said:


> Well said. I've found that those who complain about 3 watts are penny wise and pound foolish in their energy use. Further, if one is really serious about "green": update major appliances ever 2 years or so, but better still, don't use any, hand wash and hang dry, No PC, No TV, never use A/C nor central heat, and we could close down so many polluting power plants that we needn't worry about climate change and truly be "green" living off the earth as indigenous peoples encourage us to do. But if 3 watts makes someone feel "green" to justify and enable their energy hogging, air polluting lifestyle/devices, so be it.


^this


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)




----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Just tune every tuner to a nonexistent channel, like 9999, 9998, 9997, 9996, etc. Voila! No buffering. The hard drive will still be spinning, and still do background maintenance tasks, but will never spin down.

I feel this method does save a minute amount of electricity, due to not having to process the buffers, nor write the buffers to the drive.

I sometimes make a manual repeating recording for each tuner of 1 minute each, for non-existent channels, and just place them at the bottom of my SPs. Since no signal will be there, no entries will appear in My Shows, and the tuners will stay "parked" until something needs to record.

If anybody is holding their breath, waiting for TiVo to allow us to turn it off any other way, expect to die waiting. It's not going to happen, TTBOMK.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

I was thinking someone could make an automated process to autoswitch the tuners via a TCP remote control.

This would have a 2nd use, of filling the live buffers with actual favorite channels, instead of the last tuned channel.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

telemark said:


> I was thinking someone could make an automated process to autoswitch the tuners via a TCP remote control.
> 
> This would have a 2nd use, of filling the live buffers with actual favorite channels, instead of the last tuned channel.


KMTTG has it as a legacy function for speeding up transfers between old TiVos. It still works, but is limited to two tuners, tuning to what channels you select. It does change two tuners on my base Roamios.

It's buried in the options as something that can be toggled to automatic, when a transfer starts, or by pressing the "test" button.

I keep forgetting to ask if the author would be willing to make it support more tuners, and not require a transfer, or the options test, to use it...


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

nooneuknow said:


> KMTTG ...
> I keep forgetting to ask if the author would be willing to make it support more tuners, and not require a transfer, or the options test, to use it...


That could be more elegant because when I did a little experimentation last time this subject came up, it appeared the Tivo would ignore some kinds of tune commands via TCP remote, when it didn't have the channel number in the guide. (so i had to use IRCODE instead which worked).


----------



## heyted (Mar 4, 2012)

I am glad to hear Brian Williams say the cable and satellite industry have agreed to do something about their power hungry boxes. TiVo uses less power than many, but TiVo should also provide options to the user to allow using less power and shutdown or go into a very low power state if the user chooses to do so. There is no need to stay fully powered up all the time for many users.

The Great Cable Box Energy Drain: http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/nightly-news/the-great-cable-box-energy-drain-283174979632


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

heyted said:


> I am glad to hear Brian Williams say the cable and satellite industry have agreed to do something about their power hungry boxes. TiVo uses less power than many, but TiVo should also provide options to the user to allow using less power and shutdown or go into a very low power state if the user chooses to do so. There is no need to stay fully powered up all the time for many users.
> 
> The Great Cable Box Energy Drain: http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/nightly-news/the-great-cable-box-energy-drain-283174979632


From the Roamio Hard Drive Upgrade Info thread, with some shared relevance to why we might want to at least have an option to limit Live TV buffering to a selectable number of tuners (read down in my reply to get to the relevance):



duckman2000 said:


> WD seems to be saying the Purple drive are optimized for Surveillance systems and are NOT the right choice for DVRs.
> 
> Regarding WD Purple drives for Tivo or DVR applications, this was asked in the WD Forum and a WD Staff member said this:
> 
> ...


As noted in one or more of my past posts, I came to the same initial impression.

I feel it is worth noting that the AV-GP line, as originally marketed, did not include PVR/DVR use, only surveillance (It was added, not that long ago).

One thing the AV-GP was never marketed for was NAS and/or array use, which the "Purple" is heavily marketed for.

*The numbers that truly matter are how many TB/year the drives are supposed to handle. I did the math on "unofficial" 120-150TB/yr RED NAS, and came up with "in excess of the rating", for four tuners at a modest 5TB/hr per tuner for high def. Even the published drives are rated lower than what a 4 tuner unit recording HD comes out to (~200 TB/yr). Do the math on six tuners.
*
From AnandTech:

"We had covered the launch of the WD Se hard drives for data centers and high end NAS units in May. One of the advertised aspects was the 180 TB/yr workload capacity. Western Digital is unable to commit to a workload capacity for the WD Red lineup because of the varying environmental conditions under which consumer NAS units operate. That said, WD expects (unofficially) the Red drives to be able to handle workloads between 120 and 150 TB/year."

Whole article": http://www.anandtech.com/show/7257/...ed-nas-drive-lineup-with-4-tb-and-25-versions

I'm seriously wondering how underrated a stock 500GB 4-tuner roamio AV hard drive is (IMHO, must be). The smaller the drive, the more each sector is overwritten per year, logically lowering the TB/yr rating, TTBOMK.

I'm also seriously wondering how well plain Green, non-AV, non 24/7 marketed drives will hold up.

It also would seem like (to me) one of the best ways to determine the true life (in P/E operations) of SSDs (Solid State Drives), is to put them into TiVos and see how long each one lasts, then do some math.

From now on, I'll be trying to keep idle tuners on SD music channels. A 4hr recording of one comes out to less than 600MB (yes, MB) total size.

If TiVo provided a way to stop live buffering, preferably with a way to specify how many tuners to allow to live buffer, I'd jump on it...


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

If you're only recording prime-time while on vacation add a manual timer to cut power @ 12 or 1 AM and turn back on @ 7:45 PM.


----------

