Well you are wrong. I have tested it in the past, and I just did again. It deletes the oldest, doesn't matter how long it is.
Also, another point of proof is that only shows that are the oldest ever receive the little warning symbols. Applying what a company does for massive amounts of streaming media being access by lots of people across raid systems vs what is being done by one persons single drive dvr is not a good connection to make evidently, because its just not how its working.
And also, frankly, almost none of your theory even makes sense in a situation such as a personal single drive dvr. Not at all. I also have never see people saying linux needs to always be fragmented to work well either.
The issue I have with your theory is you are telling people that the dvr works differently than it actually does. And trying to make it sound like you are the expert on it. Obviously you are not, you didn't write the code, and it doesn't work as you suggest. It deletes as I said it does, not randomly searching through to find an exact time match of a show to delete to match up as you suggest. That would mean something brand new could be deleted vs something that's been on your dvr for a year.
Being skeptical is a good thing. We should always question authority. But being closed-minded, maybe not so much. And I guess "you are wrong" is enought to immediately settle all arguments for everyone for all time. Nice try, except for the "nice" part.
Nothing said here disproves anything. Because you watched it delete the oldest episode only supports the fact that it usually does if that is the best candidate. The "little warning symbols" are not all that accurate; that is data that is displayed as the last act in the churning that is done underneath, so can be out of date. What they indicate, when they are not out of date, is what will probably (and not definitively) be deleted according to what is scheduled at that moment. The second you start crash- recording something or schedule a new recording, or even if new data extending the To Do list gets indexed in the background, all bets are off, and it has to recalculate that, which it does not display immediately because that is a low-priority task. A show you were expecting it not to delete can be long gone before the symbols can be updated.
It also is a rash conclusion jump to "...something brand-new could be deleted..."; those are not my words. Obviously that is ludicrous, and it does not reflect in any way what I said. Certainly how old is a factor, and most probably a show has to be relatively older than most everything else to beconsidered as a candidate for deletion, because it would not make sense to not have the age of the file be an important factor. All I said is that it is not the only factor. So let's stop with the nonsense; no one can brand what I said with insipid arguments like that and actually expect them to stick. You will need something much better to attempt invalidation with, or you just continue to make my case for me.
Many souirces indicate that linux does whatever is possible to not fragment files. But that is beside the fact that DVRs also try not to defragment files or as much as they can, free space. If a DVR acted like a PC the HDD would be a complete mess inside 6 months and would need purging regularly. The routines I explained are done in the interests of you not ever having to deal with those sorts of issues. And if you even stop just for a minute to think about them deeply enough, they make sense.
But you also do not have to design your BMW to understand how it works, either. The designer of your 328i is not the only one who gets it. I am not an expert on very many things, but if Outliers is correct and it takes 10,000 hours of conscientiously doing something to become an expert at it, then by those standards I am a qualified expert for every 5 years I have been doing what I do for 40 hours a week, which makes me an expert many times over. So I am probably as close to an expert as you are going to find on an inconsequential consumer forum, on this particular subject. That doesn't make me better than anyone, but it does put me in a position to explain why to the OP why he might be seeing what he is seeing. And that is all I came here to do. Do you have similar credentials? Or any at all? How do you explain what he is seeing?
None of what the facts are depends on you being on board, although it is ironic what tiny shreds of incomplete evidence you can see as proof but are unable to accept real evidence staring you down, and without those credentials the only answer as to why, is because you simply want to, whether it is logical or not. No one here probably cares what you think or how you might react to what you might perceive as incredulity, but what most reasonably-sane folks do in that position is try to use their noggins to try to understand. They take the high road.
So good luck with your flat-earth society, and I am still always happy to answer any reasonable questions.
Edited by TomCat, 26 February 2014 - 03:35 PM.