- This topic has 17 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Copying SD recordings from my FVP-4000T to USB sticks is extremely slow, copying a 1.6GB recording took about 3 hours, is this normal?
I have tried on both the side and back USB ports with different USB sticks and all combinations are slow, I haven’t tried a USB HDD would that be faster?
It’s not the speed of the USB sticks as they are much faster on a PC.
It’s normally down to two reasons.
Servicing the usb port is a low priority operation for the box cpu (It has to maintain the primary pvr functions).
The box has to decrypt content on copying.
It may help to put the box on a radio channel (or off air channel) during copying.
Using a faster device won’t help. I don’t have the box so can’t give a figure for download speeds.
grahamlthompson – 10 minutes ago »
It’s normally down to two reasons.
Servicing the usb port is a low priority operation for the box cpu (It has to maintain the primary pvr functions).
The box has to decrypt content on copying.
It may help to put the box on a radio channel (or off air channel) during copying.
Using a faster device won’t help. I don’t have the box so can’t give a figure for download speeds.
I also have a PVR-9200t that I modified years ago to add a USB 2.0 interface, the 9200 is at least 10 x faster than the FVP-4000t, does the 9200 have to decrypt too? I’m very surprised at the difference between the two devices.
Advocas – 1 minute ago »
grahamlthompson – 10 minutes ago »
It’s normally down to two reasons.
Servicing the usb port is a low priority operation for the box cpu (It has to maintain the primary pvr functions).
The box has to decrypt content on copying.
It may help to put the box on a radio channel (or off air channel) during copying.
Using a faster device won’t help. I don’t have the box so can’t give a figure for download speeds.
I also have a PVR-9200t that I modified years ago to add a USB 2.0 interface, the 9200 is at least 10 x faster than the FVP-4000t, does the 9200 have to decrypt too? I’m very surprised at the difference between the two devices.
The recordings on the 9200 are not encrypted. You can avoid the usb copy completely by using the box Samba server to copy and decrypt directly to networked PC. Not a clue if it’s any faster than using USB.
I have copied material from the 2000T model to a thumb drive and it took only a matter of minutes. Can’t remember exactly how long now but nowhere near the time it has taken your 4000T.
N.B. Just to rub salt into your wounds, I think Noah designed the hardware/software for my 2000T. 🙄
Faust – 2 minutes ago »
I have copied material from the 2000T model to a thumb drive and it took only a matter of minutes. Can’t remember exactly how long now but nowhere near the time it has taken your 4000T.
N.B. Just to rub salt into your wounds, I think Noah designed the hardware/software for my 2000T. 🙄
The OPs box could have been carrying out cpu intensive operations like recording when the copying was done.
Copying to USB is extremely slow as I reported in the “Drive on PC” thread. It doesn’t matter whether the FVP-4000T is doing anything or not.
Copying over Samba is much better – just the same as copying from one PC or NAS to another over my LAN or wifi network.
However, the Samba implementation on the FVP-4000T is flaky and might not be possible unless you have Windows 8 or 10 on the client PC. See the same “Drive on PC” thread for full details.
Richard
I have the lastest firmware 1.00.63 with Vista on a PC and also a Synology NAS box – if I create a network drive via either PC or NAS and copy recordings with Samba to either device, they are still encrypted. If I plug an external hard drive into the Humax USB port the files copy as decrypted and are playable – the problem with USB is the files take forever to copy over.
You could just set the files to copy at bedtime then they would be done when you get up the next morning. It’s a bit like the watched pot syndrome.
That’s what I tend to do with big updates on the computer.
Tried that with USB but 110GB needs more than just overnight based on my experience to date.
giverny – 11 hours ago »
I have the lastest firmware 1.00.63 with Vista on a PC and also a Synology NAS box – if I create a network drive via either PC or NAS and copy recordings with Samba to either device, they are still encrypted. If I plug an external hard drive into the Humax USB port the files copy as decrypted and are playable – the problem with USB is the files take forever to copy over.
All that is covered in the “Drive not showing on PC” thread. I wasn’t able to test 1.00.63 as Humax haven’t released it publicly but it seems that the only way with 1.00.59 you can unencrypt SD recordings over Samba is to use Windows 8 or Windows 10.
Humax are now aware of this issue after weeks of email exchange and we can only hope that the next firmware update 1.00.63 addesses these failings and others.
Richard
RichardS-UK – 1 hour ago »
giverny – 11 hours ago »
I have the lastest firmware 1.00.63 with Vista on a PC and also a Synology NAS box – if I create a network drive via either PC or NAS and copy recordings with Samba to either device, they are still encrypted. If I plug an external hard drive into the Humax USB port the files copy as decrypted and are playable – the problem with USB is the files take forever to copy over.
All that is covered in the “Drive not showing on PC” thread. I wasn’t able to test 1.00.63 as Humax haven’t released it publicly but it seems that the only way with 1.00.59 you can unencrypt SD recordings over Samba is to use Windows 8 or Windows 10.
Humax are now aware of this issue after weeks of email exchange and we can only hope that the next firmware update 1.00.63 addesses these failings and others.
Richard
I saw the same issue using Windows 7, eventually I got Samba to connect only to find the SD recordings were encrypted that’s why I’m using USB but it’s too slow.
I have firmware 1.00.63 on my 4000T 2TB Nero version and it does not decrypt when linked via Samba with Vista nor with a Synology NAS. I get that the PC software is out of date but the NAS is brand new with latest versions of firmware and software.
Only way I can decrypt is via USB to an external hard drive but as previously said by me and others it is painfully slow.
RichardS-UK – 2 hours ago »
I wasn’t able to test 1.00.63 as Humax haven’t released it publicly but it seems that the only way with 1.00.59 you can unencrypt SD recordings over Samba is to use Windows 8 or Windows 10.
Is it understood why that is the case?
Martin Liddle – 46 minutes ago »
RichardS-UK – 2 hours ago »
I wasn’t able to test 1.00.63 as Humax haven’t released it publicly but it seems that the only way with 1.00.59 you can unencrypt SD recordings over Samba is to use Windows 8 or Windows 10.
Is it understood why that is the case?
Unfortunately not. UK Humax support are extremely unfamiliar with the FVP-4000T. I even had to show them that SD recordings are actually encrypted on the box (I had to send his some SD recordings) but can be decrypted over USB or Samba but not FTP and cannot be decrypted if the Samba server is addressed using IP addressing. Even trying to explain to him the difference between network mapping and network discovery was painful to say the least so any concept of the difference in the way that Vista and 7 work with SMB/CIFS compared to Win8 and 10 is pointless. However, all credit that he has agreed to forward my findings to the team who did the implementation of the SMB code in the hope that they can fix this in the next firmware after 1.00.63.
Richard
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.