[jacintech.fire]

Of course you use addons. Scrapers, skins etc are all addons.
If you want to know which ones you use, check your addons folder in userdata and disregard the ones you do not have active at the moment.

You seem to miss the point that advocating to share your userdata to other people is not the same as doing it yourself. If people do not use mysql like you do they will have corrupted databases in no time. This has happened to enough people that we now advice people not to do it anymore in the wiki. We aren't "not supporting it", we are advising strongly against it because it has caused real issues for real people in the past.

Your setup just happens to avoid the largest issues sharing the complete userdata will cause. Still, it is a really bad idea for almost everyone to do this - especially if your clients are not on the same type of hardware.

This, my friend is an intelligent, thoughtful response. This, I can respect. Thank you...
BTW, I already acknowledged my case was far from ordinary. What I took issue with, was the idea it was a non-functioning disaster that would lead to the fall of Western Civilization. I took care of avoiding and/or removing points of potential failure, leaving with something that in my "narrow unique case" works quite well...and has nothing to do with luck...

[jacintech.fire]

It all comes down to statistic probabilities. In that sense, "at some point", I will open my front door and will be greeted by the event horizon of a back hole...

We can only hope, though it likely will have trouble consuming such a large quantity of pigheaded ignorance.

I throw in a reference to the statistical probability of the wave function of a measurement/observation collapsing into a final estate from coherent superposition...and I am "pigheaded" and "ignorant"? Too funny!!!

[Milhouse]

Just because you throw around a few quotes doesn't mean you understand what you are talking/typing about - this thread (and your other threads on storage) are testament to that.

[jacintech.fire]

Just because you throw around a few quotes doesn't mean you understand what you are talking/typing about - this thread (and your other threads on storage) are testament to that.

Quite true, my dear Sir...
...however:
"...... the simplest hypothesis proposed as an explanation of phenomena is more likely to be the true one than is any other available hypothesis, that its predictions are more likely to be true than those of any other available hypothesis, and that it is an ultimate a priori epistemic principle that simplicity is evidence for truth..."

And just for good meassure:

"...Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction..."

[Ned Scott]

So tell me, where the hell do you get off advising other people to do something when you yourself don't use many add-ons, PVR, and most features of XBMC? You told the OP of this thread to mix v11 AND v12 userdata! You assume for other people that they must be only using things in the same limited fashion that you are. You are an ignorant fool who has no place giving any advice on this forum, and I'm saying this for the sake of other users. You assume that we have some bullshit reason to tell people to not do things, and not once did you stop and consider that maybe your usage of XBMC is not representative of most people's usage. Plus, you claim results that no one else but yourself can even verify.

[jacintech.fire]

So tell me, where the hell do you get off advising other people to do something when you yourself don't use many add-ons, PVR, and most features of XBMC? You told the OP of this thread to mix v11 AND v12 userdata! You assume for other people that they must be only using things in the same limited fashion that you are. You are an ignorant fool who has no place giving any advice on this forum, and I'm saying this for the sake of other users. You assume that we have some bullshit reason to tell people to not do things, and not once did you stop and consider that maybe your usage of XBMC is not representative of most people's usage. Plus, you claim results that no one else but yourself can even verify.

Wow! And here I thought that to conduct a verifyable, quantifyable test on XBMC reliability one must used a stock installation (remember, XBMC does not know, or care that the userdata folder is being sahred) ; given that addons (by their very nature) introduce instability to the system...I guess I was wrong; well one learns new things everyday...

Seriously?

Yes...and Yes. Right on both count (Same version for synch...out of synch otherwise...)...

Try it for yourself

My personal preference (NOT Supported by the Official WIKI) is to create a share and dump my entire userdata folder in it. Exported as a share (samba/CIFS); then mounted it on each of the clients and create a hard (not symbolic) link from the mounted share to each of the xml files (individually) and each of the folders (also individually). Once I do that I only have to worry about maintaining a single set of configuration files (NOWEVER, now that UPNP is being given a more prominent role, you will need to keep a unique local copy for upnpserver.xml in each client if you want to keep upnp functionality. Since we both use mysql that is not an issue). But beyond that all is well. It has worked this way for over 3.5 years...

CAVEAT: You must be running the same XBMC version across ALL your clients. I also used pretty much the same hardware and OS across all clients...

any other questions...?

...and, of course:
"...Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction..."

[jacintech.fire]

@ned Scott,

You are an ignorant fool who has no place giving any advice on this forum, and I'm saying this for the sake of other users.

A behavorial Scientist (or an intelligence operative) would have a field day with the above quote...

[nickr]

Why don't you just bloody listen to people who actually know how the code works, and have supported people (including fools like you) over a long period of time.

I have seen some real idiots on these forums, but you take the cake.

[jacintech.fire]

Why don't you just bloody listen to people who actually know how the code works, and have supported people (including fools like you) over a long period of time.

I have seen some real idiots on these forums, but you take the cake.

So far, the only person that has offered a thoughtful, intelligence response has been @Kib, all you have done is thrown insults (with nothing of substance to back it up) in an amusing attempt to appeal to what you think is my sense of shame, of being ostracized and ridiculed.

I have already described my setup(sharing the userdata folder, sych'd library via MYSQL, all matching version of XBMC stock install just preloaded addons, similar OS and hardware, daily backup of the userdata), it is a very narrow and specific setup (we all agree on that). But your argument has been that EVEN within these constraints, the system AS-IS is a disaster waiting to happen...AND YET, AND YET has failed to provide ANY protocols (verifyable) that would trigger this doom (fatal, unrecoverable) scenario, one that cannot be undone by restoring the userdata folder from an earlier backup (remember, 3.5 years on, it has not happened yet)...

Go on, make your case,

Read what @Kib posted, that is how you make an argument...

[Ned Scott]

I'm not trying to insult, shame, or ridicule you. I just don't have any patience for people who think the way you do, and I cannot bring myself to express these comments in a more diplomatic fashion. If you want to use that shortcoming of mine to disregard everything that I have said, then so be it.

You keep changing the goal line, too. Did you give your original advice to OP knowing that he does daily backups? Again, you make assumptions when giving advice to other people that you can't realistically make. You're also the only one who's using this much hyperbole as for what happens if XBMC's settings get corrupted. Just because something is emphasized or strongly discouraged does not mean someone is saying that it will be a great disaster. Personally, I don't think it's a great disaster unless there is actual loss of video data, and even then, shit happens.

If your issue was that someone said that someone would die because they shared their userdata folder across two setups, then you win. I don't think anyone has said that, however. Any emphasize on the discouragement of this is likely just because of how many times the issue gets brought up on the forums. It's the same as when people ask about "HUB wizard" and get their threads thrown away in the trash. It's not because it's actually that bad, but just because the same damn question keeps getting asked and asked, and we're tired of fixing things, no matter how major or minor, that it causes. It won't give you cancer, are you happy now?

[Kib]

And yet i am about to ban you for your constant disrespectful attitude.

You reacted to my 20% warning for one of your posts by assuming it was about another post... although i linked directly to it in my explanation. Have you read the forum rules since?

[jacintech.fire]

I'm not trying to insult, shame, or ridicule you. I just don't have any patience for people who think the way you do, and I cannot bring myself to express these comments in a more diplomatic fashion. If you want to use that shortcoming of mine to disregard everything that I have said, then so be it.

You keep changing the goal line, too. Did you give your original advice to OP knowing that he does daily backups? Again, you make assumptions when giving advice to other people that you can't realistically make. You're also the only one who's using this much hyperbole as for what happens if XBMC's settings get corrupted. Just because something is emphasized or strongly discouraged does not mean someone is saying that it will be a great disaster. Personally, I don't think it's a great disaster unless there is actual loss of video data, and even then, shit happens.

If your issue was that someone said that someone would die because they shared their userdata folder across two setups, then you win. I don't think anyone has said that, however. Any emphasize on the discouragement of this is likely just because of how many times the issue gets brought up on the forums. It's the same as when people ask about "HUB wizard" and get their threads thrown away in the trash. It's not because it's actually that bad, but just because the same damn question keeps getting asked and asked, and we're tired of fixing things, no matter how major or minor, that it causes. It won't give you cancer, are you happy now?

Well, I'm getting there
...not to be a stickler, but I remember correctly, I said: "...my personnal preference..."
My apologies; but it has been my experience that the louder a person argues (and the more insult they throw, the weaker their argument is). To wit (that is, case in point), @Kib was incredibly polite in his response, and coincidently, that was his stronger argument...

---

And yet i am about to ban you for your constant disrespectful attitude.

You reacted to my 20% warning for one of your posts by assuming it was about another post... although i linked directly to it in my explanation. Have you read the forum rules since?

@Kib,
You must do as you see fit; but before you do, please have a look at my posts and tell me where and when...and to whom I was disrespectful...

[nickr]

The simplest statement of why your approach is technically wrong is that sqlite is a single user database. It does not have the facility to be multi user.

Therefore from a technical pespective it is wrong to try to use it as such. It may work for you via good luck, but not via good management.

There, is that thoughtful and intelligent enough?

If you want to offer such advice, please start your own forum, where people won't mistakenly think that you might be someone who is giving advice that is correct.

[jacintech.fire]

If you want to offer such advice, please start your own forum, where people won't mistakenly think that you might be someone who is giving advice that is correct.

Not quite thoughtful and the intelligence in the statement is subjective...but I'll take it...

Therefore from a technical pespective it is wrong to try to use it as such. It may work for you via good luck, but not via good management.

"...SQLite Version 3.0.0 introduced a new locking and journaling mechanism designed to improve concurrency over SQLite version 2 and to reduce the writer starvation problem. The new mechanism also allows atomic commits of transactions involving multiple database files..."
And again...

The simplest statement of why your approach is technically wrong is that sqlite is a single user database. It does not have the facility to be multi user.

"...SQLite allows multiple processes to have the database file open at once, and for multiple processes to read the database at once. When any process wants to write, it must lock the entire database file for the duration of its update. But that normally only takes a few milliseconds. Other processes just wait on the writer to finish then continue about their business. Other embedded SQL database engines typically only allow a single process to connect to the database at once..."
---Hypothesis
---Experiment
---Conclusion w/ data (proof)
---No insults needed. Simple, intelligent (counter) argument