Which NAS do list members prefer?

[HomerJAU]

I manage all the subtitles independently. However, most playback software doesn't have the logic for language dependent forced subtitles (that I know of).

Kodi handles forced subtitles just like a blu-ray player.

 

[HomerJAU]

@timothyemerson

You can use these two free tools to look for forced subtitle tracks in MKV files:

MediaInfo - This displays all streams and subtitles for just about any media file that exists
https://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo
MKVToolNix - You can use this to select any stream for inclusion/removal from a MKV file and change default/forced flags. I often use this to whittle down my initial MKV rip to just contain a single audio stream and the forced subtitles into my final MKV that sits on my NAS for playback.
https://mkvtoolnix.download/index.html

 

[timothyemerson]

@timothyemerson

You can use these two free tools to look for forced subtitle tracks in MKV files:

MediaInfo - This displays all streams and subtitles for just about any media file that exists
https://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo
MKVToolNix - You can use this to select any stream for inclusion/removal from a MKV file and change default/forced flags. I often use this to whittle down my initial MKV rip to just contain a single audio stream and the forced subtitles into my final MKV that sits on my NAS for playback.
https://mkvtoolnix.download/index.html

Great stuff, thank you!

 

[tonyE]

Can I make it so MakeMKV won't enable the subtitles on by default?

 

[cdheer]

Can I make it so MakeMKV won't enable the subtitles on by default?

MakeMKV doesn't enable or disable display of subtitles. That's down to your player software.

 

[HomerJAU]

Can I make it so MakeMKV won't enable the subtitles on by default?

I don’t think so but you can do it with MKVToolNix after MakeMKV has created the initial MKV and it includes the subtitles you want to make as default or forced. Either one (default or forced) will ensure the selected subtitle shows on playback without you fiddling with the player.

 

[tonyE]

MakeMKV doesn't enable or disable display of subtitles. That's down to your player software.

Thanks.... my default player in my PC is vlc and it defaults to playing the .mkv files with subtitles.

When I use Plex, playing the mp4 files ( using handbrake from the mkv files) I don't have this issue.

Thanks

 

[fcormier]

@timothyemerson

You can use these two free tools to look for forced subtitle tracks in MKV files:

MediaInfo - This displays all streams and subtitles for just about any media file that exists
https://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo
MKVToolNix - You can use this to select any stream for inclusion/removal from a MKV file and change default/forced flags. I often use this to whittle down my initial MKV rip to just contain a single audio stream and the forced subtitles into my final MKV that sits on my NAS for playback.
https://mkvtoolnix.download/index.html

To extract subtitles, I use PgcDemux for DVDs and HdBrStreamExtractor for Blu-rays, then convert them to srt files with Subtitle Edit. I have an oldschool approach since I learned video extraction and encoding in the early 2000s.

 

[cdheer]

Do you not find converting picture-based subs to text-based subs kind of...tedious? Every time I've tried, I got so bored I was ready to claw my face off.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

Do you not find converting picture-based subs to text-based subs kind of...tedious? Every time I've tried, I got so bored I was ready to claw my face off.

Agreed... Surely there are web sites that offer the ability to download srt subtitles for most movies

 

[cdheer]

Agreed... Surely there are web sites that offer the ability to download srt subtitles for most movies

Well that can come with its own issues (timing, etc.), of course.

I went through a period where I tried to rip my Doctor Who collection (which is...substantial) to keep Plex from having to transcode. After about six discs, I said "f### it" and ordered a new streamer that could handle PGS and VOB-based picture subs.

 

[timothyemerson]

Here's a question that I can't seem to find a definitive answer to that those with more HDD experience than me can hopefully answer:

How much free space should be left on an external HDD? The internets says anywhere from 5% - 30% but as usual, it looks like all they're all referencing each other.

My HDDs will be added to until I hit the maximum prudent percentage and then most probably not changed after that. I don't anticipate moving files around between HDDs, only reading the files via a player of some sort.

So, how much free space do y'all leave on yours?

 

[tonyE]

Here's a question that I can't seem to find a definitive answer to that those with more HDD experience than me can hopefully answer:

How much free space should be left on an external HDD? The internets says anywhere from 5% - 30% but as usual, it looks like all they're all referencing each other.

My HDDs will be added to until I hit the maximum prudent percentage and then most probably not changed after that. I don't anticipate moving files around between HDDs, only reading the files via a player of some sort.

So, how much free space do y'all leave on yours?

As a rule of thumb, the capacity claimed by the manufacturer is less than the physical capacity of the drive, both for HDD and SSD.

The oversubscription is a function of the quality of the drive. A cheap tier will be more maxed out than an "enterprise" -$$$- level drive.

 

[AYanguas]

As a rule of thumb, the capacity claimed by the manufacturer is less than the physical capacity of the drive, both for HDD and SSD.

This is not true. It is only don't well understood.

The capacity announced by the manufacturer is always correct and exact. They are expressed in G Bytes /T Bytes wich is a multiple of 1000, i.e., decimal units.

The OS such as Windows shows the disk capacity amount as a multiple of 1024, following the binary system with powers of 2, which gives 1024 as multiplier. As it is done for the RAM memory sizing. This method was established in 1998 (IEC), and the units were called Kibi (Kilo binary), MeBi (Mega Binary), Gibi (Giga Binary), Tebi (Tera Binary). Its abbreviations: Ki, Mi, Gi, Ti.

BUT, The confusion is that Windows OS and others use the disk size value as Binary units (ie. TiB), givig a lower value (1024 divider) than the decimal (1000) used by the manufacturer. But Microsoft and others instead of showing the symbol TiB, shows the symbol TB, which is wrong.

Microsoft has not tried to spread the good use of the nomenclature. Perhaps the other major manufacturers do not either.

 

[AYanguas]

Here's a question that I can't seem to find a definitive answer to that those with more HDD experience than me can hopefully answer:

How much free space should be left on an external HDD? The internets says anywhere from 5% - 30% but as usual, it looks like all they're all referencing each other.

My HDDs will be added to until I hit the maximum prudent percentage and then most probably not changed after that. I don't anticipate moving files around between HDDs, only reading the files via a player of some sort.

So, how much free space do y'all leave on yours?

You can fill it up almost to the full.

When you are not moving around the files in the HDD by creating, deleting , etc. continuosly the files, The files will be there for reading without modification and without further fragmentation.

I have filled up, almost to 0 free space, some disks with media files. The performance seems to degrade when writing the final files, but reading performance (for playing) is the same as before.

The only disadvantage, when the disk is almost full, is that the defrag process cannot run properly, but for this kind of use it is usually not needed.

 

[atrocity]

Here's a question that I can't seem to find a definitive answer to that those with more HDD experience than me can hopefully answer:

How much free space should be left on an external HDD? The internets says anywhere from 5% - 30% but as usual, it looks like all they're all referencing each other.

If you're using a vanilla filesystem like NTFS I don't know that there's any real limit. But I have had my TrueNAS system complain when one of my ZFS volumes exceeds 80%. And even there I think it's more a question of performance than risk.

 

[tonyE]

This is not true. It is only don't well understood.

The capacity announced by the manufacturer is always correct and exact. They are expressed in G Bytes /T Bytes wich is a multiple of 1000, i.e., decimal units.

The OS such as Windows shows the disk capacity amount as a multiple of 1024, following the binary system with powers of 2, which gives 1024 as multiplier. As it is done for the RAM memory sizing. This method was established in 1998 (IEC), and the units were called Kibi (Kilo binary), MeBi (Mega Binary), Gibi (Giga Binary), Tebi (Tera Binary). Its abbreviations: Ki, Mi, Gi, Ti.

BUT, The confusion is that Windows OS and others use the disk size value as Binary units (ie. TiB), givig a lower value (1024 divider) than the decimal (1000) used by the manufacturer. But Microsoft and others instead of showing the symbol TiB, shows the symbol TB, which is wrong.

Microsoft has not tried to spread the good use of the nomenclature. Perhaps the other major manufacturers do not either.

Not true?

This has NOTHING to do with measuring in 1024 or 1000. Nothing to do with host operating systems ( even in bare metal ).

It is intrinsic to the algorithm used by the drive's firmware to maintain storage capacity as it wears out from use. It has to do with how the manufacturer decides to keep some storage in reserve to allow for failures of the media ( bad blocks or sectors ). The firmware in the drive keeps track of good and bad and avoids using bad places on the media disk or array, when it finds a grown bad block or sector, it replaces it with one from the spare list.

The spare list is NOT counted in the claimed capacity and the user is never told about it.

The better the quality of the drive, not only is the media proper better (better discs, better NAND) but the spare storage is larger as well.

You, the user, know NOTHING about it except that the "better the drive" the more spares it has.

 

[cdheer]

This is not true. It is only don't well understood.

The capacity announced by the manufacturer is always correct and exact. They are expressed in G Bytes /T Bytes wich is a multiple of 1000, i.e., decimal units.

The OS such as Windows shows the disk capacity amount as a multiple of 1024, following the binary system with powers of 2, which gives 1024 as multiplier. As it is done for the RAM memory sizing. This method was established in 1998 (IEC), and the units were called Kibi (Kilo binary), MeBi (Mega Binary), Gibi (Giga Binary), Tebi (Tera Binary). Its abbreviations: Ki, Mi, Gi, Ti.

BUT, The confusion is that Windows OS and others use the disk size value as Binary units (ie. TiB), givig a lower value (1024 divider) than the decimal (1000) used by the manufacturer. But Microsoft and others instead of showing the symbol TiB, shows the symbol TB, which is wrong.

Microsoft has not tried to spread the good use of the nomenclature. Perhaps the other major manufacturers do not either.

This really isn't correct, at least in terms of history.

Back in the day, hard drives were 100% marketed/sold (in terms of capacity) as multiples of 1024. You lost maybe a little to low-level formatting (drives used to come without a low-level format; that hasn't been the case for a very long time), but nothing like the 1000/1024 discrepancy.

Hard drive manufacturers switched to the 1000 multiplier purely as a marketing ploy. THEN the stupid kibi/mebi/gibi nonsense was invented and retroactively applied to the 2^x system. The decimal system makes no sense from a computing standpoint, and OSes properly report storage using the 2^x system.

 

[timothyemerson]

You can fill it up almost to the full.

When you are not moving around the files in the HDD by creating, deleting , etc. continuosly the files, The files will be there for reading without modification and without further fragmentation.

I have filled up, almost to 0 free space, some disks with media files. The performance seems to degrade when writing the final files, but reading performance (for playing) is the same as before.

The only disadvantage, when the disk is almost full, is that the defrag process cannot run properly, but for this kind of use it is usually not needed.

Good to know, thanks for the reply. These drives won't be getting a defrag anytime in the foreseeable future so I'll leave just a bit of free space in case anything goes pear-shaped.

 

[timothyemerson]

If you're using a vanilla filesystem like NTFS I don't know that there's any real limit. But I have had my TrueNAS system complain when one of my ZFS volumes exceeds 80%. And even there I think it's more a question of performance than risk.

Good to know. Mine are being backed up to 4TB Western Digital NTFS HDD's so will leave just a bit of space so it's not crammed to the gills.