Improved networking

A place for people to discuss future hardware and software product news
Post Reply
mcglynnj
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:28 am
Device ID: 12515AA4

Improved networking

Post by mcglynnj »

I would love to see improved networking on upcoming/successor models.

At present, models only go up to 100Mbps, which may prove prohibitive in the future. I would love to see the use of SFP 1/10G cages on models with higher tuning capacity (to reduce network latency).

It would be nice to have the capability of limiting how device management consoles can be accessed; for example, devices have two network ports, one where both configuration and tuners can be accessed, the other tuners-only.

NedS
Silicondust
Posts: 2039
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:38 pm
x 52

Re: Improved networking

Post by NedS »

Realistically, that would only matter if we put more tuners in a unit. We haven't been able to find an example in-the-wild where all four tuners being used at once would max out the 100 meg interface.

EricHD
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:01 pm

Re: Improved networking

Post by EricHD »

Out of curiosity, how much bandwidth does each channel use on average (at 480, 720, 1080 or 4k)?

Eric

scyto
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 2:42 pm
Location: Seattle Area
x 1

Re: Improved networking

Post by scyto »

NedS wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:35 pm Realistically, that would only matter if we put more tuners in a unit. We haven't been able to find an example in-the-wild where all four tuners being used at once would max out the 100 meg interface.
what if multiple users were accessing the 4 tuners?
just asking from an academic perspective - for example 8 users accessing 4 tuners where each pair of users want the same channel)

(hmm i assumed, maybe wrongly, that if two users access the same channel they share the same tuner?)

NedS
Silicondust
Posts: 2039
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:38 pm
x 52

Re: Improved networking

Post by NedS »

scyto wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:17 pm
NedS wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:35 pm Realistically, that would only matter if we put more tuners in a unit. We haven't been able to find an example in-the-wild where all four tuners being used at once would max out the 100 meg interface.
what if multiple users were accessing the 4 tuners?
just asking from an academic perspective - for example 8 users accessing 4 tuners where each pair of users want the same channel)

(hmm i assumed, maybe wrongly, that if two users access the same channel they share the same tuner?)
Each viewer would get one tuner, at least when using the HDHomeRun app and not using the DVR software (the DVR software, even without a subscription, will enable free tuner sharing).

scyto
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 2:42 pm
Location: Seattle Area
x 1

Re: Improved networking

Post by scyto »

NedS wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:29 pm
scyto wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:17 pm
NedS wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:35 pm Realistically, that would only matter if we put more tuners in a unit. We haven't been able to find an example in-the-wild where all four tuners being used at once would max out the 100 meg interface.
what if multiple users were accessing the 4 tuners?
just asking from an academic perspective - for example 8 users accessing 4 tuners where each pair of users want the same channel)

(hmm i assumed, maybe wrongly, that if two users access the same channel they share the same tuner?)
Each viewer would get one tuner, at least when using the HDHomeRun app and not using the DVR software (the DVR software, even without a subscription, will enable free tuner sharing).
Thanks Ned, that prompted me to go look at the servio - that only has 100mb port too - that seems to be an issue if i think about 4k streams - imagine recording 4 streams and serving 4+ devices with different pre-recorded 4k content in the house. Heck 100 Mbps isn't enough for 4 in 4 out on ATSC1. Am I missing something here?

Now i don't expect that to impact me (only two people in the house) but I can see a bunch of scenarios where it would.

NedS
Silicondust
Posts: 2039
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:38 pm
x 52

Re: Improved networking

Post by NedS »

scyto wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:49 pm Thanks Ned, that prompted me to go look at the servio - that only has 100mb port too - that seems to be an issue if i think about 4k streams - imagine recording 4 streams and serving 4+ devices with different pre-recorded 4k content in the house. Heck 100 Mbps isn't enough for 4 in 4 out on ATSC1. Am I missing something here?

Now i don't expect that to impact me (only two people in the house) but I can see a bunch of scenarios where it would.
100 meg ethernet is enough for 6 in/4out at the same time on the SERVIO when using ATSC 1.0.

We don't have enough real world data to know what common bitrates for ATSC 3.0 at 4k will be, as most broadcasters have only done basic demos in 4k, and most content is still in 720/1080. At 1080 and below, the data streams are actually smaller than ATSC 1.0.

scyto
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 2:42 pm
Location: Seattle Area
x 1

Re: Improved networking

Post by scyto »

NedS wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:24 pm
scyto wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:49 pm Thanks Ned, that prompted me to go look at the servio - that only has 100mb port too - that seems to be an issue if i think about 4k streams - imagine recording 4 streams and serving 4+ devices with different pre-recorded 4k content in the house. Heck 100 Mbps isn't enough for 4 in 4 out on ATSC1. Am I missing something here?

Now i don't expect that to impact me (only two people in the house) but I can see a bunch of scenarios where it would.
100 meg ethernet is enough for 6 in/4out at the same time on the SERVIO when using ATSC 1.0.

We don't have enough real world data to know what common bitrates for ATSC 3.0 at 4k will be, as most broadcasters have only done basic demos in 4k, and most content is still in 720/1080. At 1080 and below, the data streams are actually smaller than ATSC 1.0.
sorry to be that guy - how? on my tuner stats using the gui app i am seeing average of 15mbps per stream on the HD channels. Is the bandwidth wrong?

NedS
Silicondust
Posts: 2039
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:38 pm
x 52

Re: Improved networking

Post by NedS »

6in/4out is what the company figured would be a safe default for most people for an average situation (which might be all HD, but also might occasionally include an SD channel, etc). It's entirely possible to max out before that with multiple high bitrate channels, though. I think ATSC 1.0 allows around 19 megs max. In Tucson most of the HD channels seem to be around 10, some above, some below. I tried to find some averages for other places, and the country, but it's hard to find any good sources. I'm sure Nick has better numbers than I on this.

All of that being said, you do make a fair point, that a server-type application like the SERVIO would be the best candidate for us to go to a higher network interface. I still think the tuners are safe with 100 meg interfaces, and that the SERVIO does well for an entry-level storage device that is turn-key. The biggest motivator for us to do DVR hardware was to have something people could just plug in and have work out of the box. We figure that the existing NAS market could cover the power users, but that's not to say that we haven't thought about doing a more "beefy" server-type box.

NorthIowan
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:51 am
x 2

Re: Improved networking

Post by NorthIowan »

Well I would like to download some of my recorded programs to watch while I'm on a trip. I find moving HD TV shows on USB 2.0 or 100Mbps is terrible.

I'm surprised you make anything new with only 100Mbps networking. It might be "good enough" for the basic watching case but that's it. I would think that 1000Mbps networking would have been around long enough that it's available at jelly bean pricing now.

Afullmark
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:47 am

Re: Improved networking

Post by Afullmark »

I'd advocate in-built wifi into the tuners. That might negate any issues with the ethernet port, and would open and engage those that just don't have ethernet available in suitable locations. Bringing ethernet to my own HDHOMERUN 4-tuner – I'm from the UK – involves annoying the other half with a black ethernet cable going from a mesh node to the HDHOMERUN. Wifi works perfectly with the HDHOMERUN, and if it was in-built, I'd certainly buy that model.

Interested to hear what others think.

jasonl
Expert
Posts: 15558
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:23 pm
x 41

Re: Improved networking

Post by jasonl »

It would work less perfectly if you had to waste bandwidth going wireless from the HDHomeRun to the AP and then from the AP to the client. Also, the emissions from the wireless transmission would probably be detrimental to TV reception unless the device was made larger so that the wireless parts were further away.

Afullmark
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:47 am

Re: Improved networking

Post by Afullmark »

jasonl wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:20 pm It would work less perfectly if you had to waste bandwidth going wireless from the HDHomeRun to the AP and then from the AP to the client. Also, the emissions from the wireless transmission would probably be detrimental to TV reception unless the device was made larger so that the wireless parts were further away.
Thank you for that info; some people are resorting to using a Pi to act as a ethernet to wifi adaptor to get a connection to the HDHOMERUN, because running ethernet is not possible for them. There are a few tutorials and GitHub scripts about for that. I'm wondering if SiliconDust has ever thought about it and if so, what is their opinion on the matter. I would snap up a wifi version if it was available.

Online
signcarver
Expert
Posts: 9662
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:04 am
Device ID: 10A05954 10802091 131B34B7 13231F92 1070A18E 1073ED6F 15300C36
x 30

Re: Improved networking

Post by signcarver »

You should never have your main system connected via wifi to the device... in the past when they had a Samsung app, even Samsung prevented their tv's from connecting via wifi of the TV. Granted wifi is a bit better since then but is still a shared medium that lots can go wrong for "live" content. If such was ever offered it probably should only be with a "scribe" as the dvr would be "wired" to the tuner

Afullmark
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:47 am

Re: Improved networking

Post by Afullmark »

signcarver wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:36 am You should never have your main system connected via wifi to the device... in the past when they had a Samsung app, even Samsung prevented their tv's from connecting via wifi of the TV. Granted wifi is a bit better since then but is still a shared medium that lots can go wrong for "live" content. If such was ever offered it probably should only be with a "scribe" as the dvr would be "wired" to the tuner
That's a good point. I have my HDHOMERUN connected via ethernet to a mesh node (Plume, in my case) and it works perfectly. Does mean having an ethernet cable going across the living room. In my case, a bigger rug would completely hide it. Note to self: get a bigger rug.

Post Reply