Improved networking

A place for people to discuss future hardware and software product news
MonkeyBoy
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 6:47 pm

Re: Improved networking

Post by MonkeyBoy »

Afullmark wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:58 am 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.
My opinion is a "no" to WiFi. I prefer the reliability and reduced cost of a wired ethernet connection. That said, I have my networking hardware in a closet in the basement where it is out of sight.

I AM definitely in favor of a higher speed connection. Gigabit wired or (as has been suggested) a SFP / SFP+ port for fiber (I would never do 10 Gbit twisted pair).

jazzy112
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:35 pm

Re: Improved networking

Post by jazzy112 »

Afullmark wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:22 am
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.
That makes no sense. If you are going to have network equipment, why wouldn't it be where the network gear is? The whole point of this product is to put it where the network is and use the network to distribute it. Should be absolutely no need for a wifi interface, if you are out of ports on your router, buy a switch. They even in covid times are cheap.

A full uncompressed Blu Ray stream is 27mbps. I compress nothing and I know this. What you get OTA is nowhere near that. You have 720 P, which is 60 full frames per second or 1080i which is 60 half frames per second. I can tell you that 1080i OTA Runs 6-12 mbps. From the DVR I have bonded GIG (for other reasons), the tuner speed of 100 is plenty adequate. No need to waste BTU's on an unnecessary gigabit connection.

It's far more important to keep up with Microsoft's persistent desire to break things.

Kendog52361
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:50 pm

Re: Improved networking

Post by Kendog52361 »

jazzy112 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:51 pm That makes no sense. If you are going to have network equipment, why wouldn't it be where the network gear is? The whole point of this product is to put it where the network is and use the network to distribute it. Should be absolutely no need for a wifi interface, if you are out of ports on your router, buy a switch. They even in covid times are cheap.

Actually, yes it does. For the "signal", you can basically put the antenna wherever you get the best signal (inside or outside), but you are probably running it directly into your HDHomerun. From there, while the best/preferred option would be ethernet, it's not always possible to run the physical ethernet cables, for any number of reasons, hence wanting/creating the Wi-Fi option. As for capacity, while you aren't likely to be streaming a full uncompressed Blu-ray or 4K signal, the modern Wi-Fi signals are capable of streaming that signal, especially if you are receiving more modern signals, which are likely to be H.264 or better. While MPEG-2 is still being used, by many systems, the modern Wi-Fi is able to handle it, plus there's always the HDHomerun option with the built in hardware transcoding option.

nickk
Silicondust
Posts: 17012
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:39 am
x 113

Re: Improved networking

Post by nickk »

The quirk with Wifi is that everything that two Wifi devices can't talk to each other - everything has to go via the access point.

A theoretical HDHomeRun connected via Wifi serving Wifi clients would result in double the Wifi bandwidth requirement as everything gets sent from the HDHomeRun to the AP and then the AP retransmits everything to the client.

To avoid this we recommend connecting the HDHomeRun to your home network via Ethernet and then serving clients over Wifi.

Nick

rpcameron
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:55 am
x 10

Re: Improved networking

Post by rpcameron »

nickk wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:39 pm The quirk with Wifi is that everything that two Wifi devices can't talk to each other - everything has to go via the access point.

A theoretical HDHomeRun connected via Wifi serving Wifi clients would result in double the Wifi bandwidth requirement as everything gets sent from the HDHomeRun to the AP and then the AP retransmits everything to the client.

To avoid this we recommend connecting the HDHomeRun to your home network via Ethernet and then serving clients over Wifi.

Nick
While I wholeheartedly agree that anything involving high bandwidth video/media should be hardwired, your analogy is deeply flawed. Replace "wireless access point" with "switch" or "router", and you have the exact same scenario. Data goes from the HDHR to a network distribution point—AP, switch, &c.—and then to the client. The AP obviously has more issues because of interference, bandwidth, and other issues, but your explanation/excuse is disingenuous.

(This is the same as your reasoning for only using 100Mbps in your devices. While a single filtered PID has much less bandwidth, 4 full unfiltered streams could saturate a 100Mbps connection; just be honest and state you chose to cripple your devices for cost purposes, not for any technical reasons.)

nickk
Silicondust
Posts: 17012
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:39 am
x 113

Re: Improved networking

Post by nickk »

rpcameron wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:44 am While I wholeheartedly agree that anything involving high bandwidth video/media should be hardwired, your analogy is deeply flawed. Replace "wireless access point" with "switch" or "router", and you have the exact same scenario. Data goes from the HDHR to a network distribution point—AP, switch, &c.—and then to the client. The AP obviously has more issues because of interference, bandwidth, and other issues, but your explanation/excuse is disingenuous.

(This is the same as your reasoning for only using 100Mbps in your devices. While a single filtered PID has much less bandwidth, 4 full unfiltered streams could saturate a 100Mbps connection; just be honest and state you chose to cripple your devices for cost purposes, not for any technical reasons.)
Wifi is a shared medium. The packet from the source to the AP takes up time/bandwidth. The packet is then repeated to the destination which takes more time from the same shared bandwidth.

Ethernet is not a shared medium - each link is point to point and doesn't affect any other point to point link on your Ethernet network.

The HDHomeRun is designed to support stream 2 or 4 TV channels depending on the model. This will not saturate the 100Mbit link to the switch. From there you are probably Gigabit so no problem running multiple HDHomeRun devices. We do not support streaming 4 unfiltered streams.

Nick

sdust
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:39 am
x 8

Re: Improved networking

Post by sdust »

rpcameron wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:44 am The AP obviously has more issues because of interference, bandwidth, and other issues, ...
I am glad you are getting it ....
... but your explanation/excuse is disingenuous.
What?

rpcameron
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:55 am
x 10

Re: Improved networking

Post by rpcameron »

nickk wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:20 am The HDHomeRun is designed to support stream 2 or 4 TV channels depending on the model. This will not saturate the 100Mbit link to the switch. From there you are probably Gigabit so no problem running multiple HDHomeRun devices. We do not support streaming 4 unfiltered streams.
The 4 tuner US models support 2 ATSC 3.0 streams and 2 ATSC 1.0 streams. While unlikely to occur, each 3.0 stream can carry 57Mbps, and 1.0 streams can carry just under 20Mbps. If one were to capture the devices' full capability, that's 154Mbps.

Also, I was under the impression that using libhdhomerun, or tuning via direct RF channel numbers or frequency, one could capture the full unfiltered stream. Are you stating that this is no longer possible with current hardware?

(Yes, reaching the theoretical maximum bandwidth is very unlikely to ever occur. However, your hardware shouldn't be imposing artificial limits on what may occur. Isn't that why the Prime had GbE, because 3 full cable streams could use over 100Mbps? And if not, why were GbE connections discontinued afterwards?)

nickk
Silicondust
Posts: 17012
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:39 am
x 113

Re: Improved networking

Post by nickk »

rpcameron wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:18 am The 4 tuner US models support 2 ATSC 3.0 streams and 2 ATSC 1.0 streams. While unlikely to occur, each 3.0 stream can carry 57Mbps, and 1.0 streams can carry just under 20Mbps. If one were to capture the devices' full capability, that's 154Mbps.

Also, I was under the impression that using libhdhomerun, or tuning via direct RF channel numbers or frequency, one could capture the full unfiltered stream. Are you stating that this is no longer possible with current hardware?

(Yes, reaching the theoretical maximum bandwidth is very unlikely to ever occur. However, your hardware shouldn't be imposing artificial limits on what may occur. Isn't that why the Prime had GbE, because 3 full cable streams could use over 100Mbps? And if not, why were GbE connections discontinued afterwards?)
You can capture the full unfiltered stream for doing test captures etc. We do not support streaming 4 unfiltered streams.

It is a lot more complicated than Ethernet speed.

djp952
Posts: 1464
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:46 pm
Device ID: 131EB7F7;131ED0E0
Location: Elkridge, MD USA
x 29

Re: Improved networking

Post by djp952 »

nickk wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:39 am It is a lot more complicated than Ethernet speed.
I'm obviously a big SD supporter, but keeping the 100-BaseT interface kind of requires more explanation than "It is a lot more complicated" to me. Your device(s) are aimed at consumers, and the bulk of consumers are not tech-savvy enough to understand this statement, or why the light on their switch is amber instead of green, and what problem(s) that can cause them. I love you guys, but the continued insistence arguing that 100-BaseT is "good enough" really doesn't hold water anymore; I see no reason/excuse for SD's continued devotion to 100-BaseT in 2021.

In my experience, the lionshare of current consumer-grade networking equipment (your target demo?) will eventually have problems with this continued decision to limit your new devices to 100-BaseT.

The lack of 1000-BaseT support on anything but the (now defunct) Prime is absolutely the only reason I haven't bought anything else from you in recent years; I'd love to play around with ATSC-3, but, well, I'm not adding a 100-BaseT device to my network in 2021.

I believe SD is making a large mistake to save what should amount to be pennies on the dollar. At some point soon (if not already) a 100-BaseT chipset will end up being more expensive than a 1000-BaseT chipset; seems silly.

nickk
Silicondust
Posts: 17012
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:39 am
x 113

Re: Improved networking

Post by nickk »

It makes no difference to your home network. Every link that is Gigabit will continue to be Gigabit. The video stream from the 100Mbit HDHomeRun will be delivered to your PC as Gigabit because you are going through a Gigabit switch.

ebo
Posts: 622
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:58 pm
Device ID: 1016F746, 101C8CF9, 1041F134, 10532394
x 3

Re: Improved networking

Post by ebo »

If an HDHR and its client(s) can be close together and connected via Ethernet but only by WiFi to the router, wouldn't it be OK to connect them plus a wireless access point to an Ethernet switch so that the router is only used for Internet connections and DHCP? That's basically what rpcameron was suggesting.

Post Reply