# MRV on Ethernet using Managed Switch vs DECA



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

If I were to connect all networked HR DVRs on a managed switch and controlled traffic to only have them communicate with one another and exclude/ignore all other ports/devices (other than internet access), would that be, in essence, the same as having the same data flow as a DECA configuration?

I understand that this is not the "Supported" D* method, but in regards to MRV performance, would there be any difference?


----------



## faspina (Sep 15, 2006)

Sounds reasonable to me. I have my two DVR on wired ethernet connected through to each other through a gigabit switch (the HR ports are probably 100mb. From the switch I go to the router and internet is one other PC on the switch. With MRV beta I was very pleased even HD programs streamed reasonably fast, and in real time it the program viewing would be behind the stream. Never really tried it with network traffic though, but doubt it will matter. 

I called to today and had the CSR turn it back on at $3 a month. I only have two DVR , one dedicated to my kids programming and the other for my stuff. 

I can't see me going to DECA unless I get a really good deal or want to add a third HD DVR or HD receiver to my system.


----------



## MadMac (Feb 18, 2008)

Just what I plan to do. Basically, my thought is to create a D* hardwired "cloud" which would stand alone from my home network on its own switch. The switch would connect to the network for VOD purposes, but otherwise would merely distribute programming as required.


----------



## morttt (Sep 19, 2008)

Just for another POV, i had 3 boxes daisy-chained on dedicated ethernet cable

so:

box 1<->box 2<->box 3

basically the same thing you are talking about i think - dedicated links (with no other network traffic)

recently had the DECA install and i have to say the performance is better. Not seemless - i can tell the difference between MRV and local shows, but better than the straight ethernet cables.

no idea why, but that's what i see.

YMMV of course, though.


----------



## Yog-Sothoth (Apr 8, 2006)

Since this is discussing switches and DECA....

It must have been the bad DECA module I had when I first tried it, but today when I connected a DECA module to an ethernet switch in my bedroom, I got all bars (and HD) with Netflix on my Xbox 360 (MRV performance was unaffected). Now I can return my powerline adapters and break even on the cost of the DECA installation.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

morttt said:


> Just for another POV, i had 3 boxes daisy-chained on dedicated ethernet cable
> 
> so:
> 
> ...


In this particular setup, you had no internet connection whatsoever? I mean, if you had been connected to the internet, it would seem that there would be a link to some basic switch or the router, itself.

I'm no expert when it comes to networking technology, but the way I understand it, a basic switch or router (unmanaged) allows all traffic/data requests to pass through on all ports. So, even though if one were to place all receivers on a separate switch or dedicated ethernet cable daisy chain, it would still not be "isolated" from all other devices on the network.

That's why I was considering using a managed switch, which would allow me to essentially partition one set of devices (D* Receivers) from all the others.

Is this what a DECA cloud does?


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

Please excuse me for bumping up this thread.

But, I was just wondering if someone could chime in on this and give some thoughts on a DECA setup, performance-wise, as opposed to DVRs via Ethernet on a different subnet than the other devices.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

morttt said:


> Just for another POV, i had 3 boxes daisy-chained on dedicated ethernet cable
> 
> so:
> 
> ...


not the same actually, sounds like you were using the second port on the dvr to feed the other dvr which is a horrible performance hit.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> not the same actually, sounds like you were using the second port on the dvr to feed the other dvr which is a horrible performance hit.


Ya. Understandable he tried that tho, because most people don't know that second port is not a simple "switch".

In this case, it would be much better to buy a cheap 100mbps switch and connect all 3 HR's directly to it.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

DBSNewbie said:


> If I were to connect all networked HR DVRs on a managed switch and controlled traffic to only have them communicate with one another and exclude/ignore all other ports/devices (other than internet access), would that be, in essence, the same as having the same data flow as a DECA configuration?
> 
> I understand that this is not the "Supported" D* method, but in regards to MRV performance, would there be any difference?


It still wouldn't be the same. Ethernet was designed to carry data that didn't necessarily need to be sent in real-time. It is designed to have disruptions to its dataflow. When a bad packet arrives, it will stop and ask for the packet to be resent, holding up the datastream until that packet is resent and arrives correctly. That's fine for most data, but BAD for streaming audio or video or anything else that is real-time. And while increasing the max speed does help to address these issues, that's still not the same as DECA, which uses a completely re-engineered communication protocol designed specifically around the need for real-time communication, such as video streaming.

You may be perfectly happy with yoru Ethernet setup, and in practice, it *may* be indistinquishable from DECA, but for many people, DECA is better than their wired Gig Ethernet, due not to raw speed but to a communications protocol specifically designed for the type of traffic being sent via MRV.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

DBSNewbie said:


> If I were to connect all networked HR DVRs on a managed switch and controlled traffic to only have them communicate with one another and exclude/ignore all other ports/devices (other than internet access), would that be, in essence, the same as having the same data flow as a DECA configuration?
> 
> I understand that this is not the "Supported" D* method, but in regards to MRV performance, would there be any difference?


No, it would not be the same .. DECA is optimized for MRV traffic .. your isolated switch solution is not optimized for MRV traffic. DECA will perform better in most situations.

That being said, many folks are happy with the Ethernet solution. It's just not the optimal solution.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

DBSNewbie said:


> I'm no expert when it comes to networking technology, but the way I understand it, a basic switch or router (unmanaged) allows all traffic/data requests to pass through on all ports. So, even though if one were to place all receivers on a separate switch or dedicated ethernet cable daisy chain, it would still not be "isolated" from all other devices on the network.
> 
> That's why I was considering using a managed switch, which would allow me to essentially partition one set of devices (D* Receivers) from all the others.
> 
> Is this what a DECA cloud does?


You've got your terms wrong. A Hub is what you are describing where everything is sent to all ports. A switch, even an Unmanaged switch, only sends the information out the correct port(s) that it needs to go to. It is unmanaged because you have no way to control this flow. It just happens automatically.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

There's been extensive discussion on this here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=174343

Basically, DECA is optimized, supported, and ideal for DirecTV MRV. The major areas where you'd expect to see a slower performance on Ethernet is around Trickplay.

Ethernet will generally work, but you'd have a lot less to worry about with DECA.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

Thank you all for all of your responses. They have been very helpful. 

I am curious, though, about a couple of things regarding a DECA setup:

1) Is the trickplay performance on a client H/HR identical to that of a DVR playing back a program from its own hard drive? Or is there a slight lag?

2) If I were to upgrade to DECA and have an installer come out, is the upgrade cost based on the number of receivers I have, or is it a flat fee?


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

DBSNewbie said:


> Thank you all for all of your responses. They have been very helpful.
> 
> I am curious, though, about a couple of things regarding a DECA setup:
> 
> ...


1) Those with Hx24's have stated that it is basically the same as local Trickplay.

2) The upgrade is one flat fee no matter how many receivers you have.

- Merg


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

I have a managed switch and it's purpose was originally to try to improve MRV in the early beta stages before the glitches were removed in the firmware of the HRx's.

There were a lot of discussions back then about gigabit vs 100MB, which switches or routers were best but it was mostly speculative.

After upgrading to the SWiM/DECA supported MRV, I see no difference so far. There most likely is a bit of improvement. One flaw I hope to see gone is the rare stutter I saw with wired ETHERNET, coming out of trickplay. If that never again occurs, I'll say it was a definite improvement.

The other thing to consider is the cost of ad-hoc networking vs the supported hardware with installation. My comparison is very competitive, favoring Directv's solution. I'm glad I still have a use for my switch. And the open source firmware adventures with the routers were not a waste of time either.


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

Well, after a week of supported MRV, I have to say that the stutter coming out of trickplay still occurs. At least it is rare and easily remedied; it usually rectifies itself.

Maybe trickplay is a bit faster with DECA but I'm not absolutely positive on that.

I'm not one to RBR a slow box so I've yet to RBR or menu restart any yet.

The HR24-500 in my bedroom is virtually noiseless as far as normal fan and HDD indexing/recording. The startup and restarts are initially more noisy but momentary. I've noticed the internal temperature is slightly higher but that may a trade-off in favor of a quieter chassis.


----------



## berniec (Nov 23, 2008)

BattleZone said:


> It still wouldn't be the same. Ethernet was designed to carry data that didn't necessarily need to be sent in real-time. It is designed to have disruptions to its dataflow. When a bad packet arrives, it will stop and ask for the packet to be resent, holding up the datastream until that packet is resent and arrives correctly. That's fine for most data, but BAD for streaming audio or video or anything else that is real-time. And while increasing the max speed does help to address these issues, that's still not the same as DECA, which uses a completely re-engineered communication protocol designed specifically around the need for real-time communication, such as video streaming.


all what you stated is true for TCP/IP traffic but not for UDP traffic which was designed to do real-time (streaming, voip, etc) communications over an IP network.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Whose the believe in ethernet will never be convinced it seems and those that have made the move to DECA understand why it is better.


----------



## upgrade lately? (Dec 17, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Whose the believe in ethernet will never be convinced it seems and those that have made the move to DECA understand why it is better.


I had just what the OP is suggesting. I setup a separate Vlan for my D* receivers on my managed gigabit switch. (Cat 6 cable all home run to the L3 switch) MRV was flawless, trickplay was slightly delayed.

When I got my HR-24's, I switched to DECA. I can honestly say that there is no difference in MRV performance. MRV is still flawless and trickplay is still slightly delayed.

I'm not saying that DECA isn't better, because it is indeed better than 99% of home networks out there. However if you have the right networking equipment all most anything is possible


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

upgrade lately? said:


> I had just what the OP is suggesting. I setup a separate Vlan for my D* receivers on my managed gigabit switch. (Cat 6 cable all home run to the L3 switch) MRV was flawless, trickplay was slightly delayed.
> 
> When I got my HR-24's, I switched to DECA. I can honestly say that there is no difference in MRV performance. MRV is still flawless and trickplay is still slightly delayed.
> 
> I'm not saying that DECA isn't better, because it is indeed better than 99% of home networks out there. However if you have the right networking equipment all most anything is possible


I agree. I went from 5 CAT5-connected boxes to 7 DECA-connected boxes and MRV performance is equally flawless, with the same slight delay in trickplay.

That said, I'm happy I switched to DECA because it saved me the expense of having to run CAT5 to 2 rooms that previously didn't have it, but already had cable. I'm also a protection plan customer who now can continue to be fully-supported. AFAIK, there's nothing non-standard about my set-up that DirecTV won't fix under the plan.

Finally, I'm a bit OCD and want the optimum configuration, even if how I'm using it now may not take advantage of every last bit of performance available. I'm sure that going forward, any new hardware or software will be designed, tested and optimized for DECA, so I feel like I'm "future proof", at least for the time being.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

^^^^ I'm with Steve.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

The common mantra is still being able to get Ethernet to be as good as DECA 

I think most everyone can agree that for MRV, DECA is as good as or better than Wired Ethernet. Also, from a pricing perspective, it appears as if DECA in general will be cheaper for everyone involved if something has to be installed (new Cat5 wires, etc.). This is what makes DECA a win-win ..

For those that have a happily working wired Ethernet setup. If you want to save the (up to) $150 fee for getting it installed, then by all means save the money. But for anyone that is going to have to spend money anyway .. Buying the right tool is the right move. DECA is the right tool for MRV.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

I'm torn... My MRV over wired ethernet is perfectly acceptable. I'd like to get on DECA, and probably would, if I hadn't recently purchased and installed a SWM. Right now, there is very little incentive to switch to DECA. Though I do agree in the long run it's the way to go and over time will result in fewer issues with MRV than I might possibly experience with wired ethernet.

Now if only there was a need for field testers for a new DECA hardware manufacturer...


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> The common mantra is still being able to get Ethernet to be as good as DECA
> 
> I think most everyone can agree that for MRV, DECA is as good as or better than Wired Ethernet. Also, from a pricing perspective, it appears as if DECA in general will be cheaper for everyone involved if something has to be installed (new Cat5 wires, etc.). This is what makes DECA a win-win ..
> 
> For those that have a happily working wired Ethernet setup. If you want to save the (up to) $150 fee for getting it installed, then by all means save the money. But for anyone that is going to have to spend money anyway .. Buying the right tool is the right move. DECA is the right tool for MRV.


After just having DECA done today, I can only say I agree with Doug. I had a very solidly performing hardwired and wireless MRV system that I was quite pleased with. I needed another tuner line that SWM would get me, so I went ahead and got SWM/DECA. It works better for MRV than my ethernet did, specifically Trick Play functions are smoother. Widgets load faster as well.

I now have 2 tuners available on my HR21-200 (where I only had one before, because of the 4 line limit of a conventional dish, without adding another multi-switch).

The install went very well. I'm *very* glad I went SWM/DECA. Not only am I now fully supported, and future proofed, I got the tuner line I was missing. All for $25.00 plus tax. Heck of a deal.

HR20-700 with eSATA
HR21-200
H21-200

No glitches, no hiccups and I was able to integrate a separate system on another dish to the MRV setup via wireless. (2nd system is not SWM/DECA)

All in all, I couldn't be more pleased.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You know, it's rare that I disagree with my old friend hasan. This is no exception. I tried wired MRV, wireless, powerline... still wasn't happy. I am a genuine DECA convert, my friends, and once you go DECA, you never go back. 

First of all it was so easy. I didn't think it would be. I was sure there would be some glitch. But once I had the right LNB and splitters -- all "green label" everything was SUPER slick. 

Trust me, don't fuss with ethernet unless you've already got enterprise-level equipment in your home. Just DECA it.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> You know, it's rare that I disagree with my old friend hasan. This is no exception. I tried wired MRV, wireless, powerline... still wasn't happy. I am a genuine DECA convert, my friends, and once you go DECA, you never go back.
> 
> First of all it was so easy. I didn't think it would be. I was sure there would be some glitch. But once I had the right LNB and splitters -- all "green label" everything was SUPER slick.
> 
> Trust me, don't fuss with ethernet unless you've already got enterprise-level equipment in your home. Just DECA it.


....and considering I further complicated things by running a hybrid system with two dishes...and it still was a complete piece of cake. As far as the 2nd system goes, it didn't even notice that I took the primary system of 3 other receivers into DECA.

How about them apples.

Now if I can just figure out how to tell if D* has taken me from "unsupported" to supported Whole Home DVR Service, I will have completed the entire episode with ease. I tried CSR roulette, and the CSR I talked to was clueless.


----------

