# Deca vs Ethernet



## jkirk

very sorry if this has been covered. I'm a happy ethernet mrv user at present. Does the deca set-up offer better performance? 

Thanks in advance..

jk


----------



## barryb

jkirk said:


> very sorry if this has been covered. I'm a happy ethernet mrv user at present. Does the deca set-up offer better performance?
> 
> Thanks in advance..
> 
> jk


DECAs pump data an easy 2.5 times faster than the ethernet jack, so a big yes.


----------



## Mike Greer

So if I have 3 HR22s and 1 HR24 and use DECA adapters on the 3 HR22s the network performance increases how over just using Ethernet?

I didn't realize that the Ethernet ports on the HR22s were different than 'normal' ethernet connections.


----------



## ffemtreed

barryb said:


> DECAs pump data an easy 2.5 times faster than the ethernet jack, so a big yes.


Really???? DECA has 2.5 times the bandwidth of a common full duplex Ethernet switch?


----------



## taylorhively

You're still using the same actual Ethernet jack on the DVR with the DECA. You're just jacking the Ethernet in to the DECA (to SWiM) instead of in to the Ethernet switch. In both cases the performance can't exceed the Ethernet port's capability (100-T?)

The HR24 could be a different story using the built in networking over SWiM (no Ethernet.)
I also don't know if using the SWiM networking has better efficiency than a full duplex 100-T Ethernet switch.

Help me understand how DECA/SWiM is better? Thanks


----------



## barryb

taylorhively said:


> You're still using the same actual Ethernet jack on the DVR with the DECA. You're just jacking the Ethernet in to the DECA (to SWiM) instead of in to the Ethernet switch. In both cases the performance can't exceed the Ethernet port's capability (100-T?)
> 
> *The HR24 could be a different story using the built in networking over SWiM (no Ethernet.)*
> 
> I also don't know if using the SWiM networking has better efficiency than a full duplex 100-T Ethernet switch.
> 
> Help me understand how DECA/SWiM is better? Thanks


I am getting over 240mb/s with my H and HR24's. I agree that there would be a limiting factor with the non-24 units as it's using the built-in ethernet port.

Several things to consider here.

1) DECA/SWiM is the new supported setup with DirecTV.
2) DECA/SWiM eliminates dual COAX feeds.
3) DECA/SWiM eliminates running ethernet or wireless set ups

Bear in mind I was a hardened "you will have to take my ethernet from my cold dead hands" guy since we started testing MRV. I bit the bullet and had DirecTV come do the "whole home solution", because it was a great deal for the price.

My HR20-700's seem to be better at MRV. Could be because of less network traffic, could be that the DECAs just perform better with the (not x24) boxes.

I have three people here, so MRV gets a work out. We really don't watch any shows in realtime anymore, and probably 80% of what we watch is via MRV.

I have seen a notable decrease in jitters, dropouts and the like while using MRV in my home. Things like "trickplay" make it so I get confused (its happened more than once now) as to what DVR I am watching.

"is it live, or is it MRV?" I really can't tell the difference anymore. I most certainly did before the installers came out.


----------



## taylorhively

Hey, I don't disagree with going with DECA/SWiM. I see no down side and only the upside (except to avoid a $50-$150 of upgrade fees and 2 year commitment.)

I've done the DECA/SWiM upgrade too and except for the 4-5 second wait to start playback, once it's playing I see basically 0 difference from playing live. I'm personally thrilled with the performance and would recommend no one hesitate to do the upgrade just because.

If anything, one benefit to DECA is that it isolates the DVR network traffic to the SWiM network which seems optimized to support it.

I was just wondering where the 2.5x over Ethernet performance came from.
I think that's on the HR-24. I'm not sure it's physically possible on an HR22/21/20 using the actual Ethernet port.

With the increase of networked video devices like the Roku, XBox, etc, I'll still be including Ethernet to every TV location anyway. But at least it's not necessary for DirecTV.

That is unless those Ethernet ports are 1000-T and the DECA/SWiM is essentially a gigabit network. In that case Ethernet would be lower performance unless you also had a Gigabit switch?
I'm just talking out my rear-end here. Ignore me.


----------



## dsw2112

taylorhively said:


> I'm not sure it's physically possible on an HR22/21/20 using the actual Ethernet port.


You are correct. Speeds over 100Mbps are not possible on the above boxes (including the HR23.) This is due to the limitation of the internal network interface card (NIC.)


----------



## NR4P

I noted trickplay works significantly better with DECA vs ethernet.


----------



## barryb

> I was just wondering where the 2.5x over Ethernet performance came from.
> I think that's on the HR-24. I'm not sure it's physically possible on an HR22/21/20 using the actual Ethernet port.


DECA is 250mb/s, but as you have stated, thats not possible with any receiver less than a x24. 



> With the increase of networked video devices like the Roku, XBox, etc, I'll still be including Ethernet to every TV location anyway. But at least it's not necessary for DirecTV.


Me too.... wait... I already did that for MRV a year back. Now I have all these extra ethernet ports, all Cat6, and thats a win for all this "other stuff" I have laying around (xbox, etc).



> That is unless those Ethernet ports are 1000-T and the DECA/SWiM is essentially a gigabit network. In that case Ethernet would be lower performance unless you also had a Gigabit switch?
> I'm just talking out my rear-end here. Ignore me.


Answered above.


----------



## mikemyers

I'm just getting involved in these things, and need to get the DECA so my system works as it's supposed to.


In one of my calls to DirecTV, I spoke to someone who thoroughly understood the system, what's better, how to set things up, and so on. I told him my goal was to set up the MRV with my ethernet network, but he said that this will soon be discontinued, and the only option will be to use the DECA.

I told him I wanted to do what was being discussed here in this forum, but he told me this was only a Beta project, and it would soon come to an end, and the boxes would lose their ability to communicate with my old network. I think he meant that the system would be fully contained, with all communication between boxes going through the DirecTV coax, and one connection to my switch/router for downloading.


I don't want to say much more - I'm just beginning to use/understand this new system.


----------



## barryb

I can't speak on all of that Mike as I really don't know what DirecTV has planned. 

All I know is that DECA/SWiM is the obvious better choice (for me).


----------



## jdspencer

mikemyers said:


> ...
> I don't want to say much more - I'm just beginning to use/understand this new system.


No need to say more.
Read this thread.
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=177590


----------



## Mike Greer

So it sounds like that unless you have all HR24s and H24s Ethernet through a switch would have the same performance right?

I ask because my MRV performance was pretty good but since the HR22s got the latest and greatest firmware the trick-play has major issues.

Takes about 5 or 6 seconds for recording from an HR22 to start to play on my HR24. Once it starts to play it is ok but I can't easily FF/RWD etc. It gets all out of whack.... If I start to FF and then hit play it sometimes jumps back a full 60 seconds sometimes only jumps back 10 seconds so you never know what you're going to get.

I'd pay the for the 'official' upgrade to DECA but I don't see how that is going to help me here unless I spend another $400 or $600 to get an all HR24 setup.


----------



## ffemtreed

Mike Greer said:


> So it sounds like that unless you have all HR24s and H24s Ethernet through a switch would have the same performance right?
> 
> I ask because my MRV performance was pretty good but since the HR22s got the latest and greatest firmware the trick-play has major issues.
> 
> Takes about 5 or 6 seconds for recording from an HR22 to start to play on my HR24. Once it starts to play it is ok but I can't easily FF/RWD etc. It gets all out of whack.... If I start to FF and then hit play it sometimes jumps back a full 60 seconds sometimes only jumps back 10 seconds so you never know what you're going to get.
> 
> I'd pay the for the 'official' upgrade to DECA but I don't see how that is going to help me here unless I spend another $400 or $600 to get an all HR24 setup.


Trick play is about the only thing that will be slightly better with DECA instead of straight Ethernet.


----------



## wingrider01

ffemtreed said:


> Trick play is about the only thing that will be slightly better with DECA instead of straight Ethernet.


and the simple fact DECA is supported by Directv, if ethernet you are on your own if there are issues


----------



## harsh

barryb said:


> DECA is 250mb/s, but as you have stated, thats not possible with any receiver less than a x24.


MoCA says that the maximum is 270Mbps, but they make it clear that the sustained transfer rate is closer to 175Mbps.


MoCA FAQ page said:


> MoCA 1.1 recently upped the ante with incorporation of packet aggregation which yields net throughputs of 175 Mbps.


Note that packet aggregation has little impact on large packets as the overhead is small in comparison.

Is the HR24 Ethernet port 10/100 or 10/100/1000?


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> MoCA says that the maximum is 270Mbps, but they make it clear that the sustained transfer rate is closer to 175Mbps.Note that packet aggregation has little impact on large packets as the overhead is small in comparison.
> 
> Is the HR24 Ethernet port 10/100 or 10/100/1000?


and again we have another nonsense post.
DECA currently tests out at 250+ Mb/s, which you'd actually have to have this to know.
The H/HR24 has DECA internal which out performs the ethernet port it has.
Currently with the 16 node max with DECA, bandwidth/transfer rates can't reach the limit of DECA.


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> DECA currently tests out at 250+ Mb/s, which you'd actually have to have this to know.


How did _you_ test this?

Why is the MoCA Alliance understating the capabilities?

Do you have evidence that the HR24 doesn't use its Ethernet interface with the built-in DECA adapter?


----------



## Newshawk

I can't quote speeds and I know that there are variables external to the DECA network (such as my son and whether he's torrenting or online gaming) but I can give an anecdotal observation. I watch a lot of anime from the Anime Network On Demand. Before DECA, the downloads (about 12-16 25 minute episodes most weeks) would usually take hours, even though these are SD programs. With DECA, they were done in about half the time. I don't know if I have DECA to thank, but I was impressed!


----------



## dwcolvin

ffemtreed said:


> Trick play is about the only thing that will be slightly better with DECA instead of straight Ethernet.


You really need to specify what kind of Ethernet. Even MoCA admits Gigabit Ethernet is better. And anything other than an Hx24 is limited to 100Mbs Ethernet.



wingrider01 said:


> and the simple fact DECA is supported by Directv, if ethernet you are on your own if there are issues


Which at this point is a rather meaningless fact, as most here with DECA installs have had to tell the D* installers how to do it. :bang

There is *no* doubt that DECA is more convenient (and at least as good) when hard-wired Ethernet is not available.


----------



## barryb

> Which at this point is a rather meaningless fact, as most here with DECA installs have had to tell the D* installers how to do it. :bang


Give it some time. Its "growing pains". 



> There is *no* doubt that DECA is more convenient (and at least as good) when hard-wired Ethernet is not available.


I could not agree more, but at the same time I have seen improvements on my HR20-700's. I am not alone in this observation.


----------



## veryoldschool

dwcolvin said:


> You really need to specify what kind of Ethernet. Even MoCA admits Gigabit Ethernet is better. And anything other than an Hx24 is limited to 100Mbs Ethernet.


Let's put out some current "facts":
No one receiver can max out the 100 Mb/s ethernet connection.
Anyone with more than 15 receivers will need to use ethernet to some extent.


----------



## -Draino-

jkirk said:


> very sorry if this has been covered. I'm a happy ethernet mrv user at present. Does the deca set-up offer better performance?
> 
> Thanks in advance..
> 
> jk


Seems as though there are a lot of posts that are mere opinions more than true facts.

FACT: DECA/MoCA doesn't even come close to the speeds of a Gigabyte network.

FACT: All DECA does is isolate network traffic from the rest of your network, something a subnet could do very easily or a managed switch.

FACT: DECA is an excellent solution for DTV to have multiple networked receivers for those that don't have a pre-wired ethernet home.

FACT: Network performance is directly related to your network hardware ie: switches, network cards, cableing and so forth.

All of the above are plain simple facts, not my opinion but real world proven facts, not debateable facts, but simply facts.

Had the question been "whats better for networking DirecTV's hardware" then we could be all over the place with what are facts and what is opinion.


----------



## veryoldschool

-Draino- said:


> Seems as though there are a lot of posts that are mere opinions more than true facts.
> 
> FACT: DECA/MoCA doesn't even come close to the speeds of a Gigabyte network.
> 
> FACT: All DECA does is isolate network traffic from the rest of your network, something a subnet could do very easily or a managed switch.
> 
> FACT: DECA is an excellent solution for DTV to have multiple networked receivers for those that don't have a pre-wired ethernet home.
> 
> FACT: Network performance is directly related to your network hardware ie: switches, network cards, cableing and so forth.
> 
> All of the above are plain simple facts, not my opinion but real world proven facts, not debateable facts, but simply facts.
> 
> Had the question been "whats better for networking DirecTV's hardware" then we could be all over the place with what are facts and what is opinion.


Fact 1: true, but isn't an issue with DECA/MRV, and would only be a factor after exceeding the 16 node limit.
Fact 3: DECA has some protocols that "may be" better.
None of your "facts" are false.


----------



## ffemtreed

Is the DECA bandwidth shared between all the receivers in the DECA cloud?????? Or does each receiver have its own dedicated bandwidth??????


----------



## veryoldschool

ffemtreed said:


> Is the DECA bandwidth shared between all the receivers in the DECA cloud?????? Or does each receiver have its own dedicated bandwidth??????


I don't think each receiver has its own bandwidth, but it kind of doesn't matter, since all the receivers on DECA can't exceed the total bandwidth.


----------



## ffemtreed

veryoldschool said:


> I don't think each receiver has its own bandwidth, but it kind of doesn't matter, since all the receivers on DECA can't exceed the total bandwidth.


do you know how many receivers can be in the same DECA cloud together? I know there are limitations on the SWM, but are those limitations the same as the deca cloud limitations?


----------



## dwcolvin

ffemtreed said:


> do you know how many receivers can be in the same DECA cloud together? I know there are limitations on the SWM, but are those limitations the same as the deca cloud limitations?


VOS already told you... DECA/MoCA has a 16 node limit... the 'Broadband DECA' plus at most 15 receivers. That would support 14 single-tuner receivers plus one dual-tuner DVR on a SWiM-16.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> How did _you_ test this?
> 
> Why is the MoCA Alliance understating the capabilities?
> 
> Do you have evidence that the HR24 doesn't use its Ethernet interface with the built-in DECA adapter?


There are some diagnostic tools available for folks participating in the CE .. Since this is not CE, I'll leave it at that. The values are from actual testing.


----------



## Doug Brott

-Draino- said:


> Seems as though there are a lot of posts that are mere opinions more than true facts.
> 
> FACT: DECA/MoCA doesn't even come close to the speeds of a Gigabyte network.


True, but stated this way has a slight implication that DECA/MoCA are worse than Gigabyte for DIRECTV MRV/networking. That is NOT true.



> FACT: All DECA does is isolate network traffic from the rest of your network, something a subnet could do very easily or a managed switch.


False, DECA not only isolates MRV traffic from the rest of your network, but also a QoS (Quality of Service) which allows for higher priority traffic to be delivered more quickly than lower priority traffic. Namely, trick plays functions can interrupt buffered video resulting in smoother operation over the network.



> FACT: DECA is an excellent solution for DTV to have multiple networked receivers for those that don't have a pre-wired ethernet home.


True, but DECA is also an excellent solution for DIRECTV to have multiple networked receivers even if you already have a pre-wired Ethernet home.



> FACT: Network performance is directly related to your network hardware ie: switches, network cards, cableing and so forth.


Yes, this is true .. You should have the right tool for the job.



> All of the above are plain simple facts, not my opinion but real world proven facts, not debateable facts, but simply facts.
> 
> Had the question been "whats better for networking DirecTV's hardware" then we could be all over the place with what are facts and what is opinion.


They are not all facts .. You misfired on at least one of them and are heavy leaning towards Ethernet being better than DECA although you don't specifically state that in your "Facts."

The facts that should be clear to everyone be aware of is that in real world DIRECTV MRV situations ...

DECA > Wired Ethernet > Wireless/Powerline Ethernet > Sneaker Ethernet

I will grant that for properly wired/switched Ethernet, performance is great and generally more than acceptable. However, DECA will always be as good as or better than wired Ethernet with respect to MRV.


----------



## dwcolvin

Doug Brott said:


> True, but stated this way has a slight implication that DECA/MoCA are worse than Gigabyte for DIRECTV MRV/networking. That is NOT true.
> .
> .
> .
> I will grant that for properly wired/switched Ethernet, performance is great and generally more than acceptable. However, DECA will always be as good as or better than wired Ethernet with respect to MRV.


Even MoCA admits *Gigabit* Ethernet is better than MoCA. (*Gigabyte*, wow!  )

Switched Ethernet can also implement QOS. Now, it may well be that DECA/MoCA supplies _enough_ bandwidth that adding more won't help, and it certainly isolates that traffic from a wired Ethernet network. It makes WHDS work without worrying about the home network. *But*, (you knew that was coming) the failing (IMHO) is that D* 'Connected Home' is a 'Uni-Tasker' (as Alton Brown would say). It only provides functions for D*, and ignores, for example, occasional Blu-Ray player firmware updates or Netflix downloads or internet connected TVs. If I need (or will need) Ethernet anyway, DECA really doesn't help.

DECA is still a good idea, but it's only a partial solution to the bigger problem.


----------



## David MacLeod

deca is a way to avoid installers dealing with a plethora of home network setups. its so an installer can hook up and support mrv for a customer.
nothing more nothing less.
if there were only 1 or 2 home network setups in the world directv would not have bothered.


----------



## ffemtreed

dwcolvin said:


> VOS already told you... DECA/MoCA has a 16 node limit... the 'Broadband DECA' plus at most 15 receivers. That would support 14 single-tuner receivers plus one dual-tuner DVR on a SWiM-16.


If you were able to read (see i can be an internet d-bag as well), you would understand I was asking what is the limiting factor, was it a DECA design, or the limitations with the current SWM hardware and bridging clouds together.

So it looks like each receiver needs to be dedicated about 17mbs of bandwidth to work flawlessly? (275 / 16)

So does this DECA thing really just use the coax RF frequencies to basically rebroadcast the stream to the and the Ethernet side of just pass on remote commands and maintenance stuff like telling which box to tune to what frequency to get the video stream?


----------



## ffemtreed

David MacLeod said:


> deca is a way to avoid installers dealing with a plethora of home network setups. its so an installer can hook up and support mrv for a customer.
> nothing more nothing less.
> if there were only 1 or 2 home network setups in the world directv would not have bothered.


I am trying to figure out why trickplay works better over DECA than ethernet. I can't wrap my mind around that. I don't buy the QOS arugment because there is WAY more than enough bandwidth available with both DECA and Ethernet to even think about needing QOS to get trickplay to work. A trickplay command is like a drop in the ocean compared to the live video stream (the ocean).

Most home ethernet (hardwired) have 200Mb of dedicated bandwidth between the client and host. from the looks of it above that DECA is designed to function flawlessly with as little as 17mbs of bandwidth.

I would really love to get my packet sniffer on one of those DECA networks!


----------



## dwcolvin

ffemtreed said:


> If you were able to read (see i can be an internet d-bag as well), you would understand I was asking what is the limiting factor, was it a DECA design, or the limitations with the current SWM hardware and bridging clouds together.


And if _you_ could read, you'd just read the MoCA specifications and be done with it.


----------



## -Draino-

Doug Brott said:


> True, but stated this way has a slight implication that DECA/MoCA are worse than Gigabyte for DIRECTV MRV/networking. That is NOT true.


It is true, *especially* if your goal is *strictly performance and QOS.* However you did state MRV/networking so you make a great point.



> False, DECA not only isolates MRV traffic from the rest of your network, but also a QoS (Quality of Service) which allows for higher priority traffic to be delivered more quickly than lower priority traffic. Namely, trick plays functions can interrupt buffered video resulting in smoother operation over the network.


I guess I didn't go far enough with that one. Quality of service guarantees are important if the network capacity is insufficient, especially for real-time streaming multimedia applications such as voice over IP, online games and IP-TV, since these often require fixed bit rate and are delay sensitive, and in networks where the capacity is a limited resource. On a Gigabyte network, network capacity far exceeds anything DECA can do. Your only limitations are the network interfaces of the DVR's



> They are not all facts .. You misfired on at least one of them and are heavy leaning towards Ethernet being better than DECA although you don't specifically state that in your "Facts."
> 
> DECA > Wired Ethernet > ......


I will state it now. Ethernet FAR exceeds anything DECA can do. They are all FACTS. If your network ONLY consisted of DVR's and/or was on a managed switch, DECA cannot even come close.

Although I will concede to point out that most people will NOT have a managed switch or even know what a managed switch is, but that does not change the facts. I will also concede that while for the masses, DirecTV and DECA is a great option and makes more sense, and therefore argueably a better option, that does not in of itself make it better or faster.

Remember the OP's title (DECA vs. Ethernet) For DirecTV customers, you might say DECA is BETTER, but I looked at it from a network engineers perspective.



> I will grant that for properly wired/switched Ethernet, performance is great and generally more than acceptable. However, DECA will always be as good as or better than wired Ethernet with respect to MRV.


I have to slightly disagree there. As good....sure...for MRV and for the average DirecTV customer it is better, but not to an experienced person who knows networking.


----------



## -Draino-

David MacLeod said:


> deca is a way to avoid installers dealing with a plethora of home network setups. its so an installer can hook up and support mrv for a customer.
> nothing more nothing less.
> if there were only 1 or 2 home network setups in the world directv would not have bothered.


AGREED!!!


----------



## barryb

-Draino- said:


> I will state it now. Ethernet FAR exceeds anything DECA can do.


.. except for what the main purpose of DirecTV's DECA adapters are made to do, and thats multiroom viewing and internet connectivity over a single COAX line.

Was that not what we where talking about?


----------



## -Draino-

barryb said:


> .. except for what the main purpose of DirecTV's DECA adapters are made to do, and thats multiroom viewing and internet connectivity over a single COAX line.
> 
> Was that not what we where talking about?


Point well taken barryb!!!!


----------



## barryb

-Draino- said:


> Point well taken barryb!!!!


Thanks Draino. I didn't want to get optical on you. :lol:


----------



## -Draino-

barryb said:


> Thanks Draino. I didn't want to get optical on you. :lol:


:lol: Maybe when DTV comes out with the HR2400-5000 we will have a fiber interface!! !rolling


----------



## Doug Brott

-Draino- said:


> I guess I didn't go far enough with that one. Quality of service guarantees are important if the network capacity is insufficient, especially for real-time streaming multimedia applications such as voice over IP, online games and IP-TV, since these often require fixed bit rate and are delay sensitive, and in networks where the capacity is a limited resource. On a Gigabyte network, network capacity far exceeds anything DECA can do. Your only limitations are the network interfaces of the DVR's


Except that your thinking about general purpose delivery of network services. Your missing the point that Trick Play functions need to interrupt the video .. The video is actually not the most important thing in that situatino so "real-time" is for Trick Play to win when it's needed.



> I will state it now. Ethernet FAR exceeds anything DECA can do. They are all FACTS. If your network ONLY consisted of DVR's and/or was on a managed switch, DECA cannot even come close.


Again .. missing the point. It's not a function of size. For General purpose Ethernet is better .. There is no doubt about that and the FACT that you seem to want to point to.

For MRV, DECA is better .. This is plain and simple. Sometimes, bigger is not better and the right tool for the MRV job is DECA.



> I have to slightly disagree there. As good....sure...for MRV and for the average DirecTV customer it is better, but not to an experienced person who knows networking.


I'm experienced in networking .. I've been doing it for over 20 years now in one form or another. You've gotta trust me on this one .. DECA is the better choice for MRV which is the whole point of DECA.

I would never suggest anyone use DECA for general purpose. @ $40/node (Solid Signal) and a limit of 16 nodes on a network, it's a very poor choice for general networking. However, it's the right choice for MRV networking.


----------



## Doug Brott

dwcolvin said:


> Even MoCA admits *Gigabit* Ethernet is better than MoCA. (*Gigabyte*, wow!  )


I'll admit it too .. if we're talking general networking.



> Switched Ethernet can also implement QOS. Now, it may well be that DECA/MoCA supplies _enough_ bandwidth that adding more won't help, and it certainly isolates that traffic from a wired Ethernet network. It makes WHDS work without worrying about the home network. *But*, (you knew that was coming) the failing (IMHO) is that D* 'Connected Home' is a 'Uni-Tasker' (as Alton Brown would say). It only provides functions for D*, and ignores, for example, occasional Blu-Ray player firmware updates or Netflix downloads or internet connected TVs. If I need (or will need) Ethernet anyway, DECA really doesn't help.


Not trying to defend DIRECTV here, but if I look at it from their perspective .. Why would I care whether or not you can play your Blu-Rays or not. In one sense, they are my competitor ...

Now, looking at it from a consumer perspective, the best solution is a separate Ethernet run to the Blu-Ray player from your router (or switch). however, as you've well discovered, you can force the BD player network onto the DECA cloud in situations that might require it. Is it a bad idea? Maybe, Maybe not. Depends on how much data it pulls. I don't have a BD player and don't really know why it needs to be connected to the network, so I don't know what kind of data flows to it.



> DECA is still a good idea, but it's only a partial solution to the bigger problem.


DECA will provide the right solution for the bulk of DIRECTV's subscribers .. As always, there will be others that need to adjust or augment that solution.


----------



## wildbill129

My real world experience:

Although I was very skeptical about the performance benefits, the freebies to upgrade made it worth it to me. I had managed switches, a high end router and my house is completely wired for Ethernet. Although MRV worked great, DECA has exceeded my expectations. Trickplay is far superior with DECA. There is also the added benefit of having MRV off my network freeing it up for other things. I have no regrets, worth every penny.


----------



## -Draino-

Doug Brott said:


> DECA > Wired Ethernet > Wireless/Powerline Ethernet > Sneaker Ethernet


Sneakernet....:lol: That's awesome!!!


----------



## barryb

wildbill129 said:


> My real world experience:
> 
> Although I was very skeptical about the performance benefits, the freebies to upgrade made it worth it to me. I had managed switches, a high end router and my house is completely wired for Ethernet. Although MRV worked great, DECA has exceeded my expectations. Trickplay is far superior with DECA. There is also the added benefit of having MRV off my network freeing it up for other things. I have no regrets, worth every penny.


I could not agree more. My "whole home solution" was CAT6e cable throughout my house, and into a managed 24 port switch. I was skeptical too, but now I know better.

For what we are talking about (DirecTV and MRV): DECA wins.


----------



## barryb

I guess I am officially a DECA fan boy [tm].


----------



## Rich

-Draino- said:


> I will state it now. Ethernet FAR exceeds anything DECA can do. They are all FACTS. If your network ONLY consisted of DVR's and/or was on a managed switch, DECA cannot even come close.


I have an Ethernet system and am quite satisfied with it. But I have no idea what a "managed switch" is. Could you explain what that is? In terms that I can understand?

Rich


----------



## Rich

Doug Brott said:


> Now, looking at it from a consumer perspective, the best solution is a separate Ethernet run to the Blu-Ray player from your router (or switch). however, as you've well discovered, you can force the BD player network onto the DECA cloud in situations that might require it. Is it a bad idea? Maybe, Maybe not. Depends on how much data it pulls. I don't have a BD player and don't really know why it needs to be connected to the network, so I don't know what kind of data flows to it.


Not sure why BluRay players are mentioned here unless I'm missing something. All I do once a week is hook up an Ethernet wire to mine and see if an update is available. What else can you do with them concerning Ethernet?

Rich


----------



## barryb

rich584 said:


> Not sure why BluRay players are mentioned here unless I'm missing something. All I do once a week is hook up an Ethernet wire to mine and see if an update is available. What else can you do with them concerning Ethernet?
> 
> Rich


Some can get internet related content. Mine can do the equivalent of DirecTV's mediashare (stream photos and video from my networked computer). Mostly it makes it easier to update firmware.


----------



## Spanky_Partain

rich584 said:


> I have an Ethernet system and am quite satisfied with it. But I have no idea what a "managed switch" is. Could you explain what that is? In terms that I can understand?
> 
> Rich


Managed switches are used in a business network more than the home network, but it can be used in the home as well. The home router is a kind of managed switch since it lets you login to it and adjust settings for the hardware. The managed switch also lets an Administrator login and set special needs for a network environment. The managed switch is used to seup VLan, jumbo frames, and sometims to froce speed/duplex settings. It is also used for port sniffing and gather statistics.

EDIT
Here are a couple of screen shots of a menu driven managed switch.


----------



## Rich

barryb said:


> Some can get internet related content. Mine can do the equivalent of DirecTV's mediashare (stream photos and video from my networked computer). Mostly it makes it easier to update firmware.


Oh, I see what you mean. I use the Roku boxes. I tried one Sony BD player that had NetFlix streaming and all the other stuff that I never use and it wasn't nearly as easy to use as the Roku boxes are. And the 720p PQ seems to be a bit better than D*'s recorded 720p. Before everyone starts arguing about the last comment, I realize that was a subjective statement.

Looks like NetFlix is getting ready to let the user pick streaming content directly from the Roku box, bypassing the need for using a computer and 1080i streaming seems to be on the horizon. Nifty little boxes for only $79.

Rich


----------



## dminches

rich584 said:


> I have an Ethernet system and am quite satisfied with it. But I have no idea what a "managed switch" is. Could you explain what that is? In terms that I can understand?
> 
> Rich


Rich, a managed switch means, among other things, that you can manually manage network traffic, including giving priority to one client over another. I don't see this being necessary in a home network environment, even with video being run from one DVR to another.

Right now my ethernet setup for MRV is working fine mainly because I am the only one in my household who uses it. If my list of users expands I could see switching over to DECA. It may be worth it just to get the SWM equipment for the low equipment and installation cost.


----------



## Rich

Spanky_Partain said:


> Managed switches are used in a business network more than the home network, but it can be used in the home as well. The home router is a kind of managed switch since it lets you login to it and adjust settings for the hardware. The managed switch also lets an Administrator login and set special needs for a network environment. The managed switch is used to seup VLan, jumbo frames, and sometims to froce speed/duplex settings. It is also used for port sniffing and gather statistics.
> 
> EDIT
> Here are a couple of screen shots of a menu driven managed switch.


Thanx. Too complicated for me. My head's gonna blow up one of these days. 

Rich


----------



## Rich

dminches said:


> Rich, a managed switch means, among other things, that you can manually manage network traffic, including giving priority to one client over another. I don't see this being necessary in a home network environment, even with video being run from one DVR to another.


I don't see me learning how to use one. :lol:



> Right now my ethernet setup for MRV is working fine mainly because I am the only one in my household who uses it. If my list of users expands I could see switching over to DECA. It may be worth it just to get the SWM equipment for the low equipment and installation cost.


I'm pretty much the only person who uses it too. My wife does use it occasionally and I don't see any difference when she's on.

Since I switched all my HRs to the 30 second skip, I've had no problems with trick-play. My house is already wired for all the HRs that I'll ever need, so I really don't have any use for SWiM that I know of. And the whole house is wired for Ethernet, so...

Rich


----------



## joed32

rich584 said:


> Oh, I see what you mean. I use the Roku boxes. I tried one Sony BD player that had NetFlix streaming and all the other stuff that I never use and it wasn't nearly as easy to use as the Roku boxes are. And the 720p PQ seems to be a bit better than D*'s recorded 720p. Before everyone starts arguing about the last comment, I realize that was a subjective statement.
> 
> Looks like NetFlix is getting ready to let the user pick streaming content directly from the Roku box, bypassing the need for using a computer and 1080i streaming seems to be on the horizon. Nifty little boxes for only $79.
> 
> Rich


Roku is the neatest item in my whole system and getting better. I listen to Pandora a lot during the day as well. I have an SD TV in my room along with the HD set so I don't mind watching SD movies.


----------



## hitokage

Doug Brott said:


> False, DECA not only isolates MRV traffic from the rest of your network, but also a QoS (Quality of Service) which allows for higher priority traffic to be delivered more quickly than lower priority traffic. Namely, trick plays functions can interrupt buffered video resulting in smoother operation over the network.


Maybe this tag is appropriate for the following :rant:

This statement isn't necessarily a fact as no one here designed the DECAs. The whole problem with anything concerning how DECAs function exactly can't be answered by anyone here - it's all supposition based on interpretations of the MoCA standards and casual experience. There are other possible valid explanations why a DECA set-up is or could seem faster or work better. No one here (that I know of anyway) has monitored the network traffic to see how a trick-play command is sent. The A/V data stream from the DVR isn't going to use enough bandwidth that a small command can't get through - especially since that would go from the receiving box to the originating DVR, while the A/V stream is going from the DVR to the receiving box. The whole trick play process would really depend on the DVR as it is providing the A/V stream and it would have to process the command and stream the data appropriately to obey and match said command. This would mean it's not network data prioritization, but command/processing prioritization and this is why firmware updates showed improvements during testing.


----------



## veryoldschool

hitokage said:


> Maybe this tag is appropriate for the following :rant:
> 
> This statement isn't necessarily a fact as no one here designed the DECAs. The whole problem with anything concerning how DECAs function exactly can't be answered by anyone here.


You may think what you want, but there is a collective understanding about how DECA works that far exceeds "casual experience" by some of us.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

veryoldschool said:


> You may think what you want, but there is a collective understanding about how DECA works that far exceeds "casual experience" by some of us.


Agreed.

In the simplest terms of comparison:

SWiM/DECA is technology specifically designed to deliver DirecTV video/audio to an optimum level, especially for the Whole Home DVR service.

Gigabit Ethernet can also accommodate the delivery of the same content, but in some cases, may not be optimized to replicate the exact same performance.

They are very similar in terms of potential results, but since SWiM/DECA is specifically designed for this purpose - it's proprietary technology leverages every tool in the DirecTV firmware toolbox for the best results.


----------



## bobcamp1

hdtvfan0001 said:


> They are very similar in terms of potential results, but since SWiM/DECA is specifically designed for this purpose - it's proprietary technology leverages every tool in the DirecTV firmware toolbox for the best results.


This link provides a good explanation:

http://www.videsignline.com/2068012...4PXUQSNDLPSKHSCJUNN2JVN?printableArticle=true

D* could fully support QoS and packet prioritization for both MoCA (built in) and Ethernet (802.1Q/p). But my guess is that they're just focusing on MoCA. That makes sense, as most switches/routers used in the home are cheap and don't support 802.1p anyway. My guess is that the receivers don't support it either, and will never support it.

If you already have Gig Ethernet installed in your house, use it. You'll save money and a 2-year contract, and the performance difference isn't worth the extra money.

If you already have 100 Mbps Ethernet installed in your house, try it. You'll save money and a 2-year contract, and the performance difference probably isn't worth the extra money. You can always change your mind later and get MoCA/DECA.

If you don't have wired Ethernet in your house already, and you don't mind the two-year commitment, definitely get DECA.


----------



## veryoldschool

bobcamp1 said:


> This link provides a good explanation:
> 
> http://www.videsignline.com/2068012...4PXUQSNDLPSKHSCJUNN2JVN?printableArticle=true
> 
> D* could fully support QoS and packet prioritization for both MoCA (built in) and Ethernet (802.1Q/p). But my guess is that they're just focusing on MoCA. That makes sense, as most switches/routers used in the home are cheap and don't support 802.1p anyway. My guess is that the receivers don't support it either, and will never support it.
> 
> If you already have Gig Ethernet installed in your house, use it. You'll save money and a *2-year contract*, and the performance difference isn't worth the extra money.
> 
> If you already have 100 Mbps Ethernet installed in your house, try it. You'll save money and a *2-year contract*, and the performance difference probably isn't worth the extra money. You can always change your mind later and get MoCA/DECA.
> 
> If you don't have wired Ethernet in your house already, and you don't mind the *two-year commitment*, definitely get DECA.


While most of your post is correct, this bold part isn't.
The commitment *only triggers* with a HD and/or DVR receiver exchange.


----------



## ffemtreed

bobcamp1 said:


> This link provides a good explanation:
> 
> http://www.videsignline.com/2068012...4PXUQSNDLPSKHSCJUNN2JVN?printableArticle=true
> 
> D* could fully support QoS and packet prioritization for both MoCA (built in) and Ethernet (802.1Q/p). But my guess is that they're just focusing on MoCA. That makes sense, as most switches/routers used in the home are cheap and don't support 802.1p anyway. My guess is that the receivers don't support it either, and will never support it.
> 
> If you already have Gig Ethernet installed in your house, use it. You'll save money and a 2-year contract, and the performance difference isn't worth the extra money.
> 
> If you already have 100 Mbps Ethernet installed in your house, try it. You'll save money and a 2-year contract, and the performance difference probably isn't worth the extra money. You can always change your mind later and get MoCA/DECA.
> 
> If you don't have wired Ethernet in your house already, and you don't mind the two-year commitment, definitely get DECA.


My question about the QOS, is if there is enough bandwidth to stream HD video pretty much flawlessly you don't need QOS to send an extremely small data stream REALTIME. It should take longer for the Box to process the IR/RF stream from the remote than it should to send it over the network. I am trying to figure out why trickplay is better with a DECA network rather than ethernet. A lot of people here forget that pretty much any modern ethernet setup is that its full duplex which means 100mbs in each direction for a total bandwidth of 200mbs. The box that is sending the trick play commands to the box that is sending the video is pretty much a wide open 100mbs pipe.

Also the gigabit --vs-- 100mbs ethernet is a non factor here because the video streams don't come anywhere close to exceeding 100mbs.


----------



## Doug Brott

ffemtreed said:


> My question about the QOS, is if there is enough bandwidth to stream HD video pretty much flawlessly you don't need QOS to send an extremely small data stream REALTIME. It should take longer for the Box to process the IR/RF stream from the remote than it should to send it over the network. I am trying to figure out why trickplay is better with a DECA network rather than ethernet. A lot of people here forget that pretty much any modern ethernet setup is that its full duplex which means 100mbs in each direction for a total bandwidth of 200mbs. The box that is sending the trick play commands to the box that is sending the video is pretty much a wide open 100mbs pipe.
> 
> Also the gigabit --vs-- 100mbs ethernet is a non factor here because the video streams don't come anywhere close to exceeding 100mbs.


Except there is some amount of buffering on the client end .. Do you really want to wait for the buffer to clear before your trick play command is honored? If the buffer were ½ second, it may not matter .. even perhaps as much as 1½ seconds, but what if the buffer were 3 or 4 seconds? Do you want to wait that 3 or 4 seconds every time for your command to "get through?" What does it mean if two DVRs are cross-watching recordings? Will the delay be even worse?

I don't know the exact details on how things are implemented. All I know is that DECA is optimized for MRV and in general works a bit better than any other method.

you guys are all welcome to believe what you want. I'm not taking a dig a Ethernet .. Ethernet in general is great and the right way to go .. But for MRV .. DECA/MoCA gets the nod.


----------



## ffemtreed

Doug Brott said:


> Except there is some amount of buffering on the client end .. Do you really want to wait for the buffer to clear before your trick play command is honored? If the buffer were ½ second, it may not matter .. even perhaps as much as 1½ seconds, but what if the buffer were 3 or 4 seconds? Do you want to wait that 3 or 4 seconds every time for your command to "get through?" What does it mean if two DVRs are cross-watching recordings? Will the delay be even worse?
> 
> I don't know the exact details on how things are implemented. All I know is that DECA is optimized for MRV and in general works a bit better than any other method.
> 
> you guys are all welcome to believe what you want. I'm not taking a dig a Ethernet .. Ethernet in general is great and the right way to go .. But for MRV .. DECA/MoCA gets the nod.


But if it just a buffering problem that can be fixed with firmware on the receiver firmware and shouldn't need deca to solve that problem. I am just trying to figure out what DECA does and how it works. I am not arguing or advocating ethernet over deca or the other way around. I just want to know how and why deca works. My job is networking and while I don't do any residential for my job I do occasionally help family and friends out with home networking. Sooner or later I am going to run across someone with DECA (or MOCA) and asked to try and diagnose some precieved or real slowness issue with their network. The more I understand how DECA interacts with the main Ethernet network the better off i'll be.

I am interested in what packets I should be seeing on the ethernet side of DECA, because after a quick look around for obvious problems the first thing I do is replace the switch with an old hub and get a quick packet capture to see if there are any obviously faulty devices flooding the network. This is usually quicker than going around and unplugging one device at a time and narrowing it down from there.


----------



## bobcamp1

ffemtreed said:


> But if it just a buffering problem that can be fixed with firmware on the receiver firmware and shouldn't need deca to solve that problem.


I completely agree. It's just a matter of priority and programming/testing resources. D* COULD implement QoS for Ethernet AND for MoCA. But they are two different tasks. And since they already know that most people will need MoCA anyway, and most people don't have switches that support QoS, they currently aren't caring about QoS on Ethernet at all. That's why it's "unsupported". And why MoCA currently works better than Ethernet.

Since I'm now ineligible for MRV, I can't peek at what's going on anymore. I don't remember seeing any QoS from the receiver, though. In MoCA, QoS is done way down at layer 2, so it wouldn't surprise me if the DECA adapters were doing most or all of the QoS work.

Finally, there's the argument of "if the pipe is big enough I don't need QoS". If the D* receiver were a perfect high-powered device, that would be true. But the D* receiver is flawed. It can't even process IR/RF remote commands quickly. I'm guessing it might struggle with Ethernet. The PORT is 100 Mbps. But can the receiver constantly use all that bandwidth? Can it even peak at 100 Mbps? For example, if the receiver tops out at 8 Mbps, it doesn't matter how big the pipe is. You'd need QoS.


----------



## ffemtreed

bobcamp1 said:


> I completely agree. It's just a matter of priority and programming/testing resources. D* COULD implement QoS for Ethernet AND for MoCA. But they are two different tasks. And since they already know that most people will need MoCA anyway, and most people don't have switches that support QoS, they currently aren't caring about QoS on Ethernet at all. That's why it's "unsupported". And why MoCA currently works better than Ethernet.
> 
> Since I'm now ineligible for MRV, I can't peek at what's going on anymore. I don't remember seeing any QoS from the receiver, though. In MoCA, QoS is done way down at layer 2, so it wouldn't surprise me if the DECA adapters were doing most or all of the QoS work.
> 
> Finally, there's the argument of "if the pipe is big enough I don't need QoS". If the D* receiver were a perfect high-powered device, that would be true. But the D* receiver is flawed. It can't even process IR/RF remote commands quickly. I'm guessing it might struggle with Ethernet. The PORT is 100 Mbps. But can the receiver constantly use all that bandwidth? Can it even peak at 100 Mbps? For example, if the receiver tops out at 8 Mbps, it doesn't matter how big the pipe is. You'd need QoS.


If its a processing issue, how does DECA solve that? Either way the receiver needs to process all those data packets, no matter if they are pumped into the box from DECA or Ethernet. Also don't miss the point of that streaming the video works flawlessly over the Ethernet. That should eliminate any processing capability being a culprit unless someone can come up with a very good reason of why a simple remote command causes a large increase in traffic.


----------



## Doug Brott

bobcamp1 said:


> The PORT is 100 Mbps. But can the receiver constantly use all that bandwidth? Can it even peak at 100 Mbps? For example, if the receiver tops out at 8 Mbps, it doesn't matter how big the pipe is. You'd need QoS.


I think based on the size of the files, etc. 20 Mbps per stream is sufficent. With a max of 2 streams + VOD/TVApps downloads, you will never exceed 50 Mbps at this point.

If RVU ever entered the picture, then the story might be slightly different. It all depends on whether or not the # of streams changes or not.

But to answer the basic question .. I don't think that the HR2x will peak @ 100 Mbps under normal operation ...


----------



## Doug Brott

bobcamp1 said:


> Since I'm now ineligible for MRV, I can't peek at what's going on anymore. I don't remember seeing any QoS from the receiver, though. In MoCA, QoS is done way down at layer 2, so it wouldn't surprise me if the DECA adapters were doing most or all of the QoS work.


Without really know myself, I'd agree that the DECAs are doing all of the work .. stacking/prioritizing signals as needed.


----------



## chrpai

Sorry guys, I'm not buying it. I've been in IT for decades including exposure to some serious network planning at a major US airline.

There is no way you can tell me that you can go from ethernet, bridged to anything bridged back to ethernet and get better results then just going straight ethernet over a switched star topology. If you look at the system as a whole from hard drive read speeds, processing power, network line speed / latency, switch fabric throughput and so on the network simply isn't going to be the limiting factor.

DirecTV is surely motivated by other support considerations. It's alot easier to come up with some hybrid ethernet / coax system that you can isolate and train your people on then try to be responsible for integrating with someones prexisting network that could have various issues and different types of equipment that you can't possibly provide technical support for. I can seriously understand that motivation but for me, I'll be just fine with the unsupported approach.

Pay attention to AT&T's U-Verse. They come from a network background trying to integrate into a cable network and they came up with a similar way to do IP over Coax. You know what? It basically doesn't work for them. Their problem rates are so much higher over coax compared to just getting ethernet between the RG and the STB's. They also have the same 1 DVR multiple STB client type needs.


----------



## David MacLeod

deca allows a directv installer to install the system.
simple.
no router/switch/cable codes to mess with, etc.
plug and play.


----------



## veryoldschool

chrpai said:


> Sorry guys, I'm not buying it. I've been in IT for decades including exposure to some serious network planning at a major US airline.
> 
> There is no way you can tell me that you can go from ethernet, bridged to anything bridged back to ethernet and get better results then just going straight ethernet over a switched star topology.


I mean absolutely no disrespect here, but I think this may be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Those of us the have made the move to DECA find it no worse than our ethernet and some find it better.


----------



## Rich

veryoldschool said:


> I mean absolutely no disrespect here, but I think this may be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
> Those of us the have made the move to DECA find it no worse than our ethernet and some find it better.


I've got a service call for the DECA installation Thursday. Can't wait to see what happens. Have little doubt that they will quickly give up. Can't begin to imagine how they would do this at no cost to me as has been promised. Not without putting up two SWiM switches. Are those things weather resistant? They've estimated the time for the installation at four hours. This I gotta see.

Rich


----------



## Rich

chrpai said:


> Sorry guys, I'm not buying it. I've been in IT for decades including exposure to some serious network planning at a major US airline.
> 
> There is no way you can tell me that you can go from ethernet, bridged to anything bridged back to ethernet and get better results then just going straight ethernet over a switched star topology. If you look at the system as a whole from hard drive read speeds, processing power, network line speed / latency, switch fabric throughput and so on the network simply isn't going to be the limiting factor.
> 
> DirecTV is surely motivated by other support considerations. It's alot easier to come up with some hybrid ethernet / coax system that you can isolate and train your people on then try to be responsible for integrating with someones prexisting network that could have various issues and different types of equipment that you can't possibly provide technical support for. I can seriously understand that motivation but for me, I'll be just fine with the unsupported approach.
> 
> Pay attention to AT&T's U-Verse. They come from a network background trying to integrate into a cable network and they came up with a similar way to do IP over Coax. You know what? It basically doesn't work for them. Their problem rates are so much higher over coax compared to just getting ethernet between the RG and the STB's. They also have the same 1 DVR multiple STB client type needs.


I gotta agree with you. I know in every instance of electrical systems that I've hooked up, simpler is better than complex. And the Ethernet system that I built is simple. The more complex any system is the more chances for problems to occur. My Ethernet system has been running for months without a problem once I got it up and running properly.

I'll let them try Thursday, but if they don't come up with a plan that I agree with, it's not gonna happen.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool

rich584 said:


> I've got a service call for the DECA installation Thursday. Can't wait to see what happens. Have little doubt that they will quickly give up. Can't begin to imagine how they would do this at no cost to me as has been promised. Not without putting up two SWiM switches. Are those things weather resistant? They've estimated the time for the installation at four hours. This I gotta see.
> 
> Rich


You may end up causing them to turn to drink after seeing your setup.
I'd guess two SWiM-16s are needed and more than likely one off each dish.
You'd end up with two DECA networks and should have a DECA to router bridge for each. I think Doug has posted DECA/MRV has a limit of 10 DVRs, so not sure how this will all work out.


----------



## opfreak

dont bother asking the question here.

The amount of DECA/MoCa fanboyism on these forums makes me think the people supporting the techonolgy have some vested interest in them.

In the real world, everything done by the DECA could be done using ethernet. But DECA cannot do everything ethernet can.

Bottom line is:

Directv worked with a group to repacked ethernet over coax to easy installation. They threw in a few new QOS paramaters, and people think its the 2nd coming or something like that.

Trying to use logic with the promoters of Deca is like leading a horse to water: you cant make them drink


----------



## Rich

veryoldschool said:


> You may end up causing them to turn to drink after seeing your setup.
> I'd guess two SWiM-16s are needed and more than likely one off each dish.
> You'd end up with two DECA networks and should have a DECA to router bridge for each. I think Doug has posted DECA/MRV has a limit of 10 DVRs, so not sure how this will all work out.


I've given them permission to take one of the dishes off-line and use the other for the installation. So everything will be on one dish. It would have taken more than just another SWiM to make the dual DECA work. I can't see how they could do it with one dish and one SWiM-16, they'd need two SWiM-16s or they'd have to go thru a massive rewiring of my home. And that's not about to happen.

If you know, are the SWiM-16s weather resistant? One of my Zinwell 6x16s is outside and has had no weather related problems and that's gonna be where they'd have to put a SWiM-16 to have any chance of making this work.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool

rich584 said:


> If you know, are the SWiM-16s weather resistant?
> 
> Rich


Yes.
If they're going to do this off one dish, then the SWiM-16 can feed a second from its legacy ports.


----------



## Rich

opfreak said:


> dont bother asking the question here.
> 
> The amount of DECA/MoCa fanboyism on these forums makes me think the people supporting the techonolgy have some vested interest in them.
> 
> In the real world, everything done by the DECA could be done using ethernet. But DECA cannot do everything ethernet can.
> 
> Bottom line is:
> 
> Directv worked with a group to repacked ethernet over coax to easy installation. They threw in a few new QOS paramaters, and people think its the 2nd coming or something like that.
> 
> Trying to use logic with the promoters of Deca is like leading a horse to water: you cant make them drink


Yeah, but these "fanboys" are people I've trusted for years. I don't trust people easily, I'm an electrician by trade and if I trusted the people I used to work for who, supposedly, had more knowledge of electricity than I do, I'd be dead. That's not an exaggeration, that's a fact.

I'll give the installers a chance, but I'll be right on top of them, just as I would be on top of any electrician who either worked for me or did some work in my home. Oh, for the most part, I do agree with you. But, as I said, I've trusted some of the supporters of DECA for years and I've just gotta know. It's not gonna cost me anything to find out or I would stick with my Ethernet setup.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool

opfreak said:


> dont bother asking the question here.
> 
> The amount of DECA/MoCa fanboyism on these forums makes me think the people supporting the techonolgy have some vested interest in them.
> 
> In the real world, everything done by the DECA could be done using ethernet. But DECA cannot do everything ethernet can.
> 
> Bottom line is:
> 
> Directv worked with a group to repacked ethernet over coax to easy installation. They threw in a few new QOS paramaters, and people think its the 2nd coming or something like that.
> 
> Trying to use logic with the promoters of Deca is like leading a horse to water: you cant make them drink


Did someone "poop in your soup" this morning?


----------



## Rich

veryoldschool said:


> Yes.
> If they're going to do this off one dish, then the SWiM-16 can feed a second from its legacy ports.


Yeah, that's the only way I can see it working. As long as it doesn't cost me anything. I'll show them this diagram when they show up Thursday. Gonna be a fun day. Hope they don't send "the boys from Staten Island". :lol:

Rich


----------



## bobcamp1

chrpai said:


> Sorry guys, I'm not buying it. I've been in IT for decades including exposure to some serious network planning at a major US airline.
> 
> There is no way you can tell me that you can go from ethernet, bridged to anything bridged back to ethernet and get better results then just going straight ethernet over a switched star topology. If you look at the system as a whole from hard drive read speeds, processing power, network line speed / latency, switch fabric throughput and so on the network simply isn't going to be the limiting factor.


I think part of the problem is that people believe that the HD DVRs, set boxes, etc. are all working perfectly. They also believe that the switch in that $30 wireless router is flawless, because they are used to using high-end switches. They are also using their previous networking experience, which fails them here because MRV places unique requirements on a network. Prioritization is HUGE on an MRV network, and most home networks simply don't have the equipment to support it.

MoCA allows the boxes to bypass that $30 switch and talk directly to one another. You can't tell ME that a bad star network is faster than that.


----------



## bobcamp1

opfreak said:


> In the real world, everything done by the DECA could be done using ethernet. But DECA cannot do everything ethernet can.


Yes, but doing it over Ethernet costs more. Most people don't have that equipment. I don't think the HR2x's even support QoS. I think they put that in the DECA modules. No DECA modules, no QoS or packet prioritization.

I didn't believe in MoCA at first, either. But in the real world, for whatever reason, MoCA/DECA works better for MRV than typical home Ethernet.

Remember, it isn't that Ethernet doesn't work at all. It's very good and if I had my house pre-wired for it, I'd use it. But like 99.9% of people out there, I don't. My choices are Wireless, power lines, or MoCA. Out of those three, guess which one is best?


----------



## Rich

veryoldschool said:


> Yes.
> If they're going to do this off one dish, then the SWiM-16 can feed a second from its legacy ports.


Do the Flex Ports need to be wired?

Rich


----------



## RAD

rich584 said:


> Do the Flex Ports need to be wired?
> 
> Rich


Only if you have a 72.5 or 95 degree dish installed, otherwise no you don't need them.


----------



## Rich

RAD said:


> Only if you have a 72.5 or 95 degree dish installed, otherwise no you don't need them.


I have a Slimline 5, so I guess I should be alright with the four leads from the dish. Thanx.

Rich


----------



## Mike Greer

Hey Rich - give that trick-play over MRV Ethernet a workout, especially with skip and slip, so that after your 4 hour simple SWM install you'll be able to compare. I'd be willing to pay for the DECA setup if it really does make a difference with Skip/Slip and the long pause before a recording starts to play (over MRV).

It will be interesting to see if they give up quickly or if they'll stick to your install.


----------



## Yog-Sothoth

> Did someone "poop in your soup" this morning?


Must be the bad guide data: http://www.dbstalk.com/search.php?searchid=7088270 .


----------



## veryoldschool

Mike Greer said:


> Hey Rich - give that trick-play over MRV Ethernet a workout, especially with skip and slip, so that after your 4 hour simple SWM install you'll be able to compare. I'd be willing to pay for the DECA setup if it really does make a difference with Skip/Slip and the long pause before a recording starts to play (over MRV).
> 
> It will be interesting to see if they give up quickly or if they'll stick to your install.


I played with this a bit last night. HR20 was the server and HR24 the client, with DECA between.
Start up still lagged behind local play, but the 30skips I really couldn't tell if local or remote. YMMV


----------



## wavemaster

YMMV

In my experience, if you have a small setup, and don't rely on media share to a large extent, go with DECA it will be faster.

If you have a lot of DVR's or rely on media share a lot, stick with hard wired Ethernet (GB strongly suggested).

We had DECA installed last week and so far with an 8 HDDVR setup, it can't come close to our GB Ethernet setup. 

With DECA you should be able to get one stream in and one stream out simul.. That is true, but when I get 6 or more going, DECA breaks up all over the place. We could do all 8 without issue on the GB network. 

You will not be able to stream media share to 8 boxes through DECA (In an acceptably usable manner), but you can easily on GB Ethernet. 

If you have over 10K songs in your collection, good luck ever seeing it all on all boxes on DECA. But you can see them all on all DVR's at the same time with GB Ethernet.

VOD has no noticeable change on either.

We will probably go back to Ethernet now that the system (dish, switches etc.) have all been updated to SWM. 

I am glad we were able to test it, and as I previously expected it can't keep up in our case, but I did get all the other gear for no cost, so it was a win.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> YMMV
> 
> In my experience, if you have a small setup, and don't rely on media share to a large extent, go with DECA it will be faster.
> 
> If you have a lot of DVR's or rely on media share a lot, stick with hard wired Ethernet (GB strongly suggested).
> 
> We had DECA installed last week and so far with an 8 HDDVR setup, it can't come close to our GB Ethernet setup.
> 
> With DECA you should be able to get one stream in and one stream out simul.. That is true, but when I get 6 or more going, DECA breaks up all over the place. We could do all 8 without issue on the GB network.
> 
> You will not be able to stream media share to 8 boxes through DECA (In an acceptably usable manner), but you can easily on GB Ethernet.
> 
> If you have over 10K songs in your collection, good luck ever seeing it all on all boxes on DECA. But you can see them all on all DVR's at the same time with GB Ethernet.
> 
> VOD has no noticeable change on either.
> 
> We will probably go back to Ethernet now that the system (dish, switches etc.) have all been updated to SWM.
> 
> I am glad we were able to test it, and as I previously expected it can't keep up in our case, but I did get all the other gear for no cost, so it was a win.


I had six streams running with ZERO issues. 
What is your DECA cloud PHY mesh rates?
If you have a H/HR24 press guide & > on the front panel and then look at the coax network.
You could also get an idea if you run the system test [on a 24] and see if you get an error.


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> I had six streams running with ZERO issues.
> What is your DECA cloud PHY mesh rates?
> If you have a H/HR24 press guide & > on the front panel and then look at the coax network.
> You could also get an idea if you run the system test [on a 24] and see if you get an error.


We don't have any 24's in the system yet.


----------



## wavemaster

Try to get {One In - One Out} going on 6 DVR's and you should see issues. It is very broken up here. On GB Ethernet you could have all 8 going in each dir.


----------



## ffemtreed

wavemaster said:


> Try to get {One In - One Out} going on 6 DVR's and you should see issues. It is very broken up here. On GB Ethernet you could have all 8 going in each dir.


unless you have all HR24's GB Ethernet is useless in your setup. I am not even sure if HR24's have a GB NIC, I have heard it both ways from two reliable people.


----------



## wavemaster

ffemtreed said:


> unless you have all HR24's GB Ethernet is useless in your setup. I am not even sure if HR24's have a GB NIC, I have heard it both ways from two reliable people.


Per DVR sure, but overall? In our case it is fully switched NLB full duplex. GB at the switch makes a HUGE difference, as does having it anywhere else in the network. Our Media Share comes from a server and NAS box, both connected via GB network and they can handle a lot of connections. It doesn't matter to them what speed the end device is, they feed it as fast as they can.

Anyone that tells you having GB speed will not improve speed over 100mb when dealing with multiple devices does not understand networking.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> Anyone that tells you having GB speed will not improve speed over 100mb when dealing with multiple devices does not understand networking.


Having a good "backbone" of course helps.
A good working DECA cloud is up around 250 Mb/s between nodes. Not having a 24 to test this, your DECA cloud may not be "up to speed".
Before you "throw in the towel" for DECA, wait until you know what you have.
This most likely is the YMMV aspect.


----------



## ffemtreed

wavemaster said:


> Per DVR sure, but overall? In our case it is fully switched NLB full duplex. GB at the switch makes a HUGE difference, as does having it anywhere else in the network. Our Media Share comes from a server and NAS box, both connected via GB network and they can handle a lot of connections. It doesn't matter to them what speed the end device is, they feed it as fast as they can. Our imaging server has 6 network cards and 3 seperate HD controllers pumping the data onto the network!
> 
> Anyone that tells you having GB speed will not improve speed over 100mb when dealing with multiple devices does not understand networking.


In a switched Ethernet network have a GB switches doesn't increase bandwidth that much. I have done the speed tests and do disk imagining over a network almost daily. I can tell you there was very little increase improvement with disk imaging when we upgraded to GB switches. I have around 600 computers on my network spread out between 8 wiring closets, during the summer refreshes we can reimage the disks over the network on about 200 of those computers at a time using both unicast and multicast. It usually takes around 25 minutes for an 8 - 10GB image. When we upgraded to GB switches last summer our imaging times went down to about 20 - 22 minutes. Not much improvement considering we increased the speed by 10 times.

Even with our old 100mbs network we were able to support around 130 VOIP phones, 15 video conferencing phones, 6 HD distance learning labs, 60 IP video cameras, all the computers/laptops, IP TV video into each room with approximately 16 channels in the building. Yes we had to do some traffic shaping and QOS on the VOIP but it worked flawlessly 99.999% of the time.

If you have a hacked up solution and have Ethernet switches dangling all around your home then having GB backbones will help a bit, but for most home users they will never see the difference between 100Mb and 1000Mb Ethernet. Also remember you are limited by harddrive speeds that server can send data out over the network.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster is describing the very scenario we laid out before and said would break DECA. Its a scenario VERY VERY unlikely unless you are trying to test/break it or a commercial installation. Its also why HR<->HR MRV seems to be less of a permanent direction than Whole Home Servers (like the purported HMC30).

IF you do what Wavemaster is asking, you have 12 simultaneous streams since he is basically asking you to stream from DVR A - DVR B and then from DVR B to DVR A on down the list. In perfect conditions that affords you only about 20MB of bandwidth per stream - but does not take into account headers, control packets, trickplay packets, and other overhead. In other words, you'd really be down below 15MB of actual throughput which means I'd expect the breakups.

Every technology can be broken if you set out to prove it can't do something. It doesn't sound like DECA is an option for wavemaster - although I'm not sure if outside of testing he'd really have 6 DVRs all streaming back and forth to each other simultaneously to create 12 data streams... Only wave can answer that... 

But suffice it to say, if this is your setup and intent - I'd recommend NOT using DECA. It will not handle much over 8 streams simultaneously (which of course would lead you to a magic number of 16 devices - 8 servers, 8 clients - amazing how certain things just work out huh?  )


----------



## wavemaster

ffemtreed said:


> If you have a hacked up solution and have Ethernet switches dangling all around your home then having GB backbones will help a bit, but for most home users they will never see the difference between 100Mb and 1000Mb Ethernet. Also remember you are limited by harddrive speeds that server can send data out over the network.


Not sure about your setup at work, in my case I oversee 300+ servers in 3 facilities that go through TB's of bandwidth per hour. Going GB (years ago) was the largest increase in network throughput and speed we have ever seen prior to going fiber on some of the main switches. If one of my employees tried to explain to me how 100mb is only slightly faster than 1000mb (not at a specific limiting node, but overall), he would be looking for a job.

How about some "home" numbers? Moving the music collection (306Gb 52,000 files) takes just over 3 hrs on Gb and 12-14hrs on 100Mb. Now that is not a ton of data but a ton of files.

Moving movies around (a lot of data per file) you see an even larger gap between the two.

Most homes won't have GB speed devices but will still benefit from a GB switch.


----------



## ffemtreed

wavemaster said:


> Not sure about your setup at work, in my case I oversee 300+ servers in 3 facilities that go through TB's of bandwidth per hour. Going GB (years ago) was the largest increase in network throughput and speed we have ever seen prior to going fiber on some of the main switches. If one of my employees tried to explain to me how 100mb is only slightly faster than 1000mb (not at a specific limiting node, but overall), he would be looking for a job.
> 
> How about some "home" numbers? Moving the music collection (306Gb 52,000 files) takes just over 3 hrs on Gb and 12-14hrs on 100Mb. Now that is not a ton of data but a ton of files.
> 
> Moving movies around (a lot of data per file) you see an even larger gap between the two.
> 
> Most homes won't have GB speed devices but will still benefit from a GB switch.


And what home goes through TB's of bandwith per hour? You need to read what I am saying in context of home networks. I will stand by my claim that 99.9999%%% of home users won't see ANY difference between 100 and 1000Mb Ethernet setups.

If you have server class hardware and the correct switches to support teaming or etherchannels than GB ethernet does make a huge difference, but again thats not home networking.


----------



## RAD

If you have multiple systems going over a single uplink then yep going to gig is going to help, But if all you have is a HR2X that's uplinked to a central hub switch gig isn't going to buy you squat. Even if you set up a hub/spoke config with a central switch and a satellite switch in the various rooms in your home unless you're also loading up that uplink between the switches with a bunch of file transfers 100Mbps will do just fine. Before moving to DECA I had four concurrent MRV sessions (HR/MPEG4) over a single 100Mbps uplink, all traffic server->client, and didn't have any performance issues in normal or trick play.


----------



## wavemaster

BudShark said:


> wavemaster is describing the very scenario we laid out before and said would break DECA. Its a scenario VERY VERY unlikely unless you are trying to test/break it or a commercial installation. Its also why HR<->HR MRV seems to be less of a permanent direction than Whole Home Servers (like the purported HMC30).
> 
> IF you do what Wavemaster is asking, you have 12 simultaneous streams since he is basically asking you to stream from DVR A - DVR B and then from DVR B to DVR A on down the list. In perfect conditions that affords you only about 20MB of bandwidth per stream - but does not take into account headers, control packets, trickplay packets, and other overhead. In other words, you'd really be down below 15MB of actual throughput which means I'd expect the breakups.
> 
> Every technology can be broken if you set out to prove it can't do something. It doesn't sound like DECA is an option for wavemaster - although I'm not sure if outside of testing he'd really have 6 DVRs all streaming back and forth to each other simultaneously to create 12 data streams... Only wave can answer that...
> 
> But suffice it to say, if this is your setup and intent - I'd recommend NOT using DECA. It will not handle much over 8 streams simultaneously (which of course would lead you to a magic number of 16 devices - 8 servers, 8 clients - amazing how certain things just work out huh?  )


The funny thing is that a few weeks ago I was told DECA would be far better than Ethernet and I had laid out our current setup. I have been moving around and streaming a LOT of content for a long time now (work and play) and knowing the size of our collections and the devices involved, I was pretty sure DECA would not handle it as Ethernet can.

Due to the audio issues and the "engineering" attention D* has given us, they have been doing various things to try to fix it. The latest was new dish, wiring, SWM, and DECA (DECA was a bonus). We will probably go back to Ethernet but keep the SWM setup after they realize the audio drop is on their end and stop trying to fix it here.

BTW - After the full SWM change over we still get audio drops.


----------



## BudShark

ffemtreed said:


> And what home goes through TB's of bandwith per hour? You need to read what I am saying in context of home networks. I will stand by my claim that 99.9999%%% of home users won't see ANY difference between 100 and 1000Mb Ethernet setups.
> 
> If you have server class hardware and the correct switches to support teaming or etherchannels than GB ethernet does make a huge difference, but again thats not home networking.


Wave is throwing theoretical arguments around and wrapping them in the context of what he feels is better long term.

The fact is, the HRs and Hs only support 100MB ethernet. So they see no end device benefit from going Gig. The Gig switches have higher backplane speeds, and because they are newer, faster, more expensive, tend to have faster processors in them which create a better packet throughput - even if your end device is only 100. In his HR example, where he created 12 streams on a single segment - the backplane benefit would be helpful even if the end devices are only 100.

But - its just a theoretical discussion. The number of customers that would actually have that in reality (and not just testing) probably consist of somewhere between 0 and 10. Of which, probably half of them are active on this board.

Gig is not needed for MRV infrastructure. DECA will work for 99.9999% of DirecTV installations. And those that chose self-support are likely going to be just fine with a properly installed 100MB network. The others can figure it out for themselves.

Congrats Wave - you've got TBs to deal with at work, and have 6 DVRs that you can setup to stream back and forth to each other and break DECA and make a Gig network look important. We all get that. Lets stop confusing the subject with your special cases and focus on discussing and helping the 99.9999% of DirecTV customers who have 2-3 streams AT MOST.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> The funny thing is that a few weeks ago I was told DECA would be far better than Ethernet and I had laid out our current setup. I have been moving around and streaming a LOT of content for a long time now (work and play) and knowing the size of our collections and the devices involved, I was pretty sure DECA would not handle it as Ethernet can.
> 
> Due to the audio issues and the "engineering" attention D* has given us, they have been doing various things to try to fix it. The latest was new dish, wiring, SWM, and DECA (DECA was a bonus). We will probably go back to Ethernet but keep the SWM setup after they realize the audio drop is on their end and stop trying to fix it here.
> 
> BTW - After the full SWM change over we still get audio drops.


No one ever said if you wanted to do 12 streams DECA would work. I believe the conversation was around what was best for the majority of customers and that DECA was far and away the best option. The results of the roll out have proven that.


----------



## wavemaster

ffemtreed said:


> And what home goes through TB's of bandwith per hour? You need to read what I am saying in context of home networks. I will stand by my claim that 99.9999%%% of home users won't see ANY difference between 100 and 1000Mb Ethernet setups.
> 
> If you have server class hardware and the correct switches to support teaming or etherchannels than GB ethernet does make a huge difference, but again thats not home networking.


I must hang out with a different crowd of people. I would say at least 90% of the people I know WOULD benefit.


----------



## wavemaster

BudShark said:


> No one ever said if you wanted to do 12 streams DECA would work. I believe the conversation was around what was best for the majority of customers and that DECA was far and away the best option. The results of the roll out have proven that.


I give up. No point in sharing my actual experience with the OP and his question, I will just get bashed or painted into a "you're special" corner.

The bottom line - DECA does NOT handle our setup as well as Ethernet can/did.

I have kids they have friends and so on and so on - I don't have 16 tuners in the house because it is fun, we have a lot of users and a LOT of content. I have many acquaintances that also have 5+ DVR's in their homes as well as all sorts of other media - lol - I'm not that special or unique - they used my picture for "regular" in the dictionary.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> I give up. No point in sharing my actual experience with the OP and his question, I will just get bashed...


I will repeat, you haven't yet been able to know how well "your DECA" is preforming. You may have green lights, but could be running @ only 66% of the cloud rate. Without a 24 in the loop, you simply don't know, nor do I what yours is.


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> I will repeat, you haven't yet been able to know how well "your DECA" is preforming. You may have green lights, but could be running @ only 66% of the cloud rate. Without a 24 in the loop, you simply don't know, nor do I what yours is.


Never once was I told that DECA would only run at a fraction of the specification without a 24 in the mix. One HR24? 4? 6? 8? All the HR20, and 22's worked fine on Ethernet.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> I give up. No point in sharing my actual experience with the OP and his question, I will just get bashed or painted into a "you're special" corner.
> 
> The bottom line - DECA does NOT handle our setup as well as Ethernet can/did.
> 
> I have kids they have friends and so on and so on - I don't have 16 tuners in the house because it is fun, we have a lot of users and a LOT of content. I have many acquaintances that also have 5+ DVR's in their homes as well as all sorts of other media - lol - I'm not that special or unique - they used my picture for "regular" in the dictionary.


This isn't an attack on you, but it is stating that No, you are not a typical DirecTV customer.

The majority of DirecTV customers have 1 or less DVRs.
The majority of DirecTV customers that have >1 DVR have less than 4 DVRs
The majority of DirecTV customers do not have wired ethernet to the end device
The majority of DirecTV customers that have wired ethernet, do not have GB

And lets take that to the next level. What % of customers do you think have more than 2 active MRV streams at one time? Not the ability, but ACTIVE streams?

With all of that said, do you see why, when people come on and start asking questions (people who generally are a bit confused, not extremely network savy, and are looking for the simplest solution) I tend to discredit the "need Gig Ethernet" posts?

Yes, you said DECA works for most installs.. but that tends to be 1 sentence in a number of posts and easily gets lost/downplayed. I agree Gig has more throughput than DECA. And in your scenarios described, thats great. *But... you have a scenario that is a very very very small percentage of DirecTV customers*

If you want an honest answer to your question - looking at any macro view of DirecTV customers - yes - you are unusual and special. Sorry... not meant as being offensive, just stating the facts.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> Never once was I told that DECA would only run at a fraction of the specification without a 24 in the mix. One HR24? 4? 6? 8? All the HR20, and 22's worked fine on Ethernet.


No one said that. He asked if you had a 24 because there is a diagnostic menu in it that would tell us what quality of service you are getting - and let us know if you were being limited on speed due to a cabling infrastructure problem.

DECA is not limited by speed because of receiver model.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> Never once was I told that DECA would only run at a fraction of the specification without a 24 in the mix. One HR24? 4? 6? 8? All the HR20, and 22's worked fine on Ethernet.


Your testing would have more validity if you could either run the system test from a 24 and have it pass or show what your rates are like this:


|0|1|2|3|4
0|244|244|248|252|249
1|246|238|244|252|245
2|246|237|235|252|246
3|252|252|251|248|253
4|249|244|244|253|240
Anything below 215 triggers a system test error.


----------



## wavemaster

BudShark said:


> No one said that. He asked if you had a 24 because there is a diagnostic menu in it that would tell us what quality of service you are getting - and let us know if you were being limited on speed due to a cabling infrastructure problem.
> 
> DECA is not limited by speed because of receiver model.


Well I guess I'm stumped there. I can sniff/analyze the Ethernet side of things with ease, I am at a loss when it comes to DECA.

So the good news is people with a HR24 can see if DECA is working as it should or not, unfortunately the rest of the customers just have to guess? I will request a 24 swap of on one of the 22's to see if it is actually working as advertised. Q. will it only show performance in relation to itself or the whole subnet? Basically, how wold I determine an infrastructure (bad or poor connection) issue?


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> Q. will it only show performance in relation to itself or the whole subnet? Basically, how wold I determine an infrastructure (bad or poor connection) issue?


The table I posted shows each node [DECA device] and the bit rates between them.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> Well I guess I'm stumped there. I can sniff/analyze the Ethernet side of things with ease, I am at a loss when it comes to DECA.
> 
> So the good news is people with a HR24 can see if DECA is working as it should or not, unfortunately the rest of the customers just have to guess? I will request a 24 swap of on one of the 22's to see if it is actually working as advertised. Q. will it only show performance in relation to itself or the whole subnet? Basically, how wold I determine an infrastructure (bad or poor connection) issue?


It gives you results to all devices in the cloud... on a very very simple level (this is Smiddy and VOS land here) it gives you the RF signal quality to each end device which can then be interpreted into throughput, loss, etc.


----------



## veryoldschool

BudShark said:


> It gives you results to all devices in the cloud... on a very very simple level (this is Smiddy and VOS land here) it gives you the RF signal quality to each end device which can then be interpreted into throughput, loss, etc.


There are two screens:
1) RF loss from the receiver doing this test to the other nodes
2) bit rates between nodes.


----------



## BudShark

veryoldschool said:


> The table I posted shows each node [DECA device] and the bit rates between them.


Deleted - answered the question I was going to ask in above post. Thanks!


----------



## Doug Brott

wavemaster said:


> Due to the audio issues and the "engineering" attention D* has given us, they have been doing various things to try to fix it. The latest was new dish, wiring, SWM, and DECA (DECA was a bonus). We will probably go back to Ethernet but keep the SWM setup after they realize the audio drop is on their end and stop trying to fix it here.
> 
> BTW - After the full SWM change over we still get audio drops.


The audio dropouts are on DIRECTV's end .. As far as I know, it's something to do with the encoding and may go all the way back to the source provider.


----------



## wavemaster

Well everything was rewired from the dish on out and that took almost a full day. But based on the fact that is all replaced new, there is a probable chance that one of the new cables or connections are at fault. 

I didn't want to change out the wiring (it was a major hassle and previously bullet proof) but I have to jump through all these troubleshooting hoops to get to the bottom of the audio issue. Getting a 24 shouldn't be an issue, they said the next step will be replacing all the receivers.


----------



## wavemaster

Doug Brott said:


> The audio dropouts are on DIRECTV's end .. As far as I know, it's something to do with the encoding and may go all the way back to the source provider.


Apparently everyone in the whole world knows that EXCEPT D* - lol.

I'm just doing what they ask.


----------



## sigma1914

wavemaster said:


> Well everything was rewired from the dish on out and that took almost a full day. But based on the fact that is all replaced new, there is a probable chance that one of the new cables or connections are at fault.
> 
> I didn't want to change out the wiring (it was a major hassle and previously bullet proof) but I have to jump through all these troubleshooting hoops to get to the bottom of the audio issue. Getting a 24 shouldn't be an issue, they said the next step will be replacing all the receivers.


Also, make sure all splitters are green label.


----------



## harsh

ffemtreed said:


> I will stand by my claim that 99.9999%%% of home users won't see ANY difference between 100 and 1000Mb Ethernet setups.


I found that the speed of my not entirely frequent backups increased seven-fold with the replacement of 100Mbps switch with a 1Gbps switch. The happy part is that the speed increase came with seemingly no impact on the rest of the network.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> Well everything was rewired from the dish on out and that took almost a full day. But based on the fact that is all replaced new, there is a probable chance that one of the new cables or connections are at fault.


In the RF domain DECA is quite complex, as there are multiple signal paths through the coax/splitters, etc. DECA needs to be able to have one path higher/better than the others to have a good bit-rate.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ffemtreed said:


> And what home goes through TB's of bandwith per hour? You need to read what I am saying in context of home networks. I will stand by my claim that *99.9999%%% of home users won't see ANY difference between 100 and 1000Mb Ethernet setups*.





wavemaster said:


> I must hang out with a different crowd of people. I would say at least 90% of the people I know WOULD benefit.


Same here.

Even my wife (who is absolutely technology challenged, less her heart) noticed a significant different when I did that simple upgrade here to Gigabit.

Since a GB (or any other) router is still a key component in SWiM/DECA Whole Home setups...its even a factor in that paradigm.


----------



## wavemaster

harsh said:


> I found that the speed of my not entirely frequent backups increased seven-fold with the replacement of 100Mbps switch with a 1Gbps switch. The happy part is that the speed increase came with seemingly no impact on the rest of the network.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Same here.
> 
> Even my wife (who is absolutely technology challenged, less her heart) noticed a significant different when I did that simple upgrade here to Gigabit.
> 
> Since a GB (or any other) router is still a key component in SWiM/DECA Whole Home setups...its even a factor in that paradigm.


Well we are EXTREME cases. No normal user does backups, has Ethernet etc. We are extremely rare. All that networking stuff you see at EVERY retailer and online seller was produced for the three of us.

Save yourself some grief and give up now - the general understanding here is that DECA>Ethernet (doesn't matter what kind) and 1000Mb=100Mb Not >. And apparently the three of us are the only ones in the world that doesn't get it and damn your real world tests and backups. This place is ALWAYS good for a laugh.


----------



## Doug Brott

wavemaster said:


> Well we are EXTREME cases. No normal user does backups, has Ethernet etc. We are extremely rare. All that networking stuff you see at EVERY retailer and online seller was produced for the three of us.
> 
> Save yourself some grief and give up now - the general understanding here is that DECA>Ethernet (doesn't matter what kind) and 1000Mb=100Mb Not >. And apparently the three of us are the only ones in the world that doesn't get it and damn your real world tests and backups. This place is ALWAYS good for a laugh.


Let me clarify my position .. DECA > Ethernet for MRV installations ..

For General purpose use Ethernet > DECA .. No question here.

The 16-device limit on DECA alone makes it less usable than Ethernet. DECA vs. Ethernet isn't an absolute. There are very specific use cases where DECA wins. That is what the real discussion is.

If the question were simply - What is better: DECA or Ethernet? with no context whatsoever .. The answer is Ethernet.

However, the question that is being posed here is in context and while not specifically worded, is - What is better for MRV: DECA or Ethernet? .. The answer for this is DECA.

In fact, your indication that there are problems with 6 streams going ...

(1) -> (2)
(2) -> (1)
(3) -> (4)
(4) -> (3)
(5) -> (6)
(6) -> (5)

... This is the first time I've heard anyone say that there have been viewing concerns. In other words, your experience would be the first where DECA < Ethernet while everyone else has stated that DECA is as good as or better than Ethernet.

I can't even get 6 streams going @ my house.


----------



## veryoldschool

Doug Brott said:


> I can't even get 6 streams going @ my house.


Which, on the outside, would be less than 120 Mb/s.


----------



## ffemtreed

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Same here.
> 
> Even my wife (who is absolutely technology challenged, less her heart) noticed a significant different when I did that simple upgrade here to Gigabit.
> 
> Since a GB (or any other) router is still a key component in SWiM/DECA Whole Home setups...its even a factor in that paradigm.


what did she notice a difference in? I am curious.

and most home users don't backup over a network, they usually use DVD's or external hard drives.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

wavemaster said:


> Well we are EXTREME cases. No normal user does backups, has Ethernet etc. We are extremely rare. All that networking stuff you see at EVERY retailer and online seller was produced for the three of us.
> 
> Save yourself some grief and give up now - the general understanding here is that DECA>Ethernet (doesn't matter what kind) and 1000Mb=100Mb Not >. And apparently the three of us are the only ones in the world that doesn't get it and damn your real world tests and backups. This place is ALWAYS good for a laugh.


Actually....I went through the full spectrum of "growth" from 802.11G to 802.11N to 100MBps to Gigabit networking, and then to SWiM/DECA.

There is no doubt in my mind from years of personal field testing and actual user comparisons between the various networking flavors...SWiM / DECA tastes the best when it comes to the DirecTV-specific Whole Home solution experience.

Since the goal was to have a reliable, cost-effective, high quality delivery of HD video/audio throughout a typical home - and DirecTV likely wanted to avoid the umpteen thousands of variations on home network configurations - it also made business sense to leverage some of the latest MoCA technology to provide quick, easy, and affordable deployments with SWiM/DECA.

I not only understand why they followed this path, but have seen firsthand that it has worked out well. That is no reflection on anyone having a good GB Ethernet infrastructure in place - kudos - also a nice delivery choice. The main difference is that it introduces another layer of variables from an install and support perspective that I would guess DirecTV chose to avoid.


----------



## wavemaster

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ... I not only understand why they followed this path, but have seen firsthand that it has worked out well. That is no reflection on anyone having a good GB Ethernet infrastructure in place - kudos - also a nice delivery choice. The main difference is that it introduces another layer of variables from an install and support perspective that I would guess DirecTV chose to avoid.


I totally understand THEM wanting it easy for THEM. LOL - In my case with DECA running now, I have 2 networks to support.

As I said earlier if you don't use media share heavily and don't have a bunch of DVR's DECA will be the easiest solution for D and the user.

In our case media share takes a big hit and MRV hits limits after 6 of anything gets going. Media share is a big deal to us, we have a large movie collection and I keep about 10,000 songs out of the collection available for music. Over DECA it takes the first box about 12-15 seconds to read in the pared down music collection. If you try to hit the music during that same time from another DVR it has about a 10-20 second pause before it will even start, and the times get worse from there. On the GB you can get the list in under 5 seconds and we don't notice any delay doing the same on other DVR's (have done 4 at the same time).


----------



## djrobx

veryoldschool said:


> Your testing would have more validity if you could either run the system test from a 24 and have it pass or show what your rates are like this:
> 
> 
> |0|1|2|3|4
> 0|244|244|248|252|249
> 1|246|238|244|252|245
> 2|246|237|235|252|246
> 3|252|252|251|248|253
> 4|249|244|244|253|240
> Anything below 215 triggers a system test error.


DirecTV is being quite aggressive with that number.

On MoCA 1.0, PHY rates of 180+ produce 100mbps of effective throughput (I think with MoCA 1.1 and DECA it's even higher but I haven't found a graph showing that mapping yet). Anything more is just headroom that shouldn't affect performance. This is likely why the network LED on the adapter changes from amber to green at that rate.

I've tested a DECA module with a HR24 showing 190's going down the middle and it still produced a rock solid, low latency 90+mbps connection to my LAN with no drops over 48 hours. It was comfortably maxing out the 100mbps network port. I've ordered green label splitters, but I don't expect them to change my actual performance one bit.

QoS shouldn't be needed on a switched ethernet network where the devices are talking directly to each other, and have abundant headroom. There's very little to prioritize in that environment.

With a HR24 in the mix one thing is very, very apparent - the MRV performance bottleneck is the HR, not the network. The HR24 is an order of magnitude faster at MRV on either DECA or ethernet!


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> Well we are EXTREME cases. No normal user does backups, has Ethernet etc. We are extremely rare. All that networking stuff you see at EVERY retailer and online seller was produced for the three of us.
> 
> Save yourself some grief and give up now - the general understanding here is that DECA>Ethernet (doesn't matter what kind) and 1000Mb=100Mb Not >. And apparently the three of us are the only ones in the world that doesn't get it and damn your real world tests and backups. This place is ALWAYS good for a laugh.


Seriously? :sure:

You are an EXTREME case if you have 6 DVRs, and they are all streaming back and forth to each other.

The networking equipment sold at retailers is NOT sold for the purpose of networking 6 DirecTV DVRs together. Why is this difficult?
[edit: To clarify this point before something is said... My point is, its sold for general purpose networking. So the fact that its on the shelf and purchased has ZERO to do with this discussion. No one said the three of you are the only ones using ethernet and backing up. Stop mixing discussions.)

No one said DECA is generally > Ethernet. I certainly didn't. I pay my bills by managing a VERY VERY complex network. One you don't even want to consider the conditions I have to deal with (think wet manufacturing, with caustic, soap, high pressure hoses, slip ring network connections, industrial connections, mixed access layer devices due to the fact that Cisco can't handle some of the environmental conditions, etc...) I've see it all. Ethernet is wonderful.

But, for the majority of installations for DirecTV Whole Home setups, DECA is a faster, simpler, easier, and definitely SUFFICIENT solution with more than enough bandwidth.

For the RARE user who wants to have 6+ DVR streams going at once DECA is probably NOT the best solution, the user should self install, and Gig-E is probably better.

But the other 99.9999% of DirecTV customers? DECA.

Its not difficult and no one is making you out to be a freak. Sheesh.


----------



## David MacLeod

the beauty of deca is.....if not wanted swapping back to ethernet is super simple


----------



## sigma1914

wavemaster said:


> ...
> 
> In our case media share takes a big hit and MRV hits limits after 6 of anything gets going. Media share is a big deal to us, we have a large movie collection and I keep about 10,000 songs out of the collection available for music. Over DECA it takes the first box about 12-15 seconds to read in the pared down music collection. If you try to hit the music during that same time from another DVR it has about a 10-20 second pause before it will even start, and the times get worse from there. On the GB you can get the list in under 5 seconds and we don't notice any delay doing the same on other DVR's (have done 4 at the same time).


I'm impressed you get such great results doing media share on ANY set up. :lol: PQ on movies isn't great streamed on HR2x. I was lucky to get a decent PQ on avi movies and wish we could do mkv movies. What's your secret?


----------



## veryoldschool

djrobx said:


> I've ordered green label splitters, but I don't expect them to change my actual performance one bit.


I was quite skeptical about the green splitters verses other splitters. Having tested the difference, I was surprised. The green splitters have been modified for DECA and depending on the path the signal travels through them, there can be a significant difference in bit-rates.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

wavemaster said:


> I totally understand THEM wanting it easy for THEM. LOL - In my case with DECA running now, I have 2 networks to support.
> 
> As I said earlier if you don't use media share heavily and don't have a bunch of DVR's DECA will be the easiest solution for D and the user.
> 
> *In our case media share takes a big hit and MRV hits limits after 6 of anything gets going*. Media share is a big deal to us, we have a large movie collection and I keep about 10,000 songs out of the collection available for music. Over DECA it takes the first box about 12-15 seconds to read in the pared down music collection. If you try to hit the music during that same time from another DVR it has about a 10-20 second pause before it will even start, and the times get worse from there. On the GB you can get the list in under 5 seconds and we don't notice any delay doing the same on other DVR's (have done 4 at the same time).


I suspect in that example...its an exception of use within the mainstream user base...in terms of frequency, number of concurrent users, and inventory.

I suspect the goal was to have MediaShare as a feature for common and convenient use, as opposed to an actual "media server" model.

While network choices will also impact performance, I suspect most marketplace users will represent 1-2 concurrent users. It would be nice to see some form of "standards published", with a traditional "up to x users" and/or "up to x photos, MP3s, etc.".

In my case as a pretty regular user, but never more than 2 concurrently...I see the list of my approximate 10K digital photos (for example) come up for scrolling in less than 5 seconds using SWiM/DECA here. Music lists are similar.


----------



## wavemaster

sigma1914 said:


> I'm impressed you get such great results doing media share on ANY set up. :lol: PQ on movies isn't great streamed on HR2x. I was lucky to get a decent PQ on avi movies and wish we could do mkv movies. What's your secret?


;-) I don't feel comfortable talking about the process I use in public. If you PM a way to call you I will share my bag of tricks .


----------



## Rich

Mike Greer said:


> Hey Rich - give that trick-play over MRV Ethernet a workout, especially with skip and slip, so that after your 4 hour simple SWM install you'll be able to compare. I'd be willing to pay for the DECA setup if it really does make a difference with Skip/Slip and the long pause before a recording starts to play (over MRV).
> 
> It will be interesting to see if they give up quickly or if they'll stick to your install.


The trick-play is one of the main reasons that I'm going forward with the install. I have the wiring down pat in my mind and it would take me about hour or less to have the SWiM switches in place since the cabling is already in place. But the problem is gonna be centered around the fact that I need two SWiM-16s to accomplish the install. If they don't have the two SWiM-16s on the truck, they will be turned away.

I have no problem using the Skip, except for my wife's dislike of it, but the Slip is too long and the FF goes to the point where I stop it and then auto-corrects backwards for over a minute. That's what I don't like about the Ethernet MRV.

Hopefully the DECA install fixes these problems and if it doesn't, I'll probably revert back to the Ethernet MRV.

If I do get it installed, I will give it the workout you suggest and get back to you. If nothing changes and the DECA is the same as the Ethernet, I will get back to everybody.

Rich


----------



## David MacLeod

wavemaster said:


> ;-) I don't feel comfortable talking about the process I use in public. If you PM a way to call you I will share my bag of tricks .


that about sums it up.....


----------



## wavemaster

David MacLeod said:


> that about sums it up.....


Not sure what you mean by that?.

Do you realize that if you rip a song from your CD that you purchase in the store to your MP3 Player, the industry considers you a thief?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> Not sure what you mean by that?.
> 
> Do you realize that if you rip a song from your CD that you purchase in the store to your MP3 Player, the industry considers you a thief?
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html


There is SOOO much wrong with that statement its not even funny.

First off, the post article is from 2007. Second off, one of the most popular proudcts used for ripping CDs is iTunes, which is the very same product that all the major record labels support, use, and allowed all DRM to be pulled out of in 2009. The courts have validated many times, that individual copying for personal use is authorized and allowed.

The key is CDs are not encrypted/digitally protected. DVDs/Blu-Rays are.

There are 2 activities that are illegal:
1) The distribution to others of audio/video content that you purchased (online MP3 sharing for example)
2) The breaking of a DRM or other encryption on an audio/video product (Blu-Ray copying for example)

Please don't spread FUD.


----------



## wavemaster

BudShark said:


> There is SOOO much wrong with that statement its not even funny.
> 
> First off, the post article is from 2007. Second off, one of the most popular proudcts used for ripping CDs is iTunes, which is the very same product that all the major record labels support, use, and allowed all DRM to be pulled out of in 2009. The courts have validated many times, that individual copying for personal use is authorized and allowed.
> 
> The key is CDs are not encrypted/digitally protected. DVDs/Blu-Rays are.
> 
> There are 2 activities that are illegal:
> 1) The distribution to others of audio/video content that you purchased (online MP3 sharing for example)
> 2) The breaking of a DRM or other encryption on an audio/video product (Blu-Ray copying for example)
> 
> Please don't spread FUD.


I will let the statement stand. And that is the RIAA's position. Many many times they have said "it is a nice way to say only steals once, and steals just one copy." And as you pointed out music isn't really the issue, it was just an example.

But regardless, my reply to the question although cautious, to me it is common sense based on the RIAA and MPAA and their willingness to sue their customers. So call it FUD if you want, my advice to anyone that is archiving all their various media, keep your process and collection to yourself.

And we should probably drag this back to topic.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> I will let the statement stand. And that is the RIAA's position. Many many times they have said "it is a nice way to say only steals once, and steals just one copy." And as you pointed out music isn't really the issue, it was just an example.
> 
> But regardless, my reply to the question although cautious, to me it is common sense based on the RIAA and MPAA and their willingness to sue their customers. So call it FUD if you want, my advice to anyone that is archiving all their various media, keep your process and collection to yourself.
> 
> And we should probably drag this back to topic.


Yes we should... but to close out the off topic piece, since you stated it is the "RIAAs position":

http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law



> Copying CDs
> 
> It's okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
> 
> It's also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R's, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) - but, again, not for commercial purposes.
> 
> Beyond that, there's no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won't usually raise concerns so long as:
> 
> The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
> 
> The copy is just for your personal use. It's not a personal use - in fact, it's illegal - to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
> 
> The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
> Remember, it's never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.


You will NOT be sued for ripping a CD for personal use, and the RIAA would have to explain why their own website says its OK if they did try to sue you. I think that sums up their position.

Back to topic. I think DECA is the best thing since sliced bread and Ethernet has marginal application in today's world was what *you* were about to say. :lol:


----------



## Mike Greer

rich584 said:


> The trick-play is one of the main reasons that I'm going forward with the install. I have the wiring down pat in my mind and it would take me about hour or less to have the SWiM switches in place since the cabling is already in place. But the problem is gonna be centered around the fact that I need two SWiM-16s to accomplish the install. If they don't have the two SWiM-16s on the truck, they will be turned away.
> 
> I have no problem using the Skip, except for my wife's dislike of it, but the Slip is too long and the FF goes to the point where I stop it and then auto-corrects backwards for over a minute. That's what I don't like about the Ethernet MRV.
> 
> Hopefully the DECA install fixes these problems and if it doesn't, I'll probably revert back to the Ethernet MRV.
> 
> If I do get it installed, I will give it the workout you suggest and get back to you. If nothing changes and the DECA is the same as the Ethernet, I will get back to everybody.
> 
> Rich


Thanks Rich - I have the same problem with FF and Slip - I also don't like the long pause when I start a recording from another DVR. That last 'update' to the HR22s made it even worse. If makes my HR24 feel like when I had to use the HR22s. When I hit play nothing happens so I'm trained to hit again!

Good luck on the install!


----------



## Doug Brott

There is a bit of a delay when the program starts remotely .. This may be unavoidable as the buffer fills, but it is rather brief .. only a few seconds or so.


----------



## opfreak

veryoldschool said:


> I will repeat, you haven't yet been able to know how well "your DECA" is preforming. You may have green lights, but could be running @ only 66% of the cloud rate. Without a 24 in the loop, you simply don't know, nor do I what yours is.


What 66% rate? I though DECA is perfect

>>> ethernet, the godsend end all be all for installs. Solves all problems.

But now it can run at only 66%? hmm takes those 16 nodes down to 10.

P.S.

If the actual throughput of a DECA cloud is 250mpbs, Then it should handle his 12 streams.

Claiming it can support 16 nodes, when 250/16 = 15.625mpbs. means dtv is lieing. Because their super solution would be saturated. A situation which btw, a simple ethernet switch would barely even notice.


----------



## veryoldschool

opfreak said:


> What 66% rate? I though DECA is perfect
> 
> >>> ethernet, the godsend end all be all for installs. Solves all problems.
> 
> But now it can run at only 66%? hmm takes those 16 nodes down to 10.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> If the actual throughput of a DECA cloud is 250mpbs, Then it should handle his 12 streams.
> 
> *Claiming it can support 16 nodes, when 250/16 = 15.625mpbs. means dtv is lieing*. Because their super solution would be saturated. A situation which btw, a simple ethernet switch would barely even notice.


Glad I get to throw the *BS flag* here.
Ever monitored what the MPEG-4 HD bit rate is?
Average is closer to 9-10 Mb/s with higher peaks, but with 16 streams, "average" would be more dominate.
I have yet to find anyplace that DirecTV has come up short with their DECA layout. 
Why do idiots think DirecTV's engineers are?
Could ethernet stream more than DECA? sure.
How many homes could possibly stream more than DECA can handle? "few".


----------



## wavemaster

opfreak said:


> What 66% rate? I though DECA is perfect
> 
> >>> ethernet, the godsend end all be all for installs. Solves all problems.
> 
> But now it can run at only 66%? hmm takes those 16 nodes down to 10.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> If the actual throughput of a DECA cloud is 250mpbs, Then it should handle his 12 streams.
> 
> Claiming it can support 16 nodes, when 250/16 = 15.625mpbs. means dtv is lieing. Because their super solution would be saturated. A situation which btw, a simple ethernet switch would barely even notice.


We can't get past 12 without breakup on DECA. My guess at this point is the new wiring that was recently installed is bad, or it starts to get shaky based on the HR's performance. On Ethernet we had everything going.


----------



## Mike Greer

Doug Brott said:


> There is a bit of a delay when the program starts remotely .. This may be unavoidable as the buffer fills, but it is rather brief .. only a few seconds or so.


If I play something that is recorded on my HR24 sitting at an HR22 the delay to start is a few seconds. This few second delay acts like the usual trouble with the HR22 in that I'm not sure if it is just not responding and I need to push it again or if it is just a delay. If I play something recorded on one of my HR22s sitting at my HR24 the delay is about twice as long making the otherwise quick HR24 feel like the HR22!

Slip and FF are both mostly useless either way. Sometimes it jumps back what I'll swear is a full minute in the recording other times it jumps back only a few seconds. It's hard to know where you are in the recording after using trick-plays because it isn't consistent.

If these things aren't improved with DECA then I won't bother with it and I'll stick with my Ethernet. Right now I have only 1 HR22 and the HR24 connected together - no Internet and not connected to any other devices.

Maybe it's better using 2 HR24s?


----------



## opfreak

veryoldschool said:


> Glad I get to throw the *BS flag* here.
> Ever monitored what the MPEG-4 HD bit rate is?
> Average is closer to 9-10 Mb/s with higher peaks, but with 16 streams, "average" would be more dominate.
> I have yet to find anyplace that DirecTV has come up short with their DECA layout.
> Why do idiots think DirecTV's engineers are?
> Could ethernet stream more than DECA? sure.
> How many homes could possibly stream more than DECA can handle? "few".


The disscusion is not what a 'few' homes could do. The topic is about DECA being better.

Up until this point, the only mbs rate mentioned was the 20mbps peaks. Now the standard is lowered to 10?

If its lower, then ethernet should have even less of a problem.

DTV engineers, and DTV marketers, which appear to be working here in full force are two different groups. Heck you sound like a marketing person: with your 10mbs line.

Futhermore, a user here has proven that with 12 streams he is able to saturate and overload deca.

Using your numbers: 12x10mbs = 120mbs. 
And the poster that claimed his network could be working at 66%.
250mps (which is what supportes claim DECA can handle) x .66 = 165.

165mbs > 120mbs. And yet he has break ups?

Would seam to me, that given actual evidence of heavy use DECA is running slower then 120mbs.

And yet the evangelist's, claim that DECA is better then ethernet.


----------



## veryoldschool

opfreak said:


> The disscusion is not what a 'few' homes could do. The topic is about DECA being better.
> 
> Up until this point, the only mbs rate mentioned was the 20mbps peaks. Now the standard is lowered to 10?
> 
> If its lower, then ethernet should have even less of a problem.
> 
> DTV engineers, and DTV marketers, which appear to be working here in full force are two different groups. Heck you sound like a marketing person: with your 10mbs line.
> 
> Futhermore, a user here has proven that with 12 streams he is able to saturate and overload deca.
> 
> Using your numbers: 12x10mbs = 120mbs.
> And the poster that claimed his network could be working at 66%.
> 250mps (which is what supportes claim DECA can handle) x .66 = 165.
> 
> 165mbs > 120mbs. And yet he has break ups?
> 
> Would seam to me, that given actual evidence of heavy use DECA is running slower then 120mbs.
> 
> And yet the evangelist's, claim that DECA is better then ethernet.


Guess there are some slightly different view points here.
I've posted what I know/seen. While these may not be the complete story, they are real.
The 66% was [by me] posted as "could be", as in suggested but not known. Even the poster I was referring to who does have problems, hasn't yet ruled out his network isn't working at optimum levels.

It's a bit hard to play "math games" with someone that has yet to know what the real world numbers are.
For your own "FYI", try using DirecTV2PC and monitor the HD playback bit rates. This will give you some idea of what recording are. I've seen peaks over 20 Mb/s, but I've seen lows of 2 Mb/s too. Averages seem closer to 9-10 Mb/s, but even this depends on the actually content of the recording.
Am I an "evangelist"? no.
Am I trying to post real information here? yes.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

opfreak said:


> The discussion is not what a 'few' homes could do. The topic is about DECA being better.
> 
> And yet the evangelist's, claim that DECA is better then Ethernet.


Actually - the discussion has been all over the map.

There is also not a consensus of agreement on *your* data/views, particularly in the context of the DirecTV-specific implementation of this video/audio delivery mechanism.

Fact is...how DirecTV chooses to implement Whole Home DVR service within the hardware, firmware, *and* network/SWiM/DECA infrastructure all plays a role that determines what "best" really is.

In addition, the target goal of the WHDS is in play, as having 4,5,6,7 or more concurrent WHDS users likely is not a mainstream expectation nor representation. This is a classic case of "is this best designed for the exception or the norm".

There is no doubt GB Ethernet is a powerful and solid delivery channel for many data paradigms. It also comes with limitations and anomalies for certain applications. SWiM/DECA is likewise.

What is clear is that supporting something outside of a repeatable, reliable, and intended mainstream capability is likely outside the box of both most users and may also bring along some "issues" in terms of pros/cons.

There is more to the choices than just bits/bytes. For various reasons, anything outside of SWiM/DECA is not supported.

Those comfortable with that should proceed with what they think is best. Those with heartburn or concerns should use what is supported SWiM/DECA.


----------



## BudShark

opfreak said:


> The disscusion is not what a 'few' homes could do. The topic is about DECA being better.
> 
> Up until this point, the only mbs rate mentioned was the 20mbps peaks. Now the standard is lowered to 10?
> 
> If its lower, then ethernet should have even less of a problem.
> 
> DTV engineers, and DTV marketers, which appear to be working here in full force are two different groups. Heck you sound like a marketing person: with your 10mbs line.
> 
> Futhermore, a user here has proven that with 12 streams he is able to saturate and overload deca.
> 
> Using your numbers: 12x10mbs = 120mbs.
> And the poster that claimed his network could be working at 66%.
> 250mps (which is what supportes claim DECA can handle) x .66 = 165.
> 
> 165mbs > 120mbs. And yet he has break ups?
> 
> Would seam to me, that given actual evidence of heavy use DECA is running slower then 120mbs.
> 
> And yet the evangelist's, claim that DECA is better then ethernet.


This is the age old tired argument.

Networks != Bandwidth

If the answer to every problem was bandwidth, we'd strip packet headers down to nothing, eliminate the whole Sync/Ack mechanism, go with UDP, and just throw bandwidth at everything.

There is way more at play than purely bandwidth. Which is why VOS requested IF the poster could, give us some data. Unfortunately wave doesn't have a 24 and therefore the quality report is not available.

The evangelists (read BUDSHARK) claim is that for the majority of DirecTV Whole Home installations, DECA is the right answer. It requires no separate cabling, its supported, and has PROVEN many many times now to be more than sufficient in bandwidth and quality. We have seen enough posters (who by the way, have no affiliation or need to "market" for DirecTV) post that DECA resulted in smoother/better MRV and trickplay performance over their Ethernet network. So at a minimum we can state "DECA provides an easier installation method with equal results to an Ethernet based network for most DirecTV Whole Home installations."

You can't argue that, nor can Wavemaster or anyone else. What gets me in a bind is the need to come into threads and confuse what is right for 99%+ of people with these theoretical Ethernet is better and DECA is only favored by DirecTV and its apologists. Its unnecessary and its confusing to the majority.

If you think that makes me a DirecTV shill, or means I'm bashing Ethernet, or trying to "yell" you down, or any of the other comments that have been made, than I'm the first one to say I guess thats what I am. I think my statements have been clear. There are no "evangelists" trying to sell DECA as the end all be all networking solution for anything. But it is the right solution for 99+% of DirecTV installations.


----------



## bobcamp1

opfreak said:


> And yet the evangelist's, claim that DECA is better then ethernet.


People here are trying to compare a ~200 Mbps standard (MoCA) with a high-end 1 GB Ethernet network with a managed switch. The winner here in general is Ethernet. For typical MRV use, believe it or not, it's a tie. This high-end setup is probably in 1% of homes. (This high-end setup is not in any house that I know of, and I have some geeky friends.)

MRV is not about throughput. It's about packet prioritization. The best way to address prioritization is what MoCA and 802.1p do: assign prioritization to packets, and have the equipment available that can actually do something with that information. The second best way is to get a really big pipe so prioritization is rarely an issue.

Most houses have a 100 Mbps switch in their router that does NOT support 802.1p (even if it did, it is doubtful that the D* receivers support 802.1p). Most houses further use 802.11g or 802.11n to connect to the switch. Comparing that to wired 200 Mbps MoCA, which supports prioritization, is also a no-brainer. MoCA wins.

The best reason to install DECA over 100 Mbps Ethernet isn't the video stream. It's that trick play works better. If you can live with the trick play performance using 100 Mbps Ethernet, go for it. I could live with it if it were free. But like most people, I don't have my whole house wired for Ethernet. It is already wired for coax (and naturally for D*) though, which makes MoCA/DECA perfect.

To call me a D* fanboy is a stretch, as many people here would agree. I also didn't believe in MoCA until I saw how well it worked. It works very well. If you have to justify to us all the time and money you spent building your fancy network, we'll continue to tell you that most people will like MoCA/DECA. I'm jealous of your network, but the house didn't come with it and I cannot afford it. For me, MoCA/DECA is a good balance between price and performance.

(edit: BudShark is a faster typist than I am, and probably didn't get interrupted like I did.)


----------



## hdtvfan0001

bobcamp1 said:


> MRV is not about throughput. *It's about packet prioritization. *The best way to address prioritization is what MoCA and 802.1p do: assign prioritization to packets, and have the equipment available that can actually do something with that information. The second best way is to get a really big pipe so prioritization is rarely an issue.


This key point seems to get repeatedly missed, skipped, ignored, and/or avoided by a select few within this discussion.

Thanks for articulating it quite well.


----------



## Rich

hdtvfan0001 said:


> This key point seems to get repeatedly missed, skipped, ignored, and/or avoided by a select few within this discussion.
> 
> Thanks for articulating it quite well.


I thought I was gonna find out today which was better, but the installer has 30 minutes left until the window that I was given slams shut. He's got until noon EDT to show up or I'll stick with the Ethernet. Works fine and if I wasn't getting the installation for nothing I wouldn't have bothered. Now I'm getting screwed around time-wise and I'm tired and cranky.

Rich


----------



## David MacLeod

tell you what, let an installer come in and mess with your switch/router/modem to get it working and then tell us which is better for the TYPICAL DIRECTV CUSTOMER.


----------



## opfreak

David MacLeod said:


> tell you what, let an installer come in and mess with your switch/router/modem to get it working and then tell us which is better for the TYPICAL DIRECTV CUSTOMER.


All those techs that seem to know what they are doing :nono2:


----------



## opfreak

hdtvfan0001 said:


> This key point seems to get repeatedly missed, skipped, ignored, and/or avoided by a select few within this discussion.
> 
> Thanks for articulating it quite well.


geuss what QoS exsits for ethernet as well.


----------



## opfreak

BudShark said:


> This is the age old tired argument.
> 
> Networks != Bandwidth
> 
> If the answer to every problem was bandwidth, we'd strip packet headers down to nothing, eliminate the whole Sync/Ack mechanism, go with UDP, and just throw bandwidth at everything.
> 
> There is way more at play than purely bandwidth. Which is why VOS requested IF the poster could, give us some data. Unfortunately wave doesn't have a 24 and therefore the quality report is not available.
> 
> The evangelists (read BUDSHARK) claim is that for the majority of DirecTV Whole Home installations, DECA is the right answer. It requires no separate cabling, its supported, and has PROVEN many many times now to be more than sufficient in bandwidth and quality. We have seen enough posters (who by the way, have no affiliation or need to "market" for DirecTV) post that DECA resulted in smoother/better MRV and trickplay performance over their Ethernet network. So at a minimum we can state "DECA provides an easier installation method with equal results to an Ethernet based network for most DirecTV Whole Home installations."
> 
> You can't argue that, nor can Wavemaster or anyone else. What gets me in a bind is the need to come into threads and confuse what is right for 99%+ of people with these theoretical Ethernet is better and DECA is only favored by DirecTV and its apologists. Its unnecessary and its confusing to the majority.
> 
> If you think that makes me a DirecTV shill, or means I'm bashing Ethernet, or trying to "yell" you down, or any of the other comments that have been made, than I'm the first one to say I guess thats what I am. I think my statements have been clear. There are no "evangelists" trying to sell DECA as the end all be all networking solution for anything. But it is the right solution for 99+% of DirecTV installations.


your right, networks do not equal bandwidth. and its nearly impossible to really test DTV Moca.

But there are other Moca setups out there that have been tested

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanw...thernet-adapter-kit-reviewed?showall=&start=2

amazingly, even in a very clean setup it cannot get over ~140mps. And with 10 nodes bandwidth allocation goes all over the place.

As for QoS

"The more important discovery, however, was that there didn't appear to be any QoS kicking in to dial back the bandwidth on the data stream to give more to the video stream."


----------



## veryoldschool

opfreak said:


> your right, networks do not equal bandwidth. and its nearly impossible to really test DTV Moca


Actually, if you have the hardware it is possible. The upper limit seems to be ~250 Mb/s and the system test error seems to be at ~215 Mb/s.
I think the key here is to actually have the hardware, instead of searching around the net for others doing things "kind of like" this and then making the wrong assumption that it pertains to how this does actually perform.


----------



## opfreak

veryoldschool said:


> Actually, if you have the hardware it is possible. The upper limit seems to be ~250 Mb/s and the system test error seems to be at ~215 Mb/s.
> I think the key here is to actually have the hardware, instead of searching around the net for others doing things "kind of like" this and then making the wrong assumption that it pertains to how this does actually perform.


because using a dtv box, to test dtv equipment = is an indepdant test.

Kind of like?

That test was done on Moca boxes. Or is DTV now not useing MOCA?

You supporters want everyone to belive you on faith. When presented with actual evidence, its ethier not excatly the same, or the user is an outlier.

Just keep preaching. Thats all you have.


----------



## veryoldschool

opfreak said:


> because using a dtv box, to test dtv equipment = is an indepdant test.
> 
> Kind of like?
> 
> That test was done on Moca boxes. Or is DTV now not useing MOCA?
> 
> You supporters want everyone to belive you on faith. When presented with actual evidence, its ethier not excatly the same, or the user is an outlier.
> 
> Just keep preaching. Thats all you have.


Of late, you haven't shown anything but conjecture about DECA, or for that matter DirecTV.
A Bit-rate test is a bit-rate test. It isn't padded/biased, but merely a test.
Because you haven't run it, you have to rely on someone else to run a "like" test, but while they're both based on MoCA, they aren't the same.
I'm not preaching, but merely posting results/facts.
You have yet to post much more than conjecture and the closer you get to DirecTV info, the more you're showing that you're not correct.
Anybody that wants to post/discuss their "results", I'll be glad to, but simply posting inaccurate statements, is BS.


----------



## opfreak

veryoldschool said:


> Of late, you haven't shown anything but conjecture about DECA, or for that matter DirecTV.
> A Bit-rate test is a bit-rate test. It isn't padded/biased, but merely a test.
> Because you haven't run it, you have to rely on someone else to run a "like" test, but while they're both based on MoCA, they aren't the same.
> I'm not preaching, but merely posting results/facts.
> You have yet to post much more than conjecture and the closer you get to DirecTV info, the more you're showing that you're not correct.
> Anybody that wants to post/discuss their "results", I'll be glad to, but simply posting inaccurate statements, is BS.


A user here with 12 streams posted his results. DECA failed that test

Those results line up very nicely with the a seperate test of Moca technology.
which showed that with 10 'streams' the device wasn't really keeping up.

Are you saying that DTV now has its own brand of MoCa it developed? Ha, they just repackaged what was already out there.

The only BS is coming from people that keep claiming that DECA is better then ethernet, with nothing but anecdotal evidence.


----------



## veryoldschool

opfreak said:


> A user here with 12 streams posted his results. DECA failed that test
> 
> Those results line up very nicely with the a seperate test of Moca technology.
> which showed that with 10 'streams' the device wasn't really keeping up.
> 
> Are you saying that DTV now has its own brand of MoCa it developed? Ha, they just repackaged what was already out there.
> 
> The only BS is coming from people that keep claiming that DECA is better then ethernet, with nothing but anecdotal evidence.



"That user" only has the ability to stream eight streams between DirecTV hardware.
DirecTV is part of the MoCA and there are several versions of MoCA & frequencies used, so yes it is "their own brand", since nobody else is using it.
Post ANYTHING factual and we can discuss the validity and or pros/cons, or errors in testing.
Since last night, all you've shown me is you don't know the DirecTV system.


----------



## 66stang351

opfreak said:


> A user here with 12 streams posted his results. DECA failed that test
> 
> Those results line up very nicely with the a seperate test of Moca technology.
> which showed that with 10 'streams' the device wasn't really keeping up.
> 
> Are you saying that DTV now has its own brand of MoCa it developed? Ha, they just repackaged what was already out there.
> 
> The only BS is coming from people that keep claiming that DECA is better then ethernet, with nothing but anecdotal evidence.


Anybody can make an argument for either DECA or ethernet. It all depends on what you expect out of the system. If, for instance, you are part of the 90%+ of DIRECTV subscribers that have 2 or less HDDVRs what would be better, a network that requires running all new cabling to your DVRs and to any additional receivers you have that has the bandwidth to handle 10 times the data you will need to push or one that uses existing cabling...and it probably cheaper to install...and 'only' has the bandwidth to handle 5 times the data you need to push?

Better is a very subjective term. The only thing that I have seen posted over and over here that supports ethernet being 'better' is higher bandwdth. However, being the fanboy apologist shill that I am, I can see that there are other factors that can easily make DECA a better solution for the great majority of DIRECTV subscribers. There are always going to be some situations where DECA just can't handle the load and a well designed GB ethernet LAN will be required.


----------



## veryoldschool

66stang351 said:


> Anybody can make an argument for either DECA or ethernet. It all depends on what you expect out of the system. If, for instance, you are part of the 90%+ of DIRECTV subscribers that have 2 or less HDDVRs what would be better, a network that requires running all new cabling to your DVRs and to any additional receivers you have that has the bandwidth to handle 10 times the data you will need to push or one that uses existing cabling...and it probably cheaper to install...and 'only' has the bandwidth to handle 5 times the data you need to push?
> 
> Better is a very subjective term. The only thing that I have seen posted over and over here that supports ethernet being 'better' is higher bandwdth. However, being the fanboy apologist shill that I am, I can see that there are other factors that can easily make DECA a better solution for the great majority of DIRECTV subscribers. There are always going to be some situations where DECA just can't handle the load and a well designed GB ethernet LAN will be required.


What is  is:
NOBODY is saying DECA is the only network to have in your home.
Ethernet is needed, and DECA works quite well for what it is intended to do, which is connect the DirecTV receivers for MRV and to connect the receivers to your ethernet network.
If you don't want to go DECA and do it all with ethernet, fine. That works too. Some find DECA works better for MRV.


----------



## BudShark

opfreak said:


> A user here with 12 streams posted his results. DECA failed that test
> 
> Those results line up very nicely with the a seperate test of Moca technology.
> which showed that with 10 'streams' the device wasn't really keeping up.
> 
> Are you saying that DTV now has its own brand of MoCa it developed? Ha, they just repackaged what was already out there.
> 
> The only BS is coming from people that keep claiming that DECA is better then ethernet, with nothing but anecdotal evidence.


Hmmm... really? I better check my bank account because I must be going broke paying all those people who have had DirecTV come out and install DECA and had great results, many of them saying "Trickplay now works better."

DECA is BETTER for DirecTV MRV than Ethernet. I am willing to state that as fact, because, for 99+% of installations, it is a fact. I'm not going to spend my time worrying about the .01% that have >4 DVRs and are streaming to all of them concurrently - they can figure out the best infrastructure for themselves (just ask Wave for advice if you need it).

Out of curousity opfreak. Have you tested DECA? Do you have DirecTV Whole Home service? Wavemaster has my respect for trying, although I do think he's an extreme case. On the other hand it seems a bit harsh for you to be criticizing something you have zero experience with.


----------



## Mike Greer

rich584 said:


> I thought I was gonna find out today which was better, but the installer has 30 minutes left until the window that I was given slams shut. He's got until noon EDT to show up or I'll stick with the Ethernet. Works fine and if I wasn't getting the installation for nothing I wouldn't have bothered. Now I'm getting screwed around time-wise and I'm tired and cranky.
> 
> Rich


Gotta love sitting around waiting! Did they show?

Nothing makes a guy more tired and cranky that waiting around for an install.


----------



## Mike Greer

BudShark said:


> Hmmm... really? I better check my bank account because I must be going broke paying all those people who have had DirecTV come out and install DECA and had great results, many of them saying "Trickplay now works better."


Many of them? In your experience is it true that trick play and the pause when you start a remote recording is 'better'? If so how much better?

I see people post that MRV is so good that they can't tell if the recording is local or MRV. If DECA makes this true I'll order it now. It is easy to see the difference on my setup. Once the recording is playing I'm good unless I want to use any trick-play.

For those of you that have had it both ways is the pause and trick-play trouble gone with DECA?


----------



## sigma1914

Mike Greer said:


> Many of them? In your experience is it true that trick play and the pause when you start a remote recording is 'better'? If so how much better?
> 
> I see people post that MRV is so good that they can't tell if the recording is local or MRV. If DECA makes this true I'll order it now. It is easy to see the difference on my setup. Once the recording is playing I'm good unless I want to use any trick-play.
> 
> For those of you that have had it both ways is the pause and trick-play trouble gone with DECA?


Mike, 
I know you're unhappiness with your HRs. Luckily, you've got yourself a HR24. There's excellent trickplay on DECA with 2 24s. You might consider going all 24s on DECA.


----------



## BudShark

Mike Greer said:


> Many of them? In your experience is it true that trick play and the pause when you start a remote recording is 'better'? If so how much better?
> 
> I see people post that MRV is so good that they can't tell if the recording is local or MRV. If DECA makes this true I'll order it now. It is easy to see the difference on my setup. Once the recording is playing I'm good unless I want to use any trick-play.
> 
> For those of you that have had it both ways is the pause and trick-play trouble gone with DECA?


I can tell you in my experience an HR24 with an H24 client trickplay over DECA is nearly imperceptible.

When you start mixing in older HRs, I think the difference becomes somewhat exponential. What I mean by that is trickplay is slower on an HR20-100 locally than an HR24 locally. Put it on DECA and use MRV/Trickplay, and the HR24 is nearly the same, the HR20-100 becomes noticeable. Put it on 100MB ethernet, the HR24 is noticeable, but not bad at all, the HR20-100 you have to adjust your keypress times because of the delay.

So several factors in play. But, in my opinion and experience, the only "near local" experience on MRV I've found was Hx24 on DECA. Everything else was noticeably different.


----------



## Mike Greer

Thanks guys, that's not good news.... So unless you have HR24/H24s you just have to deal with inconsitent trick-play?

So for me to make it smooth it will cost me another $550? Maybe I don't need MRV!

Thanks again.


----------



## veryoldschool

Mike Greer said:


> Thanks guys, that's not good news.... So unless you have HR24/H24s you just have to deal with inconsitent trick-play?
> 
> So for me to make it smooth it will cost me another $550? Maybe I don't need MRV!
> 
> Thanks again.


I mostly use the HR24 as the client and a HR20 as the server.
Startup is the only place I notice I'm not playing locally.


----------



## BudShark

veryoldschool said:


> I mostly use the HR24 as the client and a HR20 as the server.
> Startup is the only place I notice I'm not playing locally.


I guess that does require clarification.

When I discuss the results above, in all cases I am purely talking about the client. I should've been clear about that.


----------



## Doug Brott

opfreak said:


> A user here with 12 streams posted his results. DECA failed that test


wavemaster is the THE ONLY person here that I have seen say that DECA is worse than Ethernet for MRV. The only one .. let that sink in for a second ..

Everyone else has said that DECA is "as good as or better" than Ethernet.

It is quite possible that there is something "broken" in the system (bad cabling/connecter, etc.) that hasn't yet been identified. In other words, I'm not sure that this particular case is actually to the point where we can officially declare that DECA is worse .. at best, it MAY be worse in this one instance.

Seems silly to make such arguments without real data. So far .. FOR MRV .. DECA has proven to be the best choice because it is easy to install, works as good as or better than Ethernet and is generally cheaper to install when work has to be done anyway (adding a jack or switch for example).

DECA is win-win except maybe in situations where a well constructed Ethernet network is already in place. In that case it is likely break even if you don't consider cost.

For anyone to suggest that Ethernet is better than DECA FOR MRV .. as a general rule .. is a bit naive I think.


----------



## -Draino-

Doug Brott said:


> ......
> 
> DECA is win-win except maybe in situations where a well constructed Ethernet network is already in place. In that case it is likely break even if you don't consider cost.
> 
> For anyone to suggest that Ethernet is better than DECA FOR MRV .. as a general rule .. is a bit naive I think.


Well said. Key words are *better for MRV. *I think we all know there is faster but what DirecTV has done is to create a solution for the masses not the few.


----------



## chrpai

My HR24-500 just arrived today replacing my old HD receiver and complimenting my older HR20-100.

Switch from Total Choice + HD/DVR : +$1.00
Add Whole Home DVR : +$3.00
Free HD Access for 24mos : -$10.00
Get rid of HD Access + : -$5.00
Get rid of old receiver I don't need : $-5.00
HD-DVR upgrade : $0.00
Whole Dvr Installaton using ether : $0.00

Out of pocket: $0
Savings over 24 months : $385 apx

The DVR over ethernet is working awesome and I love it! I'm so glad I leveraged my existing investment to save $150 on installation costs.

Most importantly DirecTV finally gave me the features and value that I needed to commit to another 2 years and keep ignoring U-Verse.


----------



## veryoldschool

thekochs said:


> I was a GiGe LAN person and made the change just to future-proof against what DirecTV may support in features that could be DECA specific...who knows...but the price was worth the investment. Anyway, was a big LAN believer....the DECA runs much better as posted above. I'm glad I made the change.


This is out of another thread, but thought it might be good to post here.


----------



## dhkinil

I have a network in my house and dsl. I am limited to 5 mbs via dsl which is fine for what i need from the internet. I do not feel like paying D* $150 to get a deca system, I already have two dvr's, an HR 20 and an HR 22. More than enough storage, more than enough tuners and I already have a SWM. I now have 3 tv's and two H 23's to go with the dvr's so going to MRV and getting rid of an HR 23 saves $2 per month, or a sushi dinner every 2.5 years. The CSR at D* said if I do not get a deca system but activate MRV with my current set up it will slow my internet connection down to that of dial up and that I can't afford, for one thing all the phones I actually use are VOIP. The DSL line is an incoming phone that is only here so I have an identifiable site for 911 and the burglar alarm. 

So, is this correct, no deca, my internet drops to dial up speed? I am not too concerned about trick play speed, although I am concerned because during the pre deca beta period some recordings we not playable except on the machine where they were recorded. 

Thanks for any return comments.


----------



## veryoldschool

dhkinil said:


> I have a network in my house and dsl. I am limited to 5 mbs via dsl which is fine for what i need from the internet. I do not feel like paying D* $150 to get a deca system, I already have two dvr's, an HR 20 and an HR 22. More than enough storage, more than enough tuners and I already have a SWM. I now have 3 tv's and two H 23's to go with the dvr's so going to MRV and getting rid of an HR 23 saves $2 per month, or a sushi dinner every 2.5 years. The CSR at D* said if I do not get a deca system but activate MRV with my current set up it will slow my internet connection down to that of dial up and that I can't afford, for one thing all the phones I actually use are VOIP. The DSL line is an incoming phone that is only here so I have an identifiable site for 911 and the burglar alarm.
> 
> So, is this correct, no deca, my internet drops to dial up speed? I am not too concerned about trick play speed, although I am concerned because during the pre deca beta period some recordings we not playable except on the machine where they were recorded.
> 
> Thanks for any return comments.


My DSL [just retested] is exactly the same with DECA as it was before DECA, which makes sense since my PC isn't going through DECA.


----------



## dhkinil

veryoldschool said:


> My DSL [just retested] is exactly the same with DECA as it was before DECA, which makes sense since my PC isn't going through DECA.


yes, and if I do not get a DECA will my dsl slow to a crawl?


----------



## veryoldschool

dhkinil said:


> yes, and if I do not get a DECA will my dsl slow to a crawl?


"If" you have a problem, then it would be in your router. Adding a switch should resolve this if you can't within the settings of your router.


----------



## dennisj00

NO WAY the DECA installation should affect your DSL speed -- not your router, dsl modem, nothing. The CSR was spreading fud.


----------



## dhkinil

veryoldschool said:


> "If" you have a problem, then it would be in your router. Adding a switch should resolve this if you can't within the settings of your router.


so, if I route everything for the tv through a switch and keep my two computers, printer and VOIP operating off of a router ahead of the switch I should be okay, or another words, dsl modem--->voip box--->router---2 computers, printer and switch--->D* boxes (two dvrs and one h23) I should be good?

and again, should I expect that for some obscure reason some of my recordings may be available on only one box?

thanks, and FWIW, I am old enough to be very old school, just don't know enough!


----------



## veryoldschool

dhkinil said:


> so, if I route everything for the tv through a switch and keep my two computers, printer and VOIP operating off of a router ahead of the switch I should be okay, or another words, dsl modem--->voip box--->router---2 computers, printer and switch--->D* boxes (two dvrs and one h23) I should be good?
> 
> and again, should I expect that for some obscure reason some of my recordings may be available on only one box?
> 
> thanks, and FWIW, I am old enough to be very old school, just don't know enough!


First, I don't think you'll have a problem, "but" if the increased traffic does cause some problem, then yes, the switch will keep the MRV traffic off of your router.


----------



## NR4P

DECA does not affect your DSL.
DECA creates a separate sub-network over your coax for set top box to set top box data. Thats the beauty of DECA. STB to STB communication is not shared over the household internet connections.

The only time you might notice an issue with your home internet is when you use VOD.

I have DSL and DECA does not affect it at all.


----------



## veryoldschool

NR4P said:


> DECA does not affect your DSL.
> DECA creates a separate sub-network over your coax for set top box to set top box data. Thats the beauty of DECA. STB to STB communication is not shared over the household internet connections.
> 
> The only time you might notice an issue with your home internet is when you use VOD.
> 
> I have DSL and DECA does not affect it at all.


"The FUD factor" was from the CSR saying "without DECA" it will slow down.


----------



## Rich

veryoldschool said:


> My DSL [just retested] is exactly the same with DECA as it was before DECA, which makes sense since my PC isn't going through DECA.


But what's the download speed on your DSL?

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool

rich584 said:


> But what's the download speed on your DSL?
> 
> Rich


Just over 5 Mb/s


----------



## dhkinil

veryoldschool said:


> Just over 5 Mb/s


mine is just over five as well, I am going to make a minor change to the network in the next few days so the last receiver is isolated from the router, then try it. Worse that can happen is I drop MRV.


----------



## espaeth

BudShark said:



> Hmmm... really? I better check my bank account because I must be going broke paying all those people who have had DirecTV come out and install DECA and had great results, many of them saying "Trickplay now works better."


You installed something for which you told people it would make their MRV Trickplay work better, and now they say it works better? There's a term for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

I will concede that installing a properly configured DECA network to replace a badly misconfigured switched Ethernet network could indeed improve performance. You have to misconfigure the hell out of Ethernet before it completely stops working, so things like duplex mismatches could indeed cause problems for MRV while appearing to work fine for standard computer use.



BudShark said:


> DECA is BETTER for DirecTV MRV than Ethernet.


This is the problem with that statement: off the HR21/22/23 it's still Ethernet out of the receiver into DECA adapter.

If you want to argue that DECA is better for DirecTV because it makes installs easier, I'll agree with you completely.


----------



## veryoldschool

espaeth said:


> This is the problem with that statement: off the HR21/22/23 it's still Ethernet out of the receiver into DECA adapter.


And with a H/HR24 it's not, so its a valid statement.


----------



## Rich

espaeth said:


> You installed something for which you told people it would make their MRV Trickplay work better, and now they say it works better? There's a term for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
> 
> I will concede that installing a properly configured DECA network to replace a badly misconfigured switched Ethernet network could indeed improve performance. You have to misconfigure the hell out of Ethernet before it completely stops working, so things like duplex mismatches could indeed cause problems for MRV while appearing to work fine for standard computer use.
> 
> This is the problem with that statement: off the HR21/22/23 it's still Ethernet out of the receiver into DECA adapter.
> 
> If you want to argue that DECA is better for DirecTV because it makes installs easier, I'll agree with you completely.


I've done both the DECA install and the Ethernet install and the Ethernet install is much simpler. Admittedly, my system was more complicated than most, but I find it hard to believe that any DECA install could be simpler than an Ethernet install.

Rich


----------



## Rich

veryoldschool said:


> Just over 5 Mb/s


Wow. My cable modem is usually around 30Mbs.

Rich


----------



## BudShark

rich584 said:


> I've done both the DECA install and the Ethernet install and the Ethernet install is much simpler. Admittedly, my system was more complicated than most, but I find it hard to believe that any DECA install could be simpler than an Ethernet install.
> 
> Rich


I think you need to clarify that greatly.

The vast majority of Ethernet installs would require Cat5/6 wiring to the end device, back to where a router was for each device. DECA would not require such wiring (beyond what was already done to support the DirecTV devices). I'm not sure how you call that "simpler".

That aside, if its an Hx24 AND you happen to have Cat5/6 cabling where you need - I'd call the installations about a wash.


----------



## BudShark

espaeth said:


> You installed something for which you told people it would make their MRV Trickplay work better, and now they say it works better? There's a term for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
> 
> I will concede that installing a properly configured DECA network to replace a badly misconfigured switched Ethernet network could indeed improve performance. You have to misconfigure the hell out of Ethernet before it completely stops working, so things like duplex mismatches could indeed cause problems for MRV while appearing to work fine for standard computer use.


For a placebo to work, there has to be either A) a non-measureable gain or B) a measureable gain not related to the placebo.

Considering that DECA trickplay performance shows an improvement in timing and keypress response for most installations AND its measureable AFTER the only change is the installation of DECA - you are wrong.



> This is the problem with that statement: off the HR21/22/23 it's still Ethernet out of the receiver into DECA adapter.
> 
> If you want to argue that DECA is better for DirecTV because it makes installs easier, I'll agree with you completely.


So? The fact that its Ethernet out of the DECA is irrelevant. The fact that its in the DECA cloud for the rest of the tranmission, is. Its not a bandwidth issue, so the fact that I have a dedicated 100MB channel from the DECA to the client that is Ethernet doesn't matter.


----------



## psuscott0483

i have gigabit network all through the house but the installer chose to hookup deca instead. when i am watching something recorded on another box (like an h23-600) the hr21-100 becomes choppy and pixelates. the directv tech told me that was normal. the internet also no longer works on the hr21, even though i said i wanted it to because of on demand and apps. he told me if i plugged ethernet into one of my h24s, the hr21 will see the internet through that. any truth to this?


----------



## veryoldschool

psuscott0483 said:


> i have gigabit network all through the house but the installer chose to hookup deca instead. when i am watching something recorded on another box (like an h23-600) the hr21-100 becomes choppy and pixelates. the directv tech told me that was normal. the internet also no longer works on the hr21, even though i said i wanted it to because of on demand and apps. *he told me if i plugged ethernet into one of my h24s*, the hr21 will see the internet through that. any truth to this?


If you do this, the H24s will no longer be part of the DECA network.
This alone shows that your installer doesn't have a clue what/how this works.
Choppy & pixelating is not "normal".


----------



## RAD

psuscott0483 said:


> i have gigabit network all through the house but the installer chose to hookup deca instead. when i am watching something recorded on another box (like an h23-600) the hr21-100 becomes choppy and pixelates. the directv tech told me that was normal. the internet also no longer works on the hr21, even though i said i wanted it to because of on demand and apps. he told me if i plugged ethernet into one of my h24s, the hr21 will see the internet through that. any truth to this?


Call DirecTV back and request a service call to correct this problem since it's not correct. DirecTV pushes DECA vs. ethernet because it's 'supportable' so make them support it.


----------



## Rich

BudShark said:


> I think you need to clarify that greatly.


OK, put more simply, it's easier to install an Ethernet system than a DECA system for most folks. I've put in many Ethernet systems even tho I'm just an electrician, but it's just circuitry and I find circuitry simple. If someone had handed me a DECA dongle I wouldn't have had a clue. Now I know how to do it, but I had to learn how to do it.



> The vast majority of Ethernet installs would require Cat5/6 wiring to the end device, back to where a router was for each device. DECA would not require such wiring (beyond what was already done to support the DirecTV devices). I'm not sure how you call that "simpler".


Hey, it's my opinion, make of it what you will. If you'll notice, nowhere in any of my posts do I use "IMHO". I just have firm opinions, not humble opinions. Most of the folks who use that acronym also have firm opinions. I suppose they use "IMHO" out of politeness, but what they truly mean is "IMO".



> That aside, if its an Hx24 AND you happen to have Cat5/6 cabling where you need - I'd call the installations about a wash.


I don't agree. If you had been working with us yesterday, I think you'd agree with me. The superb technician (how about that one, folks! Bet you never thought you'd see that in one of my posts!) that D* sent me agreed with me. And he does all the DECA installs for his company.

Rich


----------



## dhkinil

rich584 said:


> Wow. My cable modem is usually around 30Mbs.
> 
> Rich


yes, but you probably deal with a cable company like Comcrap to get that and FWIW, your speed is really limited to the speed of the things you try to see, if say the NY Times or anything else is really busy, the 30 Mbs is like 90+% wasted. When I went from Comcrap to DSL I noticed zero difference.


----------



## Rich

RAD said:


> Call DirecTV back and request a service call to correct this problem since it's not correct. DirecTV pushes DECA vs. ethernet because it's 'supportable' so make them support it.


And judging from that installers statements, our support is gonna be a bit shaky for a while. This is something that has to be learned and to be learned has to be taught. And D* is not noted for teaching it's people well.

Rich


----------



## Rich

dhkinil said:


> yes, but you probably deal with a cable company like Comcrap to get that and FWIW, your speed is really limited to the speed of the things you try to see, if say the NY Times or anything else is really busy, the 30 Mbs is like 90+% wasted. When I went from Comcrap to DSL I noticed zero difference.


I can't argue with you, never had a DSL, just cable modems. But don't confuse Comcast with Cablevision, CV does a good job of training their people and their system is pretty reliable.

Now you have me wondering if a DSL is better than a cable modem. This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder. Perhaps others can weigh in on this question?

Rich


----------



## Doug Brott

Rich .. your installation is a special case .. you probably already have wiring installed for Ethernet (since you were using it before) so it's simply plug the jack in and you're done. So, I agree 100% that in your situation Ethernet is easier to install than DECA (it was already done, after all).

But let's back up a second .. DECA is for folks that already have coax cabling installed to get DIRECTV service or for new installs where coax cabling has to be installed for DIRECTV service. There is no mention of Ethernet in this equation.

Let's assume that either (1) the customer already has either no Internet connection or (2) one computer in their home attached to the Internet via a device installed by their ISP.

(I'd say either one of those two cases will cover the vast majority of installs. It will be more rare to find the 3rd case where someone has a whole home wired for Cat5/6 Ethernet. Wireless, maybe, but wired, much more rare)

So simply from a technical perspective

At the receiver side DECA requires:

unboxing the DECA
adding the DECA inline with the Sat line
plugging the blue Ethernet cable between the DECA & the receiver

Ethernet requires:

running a cat5/6 cable from to central location
terminating each end of the cable
testing the cable
possibly adding a switch (or router)
possibly getting power to switch/router location
plugging in the Ethernet cable

Personally, I don't understand why installers are having so much trouble doing this. DECA is not rocket science (except for maybe the HR20-100 .. which personally I think should be replaced when used with MRV).

I just truly do not get how you can say that Ethernet is simpler for most people. Remember "most people" in this case are going to have DIRECTV do everything .. top to bottom .. The installers (some of them) have a hard enough time getting DECA right .. do you really think they install Ethernet the results would be better? :shrug:


----------



## Doug Brott

rich584 said:


> And judging from that installers statements, our support is gonna be a bit shaky for a while. This is something that has to be learned and to be learned has to be taught. And D* is not noted for teaching it's people well.
> 
> Rich


There is definitely a disconnect in some places .. This is unfortunate and I hope the bad locations are noted and the situation resolved. Installers that truly bothered to go through the training material should find this task to be really easy.


----------



## psuscott0483

veryoldschool said:


> If you do this, the H24s will no longer be part of the DECA network.
> This alone shows that your installer doesn't have a clue what/how this works.
> Choppy & pixelating is not "normal".


how do you get internet working with the deca environment?


----------



## veryoldschool

psuscott0483 said:


> how do you get internet working with the deca environment?


You add the internet by using another DECA to bridge/connect to your router.


----------



## RAD

RAD said:


> Call DirecTV back and request a service call to correct this problem since it's not correct. DirecTV pushes DECA vs. ethernet because it's 'supportable' so make them support it.





rich584 said:


> And judging from that installers statements, our support is gonna be a bit shaky for a while. This is something that has to be learned and to be learned has to be taught. And D* is not noted for teaching it's people well.
> 
> Rich


And the only way, IMHO, to get it fixed is to have callbacks for bad installs. IIRC installers that have a bad install get dinged dollar wise so maybe they start to lose money they'll sit down and take the training that's available to all of them on the internet. If DirecTV sees enough of these bad installs they might see if there's a problem with their training methods and fix it. Either way just putting up with it or fixing it yourself won't get DirecTV and their installers to do their job.

OK, that's a bit of a rant because DirecTV makes a big deal out of folks using their own ethernet networks is unsupportable but when they customer pays for a DECA/Connected Home install they screw it up and customers need to waste their time getting a bad install fixed.


----------



## espaeth

BudShark said:


> For a placebo to work, there has to be either A) a non-measureable gain or B) a measureable gain not related to the placebo.
> 
> Considering that DECA trickplay performance shows an improvement in timing and keypress response for most installations AND its measureable AFTER the only change is the installation of DECA - you are wrong.


I've read a few of these threads and I haven't seen any quantitative data, packet captures, or Youtube videos that people love to create to show differences (like with the HR24 vs other HR2x). All we've got is anecdotal evidence, and humans tend to be unreliable at highly accurate factual perception. I have a back way into work that I swear feels faster because I keep moving, but the clock tells me it takes at least 5-10 minutes longer than sitting in traffic on the freeway.

Propagation delay for an Ethernet frame should be on the order of tenths of a millisecond, and in a properly operating network that should never get above 1ms for hard wired Ethernet within a house. Humans can really only perceive changes down to the order of a few hundred milliseconds, so something else is at play.



BudShark said:


> So? The fact that its Ethernet out of the DECA is irrelevant. The fact that its in the DECA cloud for the rest of the tranmission, is. Its not a bandwidth issue, so the fact that I have a dedicated 100MB channel from the DECA to the client that is Ethernet doesn't matter.


Of course it's relevant. I suspect that even in the H/HR24 it's just making the NIC to DECA connection internally (via traces on the system board) which is why DECA quits working when you plug in an active Ethernet connection to the device. A packet capture should prove that out by the unit having the same MAC address whether connected via the RJ45 Ethernet jack or pumping the data out via a DECA adapter typically connected to the home network to gain Internet access.

Properly configured switched Ethernet performance vastly exceeds that of DECA. In fact, from a latency standpoint DECA is higher than switched Ethernet due to the shared media on which it operates. Each station needs to request transmit timeslots into the DECA "cloud" during control request intervals, very similar to how cable modem networks operate. (or putting more date to this concept, very similar to how Token Ring networks operated) Every switch you can pick up at retail stores today is ASIC and TCAM driven, and there should be no issue with achieving full line rate for transfers. That whole destination MAC lookup process is a fixed offset operation (the destination MAC is always in the same place in every frame), so that algorithm can be efficiently baked into a silicon so that wire-speed processing is a non-issue.

The exception to this is the widgets that carry the "home Internet router" label. In many cases, such as the Linksys WRT series, the device looks like it has a 4 port switch integrated for LAN connections. If you load a 3rd party firmware on the device to see the hardware you will find that there really isn't a switch in the device at all. The unit is basically a small computer and each interface on the back of the WRT has a separate Broadcom chip that acts like a NIC and the ports are bridged together through software running on the device. Therefore if you follow the advice that has been provided here and run everything back to the NAT/router widget you have a far greater likelihood of poor performance than if you put in a $20 Linksys switch from Worst Purchase and connected everything to that and only had a single run back to a "LAN" interface on the NAT/router widget.


----------



## espaeth

rich584 said:


> Now you have me wondering if a DSL is better than a cable modem. This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder. Perhaps others can weigh in on this question?


It really comes down to how well each of the companies handles their infrastructure. In general, DSL tends to have higher latency because providers enable interleaving to provide enhanced error correction that makes service possible on marginal lines. Interleaving is typically configurable on DSLAMs from 0ms (off) to 16 ms, and most DSL providers tend to leave it cranked up to 16ms which results in 32ms of round-trip latency (ie, what you see in ping times. 16ms outbound + 16ms on the return)

I would only switch if 1) you'd save a good amount of money or 2) your cable provider has issues.


----------



## Doug Brott

espaeth said:


> Properly configured switched Ethernet performance vastly exceeds that of DECA.


Since this seems to the crux of your argument .. let me say .. YES, for general purpose Ethernet is the right choice, DECA is not.

However, that is not the point of this thread. Your "exception" seems to speak to that and gives a good indication of why DECA is the better choice for MRV.



> The exception to this is the widgets that carry the "home Internet router" label. In many cases, such as the Linksys WRT series, the device looks like it has a 4 port switch integrated for LAN connections. If you load a 3rd party firmware on the device to see the hardware you will find that there really isn't a switch in the device at all. The unit is basically a small computer and each interface on the back of the WRT has a separate Broadcom chip that acts like a NIC and the ports are bridged together through software running on the device. Therefore if you follow the advice that has been provided here and run everything back to the NAT/router widget you have a far greater likelihood of poor performance than if you put in a $20 Linksys switch from Worst Purchase and connected everything to that and only had a single run back to a "LAN" interface on the NAT/router widget.


Guess what most DIRECTV customers with home networking installed have for routers? Yup .. cheap routers.

Funny though that you are actually suggesting that folks install a $20 switch to connect everything on the same backbone for MRV .. That would be

1 network for Home networking
1 network for MRV (the $20 switch)
1 network for satellite distribution

Most people don't even have Ethernet cable back to the set top box location. That would have to be installed first. Those that don't have it generally would have to hire someone to do it .. That is not free. Using a conservative estimate (time + materials) to get someone out, that would be $35-50 per drop (likely more than that, BTW). @ 3 drops per household (again possibly conservative), that's $105 - $150 just for Ethernet cabling and then another $20 (conservative) for the switch.

So to get a crappy (remember, cheap switch) network installation from scratch a consumer would need to spend $125 using a very conservative estimate. Likely that install would exceed $200. DIRECTV is offering a way to make you whole for $149 and by all empirical evidence works as good as or better than Ethernet for MRV.

DECA will not win the general purpose war .. That is an absolute. But for ease of use, ease of installation, cost and performance on MRV .. DECA wins (or holds it's own) in each category .. each and every one.

The ONLY time that Ethernet may win out is when the customer already has a properly configured twisted pair network installed in their home. Then the comparison would be $0 vs $149 for nominal gain. Saving the $149 is a reasonable option.

MRV doesn't need gobs and gobs of bandwidth .. It needs reliability and guaranteed packet delivery. DECA does a better job for MRV and is the right solution for 99% of DIRECTV's customers.


----------



## BudShark

espaeth said:


> I've read a few of these threads and I haven't seen any quantitative data, packet captures, or Youtube videos that people love to create to show differences (like with the HR24 vs other HR2x). All we've got is anecdotal evidence, and humans tend to be unreliable at highly accurate factual perception. I have a back way into work that I swear feels faster because I keep moving, but the clock tells me it takes at least 5-10 minutes longer than sitting in traffic on the freeway.
> 
> Propagation delay for an Ethernet frame should be on the order of tenths of a millisecond, and in a properly operating network that should never get above 1ms for hard wired Ethernet within a house. Humans can really only perceive changes down to the order of a few hundred milliseconds, so something else is at play.


Asked, answered, debated... here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=174343
Might want to read up. There is a bit more in play. The other thing might be to play with both. And at the end of the day, like a placebo... if the end result is good - did it really matter? If its "faster" on DECA, isn't the customer happy? If my headache went away from a sugar pill, aren't I happy? My point is, is it faster? Yes. By enough that I can make a video and not have someone argue it? No - because we are just talking about fractions of seconds or at most 1 second over multiple key presses. So, even if I made a video someone would just say "you pressed faster" or "you aren't on the same frames" or blah blah blah... So I'm good.  You could try both though... see if you can make an anti-placebo. :grin:



> Of course it's relevant. I suspect that even in the H/HR24 it's just making the NIC to DECA connection internally (via traces on the system board) which is why DECA quits working when you plug in an active Ethernet connection to the device. A packet capture should prove that out by the unit having the same MAC address whether connected via the RJ45 Ethernet jack or pumping the data out via a DECA adapter typically connected to the home network to gain Internet access.


VOS has pretty much proven this to be wrong by achieving bit rates higher than 100MB on HR24s. And considering the Ethernet is slower than DECA, it would be more logical to connect the other direction - or at least most engineers would logically do it that way.



> Properly configured switched Ethernet performance vastly exceeds that of DECA. In fact, from a latency standpoint DECA is higher than switched Ethernet due to the shared media on which it operates. Each station needs to request transmit timeslots into the DECA "cloud" during control request intervals, very similar to how cable modem networks operate. (or putting more date to this concept, very similar to how Token Ring networks operated) Every switch you can pick up at retail stores today is ASIC and TCAM driven, and there should be no issue with achieving full line rate for transfers. That whole destination MAC lookup process is a fixed offset operation (the destination MAC is always in the same place in every frame), so that algorithm can be efficiently baked into a silicon so that wire-speed processing is a non-issue.


Ummm... No. It depends on the application, components in use, and purpose. Ethernet is a great technology. DECA also is a great technology, particularly for moving video streams around a house on coax. But no, Ethernet performance does not "vastly" exceed that of DECA (unless you are talking Gig-E).



> The exception to this is the widgets that carry the "home Internet router" label. In many cases, such as the Linksys WRT series, the device looks like it has a 4 port switch integrated for LAN connections. If you load a 3rd party firmware on the device to see the hardware you will find that there really isn't a switch in the device at all. The unit is basically a small computer and each interface on the back of the WRT has a separate Broadcom chip that acts like a NIC and the ports are bridged together through software running on the device. Therefore if you follow the advice that has been provided here and run everything back to the NAT/router widget you have a far greater likelihood of poor performance than if you put in a $20 Linksys switch from Worst Purchase and connected everything to that and only had a single run back to a "LAN" interface on the NAT/router widget.


Your recommendation is highly impractical for the millions of homes DirecTV wants to put this in. DECA is a much cleaner solution that is more than adequate for the purpose. Is there better technology out there? Sure. But then again, people would argue FIOS is a better platform than satellite delivery. Doesn't make satellite delivery any less viable does it?


----------



## espaeth

Doug Brott said:


> However, that is not the point of this thread.


This thread started out with someone that had, by all accounts, a functional switched Ethernet MRV installation asking if there were benefits to DECA.



Doug Brott said:


> Funny though that you are actually suggesting that folks install a $20 switch to connect everything on the same backbone for MRV .. That would be
> 
> 1 network for Home networking
> 1 network for MRV (the $20 switch)
> 1 network for satellite distribution


The switch would be used for both home networking and MRV.

I think you're carrying the split out a little far, unless you also want to include the telephone network, power network, HVAC network, and possible security system network. Home networking and MRV can safely coexist on the same broadcast domain.



Doug Brott said:


> Most people don't even have Ethernet cable back to the set top box location. That would have to be installed first. Those that don't have it generally would have to hire someone to do it .. That is not free.


I already stated this is where DECA makes the most sense: new installs for MRV purposes where no network infrastructure currently exists. If you already have things physically wired up, subbing in a couple cheap switches is really substantially less than the $150 DECA install fee.



Doug Brott said:


> DECA will not win the general purpose war .. That is an absolute. But for ease of use, ease of installation, cost and performance on MRV .. DECA wins (or holds it's own) in each category .. each and every one.


That's it in a nutshell. DECA is preferred because it reduces the troubleshooting variables that the CSRs and techs need to contend with, it provides a clear demarcation between the parts for which DirecTV is responsible (ie, everything on the coax) and what the customer needs to sort out on their own (other network gear), and prevents the technician fleet from having to retool to support another transmission medium other than coax.

There is a plethora of logistical reasons for DirecTV to prefer DECA; it truly does make the most sense for new installs. I only disagree with the statement that there are technical benefits of a properly configured DECA network over a properly configured Ethernet network. (and I guess we can argue about what "properly configured" constitutes ad infinitum)


----------



## psuscott0483

veryoldschool said:


> You add the internet by using another DECA to bridge/connect to your router.


thank you for all your info so far, i hate to keep asking stupid questions but...how do i do this? ive been searching for a 1/2 hr for a diagram i must not be using the right search keys. can i take a deca module off of one of my h23 that i dont really need mrv for? you guys are mentioning cheap switches...i have a linksys wrt610n feeding 4 linksys sd2005 gigabit switches, are those not ok?

edit: nevermind, found something that indicates i need a special deca for this...i guess i will be calling directv


----------



## Rich

Doug Brott said:


> Rich .. your installation is a special case .. you probably already have wiring installed for Ethernet (since you were using it before) so it's simply plug the jack in and you're done. So, I agree 100% that in your situation Ethernet is easier to install than DECA (it was already done, after all).
> 
> But let's back up a second .. DECA is for folks that already have coax cabling installed to get DIRECTV service or for new installs where coax cabling has to be installed for DIRECTV service. There is no mention of Ethernet in this equation.
> 
> Let's assume that either (1) the customer already has either no Internet connection or (2) one computer in their home attached to the Internet via a device installed by their ISP.
> 
> (I'd say either one of those two cases will cover the vast majority of installs. It will be more rare to find the 3rd case where someone has a whole home wired for Cat5/6 Ethernet. Wireless, maybe, but wired, much more rare)
> 
> So simply from a technical perspective
> 
> At the receiver side DECA requires:
> 
> unboxing the DECA
> adding the DECA inline with the Sat line
> plugging the blue Ethernet cable between the DECA & the receiver
> 
> Ethernet requires:
> 
> running a cat5/6 cable from to central location
> terminating each end of the cable
> testing the cable
> possibly adding a switch (or router)
> possibly getting power to switch/router location
> plugging in the Ethernet cable
> 
> Personally, I don't understand why installers are having so much trouble doing this. DECA is not rocket science (except for maybe the HR20-100 .. which personally I think should be replaced when used with MRV).
> 
> I just truly do not get how you can say that Ethernet is simpler for most people. Remember "most people" in this case are going to have DIRECTV do everything .. top to bottom .. The installers (some of them) have a hard enough time getting DECA right .. do you really think they install Ethernet the results would be better? :shrug:


After reading your post and considering your arguments, I agree with you. I was thinking of people on a different level than the "average" D* customer. I apologize for the confusion.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool

psuscott0483 said:


> thank you for all your info so far, i hate to keep asking stupid questions but...how do i do this? ive been searching for a 1/2 hr for a diagram i must not be using the right search keys. can i take a deca module off of one of my h23 that i dont really need mrv for? you guys are mentioning cheap switches...i have a linksys wrt610n feeding 4 linksys sd2005 gigabit switches, are those not ok?
> 
> edit: nevermind, found something that indicates i need a special deca for this...i guess i will be calling directv


"All you need is" another DECA & a PI [to power it] and then connect it to your router and have a coax off either an unused port on your splitter, or add a 2-way splitter to a coax you already have.


----------



## espaeth

BudShark said:


> Asked, answered, debated... here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=174343
> Might want to read up. There is a bit more in play.


I did read that and I actually agree with many of your conclusions. The one I firmly disagree with is the "QoS Benefit" of DECA over an Ethernet install. QoS is a requirement of DECA because of what it is -- I wouldn't necessarily say it is an advantage over switched Ethernet.

Starting out with a few statements:

1) Ethernet is a serial transmission technology. You're only going to clock one packet out at a time on an interface.
2) Properly functioning full-duplex switched Ethernet operates pretty darn close to line-rate non-blocking

In that scenario tagging a Trickplay control packet with a higher priority than the video packet won't matter because by the time the control packet hits the switch port the video packet before it has already been delivered to the destination interface. As long as the target interface isn't being overrun there is no network delay and no packets to rearrange for dequeuing from a buffer.

DECA, on the other hand, requires that each member interface request transmit timeslots from whatever node is elected to be the network coordinator. Each node gets a specific amount of time to make its request for additional transmit resources if it has load, and as part of the request a QoS priority value can be assigned so that the network coordinator can allocate timeslots according to priority.

With the shared media nature of DECA this feature comes more heavily into play than in most switched Ethernet networks.



BudShark said:


> Ethernet is a great technology. DECA also is a great technology, particularly for moving video streams around a house on coax. But no, Ethernet performance does not "vastly" exceed that of DECA (unless you are talking Gig-E).


DECA is a great technology for leveraging existing installed infrastructure, though I would still argue that there are no technical benefits for video other than it is highly probable that folks already have coax cabling installed to the places in which they wish to watch video.

In my relation of DECA to Ethernet I was indeed specifically referring to gigabit Ethernet which is pretty much all anyone would buy these days. The price differential between 10/100 and 10/100/1000 switches is so minimal that there is very little reason not to go gig.



BudShark said:


> Your recommendation is highly impractical for the millions of homes DirecTV wants to put this in.


No disagreements here. DECA is the best install choice for the masses.


----------



## psuscott0483

veryoldschool said:


> "All you need is" another DECA & a PI [to power it] and then connect it to your router and have a coax off either an unused port on your splitter, or add a 2-way splitter to a coax you already have.


i am on the phone with directv now they wouldnt send me one to self-install, they said that a tech has to install it because it needs a line going all the way to the dish. the first csr i spoke to wanted to order another basic deca module and didnt know what i was talking about...oh this is fun :eek2:

i have gig ethernet running all through the house, is it as simple as unplugging all these deca boxes and just hooking up ethernet? i need to do some more reading on this....


----------



## rshackleford

I read through most of this thread and unfortunately the technical details are still lacking. I do not allow DirectTV or anyone else including the phone company to touch my inside wiring. For the folks with networking experience, my house is a closed bldg. The network providers terminate in my netpop and I extend all demarcs, etc...
I currently have CAT6 with a very high end Cisco Managed switch.
I have the ability to sniff my ethernet and determine which packets are used for the trick play and can therefore configure QoS on my switch.
So, what do I need to do from a firmware standpoint to get my receivers to work with Whole Home DVR?


----------



## veryoldschool

rshackleford said:


> So, what do I need to do from a firmware standpoint to get my receivers to work with Whole Home DVR?


Have the service added to your account, unsupported, and pay the $3/month.


----------



## veryoldschool

psuscott0483 said:


> i am on the phone with directv now they wouldnt send me one to self-install, they said that a tech has to install it because it needs a line going all the way to the dish. the first csr i spoke to wanted to order another basic deca module and didnt know what i was talking about...oh this is fun :eek2:
> 
> i have gig ethernet running all through the house, is it as simple as unplugging all these deca boxes and just hooking up ethernet? i need to do some more reading on this....


If you've paid to have DirecTV install this, then simply let them fix/add this to your system.


----------



## BudShark

espaeth said:


> I did read that and I actually agree with many of your conclusions. The one I firmly disagree with is the "QoS Benefit" of DECA over an Ethernet install. QoS is a requirement of DECA because of what it is -- I wouldn't necessarily say it is an advantage over switched Ethernet.
> 
> Starting out with a few statements:
> 
> 1) Ethernet is a serial transmission technology. You're only going to clock one packet out at a time on an interface.
> 2) Properly functioning full-duplex switched Ethernet operates pretty darn close to line-rate non-blocking
> 
> In that scenario tagging a Trickplay control packet with a higher priority than the video packet won't matter because by the time the control packet hits the switch port the video packet before it has already been delivered to the destination interface. As long as the target interface isn't being overrun there is no network delay and no packets to rearrange for dequeuing from a buffer.
> 
> DECA, on the other hand, requires that each member interface request transmit timeslots from whatever node is elected to be the network coordinator. Each node gets a specific amount of time to make its request for additional transmit resources if it has load, and as part of the request a QoS priority value can be assigned so that the network coordinator can allocate timeslots according to priority.
> 
> With the shared media nature of DECA this feature comes more heavily into play than in most switched Ethernet networks.
> [snip].


All of your points are valid - but they miss the only true advantage of QoS and prioritization. Based on your description - QoS serves no purpose in Ethernet environments because the packet ahead of it is still transmitted ahead of it. Which of course is true. However, we do find QoS in Ethernet - why? And why does it matter in DECA? Because just as Ethernet is handling things in milliseconds - the DECA scheduling is likewise happening in milliseconds - no different than the timed waits and buffer handling found in switches.

What QoS grants is the ability to prioritize a packet within these buffers. So if I have an outgoing buffer, a buffer in my switch for a destination port, a wait time on a DECA scheduler, or a receive buffer (window) on the client - QoS can bump up the trickplay command to the top of the queue saving the time involved in processing the packets ahead of it. Again, milliseconds to hundreths of a second in most cases - but valuable time when we're talking GUI response.

When you begin talking about external DECAs vs. internal DECAs (Hx24) you do lose the receiving end buffer time because you've left the DECA stack and gone straight Ethernet. It is possible (would have to put a hub in between the DECA and HR20 to see) they are using QoS because its a closed environment (DECA stack to Hx stack) but I don't know that. They could also move QoS up to the application layer and then it wouldn't matter as much - but you don't get quite the "bump".

There has been a lot of "QoS is only because DECA has to schedule packets" discussions. But that is not necessarily true. DECA still achieves data throughput rates higher than 100Mb despite having to schedule... so its clearly not that QoS is required just to make DECA work. Its there because video transmission that is controlled by a remote client works best when it has a prioritized command/control sequence. Something that is entirely possible on Ethernet when the equipment/application are ready for it (full UPnP/DLNA implementation will bring us closer to this), or available inherently on DECA.


----------



## espaeth

BudShark said:


> However, we do find QoS in Ethernet - why?


2 principle reasons:

1) To mitigate egress interface saturation
2) To facilitate marking packets close to ingress where data volumes are still favorable for per-packet analysis.

Most VoIP handsets have integrated switches to reduce the number of closet/IDF Ethernet ports required, so the employee workstations plug into the back of the phone. QoS is primarily integrated into this network to prevent situations like an employee kicking off a large file transfer from affecting VoIP voice quality. There are multiple schools of thought on how necessary this truly is, because there are examples like Vonage who do VoIP over the big bad Internet with absolutely no QoS protection whatsoever and it works fine in the overwhelming majority of cases.

QoS really comes into play for common bottleneck points in networks, typically WAN edge routers. By marking at the Ethernet access port the workload of the WAN router can be reduced by allowing it to simply trust existing DSCP/ToS markings which are efficiently handled as a fixed-offset data field within the packet. (vs having to do deeper analysis on each packet to determine its priority)



BudShark said:


> And why does it matter in DECA? Because just as Ethernet is handling things in milliseconds - the DECA scheduling is likewise happening in milliseconds - no different than the timed waits and buffer handling found in switches.


It's more than just timing. Switches are the natural evolution of learning bridges, once MAC addresses are learned on individual ports the switch can begin to filter which traffic is sent to each port. Coax is a shared media architecture so every DECA device sees every DECA frame transmitted on the network and has to ignore the bulk of what it sees.



BudShark said:


> What QoS grants is the ability to prioritize a packet within these buffers. So if I have an outgoing buffer, a buffer in my switch for a destination port, a wait time on a DECA scheduler, or a receive buffer (window) on the client - QoS can bump up the trickplay command to the top of the queue saving the time involved in processing the packets ahead of it. Again, milliseconds to hundreths of a second in most cases - but valuable time when we're talking GUI response.


Everything is happening _much_ faster than that on the network side.

100,000,000 bits (100mbps) / 1,000,000 microseconds (1 second) = 100bits per microsecond. Divide that by 8 to get bytes, that's 12.5 bytes per microsecond. That means that it only takes 120microseconds (0.12 milliseconds) to clock out a 1500 byte frame on a 100mbps interface.

As you stated, there isn't enough video data being generated to push that kind of data consistently so while things are being prepped to be dumped into the network stack there is all kinds of _network_ time to inject a control packet with more than ample time to produce a result before your finger even lets off the button on the remote. The majority of the delay (I'd surmise upwards of 90-95%) is the application figuring out how to react to the request and alter the video data accordingly.

In this case the DirecTV receivers are pretty much in control of their own destiny. They're not going to fire up a DoD pull and saturate their own ingress while they are also pulling down MRV data. They also shouldn't be targets of any kind of statistically meaningful quantity of data that would affect their normal operation on a switch Ethernet network.



BudShark said:


> There has been a lot of "QoS is only because DECA has to schedule packets" discussions. But that is not necessarily true. DECA still achieves data throughput rates higher than 100Mb despite having to schedule... so its clearly not that QoS is required just to make DECA work.


ATM networks were doing 155mbps 15 years ago despite having to SAR everything in to 53 byte cells. Raw achieved data rates has nothing to do with QoS.

Say I have a switch with 100mbps devices connected to ports 1-4. If port 1 and port 3 fire up a line-rate transfer between them, ports 2 and port 4 still have 100mbps of capacity available each as long as they are communicating with anything but port 1 or 3.

In DECA your access link rate is also the complete shared network capacity. That capacity is divided out across all of the members of the DECA network. They engineered in predictable latency by giving guaranteed timeslots to each node on the network and then having "floater" timeslots that can be requested by nodes needing to engage in heavy transfers. The TDM timeslot allocations are sub-millisecond (I forget how many microseconds for MOCA, which is what I also assume DECA adopted), but the problem on shared media is usually microbursts. It's natural for humans to think of things in a resolution of seconds, but things at an application / network level need to take place in microseconds or milliseconds. In DECA because it's all shared bandwidth it's possible for multiple stations to all try to request resources on a sub-millisecond level, resulting in contention, thus bringing QoS into play.

Shared media is shared media. Call it hub-based Ethernet, Token Ring, FDDI, Wifi, DOCSIS, what have you. The detractors are all still there, it's just they're less of an issue because we're getting better at engineering around them with features like QoS and guaranteed transmission intervals. Switched Ethernet still offers dedicated bandwidth which is a full class ahead of shared media architectures.


----------



## BudShark

espaeth said:


> 2 principle reasons:
> 
> 1) To mitigate egress interface saturation
> 2) To facilitate marking packets close to ingress where data volumes are still favorable for per-packet analysis.
> 
> Most VoIP handsets have integrated switches to reduce the number of closet/IDF Ethernet ports required, so the employee workstations plug into the back of the phone. QoS is primarily integrated into this network to prevent situations like an employee kicking off a large file transfer from affecting VoIP voice quality. There are multiple schools of thought on how necessary this truly is, because there are examples like Vonage who do VoIP over the big bad Internet with absolutely no QoS protection whatsoever and it works fine in the overwhelming majority of cases.
> 
> QoS really comes into play for common bottleneck points in networks, typically WAN edge routers. By marking at the Ethernet access port the workload of the WAN router can be reduced by allowing it to simply trust existing DSCP/ToS markings which are efficiently handled as a fixed-offset data field within the packet. (vs having to do deeper analysis on each packet to determine its priority)


Thats way over-simplifying QoS.
I'd suggest researching UPnP QoS V3 and why DLNA (which pretty much all home A/V network components use for standardization) is incorporating QoS for use within the home. Here's a good spot to start: http://www.upnp.org/specs/qos/UPnP-qos-Architecture-v3.pdf



> It's more than just timing. Switches are the natural evolution of learning bridges, once MAC addresses are learned on individual ports the switch can begin to filter which traffic is sent to each port. Coax is a shared media architecture so every DECA device sees every DECA frame transmitted on the network and has to ignore the bulk of what it sees.
> 
> Everything is happening _much_ faster than that on the network side.
> 
> 100,000,000 bits (100mbps) / 1,000,000 microseconds (1 second) = 100bits per microsecond. Divide that by 8 to get bytes, that's 12.5 bytes per microsecond. That means that it only takes 120microseconds (0.12 milliseconds) to clock out a 1500 byte frame on a 100mbps interface.
> 
> As you stated, there isn't enough video data being generated to push that kind of data consistently so while things are being prepped to be dumped into the network stack there is all kinds of _network_ time to inject a control packet with more than ample time to produce a result before your finger even lets off the button on the remote. The majority of the delay (I'd surmise upwards of 90-95%) is the application figuring out how to react to the request and alter the video data accordingly.
> 
> In this case the DirecTV receivers are pretty much in control of their own destiny. They're not going to fire up a DoD pull and saturate their own ingress while they are also pulling down MRV data. They also shouldn't be targets of any kind of statistically meaningful quantity of data that would affect their normal operation on a switch Ethernet network.


Switched Ethernet is fantastic, and as you state, more bandwidth than what is needed.

So the data is coming in bursts. Its going into stacks, its being buffered, its sitting in windows. It is the ability to manage these things that QoS brings. Assuming the latency difference and data transmission differences are negligible (which they are), we have 2 networks: DECA and Ethernet. DECA gets QoS. Ethernet doesn't. You hit FFX2 on a remote receiver. Thats marker 1. The packet is sent - Switched full duplex Ethernet it goes. DECA, its flagged as a priority control packet, interrupts the flow and goes. No advantage. Both packets hit the server in the same time. We'll be nice, and say nothing is in the window to be processed. Both packets go up the stack. We now hit marker 2 (server has received command for FFx2). This is where the game changes.

DECA - the first packet is flagged as "new stream" process at marker 2. It is sent priority on the wire. New video packets are started from the new marker and sent. The client receives a priority control packet. Since its window was full (as any good streaming system would do), there were still packets to process for video display. These are bypassed, the priority packet is received, processed, and marker 2 is identified. Since (as you stated) networks are so fast, the marker 2 video packet is now arriving - but its at the bottom of the stack. A mere few milliseconds away, but critical control/response time is ticking. The other packets are now flushed as they are not needed, marker 2 video packet is processed, and we are off.

With Ethernet - the first packet is flagged as "new stream" process at marker 2. It can't be sent priority so it is in the queue to be transmitted behind new video packets. Its sent a few milliseconds later, followed by video packets. The client continues to process its buffer as a FIFO and display video until it finished. When complete, it gets to the new control packet, identified marker 2, and begins displaying. How much time passed? 30 seconds? 15 seconds? Nope. Probably 300-1000 msec? Whatever it was, the keypress response on DECA "seems" faster. And for an MRV implementation - thats all that matters.



> ATM networks were doing 155mbps 15 years ago despite having to SAR everything in to 53 byte cells. Raw achieved data rates has nothing to do with QoS.
> 
> Say I have a switch with 100mbps devices connected to ports 1-4. If port 1 and port 3 fire up a line-rate transfer between them, ports 2 and port 4 still have 100mbps of capacity available each as long as they are communicating with anything but port 1 or 3.
> 
> In DECA your access link rate is also the complete shared network capacity. That capacity is divided out across all of the members of the DECA network. They engineered in predictable latency by giving guaranteed timeslots to each node on the network and then having "floater" timeslots that can be requested by nodes needing to engage in heavy transfers. The TDM timeslot allocations are sub-millisecond (I forget how many microseconds for MOCA, which is what I also assume DECA adopted), but the problem on shared media is usually microbursts. It's natural for humans to think of things in a resolution of seconds, but things at an application / network level need to take place in microseconds or milliseconds. In DECA because it's all shared bandwidth it's possible for multiple stations to all try to request resources on a sub-millisecond level, resulting in contention, thus bringing QoS into play.
> 
> Shared media is shared media. Call it hub-based Ethernet, Token Ring, FDDI, Wifi, DOCSIS, what have you. The detractors are all still there, it's just they're less of an issue because we're getting better at engineering around them with features like QoS and guaranteed transmission intervals. Switched Ethernet still offers dedicated bandwidth which is a full class ahead of shared media architectures.


But, those items are still non-game changers. Its not as if what DECA has is insufficient. Its not. Nor is Ethernet. But, when it comes to A/V streaming in a home, home Ethernet networks face 2 major hurdles:

1) Installation/wiring
2) Lack of QoS for command/control performance.

1 is being fixed with time.
2 is being fixed with UPnP/DLNA but requires new hardware/firmware/testing

Will Ethernet eventually be the preferred installation? Possibly. Its likely within the next 5 years it will be an ideal solution that works in nearly all new homes, many peoples upgraded homes, and even in wireless situations. But - for today? The wiring and QoS components are not in place to ensure a quality service delivery.


----------



## MISpat

rich584 said:


> Not sure why BluRay players are mentioned here unless I'm missing something. All I do once a week is hook up an Ethernet wire to mine and see if an update is available. What else can you do with them concerning Ethernet?


Many of them now let you stream audio and video content from the internet like Netflix and Pandora, which will obviously use up more bandwidth than firmware updates. If you ever buy a blu ray player, I highly recommend the extra $10/20 bucks for one with this feature.


----------



## espaeth

BudShark said:


> Thats way over-simplifying QoS.
> I'd suggest researching UPnP QoS V3 and why DLNA (which pretty much all home A/V network components use for standardization) is incorporating QoS for use within the home. Here's a good spot to start: http://www.upnp.org/specs/qos/UPnP-qos-Architecture-v3.pdf


The principle reason that they are pushing for QoS in the home is the nearly ubiquitous 802.11 wireless networks that have inherrent contention. 802.11 is a shared media network, hence the data put "into the air" by a single client reduces capacity available for all wireless clients within that AP's 802.11 domain. The objective is to prevent Billy from firing up a bittorrent client on his laptop and screw up Tversity streaming to your wireless attached PS3, they're not setting out to fix problems that simply don't exist for wired switched Ethernet installations. (That's why they specifically call out that they are designing for heterogeneous access methods.)

You're trying to make this much more difficult than it is. If you don't queue, then network-based QoS does absolutely nothing for you. You have to have a line to be bumped to the front of the line.



BudShark said:


> DECA - the first packet is flagged as "new stream" process at marker 2. It is sent priority on the wire. New video packets are started from the new marker and sent. The client receives a priority control packet. Since its window was full (as any good streaming system would do), there were still packets to process for video display. These are bypassed, the priority packet is received, processed, and marker 2 is identified.


The process through which packets are processed from the receive buffer on the host has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying layer2 transport method. The preemption you are describing here is typically implemented in the transport layer of the end-device's network stack, for example, see the TCP Urgent Function.



BudShark said:


> With Ethernet - the first packet is flagged as "new stream" process at marker 2. It can't be sent priority so it is in the queue to be transmitted behind new video packets.


Again, I need to point out these packets are sitting _on the host_ -- they aren't sitting on a buffer on the switch because we can do line rate port-to-port, and we've already established that these transfers are far below line transmit rate. The switch is going to deliver the packets from the source to the destination just about as fast as you puke them out with only minor buffering due to traffic from other hosts or broadcast traffic -- the bulk of the buffering will take place on the end-devices themselves where they have full control over what order packets get placed on the wire without any kind of device-based QoS.

1ms of buffering is 12.5KB worth of data, to get to the 300ms number you were throwing out the switch would need to buffer 3.75MB. On an average switch you're going to be lucky if you see even 128KB of actual port buffer memory, with most switches having 64KB or less.


----------



## BudShark

espaeth said:


> The principle reason that they are pushing for QoS in the home is the nearly ubiquitous 802.11 wireless networks that have inherrent contention. 802.11 is a shared media network, hence the data put "into the air" by a single client reduces capacity available for all wireless clients within that AP's 802.11 domain. The objective is to prevent Billy from firing up a bittorrent client on his laptop and screw up Tversity streaming to your wireless attached PS3, they're not setting out to fix problems that simply don't exist for wired switched Ethernet installations. (That's why they specifically call out that they are designing for heterogeneous access methods.)
> 
> You're trying to make this much more difficult than it is. If you don't queue, then network-based QoS does absolutely nothing for you. You have to have a line to be bumped to the front of the line.


Busy day today, so not much time, but didn't want to ignore this.

The value/benefit/great part of UPnP and DLNA is that they provide application mechanisms for mapping and calling for QoS. The point being, is that it starts at the Application layer, so we do have QoS throughout the stack.
We may also agree to disagree on this one, as most home devices do not provide the internal queueing stats we'd need to verify performance and buffering within the device - BUT - there is a reason they are beginning to implement 802.1p and why 3rd party firmwares provide higher throughputs. There is processing and buffering occuring within the switch.



> The process through which packets are processed from the receive buffer on the host has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying layer2 transport method. The preemption you are describing here is typically implemented in the transport layer of the end-device's network stack, for example, see the TCP Urgent Function.
> 
> Again, I need to point out these packets are sitting _on the host_ -- they aren't sitting on a buffer on the switch because we can do line rate port-to-port, and we've already established that these transfers are far below line transmit rate. The switch is going to deliver the packets from the source to the destination just about as fast as you puke them out with only minor buffering due to traffic from other hosts or broadcast traffic -- the bulk of the buffering will take place on the end-devices themselves where they have full control over what order packets get placed on the wire without any kind of device-based QoS.
> 
> 1ms of buffering is 12.5KB worth of data, to get to the 300ms number you were throwing out the switch would need to buffer 3.75MB. On an average switch you're going to be lucky if you see even 128KB of actual port buffer memory, with most switches having 64KB or less.


All good points - but we certainly disagree again. There is application layer QoS available - again - not enough data to show how DirecTV is using it, but if they are using UPnP, DLNA, and MoCA standards (which they are) the infrastructure expects and is built with QoS. So, at a minimum the bandwidth would be such that the QoS would provide no benefit - which is what you and wave and others are saying. But, its there, its functional - and based on my experience - it is/would be used.

Also, network latency does not equate to GUI or processing latency. Its generally exponential. So a 30ms difference at a physical layer would/does often equate to a 200ms+ application difference.

Sorry to not be too detailed... busy day. I'll try to get back on this in the next day or two. Good discussion and points.

At the end of the day: Ethernet is great and the fact that we can have these extensions makes it that much better.

DECA is purposed and designed for use within Home networks primarily for A/V purposes. As such it implements QoS.

Ethernet has the exact same QoS capabilities available to it through UPnP QoS 2 and 3 compatibility. Many devices are beginning to build this in - and as they do - we'll see better results/performance on Home networks.

Gig-E has more bandwidth, so at the end of the day, its faster/more capable to recover and as with everything - speed compensates. However, like all technology, to say Gig-E is fast enough to not benefit from other aspects of QoS would be a mistake.


----------



## Rich

MISpat said:


> Many of them now let you stream audio and video content from the internet like Netflix and Pandora, which will obviously use up more bandwidth than firmware updates. If you ever buy a blu ray player, I highly recommend the extra $10/20 bucks for one with this feature.


I did buy one, a Sony, and I quickly returned it. It didn't work as well as my Roku box, which is, by the way, on sale at roku.com for $99 with free shipping. The Roku box now allows you to pick what you want to see right from the Roku box rather than from a computer. And it's wireless. The 720p PQ is great, better than the Sony BD player. Better than the PQ we get from D*. But that's subjective and I don't want to argue that point. Remember, at this time Amazon and NetFlix only stream 720p. Also, WD has just come out with a new "media player" that is 1080p ready and also streams NetFlix. Costs about $120.

I really should have removed that post, for some reason I just went blank and forgot about the streaming options that some BD players have. I've also talked to several people who have TV sets that can receive the streaming content from NetFlix and they are having problems with it.

Rich


----------



## espaeth

BudShark said:


> The value/benefit/great part of UPnP and DLNA is that they provide application mechanisms for mapping and calling for QoS.


I'd argue the great part about DLNA is that it provides a common network interface for crap to just work. Still, people have been streaming at much higher bitrates than is required for MRV (think Blu-Ray 1080P content to a PopCorn Hour or similar box) and switched Ethernet works for that out of the box with no configuration. It's when people want to start using technologies with a collision domain like 802.11 that things get complicated. That's why you see 802.11e and extensions like WMM being actively developed while there hasn't been active development on 802.1p since the 90s. On switched Ethernet it's cheaper to throw bandwidth at the problem than it is to invest in complicated QoS schemes. When it comes to wireless and other shared media you have no choice.



BudShark said:


> The point being, is that it starts at the Application layer, so we do have QoS throughout the stack.


It's not just "the stack." While TCP/IP starts to get murky when relating to layers 5-7, the OSI Model is still very much in play for how applications are architected. When you first slapped an 802.11b wifi card into your laptop you didn't need to load a brand new wireless version of Internet Explorer -- it just worked. The OSI Model defines commonly understood and implemented abstraction layers that every major operating system has implemented to make the network ecosystem supportable. The applications talk to the operating system TCP/IP stack using defined APIs, the TCP/IP stack talks to the NIC drivers using defined APIs, etc.



BudShark said:


> We may also agree to disagree on this one, as most home devices do not provide the internal queueing stats we'd need to verify performance and buffering within the device


Most home switches are unmanaged -- there is no CLI or other interface to affect the configuration or gather stats. You plug in devices, it learns MACs and delivers frames accordingly. That said, it's beyond simple to test the internal latency of these devices -- just hook up a network traffic generator like a SmartBits or Ixia and measure the performance. Hint: you'll find the delay is in microseconds (less than 1ms).



BudShark said:


> there is a reason they are beginning to implement 802.1p and why 3rd party firmwares provide higher throughputs. There is processing and buffering occuring within the switch.


What you are describing here is not a switch. The SOHO routers with multiple integrated LAN ports don't incorporate a switch. They're basically a small low-power PC with several NICs, and the LAN ports are connected together via a software bridging process. These devices were primarily designed to give your home access to 12mbps broadband connections, so software bridging is more than adequate for that role. These have very little relation to the performance of even the lowest grade ASIC-driven switch. (you know, the things that are $20 with ports and no router interface)



BudShark said:


> Also, network latency does not equate to GUI or processing latency. Its generally exponential. So a 30ms difference at a physical layer would/does often equate to a 200ms+ application difference.


Which is why going with DECA that has a base latency at least 300% greater than switched Ethernet is the obvious choice?



BudShark said:


> At the end of the day: Ethernet is great and the fact that we can have these extensions makes it that much better.
> 
> DECA is purposed and designed for use within Home networks primarily for A/V purposes. As such it implements QoS.


MoCA (and by extension DECA) was designed to leverage cabling already installed in the home. The cabling being used is a shared medium, and hence QoS mechanisms were developed to ensure that video applications would be able to perform across the infrastructure. MoCA/DECA are simply technologies developed to take advantage of fixed wiring already in the home, much like powerplug Ethernet adapters. It's a compromise, not a revolutionary departure in the effort to exceed switched Ethernet in functionality.



BudShark said:


> Gig-E has more bandwidth, so at the end of the day, its faster/more capable to recover and as with everything - speed compensates. However, like all technology, to say Gig-E is fast enough to not benefit from other aspects of QoS would be a mistake.


Other aspects of QoS? Network-based QoS is simply about the order in which datagrams are delivered should queuing occur. If you don't queue, you have nothing to prioritize. What you're arguing is that highway ramp meters still have benefit on a highway that never has rush hour congestion.


----------



## sunking

espaeth said:


> Other aspects of QoS? Network-based QoS is simply about the order in which datagrams are delivered should queuing occur. If you don't queue, you have nothing to prioritize. What you're arguing is that highway ramp meters still have benefit on a highway that never has rush hour congestion.


You've pigeon holed yourself into one implementation of QoS. MoCa is about guaranteed scheduling, thus the max number of nodes. With moca you can guarantee getting a high priority message out in < 5ms (or something like that, haven't read the specs). You can't do that with ethernet. Oh sure, you can say that you overspent and are under utilizing your network (oops, I mean you have room to grow) so are pretty sure it will get through, but there is a reason that airplanes and other sophisticated embedded real time systems use Time Triggered Ethernet on top of layer 2, scheduling. MoCa will have a collision rate of 1 in a 1000000 whether there are 2 nodes or max nodes all blasting away at once. There is no such thing as over saturated, just no more room for more hosts. Of course that means your max bandwidth you will ever need is predetermined and obviously lower. But as everything on MoCa is pretty specialized that is fine. The fact that you have to  add special hardware (managed/unmanaged switches) to an ethernet network to keep it from falling apart show's a weakness right there. And anyone who remembers the days of an entire lab wired together using a single thin net cable knows this to be the case.

Besides, assuming you have all receivers that can use it, why wouldn't you segregate the mindless chatter onto it's own network? It could save your life one day in CoD when the wife decides to watch The Bachelor in the bedroom and you're surrounded by bad guys.

Kind of silly debate though, use cheapest in my opinion. Compared to the overall sluggishness of the DVRs anway you won't notice a difference.


----------



## Rich

Do you guys understand the value of brevity in getting a point across? 

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool

rich584 said:


> Do you guys understand the value of brevity in getting a point across?
> 
> Rich


We're getting paid by the word here. :lol:


----------



## Rich

veryoldschool said:


> We're getting paid by the word here. :lol:


I can't bear to read those posts. They seem to know a lot and it's a shame that they can't make their posts readable.

Rich


----------



## dennisj00

I think everyone needs to agree to disagree and conclude the one driving point. DECA is the ONLY way DirecTV could support networking for MRV. (and it has had it's growing pains with installers and CSRs).

I said it 12+ months ago during the testing of MRV, there is NO way they could support the home network (or install one) of the average customer. 

From a performance standpoint, I can't objectively say that DECA is any better or worse than the network I had in place. But I always had reasonably good results and then finally very good results with my wired / wireless network.

You guys can argue (and I've inserted some) packets, QOS, nodes, messages and all the other terms until you're blue in the face (like VOS!) but the bottom line is:

-it can be installed by guys that know coax connectors (and little more - with apologies to the installers here)

-while we haven't seen the 'support' side yet -- other than installation errors - at least it's not a hodge-podge of home grown wireless routers / adapters that the geeks told someone would work and would be impossible for the CSRs.

Of the friends / relatives that call me with their network problems, I try to answer their questions but unless they're close enough to visit, sometimes it's impossible to figure out.


----------



## espaeth

sunking said:


> You've pigeon holed yourself into one implementation of QoS. MoCa is about guaranteed scheduling, thus the max number of nodes. With moca you can guarantee getting a high priority message out in < 5ms (or something like that, haven't read the specs). You can't do that with ethernet. Oh sure, you can say that you overspent and are under utilizing your network (oops, I mean you have room to grow) so are pretty sure it will get through


You absolutely can do that on Ethernet -- you could do that a decade ago with switches that supported 802.1p. But you already addressed the reason most people don't care about this -- you can overbuild in Ethernet for so ridiculously cheap that complex traffic mechanisms aren't worth the time except in extreme cases, like:



sunking said:


> but there is a reason that airplanes and other sophisticated embedded real time systems use Time Triggered Ethernet on top of layer 2, scheduling.


This.



sunking said:


> But as everything on MoCa is pretty specialized that is fine. The fact that you have to add special hardware (managed/unmanaged switches) to an ethernet network to keep it from falling apart show's a weakness right there. And anyone who remembers the days of an entire lab wired together using a single thin net cable knows this to be the case.


The irony of that statement is MoCA/DECA is just the reincarnation of that cabling architecture. Remember how devices became unreachable if you left the terminator off the end of your cable -- take a terminator off one of your splitters with DECA, it's the same thing!



sunking said:


> Besides, assuming you have all receivers that can use it, why wouldn't you segregate the mindless chatter onto it's own network? It could save your life one day in CoD when the wife decides to watch The Bachelor in the bedroom and you're surrounded by bad guys.


Unicast streams on unrelated ports aren't going to affect unicast game traffic from your PC. The only thing that could possibly interact is broadcast traffic, but that's still in play as soon as you use the DECA adapter to connect the MRV "cloud" to your home network so you can do DoD and MediaShare.



sunking said:


> Kind of silly debate though, use cheapest in my opinion.


That's the kicker of this whole discussion, and the only reason I started posting at all. If folks already have a wired Ethernet installation there is no reason in the world for them to spend $150 on a DECA install + another $25 for the "broadband adapter." I guess you could give DirecTV nearly $200 to have them come out and wire you up for DECA, or if you already had the CAT5 runs just spring $10 for one of these:

http://www.amazon.com/Netgear-FS105NA-Switch-5Port-Metal/dp/B00002EQCW/

If you don't have the CAT5 cabling already run, then DECA is the hands-down winner.

Otherwise if you have the cable in place, dollar for dollar you'll get more for you money in Ethernet gear.


----------



## lugnutathome

I have really appreciated the levels of detail in this tread! Thanks! I gottem a gud edumacation here:grin: Seriously I had a high level understanding before and after reading through the details I've a better comprehension. (and yes the terminating resistor requirement brought back memories)

I agree DECA is a great venue for new installs or upgrades in places where existing Ethernet infrastructures do not exist. I also agree that where a suitable infrastructure already exists DECA should become an option not a requirement.

However, a deciding factor there might be the SWM upgrade can allow one to stuff more tuners into an existing coax infrastructure. Though that factor is not network related it does have other positive effects.

But as my own home network experience indicates, a properly deployed hardwired Ethernet infrastructure is more than suitable for the multi room viewing requirements.

All things being equal it seems like a Chevy Vs Ford sort of skirmish but those of us that qualify for having suitable Ethernet infrastructures are *vastly* outnumbered by those that do not have such. 

For the overwhelming majority of subscribers the DECA infrastructure *is* the best solution. I just hope D* realizes there are a number of us that for whatever reason function happily on Ethernet or as in my case can't justify the change to DECA until the SWM/DECA technology can encompass larger infrastructural topologies.

Really have enjoyed this discussion! It has been educational and stated in clear details non colored by emotional "digs".

Great discussion folks!

Don "Mongo only know SQL (Siamese Query Language) not hardware/network stuff" Bolton


----------



## BudShark

Some very valid points.

The problem with this discussion is there are a very large number of variables, a dash of preference, a smidge of experience, a dollup of what you believe the future state is, and a host of assumptions.

As others have said, for today, DECA is right. DLNA/UPnP has a roadmap, and most technology companies are buying into it. In the end, whether you have Cat5/6, RG6, Wireless, HomePNA, HANA, MoCA/DECA, Ethernet, or Fibre - we as consumers get the benefit.

I agree a lot with what wave, rich, espaeth and others have said. I also believe in what I have described and pointed out and the direction of DLNA, UPnP, and the inherent value of QoS in that world. With that said, it is probably time to just sit back and enjoy the technology we couldn't enjoy before. 

Going back to making beer... (and drinking some of what we make!) :grin:


----------



## Rich

BudShark said:


> Some very valid points.
> 
> The problem with this discussion is there are a very large number of variables, a dash of preference, a smidge of experience, a dollup of what you believe the future state is, and a host of assumptions.
> 
> As others have said, for today, DECA is right. DLNA/UPnP has a roadmap, and most technology companies are buying into it. In the end, whether you have Cat5/6, RG6, Wireless, HomePNA, HANA, MoCA/DECA, Ethernet, or Fibre - we as consumers get the benefit.
> 
> I agree a lot with what wave, rich, espaeth and others have said. I also believe in what I have described and pointed out and the direction of DLNA, UPnP, and the inherent value of QoS in that world. With that said, it is probably time to just sit back and enjoy the technology we couldn't enjoy before.
> 
> Going back to making beer... (and drinking some of what we make!) :grin:


Have several brewskies. And take some painkillers for your hands, they gotta be aching! 

Rich


----------



## David MacLeod

rich584 said:


> Have several brewskies. And take some painkillers for your hands, they gotta be aching!
> 
> Rich


I know his head is about to explode LOL LOL  :grin:


----------



## Rich

David MacLeod said:


> I know his head is about to explode LOL LOL  :grin:


That's why I stopped reading those posts. I thought *my* head was gonna explode. Made me feel really ignorant, they did. 

Rich


----------



## espaeth

I think the Reader's Digest version is:

Either wired Ethernet (Cat5, not broadband power adapter) or DECA should deliver the same level of performance for MRV.

*Don't* connect the receivers directly to your router, which is the most likely source of the issues people have in Ethernet installations. Spend $10, put in a real switch, and connect that switch to a LAN port on your router.

If you run into problems with MRV and want DirecTV to help fix them, you need to use DECA anyway since their techs only have the tools and troubleshooting procedures to work with their hardware and coax installations.


----------



## Rich

espaeth said:


> I think the Reader's Digest version is:
> 
> Either wired Ethernet (Cat5, not broadband power adapter) or DECA should deliver the same level of performance for MRV.
> 
> *Don't* connect the receivers directly to your router, which is the most likely source of the issues people have in Ethernet installations. Spend $10, put in a real switch, and connect that switch to a LAN port on your router.
> 
> If you run into problems with MRV and want DirecTV to help fix them, you need to use DECA anyway since their techs only have the tools and troubleshooting procedures to work with their hardware and coax installations.


Clear, concise post. Good info. Easy to comprehend. Kudos!

Rich


----------



## MISpat

rich584 said:


> I did buy one, a Sony, and I quickly returned it. It didn't work as well as my Roku box, which is, by the way, on sale at roku.com for $99 with free shipping. The Roku box now allows you to pick what you want to see right from the Roku box rather than from a computer. And it's wireless. The 720p PQ is great, better than the Sony BD player. Better than the PQ we get from D*. But that's subjective and I don't want to argue that point. Remember, at this time Amazon and NetFlix only stream 720p. Also, WD has just come out with a new "media player" that is 1080p ready and also streams NetFlix. Costs about $120.
> 
> I really should have removed that post, for some reason I just went blank and forgot about the streaming options that some BD players have. I've also talked to several people who have TV sets that can receive the streaming content from NetFlix and they are having problems with it.
> 
> Rich


Hey Rich, does that Roku box allow you to stream Hulu as well? And when you're streaming Netflix, can you rewind and fast forward the video?

I usually stream video through my HD-DVR because I can do Hulu and a lot of other sites via the PlayOn software on my computer. But I can't rewind or fast forward the video. The advantage to using my Blu Ray player for streaming is that I can rewind and fast forward, but of course it doesn't do Hulu. It does work very well though, and I don't need to do anything with a computer for it to work (I have a Samsung... not sure how it's different from the Sony you had)

Please let me know about rewind/ffd with the Roku box if you see this...


----------



## rzrnut

Does DECA traffic affect the sat signal? We finally got installed the other day and with 5 DVR's going 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 1 we start seeing a break up on some of the DVR's and a slowing of ff and rw start/stop commands.

The slowing is ok, but the breaking up of the picture is very unpleasant. Is there a way to improve what was installed?


----------



## hasan

rzrnut said:


> Does DECA traffic affect the sat signal? We finally got installed the other day and with 5 DVR's going 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 1 we start seeing a break up on some of the DVR's and a slowing of ff and rw start/stop commands.
> 
> The slowing is ok, but the breaking up of the picture is very unpleasant. Is there a way to improve what was installed?


No DECA traffic does not affect the sat signal. In fact if you went with an upgrade that included a new SWiM dish, your signal may actually get better. (Mine did, by about 5 percentage points)


----------



## bakerfall

I'm just going to give my experience. I had all my DVRs hooked up over gigabit ethernet and was very happy with the performance. Yesterday I got a new DVR and the installer hooked me up with DECA for free. Performance, especially for trick play, is improved. I didn't think it would be, but it is.

Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## wavemaster

I have reported my findings and for the most part was lambasted.

Sat signal will have no effect on the deca simply because you are watching recorded content through the deca, not live content. The breaking up you are seeing is the DECA bandwidth bumping into its limits. 

After the switch to DECA we saw degradation of picture with anything over 5 streams running. We have 8 DVR's and you really can't get them all to go. Over our Ethernet we can get them all going with ease. (Gb hardwired) 

Trick Play (skip, back, etc.) is faster with DECA if you only have a couple streams going, but it will be considerably slower than Ethernet when you get a bunch going. Again, this is in our setup and our Ethernet setup is solid. 

The folks here will tell you that you will never have multiple streams going and that your install is 99.9999% unique, so the claim that DECA is faster is still valid because your installation does not count. Tell that to your kids. 

The one thing DECA has going for it is D will support it. To me that is about it because we don't just have a DVR and STB setup. 

This weekend I am going to try to get one of my network guys here and do some sniffing/testing on each setup.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> I have reported my findings and for the most part was lambasted.
> 
> Sat signal will have no effect on the deca simply because you are watching recorded content through the deca, not live content. The breaking up you are seeing is the DECA bandwidth bumping into its limits.
> 
> After the switch to DECA we saw degradation of picture with anything over 5 streams running. We have 8 DVR's and you really can't get them all to go. Over our Ethernet we can get them all going with ease. (Gb hardwired)
> 
> Trick Play (skip, back, etc.) is faster with DECA if you only have a couple streams going, but it will be considerably slower than Ethernet when you get a bunch going. Again, this is in our setup and our Ethernet setup is solid.
> 
> The folks here will tell you that you will never have multiple streams going and that your install is 99.9999% unique, so the claim that DECA is faster is still valid because your installation does not count. Tell that to your kids.
> 
> The one thing DECA has going for it is D will support it. To me that is about it because we don't just have a DVR and STB setup.
> 
> This weekend I am going to try to get one of my network guys here and do some sniffing/testing on each setup.


"Someday" your DECA network status will be known and your degradation of the network may or may not be valid.
Until this time, you have no idea of how well "your DECA" network is setup.
You very easily could be having problems in the RF domain for DECA.


----------



## wavemaster

rzrnut said:


> Does DECA traffic affect the sat signal? We finally got installed the other day and with 5 DVR's going 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 1 we start seeing a break up on some of the DVR's and a slowing of ff and rw start/stop commands.
> 
> The slowing is ok, but the breaking up of the picture is very unpleasant. Is there a way to improve what was installed?





veryoldschool said:


> "Someday" your DECA network status will be known and your degradation of the network may or may not be valid.
> Until this time, you have no idea of how well "your DECA" network is setup.
> You very easily could be having problems in the RF domain for DECA.


Degradation may or may not be valid? When the picture starts breaking up and the actors start sputtering sentence fragments, I call it degradation.

rzrnut - sorry for sharing our findings YMMV. I guess we both have botched installations without the luxury of knowing.


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> "Someday" your DECA network status will be known and your degradation of the network may or may not be valid.
> Until this time, you have no idea of how well "your DECA" network is setup.
> You very easily could be having problems in the RF domain for DECA.


Also based the assumption that our install is one in a million, just curious, do you have 8DVR's with 7 of them connected VIA DECA? Basically am I talking to someone that can reproduce the same thing or are you reading off a spec. sheet. I mean no offense by this, but if the few who have systems like this can do it with ease using DECA then there is something wrong for sure, however if you have never tried it, than chasing this assumption that I had a bad install could just be a proverbial red herring.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> Degradation may or may not be valid? When the picture starts breaking up and the actors start sputtering sentence fragments, I call it degradation.


Let me take a step back here.
Yes, I agree with your statement of a degraded playback.
Now to know if the results of a test are "valid", one must first know the status of the system under test.
If your system meets the minimum requirements set by DirecTV, then your results are valid.
If your system isn't operating at minimum [or better] levels, then this is why your results aren't valid.
I've followed some of your posts and know you haven't given all the info about what you've done with your testing.
I've only had enough hardware to have four streams running and haven't seen any problems.
I am interested in how far users can push DECA and what limits they can find.


----------



## Rich

MISpat said:


> Hey Rich, does that Roku box allow you to stream Hulu as well? And when you're streaming Netflix, can you rewind and fast forward the video?


Not yet for the Hulu. Might be an option in the future. Yes, you can rewind and FF with the Roku. Little tiny box, but it sure has a lot of features. And I think it blows away the BD players, just an opinion, not gonna argue the point. The Roku should also start streaming 1080i soon, whenever NetFlix starts streaming 1080i, it's already for it.



> I usually stream video through my HD-DVR because I can do Hulu and a lot of other sites via the PlayOn software on my computer. But I can't rewind or fast forward the video. The advantage to using my Blu Ray player for streaming is that I can rewind and fast forward, but of course it doesn't do Hulu. It does work very well though, and I don't need to do anything with a computer for it to work (I have a Samsung... not sure how it's different from the Sony you had)


Not a big fan of Sammys. Only Sammy I've ever had that I like is the son's 21-200. Wouldn't buy a Sammy TV on a bet. Another opinion that I don't want to argue about, it's an opinion that's not about to change.

The Sony BD player was disappointing and seemed cheap. Didn't really seem like a Sony. Don't know how else to explain it.



> Please let me know about rewind/ffd with the Roku box if you see this...


As I said, it does it. It also has a whole lot of stuff like Pandora and Amazon on it. Stuff I never use, but I can see other folks using it. The Pandora feature is nice if you're into music.

The really nice thing about it is it's size and it's wireless. You can just disconnect it and take it anywhere you get wireless connectivity. Such a neat little box... 

Rich


----------



## Rich

rzrnut said:


> Does DECA traffic affect the sat signal? We finally got installed the other day and with 5 DVR's going 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 1 we start seeing a break up on some of the DVR's and a slowing of ff and rw start/stop commands.
> 
> The slowing is ok, but the breaking up of the picture is very unpleasant. Is there a way to improve what was installed?


One part of the installation you pay for is the peaking of the dish. Mine improved significantly, but that's probably because D* finally sent out a tech who was worthy of being called a "technician". Didn't know that they even existed in this part of the country. Pleasant surprise.

Rich


----------



## Rich

wavemaster said:


> Also based the assumption that our install is one in a million, just curious, do you have 8DVR's with 7 of them connected VIA DECA? Basically am I talking to someone that can reproduce the same thing or are you reading off a spec. sheet. I mean no offense by this, but if the few who have systems like this can do it with ease using DECA then there is something wrong for sure, however if you have never tried it, than chasing this assumption that I had a bad install could just be a proverbial red herring.


I have eleven HRs, nine hooked up to DECA and see no problems no matter how many streams we have going. But I don't foresee a time that I would have nine streams going at the same time. I only have six Panny plasmas and couldn't do it if I wanted to. By the way, the tech that installed my DECA system said he does all the DECA installs for his company and never had an install as complicated as mine.

I also have an Ethernet system and I think the big advantage to the DECA will come somewhere in the future. We don't know what D* has planned for this, but there should be some goodies coming up.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool

rich584 said:


> I have eleven HRs, nine hooked up to DECA and see no problems no matter how many streams we have going. But I don't foresee a time that I would have nine streams going at the same time. I only have six Panny plasmas and couldn't do it if I wanted to.
> 
> Rich


Actually you could.
Setup a stream from each DVR to another DVR. With 9 on the cloud, each can send & receive at the same time, giving you nine streams.
You can't monitor each stream at the same time with only six TVs, but you can switch DVRs and do "spot checks".


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> Actually you could.
> Setup a stream from each DVR to another DVR. With 9 on the cloud, each can send & receive at the same time, giving you nine streams.
> You can't monitor each stream at the same time with only six TVs, but you can switch DVRs and do "spot checks".


Isn't there a limit of 16 streams minus the Ethernet bridge? 15/1


----------



## rzrnut

With 4 it is rock solid with 5 it starts to slow/degrade here.


----------



## veryoldschool

rzrnut said:


> With 4 it is rock solid with 5 it starts to slow/degrade here.


Do you have a H/HR24?


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> Isn't there a limit of 16 streams minus the Ethernet bridge? 15/1


The DECA limit is 16.
The current number of streams is limited by the DVR count, which seems to be 10 [from posts I've read].


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> The DECA limit is 16.
> The current number of streams is limited by the DVR count, which seems to be 10 [from posts I've read].


9 DVR's send/rec would be 18 streams as I understand it, not 9. I can't get the 8th going as well as have the Ethernet bridge in the mix. There is simply no way the DECA spec could handle 18 HD feeds. That would be 180-360Mbs on average.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> Also based the assumption that our install is one in a million,


Actually I said .1%.... which would be 1000 in a million.  Or 1 in a 1000. Doesn't make you seem quite so insignificant - but also still makes the point the majority of customers DON'T have >8 DVRs.

I never said there was only 17 of you running around.  You aren't that special.


----------



## wavemaster

BudShark said:


> Actually I said .1%.... which would be 1000 in a million.  Or 1 in a 1000. Doesn't make you seem quite so insignificant - but also still makes the point the majority of customers DON'T have >8 DVRs.
> 
> I never said there was only 17 of you running around.  You aren't that special.


Touche'

I do happen to know several people who do, so we must be at the other end of the bell.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> 9 DVR's send/rec would be 18 streams as I understand it, not 9. I can't get the 8th going as well as have the Ethernet bridge in the mix. There is simply no way the DECA spec could handle 18 HD feeds. That would be 180-360Mbs on average.


I guess you don't understand then.
There would be nine senders and nine receiving these. How can you count 18?


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> I guess you don't understand then.
> There would be nine senders and nine receiving these. How can you count 18?


One in, one out.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> One in, one out.


!rolling
And where does that "one in" come from?
[hint it's the same one that was being sent out by another DVR]


----------



## BudShark

veryoldschool said:


> I guess you don't understand then.
> There would be nine senders and nine receiving these. How can you count 18?





wavemaster said:


> One in, one out.





veryoldschool said:


> !rolling
> And where does that "one in" come from?
> [hint it's the same one that was being sent out by another DVR]


He probably got that from me early on.

When describing the communication paths he was setting up I misunderstood and stated he had 12 streams going at once - but in reality I think he only had 6 DVRs all talking to each other.

So my comment about 12 streams when there were 6 DVRs may have led to the 1 in/1 out double counting.


----------



## wavemaster

BudShark said:


> He probably got that from me early on.
> 
> When describing the communication paths he was setting up I misunderstood and stated he had 12 streams going at once - but in reality I think he only had 6 DVRs all talking to each other.
> 
> So my comment about 12 streams when there were 6 DVRs may have led to the 1 in/1 out double counting.


LOL - well I can't even get 8 going. On Ethernet we had them all going as well as being able to media share on all of them at once. The installer (of DECA) told me the same thing. 16 streams or 8 DVR total. I never questioned it because I see it as a limit already.

So you are saying I can have 16DVR's One in One out going at the same time on DECA? Not even close here.


----------



## rzrnut

veryoldschool said:


> Do you have a H/HR24?


No. Do I need to?


----------



## veryoldschool

rzrnut said:


> No. Do I need to?


No you don't "need to", but with one, you can run a coax network test and see the quality of the DECA network. Without knowing this, you can't isolate where a problem lies.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> So you are saying I can have 16DVR's One in One out going at the same time on DECA? Not even close here.


I know "he" isn't even trying to say that, since the limit of DVRs recognized for MRV, is less.


----------



## rzrnut

veryoldschool said:


> No you don't "need to", but with one, you can run a coax network test and see the quality of the DECA network. Without knowing this, you can't isolate where a problem lies.


Mostly HR20 and HR21's.


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> LOL - well I can't even get 8 going. On Ethernet we had them all going as well as being able to media share on all of them at once. The installer (of DECA) told me the same thing. 16 streams or 8 DVR total. I never questioned it because I see it as a limit already.
> 
> So you are saying I can have 16DVR's One in One out going at the same time on DECA? Not even close here.


No... I was trying to help you out of the math error 

DVR 1 -> DVR 2
DVR 2 -> DVR 1
DVR 3 -> DVR 4
DVR 4 -> DVR 3
DVR 5 -> DVR 6
DVR 6 -> DVR 5
...

You can only have as many streams as you have devices. With 8 DVRs, the most (if you used every single one of them to stream at the same time which then I'd question if you had your SL on the right DVRs!  ) streams you could have is 8.

You've alluded to many times you see the limitation of devices. It *seems* that you are backing into a failure scenario because you don't like the technology. Thats fine... it is a limitation and you are more than welcome to call it out.

But lets be "fair". With 16 available tuners on a SWiM 16, we are limited to no more than 8 DVRs - unless we start disabling 2nd tuners. But lets consider that an EXTREME case. So the real limitation here is 8 DVRs (and DirecTV only allows you to see 10).

So the *MAX* streams in a DECA installation is 8. And that is an extreme case. Agreed? You'd have to have 8 DVRs, and simultaneously, want to watch via MRV in all 8 locations off a different DVR that one of the other 7 locations wasn't simultaneously watching AND your local DVR didn't have the content... :sure:

So I'm staying out of the technical side of this. But... with that said, if you have 8 DVRs on a SWiM 16, with no Internet connection, and DECA - it *should* work. I personally don't have enough to make it work. And DirecTV would arguably support you.

If you want to do something else... well... it doesn't seem that DECA is an option and you'd either have to scale down your requirements or go unsupported on Ethernet.


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> I know "he" isn't even trying to say that, since the limit of DVRs recognized for MRV, is less.


So what is it?

The installer said 16 streams (one in and one out) or 8 DVR's. Was he wrong?

Does D* actually have a published specification/limit of the system?


----------



## wavemaster

BudShark said:


> No... I was trying to help you out of the math error
> 
> DVR 1 -> DVR 2
> DVR 2 -> DVR 1
> DVR 3 -> DVR 4
> DVR 4 -> DVR 3
> DVR 5 -> DVR 6
> DVR 6 -> DVR 5
> ...
> 
> You can only have as many streams as you have devices. With 8 DVRs, the most (if you used every single one of them to stream at the same time which then I'd question if you had your SL on the right DVRs!  ) streams you could have is 8.
> 
> You've alluded to many times you see the limitation of devices. It *seems* that you are backing into a failure scenario because you don't like the technology. Thats fine... it is a limitation and you are more than welcome to call it out.
> 
> But lets be "fair". With 16 available tuners on a SWiM 16, we are limited to no more than 8 DVRs - unless we start disabling 2nd tuners. But lets consider that an EXTREME case. So the real limitation here is 8 DVRs (and DirecTV only allows you to see 10).
> 
> So the *MAX* streams in a DECA installation is 8. And that is an extreme case. Agreed? You'd have to have 8 DVRs, and simultaneously, want to watch via MRV in all 8 locations off a different DVR that one of the other 7 locations wasn't simultaneously watching AND your local DVR didn't have the content... :sure:
> 
> So I'm staying out of the technical side of this. But... with that said, if you have 8 DVRs on a SWiM 16, with no Internet connection, and DECA - it *should* work. I personally don't have enough to make it work. And DirecTV would arguably support you.
> 
> If you want to do something else... well... it doesn't seem that DECA is an option and you'd either have to scale down your requirements or go unsupported on Ethernet.


Backing into a failure scenario because I don't like it? I just imagined for a few minutes that I loved it more than my wife (and that is a whole lot) - it didn't change the performance one bit at all. Come on man. I have both, and currently DECA, if anything I would take the easy route and leave it like it is.

My point is is that I can't get past 5 without issues. I have never been able to get all 8 going at the same time. When I get 5 going trickplay degrades into the seconds per command. I did not see this on Ethernet.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> The installer said 16 streams (one in and one out) or 8 DVR's. Was he wrong?


Yes.
I wonder what his answer would be to "Which weighs more, A pound of feathers or a pound of lead?"

Sometimes it helps to think about something.
I've posted what is happening & how. If there is an error, please point it out.


----------



## Doug Brott

wavemaster said:


> So what is it?
> 
> The installer said 16 streams (one in and one out) or 8 DVR's. Was he wrong?
> 
> Does D* actually have a published specification/limit of the system?


You can have up to 16 network devices (DECA/MoCA) on any SWiM network ..

You can have up to to 16 tuners on a SWiM-16 (8 tuners per SWiM output)

You can have up to 10 (maybe 11) DVRs see each other on any network (Ethernet or DECA).

Most people on a single SWiM-16 would not exceed 8 DVRs as they would want 2 tuners per DVR. This would mean the typical maximum streams across the DECA cloud would be 8 streams.

Normal households would have probably a maximum of 3 streams ever .. many only one stream.

The most often number of streams going across MRV will be much closer to zero ..


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> My point is is that I can't get past 5 without issues.


And I think the real point is to know whether your DECA network meets minimum levels before suggesting "everyone" will have the same results you're having, since there have been posts from those that aren't having "your problems".


----------



## Doug Brott

wavemaster said:


> Backing into a failure scenario because I don't like it? I just imagined for a few minutes that I loved it more than my wife (and that is a whole lot) - it didn't change the performance one bit at all. Come on man. I have both, and currently DECA, if anything I would take the easy route and leave it like it is.
> 
> My point is is that I can't get past 5 without issues. I have never been able to get all 8 going at the same time. When I get 5 going trickplay degrades into the seconds per command. I did not see this on Ethernet.


Other than proof of concept .. how often do you think you'll be running 5 streams over MRV? If this were that normal wouldn't it make more sense to swap the DVRs around so the folks watching the shows would have it closer to them? :scratchin


----------



## BudShark

wavemaster said:


> Backing into a failure scenario because I don't like it? I just imagined for a few minutes that I loved it more than my wife (and that is a whole lot) - it didn't change the performance one bit at all. Come on man. I have both, and currently DECA, if anything I would take the easy route and leave it like it is.
> 
> My point is is that I can't get past 5 without issues. I have never been able to get all 8 going at the same time. When I get 5 going trickplay degrades into the seconds per command. I did not see this on Ethernet.


Backing into a failure scenario because I find it hard to believe that someone with >5 DVRs would have >5 MRV streams going simultaneously in a real world scenario. In other words, it sounds like a test designed to find the limit - and when the limit was found, it was reported as a failure (even though the physical layer of subject A (DECA) was not as validated as the physical layer of subject B (Gig-E))


----------



## rzrnut

wavemaster, I do not have as many recorders in my setup as you do in yours but I have seen similar results. 

Sorry to have dragged you into this, but thank you for sharing. I will deal with it as it is and when it gets bad I will go around and turn off some TVs HaHa.


----------



## veryoldschool

rzrnut said:


> wavemaster, I do not have as many recorders in my setup as you do in yours but I have seen similar results.
> 
> Sorry to have dragged you into this, but thank you for sharing. I will deal with it as it is and when it gets bad I will go around and turn off some TVs HaHa.


This thread might be of some interest: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=178985


----------



## dennisj00

VOS, do you know if there are plans to put the Coax test in the pre-24 HRs? Or is this a 'feature' of the 24s?


----------



## veryoldschool

dennisj00 said:


> VOS, do you know if there are plans to put the Coax test in the pre-24 HRs? Or is this a 'feature' of the 24s?


:shrug: I'm not sure external DECAs can report this.


----------



## Rich

veryoldschool said:


> Actually you could.
> Setup a stream from each DVR to another DVR. With 9 on the cloud, each can send & receive at the same time, giving you nine streams.
> You can't monitor each stream at the same time with only six TVs, but you can switch DVRs and do "spot checks".


Aww. That sounds like work. I gotta think about how to do that, then do it and that just sounds like work. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich

wavemaster said:


> Isn't there a limit of 16 streams minus the Ethernet bridge? 15/1


I've got an Ethernet bridge, I think.

Rich


----------



## espaeth

For what it's worth, I got my install today of a pair of HR-24s. I've tried DECA and straight Ethernet a few times (the reboot delay really slows down the process) and I see no discernible difference in performance.

Upstairs HR-24 is plugged into an HP Procurve 1400-8G
Basement HR-24 is plugged into a 3Com Baseline Plus 2920 (3CRBSG2093)

No specialized QoS is setup.


----------



## veryoldschool

espaeth said:


> For what it's worth,...


Well _what it costs_ seems to be $300+ for what the 24s do for free. :lol:


----------



## espaeth

veryoldschool said:


> Well _what it costs_ seems to be $300+ for what the 24s do for free.


These were already existing pre-install. Overall it actually saved me $25 because I didn't have to buy the separate $25 DECA adapter to patch back into my network to support DoD.

The 3Com 2920 switch represents the largest expense, and wouldn't be necessary for a typical install. I'm using it at the center of my network because I have enterprise APs that break out public and private SSIDs into my private network and a guest VLAN with separate access permissions.


----------



## veryoldschool

espaeth said:


> These were already existing pre-install.


I'd figured this.
"But" for those looking into which to do and not having anything, then the DECA [even at the full installed price of $148] still comes out cheaper.


----------



## Doug Brott

espaeth said:


> For what it's worth, I got my install today of a pair of HR-24s. I've tried DECA and straight Ethernet a few times (the reboot delay really slows down the process) and I see no discernible difference in performance.
> 
> Upstairs HR-24 is plugged into an HP Procurve 1400-8G
> Basement HR-24 is plugged into a 3Com Baseline Plus 2920 (3CRBSG2093)
> 
> No specialized QoS is setup.


I'm sure you did, but since you specifically state, just wanna double check ..

Both HR24s said "Coax Connected" when you were testing, DECA, yes?

clearly you can't have Ethernet connected and expect it to use DECA.

Still, that being said, the biggest thing you say is pretty much what I've been trying to say all along.

"I see no discernible difference in performance."

For MRV, DECA is as good as or better .. Since you have a quality network installed, you probably are getting the "as good as" while folks that have a poor quality network would get the "better."

Thanks for the results ...


----------



## veryoldschool

Doug Brott said:


> I'm sure you did, but since you specifically state, just wanna double check ..
> 
> Both HR24s said "Coax Connected" when you were testing, DECA, yes?
> 
> clearly you can't have Ethernet connected and expect it to use DECA.
> 
> Still, that being said, the biggest thing you say is pretty much what I've been trying to say all along.
> 
> "I see no discernible difference in performance."
> 
> For MRV, DECA is as good as or better .. Since you have a quality network installed, you probably are getting the "as good as" while folks that have a poor quality network would get the "better."
> 
> Thanks for the results ...


Imagine going the other way, where you spend over $300, run cabling all over, and it doesn't work any better. :lol:


----------



## espaeth

veryoldschool said:


> Imagine going the other way, where you spend over $300, run cabling all over, and it doesn't work any better. :lol:


It would work the same way with $10 switch gear. The key is that it has to be _switch_ gear, not those SOHO router w/ LAN port widgets.


----------



## veryoldschool

espaeth said:


> It would work the same way with $10 switch gear. The key is that it has to be _switch_ gear, not those SOHO router w/ LAN port widgets.


I've never been against ethernet. I started with MRV that way before testing the DECA.
Now I just don't need to have Cat5 cables running around the floor & down the hall anymore.
For those that have nothing to start with, it seems are better off, using DECA, since the coax is already in place.


----------



## David MacLeod

<homer simpson mode> mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......ethernet...  </homer simpson mode>

I stay out of a lot of these discussions because my equipment is not a typical home owners switches and router. quality of equipment does help when multiple streams come into play.
but when an installer rolls up to a house deca is, and should be, the only option for him/her to use.


----------



## espaeth

veryoldschool said:


> For those that have nothing to start with, it seems are better off, using DECA, since the coax is already in place.


Nobody is contesting that, but this thread started out with this simple question in post #1:



jkirk said:


> very sorry if this has been covered. I'm a happy ethernet mrv user at present. Does the deca set-up offer better performance?


With the right (not necessarily expensive) switch hardware, I still believe the answer to this question is "no."


----------



## hdtvfan0001

espaeth said:


> With the right (not necessarily expensive) switch hardware, *I still believe the answer to this question is "no*."


Having been following this thread from the beginning, and also having migrated with using an Ethernet network followed by SWiM/DECA...

Since there are a number of physical installation variables in play - I think the jury is out as far as an *absolute* statement of yes or no.

Both, when properly installed and using equipment designed to support high-speed video/audio transport streaming....will work very well. My contention is that when rating one solution "over" another...the universal response that fits is more likely....it depends.


----------



## Rich

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Having been following this thread from the beginning, and also having migrated with using an Ethernet network followed by SWiM/DECA...
> 
> Since there are a number of physical installation variables in play - I think the jury is out as far as an *absolute* statement of yes or no.
> 
> Both, when properly installed and using equipment designed to support high-speed video/audio transport streaming....will work very well. My contention is that when rating one solution "over" another...the universal response that fits is more likely....it depends.


I still think that something else that requires DECA will come in the future. Can't imagine what, but we keep getting more and more and, hopefully, DECA will be the beginning of something else. Or the gateway to something else. But I think I'll keep my Ethernet system in place, just in case something adverse happens.

Rich


----------



## espaeth

rich584 said:


> I still think that something else that requires DECA will come in the future.


If something were to occur, it would only be when the minimum HD DVR in deployment is the HR-24. Until that point, standard Ethernet is the basic common denominator for HR-20/21/22/23 receivers. On those units it is still a 100mbps Ethernet connection into a DECA adapter.


----------



## veryoldschool

rich584 said:


> I still think that something else that requires DECA will come in the future. Can't imagine what, but we keep getting more and more and, hopefully, DECA will be the beginning of something else. Or the gateway to something else. But I think I'll keep my Ethernet system in place, just in case something adverse happens.
> 
> Rich





espaeth said:


> If something were to occur, it would only be when the minimum HD DVR in deployment is the HR-24. Until that point, standard Ethernet is the basic common denominator for HR-20/21/22/23 receivers. On those units it is still a 100mbps Ethernet connection into a DECA adapter.


Not having the clearest crystal ball, I'd be looking at the development of the HMC30 for signs of this.
*espaeth* While ethernet is a common denominator, and the 24s still have it, for one receiver a 100 Mb/s connection shouldn't limit it at all. When this "one unit" can stream say 6 streams, then maybe so.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

rich584 said:


> I still think that something else that requires DECA will come in the future. Can't imagine what, but we keep getting more and more and, hopefully, DECA will be the beginning of something else. Or the gateway to something else. But I think I'll keep my Ethernet system in place, just in case something adverse happens.
> 
> Rich


It would seem reasonable to assume that they are not rolling out this new infrastructure update/technology refresh with SWiM/DECA for just one single business purpose/goal.


----------



## espaeth

veryoldschool said:


> While ethernet is a common denominator, and the 24s still have it, for one receiver a 100 Mb/s connection shouldn't limit it at all. When this "one unit" can stream say 6 streams, then maybe so.


D* HD feeds top out around 9mbps right now, so 6 streams is still only going to amount to 54mbps which is easily doable on a 100mbps full duplex connection. I suspect seek performance of the single HD in the DVR is going to be an issue before bandwidth out the box when it comes to feeding multiple streams.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> It would seem reasonable to assume that they are not rolling out this new infrastructure update/technology refresh with SWiM/DECA for just one single business purpose/goal.


By breaking down the key barrier (cabling) to networking the boxes it's accomplishing multiple goals right now:

1) Provide MRV functionality
2) Enable access to VoD content (including $$ content)
3) Providing location/account validation by ensuring all receivers are on the same network and hence in the same house.

And it's not a free roll-out, they're collecting $150+ for existing subs to upgrade.


----------



## lugnutathome

That's been my opinion for some time. Your knowledge runs far deeper than mine but when the vast majority of the equipment uses a basic 10/100 Ethernet port, it's a fairly simple reasoning process.

It would not seem commercially viable (profitable) to force a compete subscriber base wide equipment replacement campaign to sustain such a change. Perhaps after a high percentage of these units age out and are replaced by the newer ones that might be able to happen. 2 or 3 years?

At least for the current and foreseeable future Ethernet *is* a reasonable alternative where the proper infrastructure exists.

And frankly Ethernet is a world wide standard and it will evolve. One would think attempting to replace such in a proprietary realm would be very expensive as opposed to letting the industry share the development expenses, and merely implementing them in the DECA cloud.

The move to support Ethernet traffic on the same coax as the Sat signals (OK putting the protocol back where it came from) is a brilliant move from a supportability standpoint. However DECA is hampered with limited scalability and is also limited to "standard domicile" sizing. (yeah I know we are a minority here but our revenue per account numbers have to be desirable)

Add to that the SWM16 is stacking 2 SWM8 units in the same enclosure (while reducing their available SWM outputs to only 1 ea) and there are already reports of it having overheating issues. I'm thinking a reliability issue and a high replacement cost to factor in here.

In order to provide true sizing and tuner count scalability the technology would soon be requiring the ability to provide switching and a whole network topology that would mimic what already exists outside DECA. Plus it still has to be compatible with Ethernet for the purposes of VOD.

I could be wrong but the more I think it through, the less likely Ethernet can be removed from the DTV WHDVR landscape without incurring high developmental and equipment costs better served by leveraging already existing in place or emerging technologies.

Don "but then I answer to whats in my accounts not investors" Bolton



espaeth said:


> If something were to occur, it would only be when the minimum HD DVR in deployment is the HR-24. Until that point, standard Ethernet is the basic common denominator for HR-20/21/22/23 receivers. On those units it is still a 100mbps Ethernet connection into a DECA adapter.


----------



## veryoldschool

espaeth said:


> D* HD feeds *top out around 9mbps right now*, so 6 streams is still only going to amount to 54mbps which is easily doable on a 100mbps full duplex connection. I suspect *seek performance* of the single HD in the DVR is going to be an issue before bandwidth out the box when it comes to feeding multiple streams.


This I know isn't correct: "top out around 9mbps right now"
"Average out at" around 9 Mb/s, sure, but I get readings from as little as 2 Mb/s to well over 16 Mb/s, and this is not counting trickplay, which can be over 30 Mb/s, though very brief.

"Seek performance", if this is the drive, then from other posts, this too isn't the problem.


----------



## Doug Brott

Keep in mind that the farther and farther we get into the future, DECA will be built in .. so as Legacy systems drop off, MoCA (I guess technically there is no MoCA Adapter at this point) will be a plug and play system. SWiM + all 24s and you can MRV right away. Zero consideration for network installation. It just works.


----------



## dennisj00

Don,

You and Tibber and RitchieRich and a few unnamed others have more DVRs than normal and DECA maxes out for those installations. So either plain ethernet or a hybrid will just have to do!

Again, DECA isn't designed to replace a solid ethernet installation . . . it's designed for the coax installers to be able to provide ONE link to your router and call it a network installation!


----------



## AndrewCCM

Ok..Admittedly, I haven't read through all pages of this thread...

I beta tested the streaming room to room with (2) HR22's over ethernet and had basically no trouble. I have an isolated Wireless N 300mbps 5ghz network setup between DVRs. I have a gigabit Ethernet to Wireless N bridge on one side and the dedicated AP on the other. It worked flawlessly.

My question: What do I have to do to continue using this setup? Do I just call and have the $3 added to my account? Do I tell them don't send the DECA man and his $$$ charge?

Is it just something they have to allow on your DVRs now that the beta period is over? Will the CSR understand that I just want it reenabled and no new equipment?

Thanks in advance.

Andrew


----------



## sigma1914

AndrewCCM said:


> Ok..Admittedly, I haven't read through all pages of this thread...
> 
> I beta tested the streaming room to room with (2) HR22's over ethernet and had basically no trouble. I have an isolated Wireless N 300mbps 5ghz network setup between DVRs. I have a gigabit Ethernet to Wireless N bridge on one side and the dedicated AP on the other. It worked flawlessly.
> 
> My question: What do I have to do to continue using this setup? Do I just call and have the $3 added to my account? Do I tell them don't send the DECA man and his $$$ charge?
> 
> Is it just something they have to allow on your DVRs now that the beta period is over? Will the CSR understand that I just want it reenabled and no new equipment?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Andrew


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=177590


----------



## lugnutathome

This is fully understood! 

Just hoping the powers that be don't exclude us in favor of the needs for servicing the masses...:grin:

The underlying theme (bongo grams) seems to indicate that DTV will "replace" Ethernet as it's transport mechanism eventually. Unless that technology (SWM-DECA) scales better by that time it will isolate some of the larger accounts.

As long as I can still use my switched Ethernet, I'm happy as a pig in slop.
OR
If it gets to the point where I can leverage DECA with my excessively long cable runs and distance from the dish with reliable and not burning hot equipment then that's fine too. How is not important. That it works and it works reliably and effectively is.

I represent a very small market segment I know.

I'm not complaining just annoyingly reminding that we exist 

Don "Why do I always get a warped one?" Bolton



dennisj00 said:


> Don,
> 
> You and Tibber and RitchieRich and a few unnamed others have more DVRs than normal and DECA maxes out for those installations. So either plain ethernet or a hybrid will just have to do!
> 
> Again, DECA isn't designed to replace a solid ethernet installation . . . it's designed for the coax installers to be able to provide ONE link to your router and call it a network installation!


----------



## Bajanjack

Sorry to bring this down to a very "basic level"...but...two weeks ago they converted me to DECA...my primary Linksys router which is hard wired to my desktop and printer etc has all 6 ports used...the tech hooked up the DECA to another wireless router which is plugged into the back of my HR24-500....I have now lost internet connectivity....no mediashare etc..the tech explained that the DECA has to be hardwired to work, and he needs one of the ports in my basic router...since I do not have any ports left, what are my choices...are there routers with more ports?...can I do a "two into one" for a port?...Please excuse my lack of undertanding here!


----------



## veryoldschool

Bajanjack said:


> Sorry to bring this down to a very "basic level"...but...two weeks ago they converted me to DECA...my primary Linksys router which is hard wired to my desktop and printer etc has all 6 ports used...the tech hooked up the DECA to another wireless router which is plugged into the back of my HR24-500....I have now lost internet connectivity....no mediashare etc..the tech explained that the DECA has to be hardwired to work, and he needs one of the ports in my basic router...since I do not have any ports left, what are my choices...are there routers with more ports?...can I do a "two into one" for a port?...Please excuse my lack of undertanding here!


"Seems like" a cheap switch connected to your router would do the job.


----------



## Bajanjack

veryoldschool said:


> "Seems like" a cheap switch connected to your router would do the job.


Thanks VOS, when you say "cheap switch" can you be more specific?


----------



## Doug Brott

Bajanjack said:


> Sorry to bring this down to a very "basic level"...but...two weeks ago they converted me to DECA...my primary Linksys router which is hard wired to my desktop and printer etc has all 6 ports used...the tech hooked up the DECA to another wireless router which is plugged into the back of my HR24-500....I have now lost internet connectivity....no mediashare etc..the tech explained that the DECA has to be hardwired to work, and he needs one of the ports in my basic router...since I do not have any ports left, what are my choices...are there routers with more ports?...can I do a "two into one" for a port?...Please excuse my lack of undertanding here!


Let me understand what you mean here ..

If you have DECA .. AND .. you have an ethernet cable plugge directly into the back of your H24-500, then you are not set up correctly


----------



## veryoldschool

Bajanjack said:


> Thanks VOS, when you say "cheap switch" can you be more specific?





Doug Brott said:


> Let me understand what you mean here ..
> 
> If you have DECA .. AND .. you have an ethernet cable plugged directly into the back of your H24-500, then you are not set up correctly


If ^^ is true, then that's not what you want. [and most likely you've turned off the DECA. Re-running the SAT setup should turn it back on, but keep all ethernet cables away form the HR24 to keep DECA working] 
You might try connecting the DECA for the router to the wireless adapter you have and use it to make "the hop" over to your router.

As for adding a switch: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010400030 1733245520&name=External

I'm sure many will be better at which one is better and why.


----------



## Bajanjack

Doug Brott said:


> Let me understand what you mean here ..
> 
> If you have DECA .. AND .. you have an ethernet cable plugge directly into the back of your H24-500, then you are not set up correctly


Doug, I am sorry, I misstated the facts...there is no ethernet cable in the back...I think the DECA unit is wired from my den to the SWM in my basement....prior to DECA I believe the wireless game adapter was hooked up to the H24.....the tech said I needed to hard wire the DECA to my primary router which is a Linksys WRT54G.........which now brings me full circle to not enough ports....


----------



## Bajanjack

veryoldschool said:


> If ^^ is true, then that's not what you want. [and most likely you've turned off the DECA. Re-running the SAT setup should turn it back on, but keep all ethernet cables away form the HR24 to keep DECA working]
> You might try connecting the DECA for the router to the wireless adapter you have and use it to make "the hop" over to your router.
> 
> As for adding a switch: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010400030 1733245520&name=External
> 
> I'm sure many will be better at which one is better and why.


Wow...thanks!...(even I understand now!)


----------



## AndrewCCM

Thanks!

I just did the email deal for "Unsupported" and it was turned on within 10min...

Only issue I have right now... None of my receivers can connect to the satellite... (started this morning). I believe my dual tuner multiplexer/power boost deal is defective. Tech not going to be out until Wed, so I won't be able to verify that the CSR did indeed enable the mult-room..

Perhaps an ignorant question... But why in the heck can't we use our DVRs when there is no satellite signal? I mean, it's not like I don't have tons of stuff that I could view (recorded) while waiting days on service repair...

Thanks again for the link...

Andrew


----------



## Doug Brott

Bajanjack said:


> Doug, I am sorry, I misstated the facts...there is no ethernet cable in the back...I think the DECA unit is wired from my den to the SWM in my basement....prior to DECA I believe the wireless game adapter was hooked up to the H24.....the tech said I needed to hard wire the DECA to my primary router which is a Linksys WRT54G.........which now brings me full circle to not enough ports....


Oh good .. yes, it sounds like everything may be hooked up the way it's supposed to, just your "router" is lacking ports .. sounds like "RF" VOS knows a little about Ethernet after all as he's set you straight.


----------



## NR4P

AndrewCCM said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I just did the email deal for "Unsupported" and it was turned on within 10min...
> 
> Only issue I have right now... None of my receivers can connect to the satellite... (started this morning). I believe my dual tuner multiplexer/power boost deal is defective. Tech not going to be out until Wed, so I won't be able to verify that the CSR did indeed enable the mult-room..
> 
> Perhaps an ignorant question... But why in the heck can't we use our DVRs when there is no satellite signal? I mean, it's not like I don't have tons of stuff that I could view (recorded) while waiting days on service repair...
> 
> Thanks again for the link...
> 
> Andrew


From my experience with rain outages, you can still pay recorded content without a SAT signal. However once you power cycle, it won't come back to life without a SAT signal.

I believe its because the DVR's are leased and Directv wants it to be authorized for service. That means it must see a SAT signal so it knows its authorized for service.

Otherwise you could disconnect the sat ant, disco the service and watch many hours of movies and shows until you are bored with them.

Now a valid argument would be if you owned the DVR, why cant you use it over and over again to watch the recordings? I suspect the software doesn't know the difference so its one size fits all.

What I find interesting is that you can't receive any SAT signal, sent the email and you say its turned on in 10 mins. Thought they are turning this on/off via Sat data feed but perhaps over ethernet as it communicates with the servers. Someone else can fill in that blank.


----------



## Rich

veryoldschool said:


> Not having the clearest crystal ball, I'd be looking at the development of the HMC30 for signs of this.
> *espaeth* While ethernet is a common denominator, and the 24s still have it, for one receiver a 100 Mb/s connection shouldn't limit it at all. When this "one unit" can stream say 6 streams, then maybe so.


What's an HMC30?

Rich


----------



## Rich

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It would seem reasonable to assume that they are not rolling out this new infrastructure update/technology refresh with SWiM/DECA for just one single business purpose/goal.


Seems I opened up a can of worms with that assumption. Now if I could just understand the posts about that assumption. :lol:

Rich


----------



## RAD

rich584 said:


> What's an HMC30?
> 
> Rich


At CES there was a prototype STB that's was in the RVU demo and they called it a HMC30. It's the server box that's supposed to be able to drive the RVU clients in a home.

See http://www.rvualliance.org/ for more info on RVU, look under the resource tab for a video.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

rich584 said:


> Seems I opened up a can of worms with that assumption. Now if I could just understand the posts about that assumption. :lol:
> 
> Rich


*Thanks alot.* :lol:


----------



## Rich

RAD said:


> At CES there was a prototype STB that's was in the RVU demo and they called it a HMC30. It's the server box that's supposed to be able to drive the RVU clients in a home.
> 
> See http://www.rvualliance.org/ for more info on RVU, look under the resource tab for a video.


Interesting, thanx,

Rich


----------



## Rich

hdtvfan0001 said:


> *Thanks alot.* :lol:


Geez, I'm not even going to ask where you found a can of worms. :lol:

Rich


----------



## wavemaster

VOS - or anyone that knows,

I picked up a few HR24's for myself and a neighbor so now I can run some test?

How do you run the DECA test to see/test the connections?

Also will the same test work in an Ethernet mode or only on DECA? It will take a while for me to go back to Ethernet so I have stewed on this until I could get in a HR24 and see if the DECA network was working as it should.


----------



## wavemaster

Doug Brott said:


> Keep in mind that the farther and farther we get into the future, DECA will be built in .. so as Legacy systems drop off, MoCA (I guess technically there is no MoCA Adapter at this point) will be a plug and play system. SWiM + all 24s and you can MRV right away. Zero consideration for network installation. It just works.


Doug,

Do you see them eliminating the Ethernet port completely?


----------



## hasan

wavemaster said:


> VOS - or anyone that knows,
> 
> I picked up a few HR24's for myself and a neighbor so now I can run some test?
> 
> How do you run the DECA test to see/test the connections?
> 
> Also will the same test work in an Ethernet mode or only on DECA? It will take a while for me to go back to Ethernet so I have stewed on this until I could get in a HR24 and see if the DECA network was working as it should.


The test only works on HR24 series and only DECA.


----------



## wavemaster

hasan said:


> The test only works on HR24 series and only DECA.


How do you initiate the test?


----------



## hasan

wavemaster said:


> How do you initiate the test?


I'm sure one of the HR24 guys will post. I don't own one, I just recall the discussion ...something like Select and Right Arrow from the front panel, but *don't take it from me*, wait for one of the "real" people to get it straight.

Someone in the know will chime in, perhaps before I even get this reply submitted.


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> How do you initiate the test?





hasan said:


> I'm sure one of the HR24 guys will post. I don't own one, I just recall the discussion ...something like Select and Right Arrow from the front panel, but *don't take it from me*, wait for one of the "real" people to get it straight.
> 
> Someone in the know will chime in, perhaps before I even get this reply submitted.


"On the front panel" press both the guide & > buttons. Since these are touch screen type, it can take a few/several times before you get it to work.
"When you do", you'll see a blue screen with modem test, coax network, done.
Select coax network, for this first test and then there is another test/page that will show the bit-rate/matrix from all of the nodes.


----------



## MrSnarkyPants

I switched from U-Verse back to D*, so I have CAT-6 in the wall going to each room already.

Bedroom has H-24 HD Receiver
Living room has HR-22 HD DVR

First installer hooked up the SWM but not the DECA, so the H-24 wouldn't look for the HR-22. He plugged the H-24 into my home network but didn't plug the ethernet cable from my home network into the HR-22.

Second installer blew off the appointment and the person sent on his way home sure didn't want to be there... plugged a DECA into the back of the HR-22 and told me that if I wanted multi-room DVR I should plug the ethernet cable from the DECA into the back of the receiver and if I wanted to use any of the internet related features (on demand, etc.) I should plug in the ethernet cable from my home network into the back of the HR-22 instead. That sounds like crap to me. It's an ethernet capable receiver, it should be able to do both. Tech support says I can't.

So, I unplugged the DECA, put both receivers on my home network, and now I have the on-demand content and multi-room DVR, and I'm back to having the features I liked about U-Verse.

However, my home network is 100-base-t and unmanaged. Multi-room works, but it does take several seconds for a program to start playing, and sometimes it has trouble coming back after being paused.

So, should I bump up to a better network switch? Or is there a better way to set up Multi Room with internet access? Preferably one that doesn't involve sending out another technician... so far I am not impressed with the contractor out here.


----------



## Doug Brott

wavemaster said:


> Doug,
> 
> Do you see them eliminating the Ethernet port completely?


Maybe .. It's hard to say for sure .. Still, that being said, it will be 18-24 months at best .. Something past the HMC30, for example.

If I were DIRECTV, this is what I would do .. but that doesn't mean they will.


----------



## bobnielsen

hasan said:


> The test only works on HR24 series and only DECA.


It also works on the H24 (with DECA, of course). The H24 touch panel is more sensitive than that on the HR24, but I find that pressing the right arrow with one finger and tapping the guide button with another works pretty well.


----------



## DogLover

MrSnarkyPants said:


> I switched from U-Verse back to D*, so I have CAT-6 in the wall going to each room already.
> 
> Bedroom has H-24 HD Receiver
> Living room has HR-22 HD DVR
> 
> First installer hooked up the SWM but not the DECA, so the H-24 wouldn't look for the HR-22. He plugged the H-24 into my home network but didn't plug the ethernet cable from my home network into the HR-22.
> 
> Second installer blew off the appointment and the person sent on his way home sure didn't want to be there... plugged a DECA into the back of the HR-22 and told me that if I wanted multi-room DVR I should plug the ethernet cable from the DECA into the back of the receiver and if I wanted to use any of the internet related features (on demand, etc.) I should plug in the ethernet cable from my home network into the back of the HR-22 instead. That sounds like crap to me. It's an ethernet capable receiver, it should be able to do both. Tech support says I can't.
> 
> So, I unplugged the DECA, put both receivers on my home network, and now I have the on-demand content and multi-room DVR, and I'm back to having the features I liked about U-Verse.
> 
> However, my home network is 100-base-t and unmanaged. Multi-room works, but it does take several seconds for a program to start playing, and sometimes it has trouble coming back after being paused.
> 
> So, should I bump up to a better network switch? Or is there a better way to set up Multi Room with internet access? Preferably one that doesn't involve sending out another technician... so far I am not impressed with the contractor out here.


Here's how they should have installed for MRV and internet access.

Hr24 connected to coax only. Nothing in the ethernet connection.
HR22 connected to DECA's coax and ethernet.
An additional DECA whose input is connected to a coax from the splitter. The output of the DECA should be connected to a DECA power inserter (coax) and your router (ethernet). Alternatively, it can be connected to any switch that is connected to your router.

Now, since it appears you are missing a piece of equipment, you will have to call DIRECTV. Some have said that they were successful at having the additional equipment sent, without the need for an installer, but YMMV. Alternatively, the pieces are available for purchase at online stores. That might be worth it if you can't get DIRECTV to send you the equipment.


----------



## hasan

bobnielsen said:


> It also works on the H24 (with DECA, of course). The H24 touch panel is more sensitive than that on the HR24, but I find that pressing the right arrow with one finger and tapping the guide button with another works pretty well.


Yeah, that's why I said "series". I should have said 24 series.


----------



## BudShark

lugnutathome said:


> That's been my opinion for some time. Your knowledge runs far deeper than mine but when the vast majority of the equipment uses a basic 10/100 Ethernet port, it's a fairly simple reasoning process.
> 
> It would not seem commercially viable (profitable) to force a compete subscriber base wide equipment replacement campaign to sustain such a change. Perhaps after a high percentage of these units age out and are replaced by the newer ones that might be able to happen. 2 or 3 years?
> 
> At least for the current and foreseeable future Ethernet *is* a reasonable alternative where the proper infrastructure exists.
> 
> And frankly Ethernet is a world wide standard and it will evolve. One would think attempting to replace such in a proprietary realm would be very expensive as opposed to letting the industry share the development expenses, and merely implementing them in the DECA cloud.
> 
> The move to support Ethernet traffic on the same coax as the Sat signals (OK putting the protocol back where it came from) is a brilliant move from a supportability standpoint. However DECA is hampered with limited scalability and is also limited to "standard domicile" sizing. (yeah I know we are a minority here but our revenue per account numbers have to be desirable)
> 
> Add to that the SWM16 is stacking 2 SWM8 units in the same enclosure (while reducing their available SWM outputs to only 1 ea) and there are already reports of it having overheating issues. I'm thinking a reliability issue and a high replacement cost to factor in here.
> 
> In order to provide true sizing and tuner count scalability the technology would soon be requiring the ability to provide switching and a whole network topology that would mimic what already exists outside DECA. Plus it still has to be compatible with Ethernet for the purposes of VOD.
> 
> I could be wrong but the more I think it through, the less likely Ethernet can be removed from the DTV WHDVR landscape without incurring high developmental and equipment costs better served by leveraging already existing in place or emerging technologies.
> 
> Don "but then I answer to whats in my accounts not investors" Bolton


You make some good points and while Ethernet is a standard, we are a long way from home infrastructures being in place. New homes - easy. A 30-40-50 year old home? Who's going to pay for the wiring infrastructure if its not needed?

Besides, MoCA is a standard, its widely and well supported, and it continues development. MoCA 2.0 was ratified this month - bringing speeds up to 400-800Mbps with burst speeds over Gb (and these are throughput, not physical rates. The phys rates are higher).

So - its not like MoCA is just a stop gap. MoCA has a place in a connected home for a long time. If I had to guess, the preferred will be Ethernet with MoCA a close second due to built in control and infrastructure - followed distantly by powerline, HomePNA, and Wireless. I think we'll see widespread MoCA(DECA) installations far beyond what you might expect. Just looking at the active (and implementing) members points to MoCA having a long and illustrious career in homes. Probably >50% of home RVU/MRV installations from ALL vendors will implement MoCA in some form.


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> "On the front panel" press both the guide & > buttons. Since these are touch screen type, it can take a few/several times before you get it to work.
> "When you do", you'll see a blue screen with modem test, coax network, done.
> Select coax network, for this first test and then there is another test/page that will show the bit-rate/matrix from all of the nodes.


The lowest number I see in the grid is 235.

I still have stuttering issues after 5 connections and still get drops on two of the HR21's (about once per day).


----------



## veryoldschool

wavemaster said:


> The lowest number I see in the grid is 235.
> 
> I still have stuttering issues after 5 connections and still get drops on two of the HR21's (about once per day).


235 is "good enough".
I just don't have enough DVRs to try 5 streams myself and didn't have any issues with the four I could.


----------



## wavemaster

veryoldschool said:


> 235 is "good enough".
> I just don't have enough DVRs to try 5 streams myself and didn't have any issues with the four I could.


OK.

The multiple connections should not be an issue most of the time, only when everyone is here.

The dropping out every day is a real PITA though. We never did RBR's regularly prior to the SWiM/DEA installation so that is new. Between the two HR21's one of them will be reset each day.

Any tips to keep them connected?


----------



## espaeth

In playing around a bit with MRV and running some packet captures the video is all TCP-based. I haven't been able to clearly identify the trickplay commands -- at first glance it appears the navigation commands are embedded in the same TCP session, only it makes use of the TCP Push function to expedite commands. I say that because I see ACK packets with the Push bit set around the time I estimate I was making navigation inputs to the playback.

To get back to the QoS discussion -- there is no 802.1P header on any of the frames, nor is there any ToS/DSCP values defined. All packets from the receivers have ToS values of 0x0.

If anyone is interested I'd be happy to make the packet captures available for review.


----------



## BudShark

espaeth said:


> In playing around a bit with MRV and running some packet captures the video is all TCP-based. I haven't been able to clearly identify the trickplay commands -- at first glance it appears the navigation commands are embedded in the same TCP session, only it makes use of the TCP Push function to expedite commands. I say that because I see ACK packets with the Push bit set around the time I estimate I was making navigation inputs to the playback.
> 
> To get back to the QoS discussion -- there is no 802.1P header on any of the frames, nor is there any ToS/DSCP values defined. All packets from the receivers have ToS values of 0x0.
> 
> If anyone is interested I'd be happy to make the packet captures available for review.


What switch are you using to make your capture? How do you have the physical layer setup?


----------



## espaeth

BudShark said:


> What switch are you using to make your capture? How do you have the physical layer setup?


I'm performing a packet capture using Wireshark and Winpcap on a Compaq notebook of some model (Broadcom NIC). The basic layout is



Code:


+==========+
| Recvr  1 |
+==========+
        |      
      +---------+
      | Swt A   |              UPSTAIRS
      +---------+
           |
      +---------+
      | Swt B   |               DOWNSTAIRS
      +---------+
         |
+==========+
| Recvr  2 |
+==========+

Switch A is a HP Procurve 1400 unmanaged switch.

Switch B is a 3Com Baseline 9020 managed switch.

The interconnect is 1000/Full between the switches. To facilitate the packet capture the port that Receiver 2 is plugged into was mirrored into the interface the laptop was connected to.


----------



## MrSnarkyPants

DogLover said:


> Now, since it appears you are missing a piece of equipment, you will have to call DIRECTV. Some have said that they were successful at having the additional equipment sent, without the need for an installer, but YMMV. Alternatively, the pieces are available for purchase at online stores. That might be worth it if you can't get DIRECTV to send you the equipment.


D*'s tech support tried to tell me that you couldn't have MRV and on demand at the same time. In other words, they really don't want to roll a truck. And I don't think Multiband wants to come back to my place a third time.

I'll look at the splitter and see if there's an open port. If so, I'll find a DECA online and put it in myself. Otherwise, I'll put in a gigabit switch and keep the Ethernet connections in place. Or I'll just leave it alone, since it's working pretty well as it is.


----------



## wavemaster

MrSnarkyPants said:


> D*'s tech support tried to tell me that you couldn't have MRV and on demand at the same time. In other words, they really don't want to roll a truck. And I don't think Multiband wants to come back to my place a third time.
> 
> I'll look at the splitter and see if there's an open port. If so, I'll find a DECA online and put it in myself. Otherwise, I'll put in a gigabit switch and keep the Ethernet connections in place. Or I'll just leave it alone, since it's working pretty well as it is.


If you have a good hard wired Ethernet setup, I would stick with that.

Since going to DECA we have had a bunch of issues that we did not have on Ethernet. Mostly jittery video when a bunch of streams are going (5 and above) and dropped DVR's that need to be reset. We have a larger installation (9 DVR's now) and that is probably the issue, but the whole argument that DECA is better should CLEARLY be stated that it is better for normal or in our case smaller installations.

A good hardwired Ethernet setup will surpass DECA in performance and reliability on larger installations.


----------



## brotherman38

I just had 2 HR24's and 1 H24 receivers installed by DirecTV installer, my house has hardwired Ethernet installed, i'm running a GB Ethernet network with a GB switch. The installer connected all the receivers via Ethernet; MRV works great! It didn't make sense to use DECA via coax, and then install a DECA-to-Ethernet convert to connect to my switch. Once you connect the DECA-to-Ethernet convert to the network it defeats the purpose of isolating your network, its all on the same subnet, unless you create a separate subnet. In my case using Ethernet was the best option. Everything works no lags, and I keep the $$ for the internet kit in my pocket! But if you don't have a hardwired network DECA is the way to go.


----------



## hasan

brotherman38 said:


> I just had 2 HR24's and 1 H24 receivers installed by DirecTV installer, my house has hardwired Ethernet installed, i'm running a GB Ethernet network with a GB switch. The installer connected all the receivers via Ethernet; MRV works great! It didn't make sense to use DECA via coax, and then install a DECA-to-Ethernet convert to connect to my switch. Once you connect the DECA-to-Ethernet convert to the network it defeats the purpose of isolating your network, its all on the same subnet, unless you create a separate subnet. In my case using Ethernet was the best option. Everything works no lags, and I keep the $$ for the internet kit in my pocket! But if you don't have a hardwired network DECA is the way to go.


There are other advantages to DECA, but a solid performing home network is a satisfactory solution for MRV, for those that need or want it...at least until D* does something to break it. In that case, the word "unsupported" becomes ominous.


----------



## Doug Brott

brotherman38 said:


> I just had 2 HR24's and 1 H24 receivers installed by DirecTV installer, my house has hardwired Ethernet installed, i'm running a GB Ethernet network with a GB switch. The installer connected all the receivers via Ethernet; MRV works great! It didn't make sense to use DECA via coax, and then install a DECA-to-Ethernet convert to connect to my switch. Once you connect the DECA-to-Ethernet convert to the network it defeats the purpose of isolating your network, its all on the same subnet, unless you create a separate subnet. In my case using Ethernet was the best option. Everything works no lags, and I keep the $$ for the internet kit in my pocket! But if you don't have a hardwired network DECA is the way to go.


In your case, if you didn't care for video on demand you wouldn't have had to do anything .. DECA is built in to the HR24 & the H24 .. YOU'VE ALREADY GOT IT .. 

The only thing missing is the bridge to Ethernet for video on demand, MediaShare, DIRECTV2PC, TVApps, etc. As for "once you connect .. defeats the purpose" .. uh, no. The high bandwidth item (MRV) stays on the DECA cloud. No reason for it to cross over to the Ethernet cloud unless you had another receiver (not mentioned) that was Ethernet only.


----------



## espaeth

hasan said:


> There are other advantages to DECA, but a solid performing home network is a satisfactory solution for MRV, for those that need or want it...at least until D* does something to break it. In that case, the word "unsupported" becomes ominous.


They can't do anything to break it the way the application is written, espeically with the pool of HR20/21/22/23s out there that have Ethernet to an external DECA adapter -- those receivers have no way of discerning whether DECA is in use or not.



Doug Brott said:


> As for "once you connect .. defeats the purpose" .. uh, no. The high bandwidth item (MRV) stays on the DECA cloud. No reason for it to cross over to the Ethernet cloud unless you had another receiver (not mentioned) that was Ethernet only.


The traffic loading is on the order of 20-30mbps tops, there is no advantage to having available bandwidth greater than that of the 100mbps Ethernet NIC.

When he says it defeats the purpose, he means that all of the broadcast / multicast traffic permeates over to the DECA network anyway, so any advantage of the isolation of DECA is immediately negated. The same level of separation is maintained if you plug the devices into an Ethernet switch. That's the key difference between a hub and a switch, the switch learns which MAC addresses are associated with which ports and starts to filter out unrelated traffic from hitting each port. So on a switch, playing games on your PS3 would have absolutely no interaction with MRV.


----------



## hasan

espaeth said:


> They can't do anything to break it the way the application is written, espeically with the pool of HR20/21/22/23s out there that have Ethernet to an external DECA adapter -- those receivers have no way of discerning whether DECA is in use or not.
> .


I'm sure they can tell if DECA is being used on any system, if they so choose. If they want to turn it off, I'm betting they can. When I said break it, I meant it two ways, the first of which you addressed. The second is up to D*


----------



## Doug Brott

espaeth said:


> When he says it defeats the purpose, he means that all of the broadcast / multicast traffic permeates over to the DECA network anyway, so any advantage of the isolation of DECA is immediately negated. The same level of separation is maintained if you plug the devices into an Ethernet switch. That's the key difference between a hub and a switch, the switch learns which MAC addresses are associated with which ports and starts to filter out unrelated traffic from hitting each port. So on a switch, playing games on your PS3 would have absolutely no interaction with MRV.


Let me put it a little more succinctly .. The average person (read: 95+ % of the people reading this message) shouldn't go out and buy a Gigabit Ethernet Switch to connect up MRV. Use DECA, let DIRECTV install it and be done with it.

There is no specific advantage to doing it yourself if you are a normal subscriber. If you are Joe "Got lots of networking inside my house" then it might be prudent to consider that as an option. most people should go with what DIRECTV has already offered, and in the case of the HR24 .. you might as well go with what is literally built in to the receiver. you don't even have to connect ANY network cable if you have all 24s and JUST want MRV. There is ZERO beyond the coax which is already required for getting the sat signal. Not even thinking about it. Just get whole home DVR service turned on and you're up and running. No Cat 5, not Switch, nothing. Connecting a gigabit switch means adding more time, more troubleshooting, and more cost (each port is $x/port).


----------



## hdtvfan0001

hasan said:


> I'm sure they can tell if DECA is being used on any system, if they so choose. *If they want to turn it off, I'm betting they can*. When I said break it, I meant it two ways, the first of which you addressed. The second is up to D*


I'm with you on that bet.


----------



## webcrawlr

Doug Brott said:


> In your case, if you didn't care for video on demand you wouldn't have had to do anything .. DECA is built in to the HR24 & the H24 .. YOU'VE ALREADY GOT IT ..
> 
> The only thing missing is the bridge to Ethernet for video on demand, MediaShare, DIRECTV2PC, TVApps, etc. As for "once you connect .. defeats the purpose" .. uh, no. * The high bandwidth item (MRV)* stays on the DECA cloud. No reason for it to cross over to the Ethernet cloud unless you had another receiver (not mentioned) that was Ethernet only.


The most I've ever seen come out of one stream was 3Mb/sec (1080i local). That's about 25% utilization of a 100Mb switch. Not what I'd call high bandwidth in today's world.


----------



## Steve

webcrawlr said:


> The most I've ever seen come out of one stream was 3Mb/sec (1080i local) [...]


MPEG-4 streams are typically 8 mbps. Any chance you were clocking a newscast with a talking head in front of a static background? Also, MPEG-2 OTA streams can be in the 15-19 mbps range.

In either case, to your point, those still represent < 20% of a 100 mbps connection.


----------



## Doug Brott

webcrawlr said:


> The most I've ever seen come out of one stream was 3Mb/sec (1080i local). That's about 25% utilization of a 100Mb switch. Not what I'd call high bandwidth in today's world.





Steve said:


> MPEG-4 streams are typically 8 mbps. Any chance you were clocking a newscast with a talking head in front of a static background? Also, MPEG-2 OTA streams can be in the 15-19 mbps range.
> 
> In either case, to your point, those still represent < 20% of a 100 mbps connection.


Yet many people still have problem setting up & using Ethernet solutions ..

This does not apply to many of the folks reading here, but even some in this group have trouble. Folks that happen to pass through the forum just looking might be seeking a solution that makes sense and going from a situation where nothing is installed.

Again, my point about the particular post in this quote chain is that the post connected 2 HR24s and an H24 to a Gigabit Ethernet network to get MRV .. The 24s have DECA built in. If NOTHING was done .. MRV would still work. Attaching to the Gigabit network (1) did nothing to improve the situation, (2) took extra time and material, and (3) removed 3 ports from the network switch or router that could have been used for other devices either now or down the road.

When you take everything into consideration, DECA is the right solution for virtually everyone and unless you've got a gazillion receivers (2 posters here come to mind).

The folks here that are experienced in networking, have good equipment and good setups and don't mind (or want to) getting a little dirty, then yeah, Ethernet works and will likely work well. It requires extra overhead of maintaining it plus it requires calling DIRECTV and asking them to "unsupport" you. But if it's a new install and all devices are 24s, why not use the built in DECA? It seems silly to me to intentionally work around that.


----------



## veryoldschool

webcrawlr said:


> The most I've ever seen come out of one stream was 3Mb/sec (1080i local). That's about 25% utilization of a 100Mb switch. Not what I'd call high bandwidth in today's world.


That actually sounds like an SD feed.
MPEG-4 HD can swing from as little as 2-3 Mb/s to over 16 Mb/s, without any trickplay, which can be over 30 Mb/s.


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> MPEG-4 streams are typically 8 mbps. Any chance you were clocking a newscast with a talking head in front of a static background? Also, MPEG-2 OTA streams can be in the 15-19 mbps range.
> 
> In either case, to your point, those still represent < 20% of a 100 mbps connection.





Doug Brott said:


> Yet many people still have problem setting up & using Ethernet solutions ..


FWIW, my post wasn't meant as a vote for ethernet in the "which is better" argument... I was just trying to correct what I thought was an incorrect fact re: 1080i streaming rates. 

As far as DECA vs. Ethernet, I've been there, done both and they worked equally well in my 7 receiver (at the time I was all CAT5) set-up. I chose to go with DECA because I wanted to be fully supported by DirecTV and also be "future proof", in terms of what may be coming from DirecTV down the road.


----------



## espaeth

Doug Brott said:


> Let me put it a little more succinctly .. The average person (read: 95+ % of the people reading this message) shouldn't go out and buy a Gigabit Ethernet Switch to connect up MRV.


Nobody in this thread is arguing that the majority of folks should use Ethernet. The only equipment purchase that's been recommended is for folks who already have physically wired Ethernet and are using LAN ports on a router instead of an actual switch.

"Unsupported" MRV simply means that DirecTV isn't in the business of helping you troubleshoot problems with your home network. If someone has any concerns about that, then they should absolutely go the DECA route.

Again, the only point of contention that continues in this thread occurs when people keep bringing up false or misleading reasons why folks who have a working installation on switched Ethernet should invest further in a DECA install.



Doug Brott said:


> Connecting a gigabit switch means adding more time, more troubleshooting, and more cost (each port is $x/port).


If the DirecTV receiver were the only network device installed at each TV this might be true, but in a number of homes there are multiple networked devices already in place. One of my TVs has the HR24, a Tivo for OTA recording, a PS3, a SlingBox -- all of these require network connectivity, so having a switch in place makes perfect sense.



Doug Brott said:


> Yet many people still have problem setting up & using Ethernet solutions ..


According to the threads in the forums, there are many techs that also have problems setting up a working DECA installation. If a few people having problems is our benchmark for failure, maybe DirecTV should just cancel MRV functionality altogether?



Doug Brott said:


> Again, my point about the particular post in this quote chain is that the post connected 2 HR24s and an H24 to a Gigabit Ethernet network to get MRV .. The 24s have DECA built in. If NOTHING was done .. MRV would still work. Attaching to the Gigabit network (1) did nothing to improve the situation, (2) took extra time and material, and (3) removed 3 ports from the network switch or router that could have been used for other devices either now or down the road.


This is all well and good if it were just MRV functionality, but Internet access provides additional compelling features to the service. That means the benefits you listed above are not clear-cut. To bridge the DECA network back to my home network I need to have a splitter on the line somewhere near an Ethernet port back into my network, I need to attach another coax line from that to the DECA "Broadband adapter" and then I need to find somewhere that will accommodate yet another power brick for that DECA module.



Doug Brott said:


> It requires extra overhead of maintaining it plus it requires calling DIRECTV and asking them to "unsupport" you.


Everyone in this forum is already maintaining their own network, unless they're only connecting here via a 3G netbook or mobile device. And you don't have to call DirecTV and ask them to "unsupport" you. All that field identifies is whether you have DECA hardware or not -- they'll "unsupport" you appropriately if you call tech support and start asking for help with your receivers and they determine that you do not have them connected via DECA.


----------



## sigma1914

espaeth said:


> ...then I need to find somewhere that will accommodate yet another power brick for that DECA module.


It's not a brick:


----------



## espaeth

sigma1914 said:


> It's not a brick


How are you going to plug that in when only the middle battery-protected outlet is open on this?


----------



## sigma1914

espaeth said:


> How are you going to plug that in when only the middle battery-protected outlet is open on this?


Oh, I was supposed to know what UPS & available plug you had? Sorry, my ESP is shaky on holiday weekends.


----------



## espaeth

sigma1914 said:


> Oh, I was supposed to know what UPS & available plug you had?


It's just an example of one of a vast many common situations where an odd shaped power adapter would have issues vs a device with a standard electrical cord.


----------



## bobnielsen

espaeth said:


> How are you going to plug that in when only the middle battery-protected outlet is open on this?


Extension cord?


----------



## espaeth

bobnielsen said:


> Extension cord?


Ok, so let's go off an installation that someone else just reported:

HR24 installed, splitter installed on the line behind the HR24 -- one coax going to the 24, the other coax going to a DECA adapter with an Ethernet connection to the switch sitting right behind the receiver to get Internet access.

So instead of a single Cat5 network cable directly to the switch that's already there, you have to install:

- A splitter
- 2 more coax jumpers (splitter to receiver and DECA module)
- the DECA "broadband" module
- a Cat5 jumper from the DECA module to the switch
- The power adapter to the DECA module
- An extension cord so that the power adapter can plug into the UPS / power bar.

It's supported, and I'm sure a majority of folks don't have a problem with this approach. I absolutely do.

Edit: Yes, I know the splitter wasn't required, but that didn't stop the tech from putting it in anyway.


----------



## sigma1914

espaeth said:


> ...
> 
> It's supported, and I'm sure a majority of folks don't have a problem with this approach. I absolutely do.


Ok...then continue to do what you want on your setup and let others do what they want. All your anti-DECA posts aren't changing Directv's plan.


----------



## hasan

espaeth said:


> How are you going to plug that in when only the middle battery-protected outlet is open on this?


Short (about 6") stubs are available to solve the problem. I bought 10 of them years ago and still find them useful (for your very application) today. (Short extension cords)


----------



## Doug Brott

espaeth said:


> According to the threads in the forums, there are many techs that also have problems setting up a working DECA installation. If a few people having problems is our benchmark for failure, maybe DirecTV should just cancel MRV functionality altogether?


I certainly hope some installers inability to install DECA isn't an implication that having them install Ethernet is a better solution ..

I've stated numerous times that if you have a working Ethernet solution, use it. I've posted a thread describing the process (which is now mundane) of getting unsupported mode. What doesn't make sense is anti-DECA .. :shrug:

There are really only a couple of reasons someone shouldn't get DECA .. The first is the most common and that is working solutions where the posters doesn't want spend additional monies .. The second is probably where there are so many tuners that you've exceeded a SWiM-16 and want MRV across all receivers, but even then there is a 10 DVR limitation.

99% of people should go towards DECA .. It works as good as or better than the Ethernet solution in most normal situations.


----------



## espaeth

sigma1914 said:


> Ok...then continue to do what you want on your setup and let others do what they want. All your anti-DECA posts aren't changing Directv's plan.


Guys, I'm not anti-DECA and I don't expect or want DirecTV to change their policy. The only thing I'm against is the bad and misleading information that is being presented in this thread to present both false advantages to DECA and false detractors to a switched Ethernet configuration.

The power adapter discussion came about due to the question of "If someone has H/HR24 gear already, why would you not just use DECA?" and the simple answer is you can eliminate the separate "broadband" DECA adapter and all of the cabling / power requirements along with it. That's not an indictment against DECA or saying installers shouldn't use it, it's simply calling out a reason why someone who has H/HR24 gear may avoid using DECA even though the adapters are already built into the receivers.

DECA is the only supported solution being offered by DirecTV, and that alone seals the solution for the overwhelming majority of folks. The reasons for making that choice, however, are predominantly logistical and not technical. Regardless of DirecTV's position, I firmly believe it's wrong to make false conjecture and present it as technical fact. Spreading misinformation benefits no one.

1) Yes, DECA has mechanisms for class-based queuing... so does Ethernet. But it's all a moot point because if you perform packet captures on your MRV traffic you will see that DirecTV hasn't implemented anything to mark traffic with different priorities. And please, don't just take my word for it -- I encourage everyone who is interested in this to perform their own packet captures and see the results with their own eyes using their own tools. Could DirecTV implement differential queuing at some point in the future? Sure. But development resources for fixing things that aren't broken tend to take a rather low priority.

2) The argument that the "isolation" of DECA gives it an advantage is a stretch. If you leave your receivers without an Internet connection then it is true you will have less broadcast traffic to contend with -- but when you use a DECA adapter to connect back into your network you are pushing the same broadcast and multicast traffic across as if you had just connected the receivers to the switch via Cat5 directly. DECA still adheres to 802.3 standards, and it is required to pass broadcast and multicast traffic to end devices in the network.

3) The argument that DirecTV is going to shut off Ethernet access is just silly. If DirecTV really wanted to force people to use DECA they'd stop building Ethernet interfaces into all of their new receivers. Until that point, please stop with the unnecessary FUD.


----------



## sigma1914

espaeth said:


> ...
> The power adapter discussion came about due to the question of "If someone has H/HR24 gear already, why would you not just use DECA?" *and the simple answer is you can eliminate the separate "broadband" DECA adapter and all of the cabling / power requirements along with it.* That's not an indictment against DECA or saying installers shouldn't use it, it's simply calling out a reason why someone who has H/HR24 gear may avoid using DECA even though the adapters are already built into the receivers.


What if your house isn't cat5 wired? Most aren't, I'd bet. Use wireless? Not everyone has a wireless router. That cost a little bit of money and isn't as stable. Running an extra coax line or even a splitter to the DECA isn't that difficult.


----------



## espaeth

sigma1914 said:


> What if your house isn't cat5 wired? Most aren't, I'd bet. Use wireless? Not everyone has a wireless router. That cost a little bit of money and isn't as stable. Running an extra coax line or even a splitter to the DECA isn't that difficult.


*sigh* This is just getting silly now.



espaeth said:


> HR24 installed, splitter installed on the line behind the HR24 -- one coax going to the 24, the other coax going to a DECA adapter with an *Ethernet connection to the switch sitting right behind the receiver* to get Internet access.
> 
> So instead of a single Cat5 network cable directly to the switch that's already there, you have to install:
> 
> *laundry list*


The scenario is why someone who already has Ethernet switches installed and ready to use **MIGHT** want to use them instead of DECA.

We're not talking about new installs where nothing exists. That's why DECA is the obvious _logistical_ solution -- if you're running coax to the receivers anyway, you might as well run your network connection over that same cable if you can and get the best efficiency out of the installation. The installers already have coax testers, compression tools, fittings, etc. to deal with coax cabling.

There is still not a clear _technical_ reason why you can't plug your receivers into a proper switched Ethernet network if one already exists. I'm not arguing that one "should" or "must" connect to an Ethernet switch, simply that you "can" and I've posted to address false reasons why people say it won't work or issues will result.


----------



## waynenm

Doug Brott said:


> Maybe .. It's hard to say for sure .. Still, that being said, it will be 18-24 months at best .. Something past the HMC30, for example.
> 
> If I were DIRECTV, this is what I would do .. but that doesn't mean they will.


Getting rid of Ethernet would annoy SO many people! I for one hope they don't EVER do it. Isn't this analogous to the HR series still coming with RCA out jacks? When are THOSE going away? Aren't there plenty of people who still use them, for one reason or another?

Backward compatibility is way more customer savvy than forced obsolescence. If there isn't a really good reason to scrap Ethernet,
I say please don't!


----------



## hasan

waynenm said:


> Getting rid of Ethernet would annoy SO many people! I for one hope they don't EVER do it. Isn't this analogous to the HR series still coming with RCA out jacks? When are THOSE going away? Aren't there plenty of people who still use them, for one reason or another?
> 
> Backward compatibility is way more customer savvy than forced obsolescence. If there isn't a really good reason to scrap Ethernet,
> I say please don't!


No one is saying they are going to do it. One approach eliminates the possibility, the other works on hope. Many of us thought there would never be an MRV charge for the home network. We see how that worked out. Just about everyone was pretty pissed, and that didn't stop D*.

Doug Brott has made the point over and over again, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. For the vast majority of potential MRV users, DECA is the best solution, period.

I was involved with the initial testing of MRV and had a fully functioning ethernet solution. It worked very well, but was not perfect. Because of the equipment incentives, I went with SWiM/DECA a few weeks ago. There is no question whatsoever that DECA works better than my ethernet setup did. It is indisputable. Trick play is obviously better, the speed in and out of start/stop/rewind/ff is clearly better, and there are fewer "gremlins".

If I had to stay ethernet, I would have been happy, It is a great feature and worked well enough that I just didn't have any beefs with it. When I went to DECA, however, it became clear that it was a better solution than my home network.

BTW, I still have an ethernet element in my MRV setup. I have a separate dish/dvr that is wireless N to the router, and this hybrid system is seamless as far as MRV goes. Obviously, DECA outperforms wireless N. What surprised me is that DECA also outperformed my two wired boxes.

Overall, I agree with Doug. DECA is the better solution for nearly everyone. That doesn't mean MRV can't work on a wired, or even wireless network. We used it for the better part of a year that way...so let's not be silly.

What is clear to me is that in my situation, DECA is clearly superior to what I had been using, and future-proofing is never a bad idea. Raising the issues of support and the potential that a non-supported system could easily become a non-usable system is *not* FUD, it is simply prudent.


----------



## espaeth

hasan said:


> No one is saying they are going to do it. One approach eliminates the possibility, the other works on hope. Many of us thought there would never be an MRV charge for the home network. We see how that worked out. Just about everyone was pretty pissed, and that didn't stop D*.


Why would D* _not_ charge everyone unilaterally for the MRV functionality? There is a business case there, and they're not going to leave money on the table just because some folks didn't need to have DECA installed to make it work.

It's not based on hope -- the DECA adapter is transparent in the connection for the HR20-23 series, that's why you can only perform the DECA diagnostics on an HR24. The other receivers simply have no visibility to the DECA adapter.



hasan said:


> Raising the issues of support and the potential that a non-supported system could easily become a non-usable system is *not* FUD, it is simply prudent.


That's *EXACTLY* what it is - you're generating Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. If DirecTV had any intention of shutting off Ethernet access why would they even have "Unsupported MRV" as an option in their billing system? They clearly had to change the billing system to account for MRV, and they committed development resources ($$) to implementing an option for MRV to be enabled without DECA.


----------



## veryoldschool

espaeth said:


> It's not based on hope -- the DECA adapter is transparent in the connection for the HR20-23 series, that's why you can only perform the DECA diagnostics on an HR24. The other receivers simply have no visibility to the DECA adapter.
> 
> That's *EXACTLY* what it is - you're generating Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. If DirecTV had any intention of shutting off Ethernet access why would they even have "Unsupported MRV" as an option in their billing system? They clearly had to change the billing system to account for MRV, and they committed development resources ($$) to implementing an option for MRV to be enabled without DECA.



While the DECAs are transparent, each has a MAC address. This question has come up before and "If they wanted to" [which I have no idea that they do], they could restrict MRV to DECA only networking.
I'm not sure when/where you came into the MRV discussion, "but" after the pre-beta testing, DirecTV had EVERY INTENT to not allow ethernet and have this solely DECA ONLY. In fact it took some great lobbying efforts by many to "open a back door loophole" and have this work "unsupported". Yes being able to still charge for the service may have been a factor that helped "change their minds".


----------



## RobertE

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## dpeters11

veryoldschool said:


> [*]While the DECAs are transparent, each has a MAC address.


Are you sure about that? I don't believe the DECAs themselves have a MAC address, only the receivers.


----------



## Steve

dpeters11 said:


> Are you sure about that? I don't believe the DECAs themselves have a MAC address, only the receivers.


They have built-in NIC's, in order to allow them to connect to other standard RJ-45 devices, so they would have to have a MAC address.

Whether or not DirecTV can "see" or address that MAC address over the DECA cloud, I have no idea.

But they might be able to sense them from the other directioin. I.e, the DECA MAC addresses are probably all in an assigned numerical range that DirecTV is aware of. So it's possible the receivers could be programmed to "shut down" MRV if they don't sense an incoming NIC with an address in a range they know about.


----------



## veryoldschool

dpeters11 said:


> Are you sure about that? I don't believe the DECAs themselves have a MAC address, only the receivers.


Do you think I'd post it if it wasn't true?
Should you ever look at a DECA, you'll see the serial number listed and below that its MAC Address.
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.as...tm_source=google_base_02_Satellite_Components
This is a bit harder to read than the one in my hand, but I can see the last line that starts with MAC


----------



## Davenlr

veryoldschool said:


> Do you think I'd post it if it wasn't true?
> Should you ever look at a DECA, you'll see the serial number listed and below that its MAC


This one is a little easier to read. Its mine


----------



## veryoldschool

Davenlr said:


> This one is a little easier to read. Its mine


Next we'll hear you used photoshop. :lol:


----------



## Davenlr

veryoldschool said:


> Next we'll hear you used photoshop. :lol:


Can't afford to buy photoshop, I pay all my money to DirecTv


----------



## dpeters11

veryoldschool said:


> Do you think I'd post it if it wasn't true?
> Should you ever look at a DECA, you'll see the serial number listed and below that its MAC Address.
> http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.as...tm_source=google_base_02_Satellite_Components
> This is a bit harder to read than the one in my hand, but I can see the last line that starts with MAC


Well, there was one point where you said it didn't, in the first look. I just hadn't looked at mine close enough, I'm used to devices actually showing up in my router. I don't run into functioning equipment with MAC addresses and no IP very often.


----------



## veryoldschool

dpeters11 said:


> Well, there was one point where you said it didn't, in the first look.


If you read the very next post it would have shown you it does:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2346318#post2346318


----------



## chrpai

dpeters11 said:


> I don't run into functioning equipment with MAC addresses and no IP very often.


Back in the day, before widespread adoption of tcp/ip, I used to do a lot work on various network operating systems. Banyan VIP, IPX/SPX, NetBIOS (pre NBT ), DLC and so on to name a few.

These days even LPR is becoming obsolete as many printers use web services to communicate. But it is still possible to find a jet direct card and use DLC to communicate directly via MAC address with DLC.

These types of protocols work well in a non-routed environment and avoid alot of the configuration complexity associated with TCP/IP.

Still, I'll just switched with my switched ethernet setup. I see no need or value in DECA for me. Just a $149 expense.


----------



## hasan

chrpai said:


> Still, I'll just switched with my switched ethernet setup. I see no need or value in DECA for me. Just a $149 expense.


Could you please translate that first sentence for me?

That's what the upgrade is all about, consumer value. It was a great move for me. I got a new dish, all new compression fittings 4 DECAs, and finally got two tuners operational on my 3rd DVR...all for $25.00.

Benefit: 5 points across the board in signal quality, clear improvement in MRV performance, and of course, I can record two things at the same time on my 3rd DVR.

25 bucks? Hey, where do I sign up....oooops, I forgot, I already did that.
10 bucks off my bill for 24 months (HD credit), I already did that.

Hmmmm...now what can I dream up to be ticked about...?

Really, if D* wants someone to be a reference for their service, I'm their guy, and I don't even want the referral bonus. (I've made many referrals, and never taken a penny) I like D*, even though they are far from perfect. They've given me good equipment, fixed bugs, let me participate in product development...the list goes on and on.

I just have to work really hard to find something that I'm significantly torqued about in the big picture...and that's what TV viewing is for me, a big picture.

N.B. Depending on your history and account status, the price may not be anywhere near as low as mine was, (far below the listed price of $99 + $49). You have to call and see what considerations they say you are eligible for. Even after being told a price, always ask, can't you do a little better? My 2nd question produced a price drop from $99 to $25.


----------



## Rich

espaeth said:


> How are you going to plug that in when only the middle battery-protected outlet is open on this?


The answer to that is so simple I'm surprised you wrote the question.

Rich


----------



## chrpai

My system works just fine and I didn't have spend $25-$149, negotiate with agents for discounts or wait for installers to come by and spend hours trying to get working. I already had my boxes on ethernet for the on demand functionality so a quick and free phone call was all I needed.

Like I said, I don't see the benefit for me to go to DECA.


----------



## hasan

chrpai said:


> My system works just fine and I didn't have spend $25-$149, negotiate with agents for discounts or wait for installers to come by and spend hours trying to get working. I already had my boxes on ethernet for the on demand functionality so a quick and free phone call was all I needed.
> 
> Like I said, I don't see the benefit for me to go to DECA.


...that's fine by me, I'm glad you're happy. I'd still like that sentence translated.


----------



## Rich

chrpai said:


> My system works just fine and I didn't have spend $25-$149, negotiate with agents for discounts or wait for installers to come by and spend hours trying to get working. I already had my boxes on ethernet for the on demand functionality so a quick and free phone call was all I needed.
> 
> Like I said, I don't see the benefit for me to go to DECA.


I had an Ethernet system in place and it ran about the same as the DECA system does. The only reason I got the DECA installation was that I figured that something else might be coming up that required DECA. Also, I wanted to try it. I don't understand folks that can afford it passing it up. It's new, it works well, and I had a great time helping the technician (I wrote "installer" first, I can't get used to the idea that D* actually has a technician in my area) install it. I got a SWiM system out of it, some more new cabling and I'm quite satisfied. Still have the Ethernet system in place.

For me there was a major benefit. I got one of my dishes off the roof and also had the horrendous cable bundle removed from my roof.

By the way, the Ethernet system cost me a whole lot more than the DECA system did.

Rich


----------



## espaeth

rich584 said:


> *I had an Ethernet system in place and it ran about the same as the DECA system does.* The only reason I got the DECA installation was that I figured that something else might be coming up that required DECA. Also, I wanted to try it. *I don't understand folks that can afford it passing it up.*


I think you answered your own question there.

For those getting dish/cabling/receiver upgrades as part of the package it makes a ton of sense. For folks who are just paying to have them come out and plug in a couple DECA adapters behind their receivers, not so much.

I would, hands down, pay for the MRV upgrade to get SWiM if I didn't have it already just for having the flexibility of a single cable run anywhere in the house I wanted to add a receiver.


----------



## chrpai

hasan said:


> ...that's fine by me, I'm glad you're happy. I'd still like that sentence translated.


/s/switched/stick <- But I'm figuring snarky little trolls could figure that out on their own.

If you don't like it, sorry, I don't have time to post 40,000 times to a DBS forum like some people.


----------



## hasan

chrpai said:


> /s/switched/stick <- But I'm figuring snarky little trolls could figure that out on their own.
> 
> If you don't like it, sorry, I don't have time to post 40,000 times to a DBS forum like some people.


I didn't dislike it, I was mystified. No harm and nothing to get upset about, and certainly nothing worth name calling. Chill...


----------



## Stuart Sweet

OK, there's no call to be rude. Personally I think this thread has run its course, but I've been willing to leave it open for the benefit of those who enjoy it. Please be kind to each other or you will leave me no choice but to close it.


----------



## Rich

espaeth said:


> I think you answered your own question there.
> 
> For those getting dish/cabling/receiver upgrades as part of the package it makes a ton of sense. *For folks who are just paying to have them come out and plug in a couple DECA adapters behind their receivers, not so much*.
> 
> I would, hands down, pay for the MRV upgrade to get SWiM if I didn't have it already just for having the flexibility of a single cable run anywhere in the house I wanted to add a receiver.


Didn't cost me a cent and I knew beforehand that it was about the same as Ethernet, but I still had it done. New technology vs old technology and all that.

Rich


----------



## FrozenAsset

I see D*'s reason for doing what they've done. I know my reason for doing what I did.

I sincerely doubt future devices will be without an ethernet connection, as it's quite possible that ethernet will become the standard replacing HDMI.


----------



## adamson

Im keeping my ethernet no support MRV because Im set up throughout the home for it and have a sealed finished basement. Furthermore I will never get another receiver from Directv to extend my contract or anything else that will trigger another 2 years commit. I want an exit plan because I cannot and will not trust Directv with one more firmware revision. Also I have never seen so many issues people have with DECA, bad installs to no equipment...it goes on and on. Thank god we all have this site to work it out thats for sure. I just feel I have it good right now and until the next great firmware release coming to a receiver near you and me I am sure all will hear from me if its anything like the last. 0x3de was a rush job for 3D for a few people, and yet Directv rolled it out even knowing it had problems in the west coast, just continued it to all. BTW hard drives do not just die that easily, to think of all the receivers that were sent back due to this mess, and I bet even contributed to the shortage we see today. Since my last post on a studder/drag issue I did a reload of 0x3de firmware and it corrected the issue. I love my MRV and what I got today but tomorrow could be another story. Please Directv keep me happy eh.


----------



## Steve

upmichigan said:


> Im keeping my ethernet no support MRV because Im set up throughout the home for it and have a sealed finished basement. Furthermore I will never get another receiver from Directv to extend my contract or anything else that will trigger another 2 years commit [...]


Not trying to be critical of your reason for staying with CAT5. It worked great for me too!  Just want to point out if you _wanted_ to go DECA, the reasons you cite shouldn't stop you. DECA uses pre-existing wiring, and installing it will not extend your commitment, if you're not adding new receivers.


----------



## wavemaster

After a lot of testing on Ethernet and DECA, we are going to stay with Ethernet.

At this point the primary reason is connectivity. We have more unit resets to keep them connected with DECA, on Ethernet they don't lose connection with each other.

We started with 8 HD DVR's (various models) and now have 9.


----------



## leww37334

I have made the switch from cat 5 to DECA, I do NOT see any performance increase, in fact the time for a program to start seems slower. I see two big differences:

1. lots more hardware to fail (3 deca converters and a new switch (only had a grounding adapter before)). 

2. a brand new 2 year commitment.

Why did I switch? I am a sucker for new technology


----------



## Steve

leww37334 said:


> [...] 2. a brand new 2 year commitment.


Did you upgrade a receiver as well? Otherwise, they made a mistake if they re-up'd you for 2 years for just a "whole home" upgrade. Even if you're a "lifer", I'd call and get that fixed, on general principal.

RE: performance. I see no difference in performance one to the other, but I'm still happy I switched because I'm 100% "covered" by the DirecTV protection plan because my MRV is set up the "approved" way. I'm also presumably "future proof", in terms of whatever new technology they've got in the pipeline.


----------



## ps2baseball

In order to use MVR, do I need to connect the boxes to the internet?


----------



## veryoldschool

ps2baseball said:


> In order to use* MVR*, do I need to connect the boxes to the internet?


In order to use *MRV*, they need to be networked, but don't need to have internet access.


----------



## leww37334

GIMP, well that doesn't make sense, I was replying to the "can't afford Photoshop comment" and hit the wrong button


----------



## gr8ful

ffemtreed said:


> Most home ethernet (hardwired) have 200Mb of dedicated bandwidth between the client and host. from the looks of it above that DECA is designed to function flawlessly with as little as 17mbs of bandwidth.


One of us is very consufused. "Most home ethernet have 200mb..."? Where did that number come from? I've been running gigabit for years. Any equipment purchased in the last few years is gigabit. DECA purports to run at 250 mbs. And the days of hubs are long over. Any switch gigabit you buy isolates traffic at each port, so DECA's similar feature is redundant for hard-wired homes and apartments.

As for the unsupported claims that "MoCA admits it is slower than gigabit", I did find a nice comparison
This shows gigabit blows away Moca quite easily.


----------



## The Merg

gr8ful said:


> One of us is very consufused. "Most home ethernet have 200mb..."? Where did that number come from? I've been running gigabit for years. Any equipment purchased in the last few years is gigabit. DECA purports to run at 250 mbs. And the days of hubs are long over. Any switch gigabit you buy isolates traffic at each port, so DECA's similar feature is redundant for hard-wired homes and apartments.
> 
> As for the unsupported claims that "MoCA admits it is slower than gigabit", I did find a nice comparison
> This shows gigabit blows away Moca quite easily.


Most home network routers today are still 100m/b. While desktops nowadays usually come with gigabit cards in them, most people don't have a full gigabit setup. As techie I am, I still don't have a gigabit setup to include my router, which is a Linksys WRT160N.

And once again, you realize this thread is 3-1/2 years old, right?

- Merg


----------



## lugnutathome

100 MB full duplex can be read as 200 MB depending on the marketing brochure you are reading :grin: And yes in *most* all the technical aspects a well set up switched Ethernet service is technically superior in terms of speed and scalability *BUT* (and I am a customer that leverages BOTH DECA and my hardwired switched Ethernet in my excessive Direct TV infrastructure)

Direct TV has created their own environment for largely supportability reasons. Having a controlled known infrastructure means they can focus on being an entertainment service provider and not have to become technicians for all the variables that exist in home networking products and implementations today.

For all purposes in my home infrastructure the different fabrics are indistinguishable in use and bridge completely transparently but I could not expect a Direct TV installer to understand troubleshooting my 4 WAPs, plus 7 work group switches feeding a central backbone switch serving up to 43 concurrent devices.

So DECA is for their purposes superior, End of the day, it matters not which is technically better. For their services, subscriber base, and technical staffing DECA is better for them as a corporate entity.

Don "to argue the technology itself is moot, it works, and is easily supportable cross a broad range of installations" Bolton



gr8ful said:


> One of us is very consufused. "Most home ethernet have 200mb..."? Where did that number come from? I've been running gigabit for years. Any equipment purchased in the last few years is gigabit. DECA purports to run at 250 mbs. And the days of hubs are long over. Any switch gigabit you buy isolates traffic at each port, so DECA's similar feature is redundant for hard-wired homes and apartments.
> 
> As for the unsupported claims that "MoCA admits it is slower than gigabit", I did find a nice comparison
> This shows gigabit blows away Moca quite easily.


----------



## veryoldschool

This is the second 3 1/2 year old thread that has been dragged back up today.

DECA is what DirecTV supports and had now for years.

As with the other thread, it's time to let this die.


----------

