# How Do I Incorporate HR34 into Existing Ethernet Whole Home Network?



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

Hello Everyone,

I asked this question on the HR34 Anticipation Thread, but it seemed to have been overlooked in the midst of all the other HR34 questions. So, I hope the mods don't mind that I start this new thread to hopefully find a solution to my situation...

I currently have a MRV network primarily consisting of ethernet connections. I have one mini DECA cloud consisting of a H25 hooked up via WDCCK, with a BSF on the SWIM side of the WDCCK.

I have a HR34 on the way and I would like to know how to bridge that into my system. After sifting through the HR34 Anticipation Thread, I have gathered that the HR34 is NOT like the HR24/H24, as its built-in DECA DOES NOT get disabled when an ethernet cable is plugged in.

So, if I were to attach an ethernet cable to it, the DECA would still be active on the coax feed, meaning that I would have to put a BSF on it, right?

Or should I not use the ethernet connection on the unit at all and simply attach the HR34 to another bridged WDCCK or BB DECA and put a BSF on the SWM side of the connection, as I did with the H25? (Like as described in this thread)

I have swapped out several receivers since the H25 install, so please see the diagram link on my signature below for details of my current setup or click here.

I know that I could also put the BSF currently on my H25 up stream and closer to the switch and connect the HR34 to the same SWM8, but that would eliminate the OTA signal that I have diplexed going into the Master Bedroom Location, where the new HR34 will be going. There is only one coax cable going into the room so I need to keep diplexing active.

Thank you all in advance for the help,

D


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You can plug it directly in via ethernet and I don't think that disables the ability to stream over coax. It's been a while since I tried it.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> You can plug it directly in via ethernet and I don't think that disables the ability to stream over coax. It's been a while since I tried it.


No BSF needed to isolate the DECA signals away from the OTA signal running on the coax?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Where are you going to be putting the HR34?
Which receivers are going to be removed?
Your layout is fairly complex !rolling

I would tend to be looking for a SWiM-16, and expanding the DECA network as much as I could, and then bridge this to the ethernet with the WCCK.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DBSNewbie said:


> No BSF needed to isolate the DECA signals away from the OTA signal running on the coax?


I would think that the diplexer would strip the DECA signal but if you're not using a diplexer at the HR34, you would certainly need a BSF.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> I would tend to be looking for a SWiM-16, and expanding the DECA network as much as I could, and then bridge this to the ethernet with the WCCK.


Every expansion of the DECA network represents a loss of OTA so I'm not sure that's such a good recommendation.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> I'm not sure...


You might be better served to leave it at this.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> You might be better served to leave it at this.


You would be better served to consider what the OP is saying as opposed to blindly promoting DECA to the exclusion of expressly desired OTA capability.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> You would be better served to consider what the OP is saying as opposed to blindly promoting DECA to the exclusion of expressly desired OTA capability.


"Clueless" again, and read my post again. [more of the continuing basset barfing] :nono:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Unfortunately, diplexing is no longer supported in newer setups, and that's good information to have.

:backtotop thanks.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> You would be better served to consider what the OP is saying as opposed to blindly promoting DECA to the exclusion of expressly desired OTA capability.


You might be better served to stop posting about things about which you have no personal, first hand knowledge.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Unfortunately, diplexing is no longer supported in newer setups, and that's good information to have.
> 
> :backtotop thanks.


Since this is a hybrid system, "more information" is needed to offer help.
I asked for this to be able to.


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Unfortunately, diplexing is no longer supported in newer setups, and that's good information to have.
> 
> :backtotop thanks.


well its not supported but nether is ethernet networking

afaik the reason OTA diplexing isn't is due to overlap with deca, so blocking off deca should permit diplexing (but be careful about letting any installer not familure touch it)


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I guess a little clarification on what I mean by "unsupported."

Like whole-home over ethernet, diplexing is unsupported. No DIRECTV tech should be doing a setup that way, and if you do it you need to know that you are doing so at your own risk. If it works for you, great.

Unlike ethernet networking, there was a time when diplexing and stacking were the way that installs were properly done. That has changed.

DarkLogix is right, the reason diplexing does not work is that the portion of bandwidth once used for diplexing is now used by coax networking.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

I would think a BSF attached directly to the HR34 and an ethernet cable for the network connection would work fine.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

LameLefty said:


> You might be better served to stop posting about things about which you have no personal, first hand knowledge.


Clearly hands-on experience doesn't assure that the holder will comprehend and respectfully address the issue.

This is about what the OP wants to accomplish, not what is recommended or "supported" by DIRECTV. It would be different if the goal was against T&Cs, illegal, unattainable or life threatening.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Hasn't anyone looked at the OP's setup yet?
Where [and how] the HR34 is going to be connected is more important.
Once this is known, "then" ethernet/DECA can be addressed.


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I guess a little clarification on what I mean by "unsupported."
> 
> Like whole-home over ethernet, diplexing is unsupported. No DIRECTV tech should be doing a setup that way, and if you do it you need to know that you are doing so at your own risk. If it works for you, great.


Ya do it if you want to but don't expect a D* tech to be able to fix it if it breaks

I considered doing this but opted for the convenience of Deca, because I don't want to run an ethernet cable across the attic (I could but that one wall would be a PITA)


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

veryoldschool said:


> Hasn't anyone looked at the OP's setup yet?
> Where [and how] the HR34 is going to be connected is more important.
> Once this is known, "then" ethernet/DECA can be addressed.


I would but I don't have permission to view that link


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

DBSNewbie said:


> I know that I could also put the BSF currently on my H25 up stream and closer to the switch and connect the HR34 to the same SWM8, but that would eliminate the OTA signal that I have diplexed going into the Master Bedroom Location, where the new HR34 will be going. There is only one coax cable going into the room so I need to keep diplexing active.





veryoldschool said:


> Hasn't anyone looked at the OP's setup yet?
> Where [and how] the HR34 is going to be connected is more important.
> Once this is known, "then" ethernet/DECA can be addressed.


Yes, I've looked at his setup. If the HR34 is replacing the HR24-200 in the Master Bedroom, then a BSF at the HR34 will block the DECA signal coming from the HR34. Using ethernet instead of DECA for networking allows the existing OTA to the H20-100 to remain.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Where are you going to be putting the HR34?
> Which receivers are going to be removed?
> Your layout is fairly complex !rolling
> 
> I would tend to be looking for a SWiM-16, and expanding the DECA network as much as I could, and then bridge this to the ethernet with the WCCK.


VOS,

I wanted to firstly thank you for guiding me on that previous thread last month regarding the H25 install. (D. Ortiz, too) Your advice on these boards have been so helpful for us DIYers.

Anyway, to answer your question above, I will be swapping out the HR24 in the Master Bedroom with the new HR34. That HR24, will then go to my daughter's room. Her HR20, will then feed the TV in the Master Bathroom. (The bathroom receiver is actually in the Master Bedroom, next to the the bedroom receiver on the same coax line. The Video feed is just fished through the other side of the wall into the bathroom).

And lastly, the old H20, that will be removed from the Master Bathroom TV will replace the Hughes SD receiver in the Guest Room.

Here's a diagram of the new proposed setup.

As you can see, there is OTA diplexed into the coax line feeding the Master Bedroom and Bathroom receivers. I know it is not officially supported by D*, but I have had no problems.

So now, to integrate/bridge the new HR34 into my system and have full MRV/3 Streams/Internet capability, can I go about it the same way I had installed the H25? Or would simply plugging in an ethernet cable and putting a BSF (if necessary) on the coax input of the unit give me full functionality?


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

ok you need to look at the tuner count

you have 2 HD-DVR's and the HR34 on one SWM8 plus a standard reciver

thats 10 tuners
if you swap that SWM8 for a SWM16 then you'd be fine (they can be found on ebay for under 100 (I got one for about $74)

so swap SWM8 for 16, BSF on input to HR34, and connect your ethernet cable and you should be good
also remember its best to not daisy chain the ethernet switches but to connect them in a star with the central one having the link you the router

personally I'd just get 2 SWM16's and a polization locker and replace all the switches (the SWM16's have all the ports needed to cascade)
you will have 28 tuners total with the HR34 so a SWM16 or even a SWM32 would cover it but you aren't likely to find a 32 on e-bay


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

DarkLogix said:


> ok you need to look at the tuner count
> 
> you have 2 HD-DVR's and the HR34 on one SWM8 plus a standard reciver
> 
> ...


I only see 8 tuners on that SWM8: Master Bedroom, Master Bathroom and Kitchen.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DBSNewbie
Let me ask if you really have/need OTA at each location, and do you have AM-21 tuners for the receivers that don't have an OTA internally?

"What I'm thinking" is:
One SWM8 can support: 1 HR34, 1 HR24, 1 H25, so grouping these together and with the WCCK, these can all use DECA, and bridge to your network.


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

David Ortiz said:


> I only see 8 tuners on that SWM8: Master Bedroom, Master Bathroom and Kitchen.


sorry you're right I had counted the daughter's room


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

veryoldschool said:


> DBSNewbie
> Let me ask if you really have/need OTA at each location, and do you have AM-21 tuners for the receivers that don't have an OTA internally?
> 
> "What I'm thinking" is:
> One SWM8 can support: 1 HR34, 1 HR24, 1 H25, so grouping these together and with the WCCK, these can all use DECA, and bridge to your network.


well from a networking stand point that wouldn't be ideal

you'd be making a 4 port 100mbit switch and uplinking it to a larger switch

ok lets say worst case
3 recivers are pulling content from the HR34 and 1 from the HR24
then the plain reciver is pulling from one of the other DVR's
and say the HR34 and HR24 are downloading VOD

now add that the HR34 is pulling from another DVR and so is the HR24

now you have 4 streams outbound from the deca "cloud" and 5 inbound
so if we say each stream is 10mbit then you're using 40/50 over the one 100mbit link

well you can say its "enough" but theres also overhead with TCP/IP and it'll be likely to have lag

so ether all deca or none deca or you'll have a bottle neck


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DarkLogix said:


> well from a networking stand point that wouldn't be ideal
> 
> you'd be making a 4 port 100mbit switch and uplinking it to a larger switch


 
I don't see a 4 port 100 mbit switch for one thing.
With a HR34 & HR24, this would mean "merely" a forth MRV stream, which is well within the range of the WDECA.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

DarkLogix said:


> ok you need to look at the tuner count
> 
> you have 2 HD-DVR's and the HR34 on one SWM8 plus a standard reciver
> 
> ...


With my proposed setup with the HR34 there would not be a shortage of tuners on the SWM8 in use. 1 HR34, 1 HR20, and 1 H24 is exactly a total of 8 tuners.

As far as the gigabit switches, I have them as close to star-clustered as possible. All ethernet jacks in use by the MRV system are "home-runned" back to a patch-panel and the 16-port gigabit switch you see in the diagram. I don't prefer to have the router and modem in the same location as the patch panel, as it would mean having to go to the closet every time I need to reset anything. I just have them by the computer in the bedroom. Please note that all non MRV traffic on the ethernet network is on an entirely different switch attached to the router.

The smaller 5-port gigabit switches are just used to "split" the connections, as there are only single runs of CAT5/6 to each of the wall jacks in each room location.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DarkLogix said:


> well from a networking stand point that wouldn't be ideal
> 
> you'd be making a 4 port 100mbit switch and uplinking it to a larger switch


 
I don't see a 4 port 100 mbit switch for one thing.
With a HR34 & HR24, this would mean "merely" a forth MRV stream, which is well within the range of the WDECA.
The most streams that I count would be 9 and this is still within the specs for a DECA.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> DBSNewbie
> Let me ask if you really have/need OTA at each location, and do you have AM-21 tuners for the receivers that don't have an OTA internally?
> 
> "What I'm thinking" is:
> One SWM8 can support: 1 HR34, 1 HR24, 1 H25, so grouping these together and with the WCCK, these can all use DECA, and bridge to your network.


Yes, that configuration had crossed my mind, but of course that would mean eliminating the OTA. Ideally, I would like to maintain OTA capability. Whether it be for an AM21, RF Modulation (which I use on other TVs for a front door doorbell camera - I could incorporate the video feed to the Master Bedroom TV, but since I have dedicated intercom monitor in the bedroom, I don't really need it), or whatnot, it would be great to not lose that function in case I may need it in the future.

I really would like to bridge the HR34 into the system without losing any previous capabilities.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Well it does look like a BSF and then ethernet is the option.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Well it does look like a BSF and then ethernet is the option.


Thanks.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DBSNewbie said:


> Thanks.


There is one thing that bothers me about this.
Using a BSF on the output of an active DECA, is going to bounce the signal right back into the DECA, which can't be that good of an idea for the DECA.
The WDECA has internal attenuation so this isn't a problem.


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

veryoldschool said:


> I don't see a 4 port 100 mbit switch for one thing.
> With a HR34 & HR24, this would mean "merely" a forth MRV stream, which is well within the range of the WDECA.


The 100mbit switch would be the Deca if he did as you said
running at 50% capasity is likely to give you lag
as I showed in my post it would be at most at 4 outbound and 5 inbound with 100mbit each way on the deca to rest of the house link and thats just asking for lag

if they were all on deca then it would be fine and if they are all on ethernet it'll be fine as ether will avoid a bottle neck


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

harsh said:


> I would think that the diplexer would strip the DECA signal but if you're not using a diplexer at the HR34, you would certainly need a BSF.


Can anyone confirm if the diplexer in use at Master Bedroom location could be used in place of a BSF?

It's a Holland 5-2150MHz diplexer, like the one shown on the link below...

http://www.3starinc.com/images/super/STVC_800x600t.jpg


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DarkLogix said:


> The 100mbit switch would be the Deca if he did as you said
> running at 50% capasity is likely to give you lag


Pure guessing, but "whatever".
The DECA RF has over 170 Mb/s, and the ethernet port is bi-directional.


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

veryoldschool said:


> Pure guessing, but "whatever".
> The DECA RF has over 170 Mb/s, and the ethernet port is bi-directional.


170mbit where as ethernet has 200mbit

its bi-directional (full duplex) which is way I said inbound and outbound on as you have 100 in both directions

but running it at 50% is not likely to give you a lag free experiance


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> There is one thing that bothers me about this.
> Using a BSF on the output of an active DECA, is going to bounce the signal right back into the DECA, which can't be that good of an idea for the DECA.
> The WDECA has internal attenuation so this isn't a problem.





DBSNewbie said:


> Can anyone confirm if the diplexer in use at Master Bedroom location could be used in place of a BSF?
> 
> It's a Holland 5-2150MHz diplexer, like the one shown on the link below...
> 
> http://www.3starinc.com/images/super/STVC_800x600t.jpg


So, a WDCCK would be the best bet? How about a BB DECA? I have an extra one of those lying around. Does that have internal attenuation?

And, could a diplexer be used in place of a BSF. I've got a bunch of diplexers lying around, too. I need to order a BSF if I actually do need one.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DarkLogix said:


> 170mbit where as ethernet has 200mbit
> 
> its bi-directional (full duplex) which is way I said inbound and outbound on as you have 100 in both directions
> 
> but running it at 50% is not likely to give you a lag free experiance


I would question how much lag there would be, but since no one is using this to know, nobody does.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> There is one thing that bothers me about this.
> Using a BSF on the output of an active DECA, is going to bounce the signal right back into the DECA, which can't be that good of an idea for the DECA.
> The WDECA has internal attenuation so this isn't a problem.





harsh said:


> I would think that the diplexer would strip the DECA signal but if you're not using a diplexer at the HR34, you would certainly need a BSF.





DBSNewbie said:


> Can anyone confirm if the diplexer in use at Master Bedroom location could be used in place of a BSF?
> 
> It's a Holland 5-2150MHz diplexer, like the one shown on the link below...
> 
> http://www.3starinc.com/images/super/STVC_800x600t.jpg





DBSNewbie said:


> So, a WDCCK would be the best bet? How about a BB DECA? I have an extra one of those lying around. Does that have internal attenuation?
> 
> And, could a diplexer be used in place of a BSF. I've got a bunch of diplexers lying around, too. I need to order a BSF if I actually do need one.


Please excuse me for bumping this thread, but I would just like to know if a BB DECA and diplexer would work just as well as a WDCCK and BSF.

Thanks


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DBSNewbie said:


> Please excuse me for bumping this thread, but I would just like to know if a BB DECA and diplexer would work just as well as a WDCCK and BSF.
> 
> Thanks


The diplexer you've linked, has good rejection, but connecting a BB DECA to it, close to the HR34, would still mean NOT a lot of attenuation between the two DECAs.
"Signal wise" the internal resistor network of the wireless CCK, with a filter, would be better, since:
HR34 <--> -10 dB <--> DECA and to filter would mean another -20 dB before coming back to the any DECA.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> The diplexer you've linked, has good rejection, but connecting a BB DECA to it, close to the HR34, would still mean NOT a lot of attenuation between the two DECAs.
> "Signal wise" the internal resistor network of the wireless CCK, with a filter, would be better, since:
> HR34 <--> -10 dB <--> DECA and to filter would mean another -20 dB before coming back to the any DECA.


Okay. Thanks.

I guess I'll just swap out the BSF and WDCCK I have at the H25 for now until I get another WDCCK and BSF.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DBSNewbie said:


> Okay. Thanks.
> 
> I guess I'll just swap out the BSF and WDCCK I have at the H25 for now until I get another WDCCK and BSF.


About the only other way would be:
add a 2-way splitter with the filter on the input and run the HR34 off one leg and the BB DECA off the other. The splitter will give the attenuation and the filter will do its thing.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

DarkLogix said:


> ...running at 50% capasity is likely to give you lag...


I'm not sure I understand your point on "lag"; how would it manifest itself in this situation? Do you anticipate that streaming shows will need to periodically stop and buffer during playback? The most I can see is a few milliseconds difference in remote trickplay. Not enough to get excited about...


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> The most I can see is a few milliseconds difference in remote trickplay. Not enough to get excited about...


Considering that most people can only discern time increments on the order of 100 milliseconds (a tenth of a second), it's nothing to be overly concerned about.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> Considering that most people can only discern time increments on the order of 100 milliseconds (a tenth of a second), it's nothing to be overly concerned about.


but but but... my latency is now 4 milliseconds and.... :lol:


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> but but but... my latency is now 4 milliseconds and.... :lol:


But that's almost 324 nautical miles for radar :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> But that's almost 324 nautical miles for radar :lol:


Ah, there's a missing decimal point there.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> Ah, there's a missing decimal point there.


It's been awhile, but not that long. Where's the missing decimal point?

.00001236 (12.36 microseconds) * 324 (nautical miles) = .00400464 (4 milliseconds)


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> About the only other way would be:
> add a 2-way splitter with the filter on the input and run the HR34 off one leg and the BB DECA off the other. The splitter will give the attenuation and the filter will do its thing.


Sorry for the silly question, but in this configuration, would the ethernet cable be plugged in to the BB DECA or the HR34? Would it make any difference?

From what was mentioned earlier in this thread, the DECA would "see" the Ethernet and vice-versa. Is this right?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DBSNewbie said:


> Sorry for the silly question, but in this configuration, would the ethernet cable be plugged in to the BB DECA or the HR34? Would it make any difference?
> 
> From what was mentioned earlier in this thread, the DECA would "see" the Ethernet and vice-versa. Is this right?


I would use the ethernet to the BB DECA and skip connecting it to the HR34.
"I guess" a powered BB DECA would do what's needed [for the DECA RF] without ethernet being connected.
Not quite sure what you're second part is. 
Going with ethernet to your HR34, would have it "see" your network.
Going with ethernet to the BB DECA, would have the HR34 "see" your home network through DECA and the BB DECA [like your H25 does].


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

dsw2112 said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point on "lag"; how would it manifest itself in this situation? Do you anticipate that streaming shows will need to periodically stop and buffer during playback? The most I can see is a few milliseconds difference in remote trickplay. Not enough to get excited about...


there would be more load on the interfaces and genrally 100mbit only gets 80-90 each way (it can do better if you have very good efficiant equipment)

people already complain about lag on long runs (as seen on this forum) so a link thats at 50% load would not be a good thing

a working network and a well built one are to differant things and as the decas do some qos they'll have even more load processing that data which would in turn cause more lag

If you want OTA to the HR34 (ie via an AM21) then I'd just put the BSF direct to the reciver and see if it actually causes anything, and see if it heats up at all
there wouldn't be any benefit to double converting the data so I'd just connect the HR34's ethernet port directly to the ethernet network and see if theres any issue with the BSF, yes it would be hitting the BSF with a low of RF but it seems like it would be more likely to be able to take it than something else.

or if you're not diplexing on that cable just put the BSF right near the SWM splitter and have alot more cable between it


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I would use the ethernet to the BB DECA and skip connecting it to the HR34.
> "I guess" a powered BB DECA would do what's needed [for the DECA RF] without ethernet being connected.
> *Not quite sure what you're second part is*.
> Going with ethernet to your HR34, would have it "see" your network.
> Going with ethernet to the BB DECA, would have the HR34 "see" your home network through DECA and the BB DECA [like your H25 does].


My Bad. The second part was actually from a post from the HR34 Anticipation Thread. I knew that I had read it earlier, I was just little confused on where it had been.

Here's that post...



dsw2112 said:


> I asked this question early on. The ethernet jack is bridged to the DECA. Anything on the DECA side will see anything on the ethernet side, and vice versa. The "full" purpose of the ethernet jack is likely to add ethernet RVU devices if/when they're available.


Anyhow, I do understand that the network could be "seen" by either connection. I was just wondering if one way was more beneficial than the other.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DBSNewbie said:


> My Bad. The second part was actually from a post from the HR34 Anticipation Thread. I knew that I had read it earlier, I was just little confused on where it had been.
> 
> Here's that post...
> 
> Anyhow, I do understand that the network could be "seen" by either connection. I was just wondering if one way was more beneficial than the other.


That post is in error, but it only affects a DECA network.
The HR34 can't be the bridge from your home network to the DECA network.
Only a WDECA/BB DECA can do this.
In the HR34 RVU setup, only the HR34 needs access to the network/internet, so ethernet on the HR34 works, "but" it doesn't share this to the DECA networked receivers.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> That post is in error, but it only affects a DECA network.
> The HR34 can't be the bridge from your home network to the DECA network.
> Only a WDECA/BB DECA can do this.
> In the HR34 RVU setup, only the HR34 needs access to the network/internet, so ethernet on the HR34 works, "but" it doesn't share this to the DECA networked receivers.


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> That post is in error, but it only affects a DECA network.
> *The HR34 can't be the bridge from your home network to the DECA network.*
> Only a WDECA/BB DECA can do this.
> In the HR34 RVU setup, only the HR34 needs access to the network/internet, so ethernet on the HR34 works, "but" it doesn't share this to the DECA networked receivers.


This info was posted by several, but here's a quick reference to a post by *Sixto*:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2894559#post2894559


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

DarkLogix said:


> people already complain about lag on long runs (as seen on this forum)...


But you didn't answer the question; what is the lag manifested as? In other words, what is the end user seeing that you would categorize as caused by lag?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> This info was posted by several, but here's a quick reference to a post by *Sixto*:
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2894559#post2894559


Not sure of what version Sixto was referring to, but I did get a PM a day or two back that expressly informed me that MRV clients can't get internet access through the HR34's ethernet port. RVU clients rely on the HR34, so it may "appear" to work for them, but all internet is really on the HR34. What it does do differently is keep the DECA active with the ethernet port being used.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> But you didn't answer the question; what is the lag manifested as? In other words, what is the end user seeing that you would categorize as caused by lag?


Not to pick on him, as we've had some PMs over this, "but" I tend to think it's more "theoretical" than "real world", but the truth is not known [yet] as nobody has loaded a network like this to know squat about it.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> Not to pick on him, as we've had some PMs over this, "but" I tend to think it's more "theoretical" than "real world", but the truth is not known [yet] as nobody has loaded a network like this to know squat about it.


"Well", he did say this:



DarkLogix said:


> people already complain about lag on long runs (as seen on this forum) so a link thats at 50% load would not be a good thing


I just want to understand what problem the "lag" is causing; is it trickplay?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> "Well", he did say this:
> 
> I just want to understand what problem the "lag" is causing; is it trickplay?


I think he's mixing up server/client lag with network response [myself].


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

dsw2112 said:


> But you didn't answer the question; what is the lag manifested as? In other words, what is the end user seeing that you would categorize as caused by lag?


How it would manifest on MRV is yet to be seen but based on other posts it would likely be sluggish play/pause/start commands being sent from a reciver to the DVR

without setting up a network that poorly it would be hard to tell how it might manifest but in genral its best to not do it

I know one network I used to work with (I fixed it after not to long, and it was the person before me that put it like that) users on one of the remote switches would sometimes be unable to access data/services linked to the main switch due to network timeouts even though via bandwidth monitoring the link was well below 50% usage, I promptly fixed that by swaping the 100mbit uplink to a gig and swaping the 2nd switch in the MDF to be stacked with the first rather than just uplinked

although most people will look at raw data amounts to network equipment its packet (or in switches frame) numbers that matter as you can have a small frame but it still takes just as much cpu to deal with as a large frame, a large frame though takes more memory

so while the raw data size looks acceptable it can make it more likely to be problematic


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DarkLogix said:


> How it would manifest on MRV is yet to be seen but based on other posts it would likely be sluggish play/pause/start commands being sent from a reciver to the DVR
> 
> without setting up a network that poorly it would be hard to tell how it might manifest but in genral its best to not do it
> 
> ...


This is where I don't doubt the validity of what you're saying, but still question the type of environment "differences" between this and a home network usage with much fewer users and mostly dealing with streaming video. Is this really apples and apples or merely "network experience" from a different world?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

I also wonder if it's apples to apples for another reason; there have been reports of "slow" trickplay response with non-networked receivers. I don't think trickplay would be a great yardstick here. 

Now, if there's problems with streaming, or misc errors with MRV; then I think that's useful data. I'm not saying I don't agree with the premise "that a crappy network can lead to problems," but just saying I know some folks with large setups that also use their DECA networks for "non-approved" uses.


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

veryoldschool said:


> This is where I don't doubt the validity of what you're saying, but still question the type of environment "differences" between this and a home network usage with much fewer users and mostly dealing with streaming video. Is this really apples and apples or merely "network experience" from a different world?


Well in the network that I mentioned all the users were using low bandwidth programs, web, sap, and such

where as in MRR its a relatively high bandwidth app

so while the network had more people it had far less bandwidth per user in use

so it could get to congested and then have issues where the video messes up, or slugish play/pause
I'm not sure how a DVR would handle a timeout and as a normal reciver doesn't have a large amount of storage I doubt it can buffer much


----------



## Smuuth (Oct 4, 2005)

"veryoldschool" said:


> That post is in error, but it only affects a DECA network.
> The HR34 can't be the bridge from your home network to the DECA network.
> Only a WDECA/BB DECA can do this.
> In the HR34 RVU setup, only the HR34 needs access to the network/internet, so ethernet on the HR34 works, "but" it doesn't share this to the DECA networked receivers.


I'm not sure if I misunderstood what you are saying here that the HR34 can't be the bridge from the home network to the DECA network.

I have an HR34 and 4 HR2Xs. The ONLY connection to the home network is from the Ethernet port on the HR34, yet all HR2Xs on the WHDVR network are showing they are connected to my home network and the Internet.


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

My guess is that D* doesn't want you to do that
I've seen a number of posts showing that they are bridged but It's likely not how D* planned them to be used

however with common D* installers when told that they aren't it could lead to issues
IE if you have a CCK-W and a HR34 and both link to the deca network and to ethernet then you have yourself a switching loop

I'd guess that they might release a firmware update that'll brake the bridge, or tell installers to use it as the deca-ethernet link


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

From my personal experience, trying to use an HR34 to provide internet service to regular receivers ranges from "works sometimes" to "does not work at all." 

I simply wouldn't do it that way. There may have been an intention to do installations like that but in my experience it's not reliable enough to do all the time.


----------



## Smuuth (Oct 4, 2005)

"Stuart Sweet" said:


> From my personal experience, trying to use an HR34 to provide internet service to regular receivers ranges from "works sometimes" to "does not work at all."
> 
> I simply wouldn't do it that way. There may have been an intention to do installations like that but in my experience it's not reliable enough to do all the time.


I do have an extra DECA with a power supply that i can use to connect to my LAN if I start to have problems. So far, it has worked fine the way it is connected.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> From my personal experience, trying to use an HR34 to provide internet service to regular receivers ranges from "works sometimes" to "does not work at all."
> 
> I simply wouldn't do it that way. There may have been an intention to do installations like that but in my experience it's not reliable enough to do all the time.


I'm a bit confused then. What about this scenario (this is a flash forward to when RVU actually exists), and Samsung Tv's have updated software:

A customer has an ethernet network; on the network are a computer, Xbox system, Blu-Ray player, and RVU Samsung Tv. These are all connected via an all-in-one home router with internet access. The customer recently invested in an HR34 with two H25 receivers; the H25's are utilizing the DECA network. The HR34 is then connected to the home router via its (the HR34's) ethernet jack (to allow RVU usage of the Sammy Tv.) The customer then connects a CCK to the DECA network, and the home router (for internet access on the DECA side.) Anyone see the problem here? :lol: (two connections to the home router.)

The two networks (DECA and ethernet) either need to bridge via the HR34, or never bridge. It can't be a "sometimes" thing with the above setup...


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Signal wise" the internal resistor network of the wireless CCK...:
> 
> HR34 <--> -10 dB <--> DECA and to filter would mean another -20 dB before coming back to the any DECA.





veryoldschool said:


> About the only other way would be:
> add a 2-way splitter with the filter on the input and run the HR34 off one leg and the BB DECA off the other. The splitter will give the attenuation and the filter will do its thing.


Between a WDCCK (hardwired) or BB DECA, would one way be any better than the other? Since I still have a few more days before the HR34 arrives, I wouldn't mind ordering another WDCCK ($30), if it would help even slightly.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

DBSNewbie said:


> Between a WDCCK (hardwired) or BB DECA, would one way be any better than the other? Since I still have a few more days before the HR34 arrives, I wouldn't mind ordering another WDCCK ($30), if it would help even slightly.


the differences may be minor.
The WDCCK has the advantage of slightly more DECA attenuation, while having less attenuation of the SAT signal [in the pass through mode], than a 2-way splitter with the filter on its input.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> the differences may be minor.
> The WDCCK has the advantage of slightly more DECA attenuation, while having less attenuation of the SAT signal [in the pass through mode], than a 2-way splitter with the filter on its input.


Thank you


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

Just hooked up the HR34 

Thank you all for all of your help in guiding me on how to connect it to my hybrid system.


----------

