Better specs for Channels DVR and TV Everywhere and Locast

Hi everyone, I'm trying to get some opinions here as to which should work better as a DVR server. I use TV Everywhere and Locast for Channels DVR. I had an old laptop I used with an attached external hard drive for storage. I was curious if a WD MyCloudHome, 4TB would allow me better performance. We have Fios 1 GB connection and using speed tests wirelessly can connect at 400 Mbps on my apple TVs.

Performance wise I really didn't notice as much a difference as I thought I would, even though the WD MyCloudHome has a 1 Gbps port and four cores and the laptop has a 100 Mbps port and a dual core. When just watching channels, even on multiple devices all streams are well. However I noticed my connection on my apple tvs and iphone 11 pro was glitchy while recording even one program and trying to watch on just one other device.

I am asking because tomorrow is the last day I can return the WD to Bestbuy and if this is the best it can do it isn't worth what I paid. I'll attach the specs of both according to channels.Screenshot 2020-07-23 at 5.15.42 PM

Screenshot 2020-07-23 at 5.37.08 PM

Were they glitchy on the laptop or the WD?

I would guess the laptop would perform better, but just a guess. I'm sure others on here know way better than me. If your laptop has USB3, I'd spend the money on a fast USB3 drive. Does the laptop get excessively hot while its loaded up with DVR work?

That laptop is ancient, but you have plenty of RAM and I bet commercial detection is faster on there than the MyCloud. Honestly the MyCloud is a bit of a let-down, and there are weird issues that only happen on that platform. I'd say return it if you're on the fence.

The glitching could be due to windows network settings, esp if there's only a 100mbps port. You could maybe pick up a cheap gigabit usb dongle?

The price was definitely right for the laptop :wink:, and commercial detection is faster. Would a gig USB dongle work even though the ports 2.0?

I'm going to return the WD. Thanks for your advices.

USB2 maxes out at 450Mbs. Not quite 1000Mbps/1Gbps, but definitely an improvement over 100Mbps.

1 Like

so...i have had this conversation with many a tech person, and being one my slef....
having used a usb 2.0 gigabit ethernet dongle on a computer with a usb 2.0 port (or taking my 3.0 adapter and putting it in a 2.0port) i still transfer files over LAN at the same ~110MB's full gigabit wireline speed. so...despite what the tech specs say, in my testing and many years of doing just this....make no difference in throughput.

I'm sure the rest of the world would like to know how you do that and some might even pay for it :wink:
USB 2.0 max theoretical speed is 480 Mbits/sec and your claimed ~110MB's full gigabit wireline speed is impossible over USB 2.0.
110 MBytes/sec = 880 Mbits/sec.
Unless you meant 110 Mbits/sec, which is 13.75 MBytes/sec...
OR you also have a wired Gigabit adapter that's being used instead of the USB adapter.

1 Like

No Windows OS does file transfer in MB's.
I know the technical bits and specs....but,
doesn't change the fact that u don't get 13.75MBs a second using usb 2.0 Ethernet adapter.
i used one for years on a certain computer log dead and gone.
maybe there was some cpu assisted or some hardware offload happening, i dont recall what or why, but it was in the Win 7 days.
anyway, that is off topic.
wired is always better than wireless, (no matter if wifi these days can reach above wirespeed theoretically they claim)

Guess I'll piggyback on this thread as I'm using a decent laptop currently since I had one to use, but I was thinking of getting a mini Pc to use with a USB 3.0 drive. They're pretty cheap. Can pick up a 6gb/128gb nvme ssd, Celeron J3455 for about $150. Gigabit Ethernet which my laptop doesn't have without an adaptor and multiple USB 3.0 ports. Imagine that would do the trick well. Here's the link:

Not many have an SSD in that price range. Mosf are giving you a 4gb of ram and a 64gb emmc at that price.