Has anyone tried hooking their video source (HDHomerun, etc.) into the second RJ45 port on the PR4100? Doing so would bypass the need for the data to flow from the source through a router/switch to get to the PR4100.
Then how would anything else on the LAN get to the tuner? How would the tuner communicate with the SD mothership to get updates, etc.?
Besides which: The highest bit rate I’ve seen from a tuner is 15mb/s. Thus all four tuners going at once would be 60mb/s. That’s still only 60% of the interface’s capability, and well within_ the capability of modern network gear.
1 Like
I would be using the PR4100 same way I would use a computer with two LAN cards or A laptop that had both in RJ-45 and Wi-Fi set up. The PR4100 would serve as a bridge, With one LAN Jack connected to the router, the other connected to the HD Homerun. Anything the HD Homerun needed from the Internet, it could get by bridging through the PR4100 then going out the other LAN Jack. However, since majority of the transmission from the HD Homerun is to the PR4100, This set up would serve to optimize that. Of course, everything would have to have static IP addresses but this easy enough to do.
I’m still waiting for my PR4100 to arrive, or else I would have just tried this myself. I was just curious if anyone else had thought of doing it this way.
What would you hope to achieve?
I’m going to assume the PR4100 has a GigE Ethernet port. Even if you had two Quatros, and all eight channels were running at 18mb/s (the highest bit rate I’ve seen reported, I believe), that’s still only 144mb/s. A little over 14% of GigE capacity. Double that again, to four Quatros, and you’re still hitting less than 30% of network capacity–and that would be with all of them hitting unlikely bit rates simultaneously. Then, if you simultaneously streamed all eight recordings while they were still in-progress, you’d hit around 60% of network capacity. A well-designed LAN using good hardware wouldn’t break a sweat–even given this highly-unlikely scenario.
You do understand that, with switched networks, traffic on one particular switch port does not affect bandwidth availability on the other ports, subject to the switch’s own backplane bandwidth, right?
Have at it, if it amuses you, but, for network performance purposes there’s no point. And I’ve always felt simpler was better. Your effort would be better spent, IMO, on better network switches and WiFi access points.
(N.B.: I used to do LAN and WLAN engineering for a living, if that makes any difference to you.)
Both of the ports are indeed Gig ports. I can plug a single port One of those portsinto my switch, which will go through my router, then to another switch that ahs my HDHomeRun on it. Can run, does not mean it is the most optimal. Once you have a network running, you look for redundancy and points of failure as well as distances that can be lessened. The only thing that the HDHR needs to talk to Is the PR4100. So why add in the extra points of failure and distance? I’m just looking at ways to make things more optimal rather than simplyfunctional.
I am a network engineer/architect, working for the DoD designing the networks that are used now in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Because of length of time I’ve been involved, the economics of doing some of these things is part of every network I look at. I don’t think that makes me any better or worse than anyone else, I just have a different set of skills, Education, and history. My question was not a statement that it was the only way to do it, just the way that I saw to avoid several hops and decrease the possibility of failure. Just curious if anyone else had tried it that way.
The WD NAS has two ports for redundancy. I don’t think it’s possible for the NAS to provide internet to another device plugged into it. You might be able to make it work by doing some fancy bridging or custom routing tables, but chances are your switch will do a much better job of routing. The WD is built as a NAS, not a switch or network router, so trying to wire things up like you suggest will likely only decrease performance and introduce more possible points of failure.
Note that the HDHR must be able to talk to the internet (to SiliconDust’s servers) for it to function correctly. Your client devices may also want to talk to the HDHR directly (depending on whether you enable Tuner Sharing or not), so having to go through the NAS to talk to the HDHR is not ideal.
I have not heard of anyone trying this particular setup, but if you think it’s interesting please do and report back with your results.
Understood, again I do not have my device in my hands yet – just pondering possibilities – the manual and tech specs are not overly informative on nuts and bolts. A lot of things operate or can be made to operate in a different manner than designed – ie homebrew firmware for devices. It may take too much effort to be beneficial – that was why I asked if anyone had done it.
You never know until you try.
It’s running Linux, so, if the necessary support exists or can be installed it can either route between or bridge the two interfaces. It’s pointless, IMO, but doable.