New networking setup

[cwills75]

Google's takeover has made me kick my butt in gear trying to finish my setup before parts are no longer available. After spending a small fortune on ebay for extenders and finishing some client builds, I'm having some networking problems and would like some advise.

When completed there will be the following hardware:

SageTV Server in living room
Client PC #1 in master bedroom
Client PC #2 in den
Client PC #3 in exercise room
Client PC #4 in dining room
SD-300 in kid bedroom 1
SD-200 in kid bedroom 2
SD-200 in kid bedroom 3

Server has enough tuners to serve 6 systems at once, doubt more systems than that would ever run at once for live tv. My networking has been a nightmare. I can't get any more than three systems steaming HD at a time without locking up the router. The current networking setup is:

10/100/B/G/N 4-port router
three 10/100 switches going to the hardware above, xbox 360, ps3, a couple networked printers, three wired computers and the following wireless devices - wii, 5 laptops, 6 ipod touches, a few android phones, some DS's.

The Sage server has dual gigabit LAN ports and I'm only using one now. I'm thinking the best setup would be each gigabit LAN port going to a new gigabit router like a linksys E4200. I could run each router separately and balance the extenders between them. I would need three gigabit switches and am hoping the existing Cat5e wiring would hold up. If need be I can gut the wiring between the PC and the routers/switches to Cat6 for more bandwidth.

Any suggestions? I hate to spend the money on five new pieces of networking hardware if it's not going to work out in the end.

[cwills75]

As a side note, as a temp fix to get a fourth system up until I re-route, I did a direct PC to extender connection with the second LAN port with a cross-over cable. That worked well and Sage sent online feeds even though the secondary connection technically shouldn't have internet on it. I only have one free PCI slot left in the PC. Another option would be to add a dual port PCI card and run direct connections with cross-over cables to three extenders. I could run the remaining extenders on low-volume systems that would rarely/never run at the same time. This would probably be a cheaper solution, but I would definitely have to run/splice new cat5e directly upstairs to the server which I guess wouldn't be that big of a deal.

[wrems]

Your best setup would be like this:

Internet <---> modem <---> router <---> switch <---> everything else

Get one high quality gigabit switch. Don't run anything through your router except internet traffic.

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by wrems

Your best setup would be like this:

Internet <---> modem <---> router <---> switch <---> everything else

Get one high quality gigabit switch. Don't run anything through your router except internet traffic.

agreed.

[cwills75]

That would be a simple setup, would Cat6 be necessary between PC->Router->Switch? I doubt it would be necessary from the switch to each individual extender/client as the extenders are 10/100 anyway. Any gigabit router/switch recommendations?

[will]

Originally Posted by cwills75

That would be a simple setup, would Cat6 be necessary between PC->Router->Switch? I doubt it would be necessary from the switch to each individual extender/client as the extenders are 10/100 anyway. Any gigabit router/switch recommendations?

I have my house wired for CAT6 but I don't think it is necessary. CAT5e should be sufficient.

Since you plan to move so much HD content around you might want to consider purchasing a small business router and move out of the consumer product lines. You should probably buy a router that could support a 25 to 50 person office. Another option would be to consider building your own Linux router with a small PC with two Ethernet cards.

I use to have issues with my router locking up until I took the plunge and purchased a true business class router. Also, stay away from the Linksys Small Business routers...they are junk. For wireless, I use a true Access Point (no built in router capabilities) that plugs into my network upstairs (networking closest, SageTV, servers, etc. are all kept in the basement).

[david1234]

Originally Posted by will

Since you plan to move so much HD content around you might want to consider purchasing a small business router and move out of the consumer product lines. You should probably buy a router that could support a 25 to 50 person office. Another option would be to consider building your own Linux router with a small PC with two Ethernet cards.

replacing the 3 10/100 switches with a single 10/100/1000 switch that's a step up from consumer grade should be fine. I haven't looked in awhile, but you used to be able to buy an unmanaged switch for around $150. something like this dlink

I'd leave the router alone since it won't be involved unless we're streaming to wireless devices.

[matt91]

I think that the same one I have and I love it. rock solid. no complaints.

[loomdog32]

Originally Posted by david1234

replacing the 3 10/100 switches with a single 10/100/1000 switch that's a step up from consumer grade should be fine. I haven't looked in awhile, but you used to be able to buy an unmanaged switch for around $150. something like this dlink

I'd leave the router alone since it won't be involved unless we're streaming to wireless devices.

ditto

Using a single gigabit switch that is capable of handling the traffic on your internal network will resolve your issues. Only reason to upgrade your router is if you do alot of streaming across the internet via placeshifter or other.

Dlink DGS-1016D w 32Gbps Forwarding Capacity
Dlink DGS-1024D w 48Gbps Forwarding Capacity
would both work in your case.

[Beefcake550]

First off, CAT 5e is plenty good for GigE as I have been doing it in my house for 3 years. I followed the setup recommendation here of cable model--->router---->switch (everything hooked into the switch). I don't have as many Sage clients ("only" 4) and haven't had any problems network wise.

There could be another problem... disk I/O. It's not a bandwidth problem, but a IO/sec problem. How many hard drives are in the server system? Ideally, you'd have 1 disk/tuner and tell SageTV to record to disks to maximize bandwidth (i.e. - record to different disks if more than 1 tuner is recording). I'd say at least a ratio of 2 tuners per hard drive is a good idea. Personally, I have more disks than tuners, but I'm also running WHS v1 which is "dog stupid" about choosing drives when a new write stream comes into the drive pool.

I think a good 16 port GigE switch for around $100-$150 should do it. If you need more ports, you could use a few el cheapo 10/100 switches for low end stuff and hang it off of the GigE switch (I do this for my Xbox360/SageTV setup on 2 TVs and works great).

[wrems]

I wouldn't bother with your router either as long as its working fine. If you put a dedicated switch in front of the router the only traffic going through your router will be internet traffic or if you're wireless streaming...

How many devices in total do you need to have hooked up? That will tell you how big of a switch you need to go with. Probably a 16 or 24 port switch I'm guessing. I don't have any specific recommendations but I really like my HP Procurve. You may want to do some research over here: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com . You may get more specific recommendations over in their forum too...

IMO, cat5 is fine.

[panteragstk]

If your router is compatible with DD-WRT then that can make a big difference in your configuration options.

[cwills75]

Originally Posted by Beefcake550

First off, CAT 5e is plenty good for GigE as I have been doing it in my house for 3 years. I followed the setup recommendation here of cable model--->router---->switch (everything hooked into the switch). I don't have as many Sage clients ("only" 4) and haven't had any problems network wise.

There could be another problem... disk I/O. It's not a bandwidth problem, but a IO/sec problem. How many hard drives are in the server system? Ideally, you'd have 1 disk/tuner and tell SageTV to record to disks to maximize bandwidth (i.e. - record to different disks if more than 1 tuner is recording). I'd say at least a ratio of 2 tuners per hard drive is a good idea. Personally, I have more disks than tuners, but I'm also running WHS v1 which is "dog stupid" about choosing drives when a new write stream comes into the drive pool.

I think a good 16 port GigE switch for around $100-$150 should do it. If you need more ports, you could use a few el cheapo 10/100 switches for low end stuff and hang it off of the GigE switch (I do this for my Xbox360/SageTV setup on 2 TVs and works great).

Let me see if I am understanding this. If I have a 10/100 wifi router, I would basically be using that just to "supply" the other network devices/pc's with an internet connection. But all devices, would be plugged directly to the gigabit switch? I guess I don't understand how the networking hardware works that well. I assumed you needed a router to direct traffic, but if I am understanding you guys, if the sage server is connected to port 1 of the switch and three extenders are on ports 2-4, data will pass directly from the sage server to the extender without having to go through the router?

I currently have 5 hard drives in the system. Two are dedicated video drives for movies converted to mp4, and the others are partitioned. Basically, I have the server's 6 recording tuners split between three physical drives, so 2 tuners per drive. I split them based on how I think things will normally record based on our viewing habits.

Before I assigned tuners per drive, I tested it having all six record HD to a single 7200rpm SATA and the recordings looked good. Granted nobody was watching any of them so it was just writing, and not reading and writing.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by cwills75

Let me see if I am understanding this. If I have a 10/100 wifi router, I would basically be using that just to "supply" the other network devices/pc's with an internet connection. But all devices, would be plugged directly to the gigabit switch? I guess I don't understand how the networking hardware works that well. I assumed you needed a router to direct traffic, but if I am understanding you guys, if the sage server is connected to port 1 of the switch and three extenders are on ports 2-4, data will pass directly from the sage server to the extender without having to go through the router?

I currently have 5 hard drives in the system. Two are dedicated video drives for movies converted to mp4, and the others are partitioned. Basically, I have the server's 6 recording tuners split between three physical drives, so 2 tuners per drive. I split them based on how I think things will normally record based on our viewing habits.

Before I assigned tuners per drive, I tested it having all six record HD to a single 7200rpm SATA and the recordings looked good. Granted nobody was watching any of them so it was just writing, and not reading and writing.

The router's job will be to assign the ip addresses. The router likely has it's own built in switch. You are going to want to connect one of those ports on the router's switch to a better gigabit capable switch that can handle all of the traffic. The proposed switches above will be great as they will actually provide all the bandwidth required. Also, since the server has 2 gigabit ports you can use both to maximize bandwidth from the server.

[wrems]

While you can use the switch in your router for everything it's not suggested/recommended. The switches in wifi consumer grade routers are not good. When you're pushing multiple HD video streams around the house you don't want your router being in charge of those streams and managing your internet traffic. It's too much for that cheap hardware they put in them.

So you want a very reliable traffic cop that won't slow down your network, when your surfing, downloading, watching BD's etc. The switch in this case will be doing the lion share of all the work pushing bits around your house, and the router will be sitting behind it dishing out IP addresses and handling NAT, firewalling and your internet traffic.

So you will use only 1 port of your 4 port router to connect to the dedicated switch. Your internal lan traffic will then never go through your router. Only your outbound internet traffic will be processed in your router. You'll get a performance boost from separating the tasks rather than a does it all wifi router.

[cwills75]

OK, thanks guys, I think I got it now. I do have a couple follow-up questions:

1. If I run two Cat5e cables out of the server's gigabit LAN ports directly to the gigabit switch, does Windows/Sage utilize both of them automatically to distribute the load, or will it only use one?

2. I understand the firewall part of a router and to distribute IP addresses with a DHCP server, but if all devices connected are manually configured for IP/Subnet, is a router still necessary? Would you be able to connect various devices to a switch and could they transfer data if you manually configured them on the same ip range - 192.168.1.xxx and subnet - 255.255.255.0?

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by cwills75

OK, thanks guys, I think I got it now. I do have a couple follow-up questions:

1. If I run two Cat5e cables out of the server's gigabit LAN ports directly to the gigabit switch, does Windows/Sage utilize both of them automatically to distribute the load, or will it only use one?

2. I understand the firewall part of a router and to distribute IP addresses with a DHCP server, but if all devices connected are manually configured for IP/Subnet, is a router still necessary? Would you be able to connect various devices to a switch and could they transfer data if you manually configured them on the same ip range - 192.168.1.xxx and subnet - 255.255.255.0?

You will need both adapters to share the same ip (if possible) with load balancing or if your motherboard will allow that.

[OneOfMany]

Originally Posted by cwills75

2. I understand the firewall part of a router and to distribute IP addresses with a DHCP server, but if all devices connected are manually configured for IP/Subnet, is a router still necessary? Would you be able to connect various devices to a switch and could they transfer data if you manually configured them on the same ip range - 192.168.1.xxx and subnet - 255.255.255.0?

As long as your Default Gateway points to your router eg. 192.168.1.1, then using any static IP on the same subnet is no problem for your systems. The gateway will point allow you access to the Interent.

I use two servers, and have assigned them both static. All my other clients wired & wireless just autograb an IP from the router.

[Beefcake550]

The main function of the router is to "route" internet traffic to and from your LAN. Yes, it has a built in switch, but it's not good enough. You are replacing the switch portion with a simple GigE switch that can handle all the traffic at once. You can apply static IP addresse or not to disable the DHCP portion of the router (or not).

[cwills75]

Thanks for all the help guys. Everything is working now. I would like to upgrade the hardware later by buying a 5-port gigabit switch for upstairs and when my wifi router dies, pick up a gigabit router. I ended up buying an 8-port gigabit switch and wired gigabit router. I wanted to run two different networks, and keep the TV network separate from the PC/everything else network just for stability reasons. I've had utorrent lock up the router sometimes and we have something around 20 wi-fi devices around the house. I think keeping the flaky network away from the TV network will be more wife and kid acceptable.

Here's what it currently looks like. I don't have two of the clients completed yet, but I simulated them running with a couple of laptops wired to the switch. I tuned everything to HD channels and nothing stuttered.