TiVo Community Forums Archives - Should I bridge or go native 802.11?

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

Should I bridge or go native 802.11?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: jedwards

I have 2 Tivos with newly added HMO option, but have not yet purchased network adapters.

I would like to hear from people who use either wired or wireless networks about how much time it takes to transfer shows between a pair of TiVos.

I would also appreciate any feedback about USB networking solutions. Are there any real standouts or dogs I should be aware of?

Finally, if anyone out there has experience with bridging, are the 3 inexpensive solutions I know of (WAP11, WET11, and dwl-810) pretty much equivalent in compatibility and performance?

Following is a description of the options I know about:

1. Get a pair of USB 802.11 interfaces for around $50-$60, and add them directly to my airport network.

2. Get a pair of USB2.0->10/100 adapters, connect them to a switch, and then use a wireless bridge (Linksys WAP11/WET11; or D-Link dwl-810) to connect that segment to the airport. I figure this approach would cost me about $100-$150.

Which option I choose depends mostly on whether or not the performance of transferring shows between the two units is acceptable via wireless.

Also, since the wireless network is is my primary one for general use, is there additional chatter between the TiVo's except during copying and downloading program data?

I usually record in Basic or Medium quality. I would most often transfer a 1 hour show from one TiVo to another when a TO DO list collision made recording an otherwise skipped show on the other TiVo.

Thanks in advance to all who respond.

Posted by: bedelman

If you have an Airport Base Station, you may want to avoid the WET11. I've had problems with the two I have (they throw a LOT of errors when a high volume of data is being transmitted). I read that the WET11's Prism chipset doesn't get along with the Airport's Lucent chipset.

If you can get away with running one TiVo as wired and the other as wireless, you'll get better throughput than with both of them wireless.

If you're going to go wireless, I don't suggest you use the bridge approach. The data throughput won't be any faster than the slowest segment anyway.

Posted by: jedwards

Thanks, Bob.

I'll stay away from the WET11. If I go that route I'll check out the dwl810, since I'm sure the other Lynksys uses a similar chipset.

Re: data throughput only being as fast as the slowest segment, you are correct.

Sorry, for not making my topology clearer in the wired case. With wires, I would choose USB2.0->100 base-T for both the Tivos, then bridge that to the network. Thus any inter-Tivo traffic would be isolated on their own switch.

I still would like to hear about performance, though. How much time does it take you to transfer a show on your airport link?

Posted by: bedelman

We sacrifice quality for quantity -- so everything gets recorded in Basic. A completely wireless transfer with an Access point takes about 20-25 minutes for a 30 minute program. If one of the TiVo units is wired, it's about 12-15 minutes.

For what it's worth, the USB ports in the TiVo units are only running with USB 1.1 drivers. Although, the units where the TSN begins with a "2" have USB 2.0 hardware, it's of no current value because the drivers are USB 1.1 -- of course that could change in the future.

Posted by: jedwards

Thanks for the performance info.

My TiVos both have USB 2.0 hardware, so I'm just planning ahead.

I would be extremely surprised if TiVo does not eventually enable 2.0 driver logic on machines which support it.

It would be a shame to still be stuck at ~10base-T speeds for lack of foresight. A potential 8x throughput bump is nothing to sneeze at.

Posted by: bhaas

I am in the same speed neighborhood as bedelman. Anyone have data on fully wired speeds? I could be tempted to fish one more cable through my wall to hook in my other unit.

Posted by: bedelman

quote:
Originally posted by jedwards
I would be extremely surprised if TiVo does not eventually enable 2.0 driver logic on machines which support it.

There was a note in one of the forums here from TiVoBji (who appeared to be a TiVo employee) which mentioned that they were working on USB 2.0 drivers.

Posted by: jedwards

I tried to gather data on transfer rates and found that nobody has yet posted any numbers on the wired front that are very rigorous. I got enough to make some guesses, though, and the result is pretty clear. If you can lay some decent wire, and a good switched network, then it really makes sense to do so.

What Bob Bedelman has written in several posts about his 1/2 wireless 1/2 wired setup, and what I have gathered from a couple of other posts is all the data I could find:

Bob states, that for Basic Quality he gets slightly better about .5*duration for his 1/wired setup and about .8*duration for his fully wireless configuration. (48-60 minutes to transfer an hour of basic). Several other people have reported that shows recorded in Best Quality transfer slightly slower then real time, and that High Quality transfers are a bit faster than real time.

This suggests that wired lans are seeing between 2 and 4 times Bob's throughput. Which makes sense given the theoretical limit of 12Mb/sec for USB1.1.

Since the best benchmarking data I have found for USB2.0 interface place the DUB-E100 and the FA120 in the 72Mbit/sec neighborhood. There's another factor of 7 waiting in the wings.

So, I'll add a switch and some cat 6 in the front of the house for the TiVos, run 100' section between the front and the back to connect with my existing data network. And go with the DUB-E100, which has about the same average rate as the FA120, but a better record of compatibility and durability.

I ordered, all the pieces today, and will post some benchmarking data when it is in place.