On 4/3/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This was because he wanted to put the HDHomeRun on a separate LAN from
the rest of his network
... because he had a wireless LAN for his main home network. (FYI.)
Even if he had a different type of LAN, for the type of traffic that two
tuners cranking out HD data, you probably would want to have it on a
different LAN.
Do we know that? By my calculations, even the worst-case figure for
high definition video is less than 30 megabits per second. If you've
got decent switched Ethernet, even at only 100 megabits/sec, that
should be very doable. If you've got gig Ethernet, that's about 3%
utilization. A drop in the bucket.
Perhaps Jarod can comment on this?
I just want to avoid complicating things if we don't actually have
any evidence that said complexity is needed.
His comment was that none of his routers he had could handle the load,
so he put it on its own "LAN".
I'm guessing he meant his wireless network. Most home users have a
box which was sold as a "wireless router". It includes router,
switch, wireless access point, and all sorts of other things. The
actual router component is just for NAT'ing the Internet uplink.
Within the LAN, you're not actually using the router part.
Some of these boxes (notably the popular LinkSys WRT54G line) *do*
use software running on the CPU to implement the layer two network
bridge between the wired Ethernet switch and the wireless access
point. That would further slow things down. But you still have the
wireless problem.
If he was actually *trying* to funnel the HDHomeRun through a router
(i.e., with multiple IP networks), he was almost certainly Doing
Something Wrong, so that's not very useful as a case study. :)
Our instructions said we would walk people through the OS install.
Yes, but we also encouraged them to install Fedora ahead of time to
check out their hardware.
Where did we do this?
All I can find is "Ideally, test it with a general-purpose OS
(Linux, Windows, FreeDOS, etc.) to make sure it boots okay."
Let's not blame people for not following instructions we didn't
actually provide. :-)
I *do* think that encouraging them to install Fedora ahead of time
is a good idea.
Of course, at some point, we've stopped being an InstallFest and
written a do-it-yourself HOWTO instead. We're going to have to strike
a balance. Hmmmm...
I also think we should revisit the idea of using one of the "canned
MythTV" distributions, like KnoppMyth or MythDora. If we can find one
that works reliably, it should save us a lot of time and effort: No
package selection questions, no huge pile of updates for software we
don't need, no third-party repositories to configure, no extra
packages to install, no system-level tuning to be done, etc.
It has been posited that, by going with a general-purpose distro,
we're making our lives easier, because that way we can do things in
stages. I've given that some thought, and my current conclusion is
that is a misconception. We can still do things in stages. It isn't
like they found a way to build MythTV into the kernel. These distros
still boot the kernel, run some init scripts, and start X. They've
just got MythTV in the default package set, too.
Now, if all the canned MythTV distros suck, then *that's* a good
reason to avoid them. :)
-- Ben
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
