Mailing List Archive

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:42:43 -0400, you wrote:

>Thinking of my next backend build. Any considerations to take into account
>if I run both MythTV and Jellyfin on the same box so as not to negatively
>affect recordings.
>
>MythTV: occasionally up to 4 recordings at once off of a network tuner
>(hdhomerun).
>
>Jellyfin: mostly direct lan connection to client. Maybe the odd wireless
>client in house that would need harware transcoding. Jellyfin content would
>not be on the MythTV recording drives.
>
>Any thoughts on minimum memory, etc?
>
>Thanks.

For 11 years I ran MythTV with 8 Gibytes of RAM, and found that while
it did push large chunks of code to swap, it was mostly unused code
and everything was fine. The RAM needs of the base Ubuntu system
increased significantly over the years. I have seven recording drives
and at times am recording up to 14 channels at once. Remember that
there will be up to twice as many recordings running when there are
overlaps due to the pre- and post-roll times.

However, I do not do any commercial flagging, which requires lots of
CPU and a bit more RAM. Jellyfin transcoding would affect commercial
skip processing, but is unlikely to affect recording (which is very
low CPU usage). And commercial skip processing does not need to be
real-time, so a bit of delay in completing it is not a problem.

For my new MythTV box in April, I chose to get 32 Gibytes of RAM, as
RAM is cheap (I was getting DDR4, not DDR5). Now even DDR5 seems to
be fairly cheap, so if you want the new system to last a long time,
why not get lots?

If you are using your network tuners on the same Ethernet connection
that you will be using for normal network traffic, then there is a
probability of getting contention at times, which can affect
recordings. I think the MythTV may now be using TCP for recording
connections to hdhomeruns, which would help a lot with that problem.
Unless you have lots of 4k connections to Jellyfin at the same time,
you are unlikely to saturate a 1 Gbit/s Ethernet connection, but every
time you copy a large video file on that connection, the speeds of
hard drives and especially NVME drives now means that the 1 Gbit/s
will be completely filled by the copy operation, so unless your
Ethernet adapters/drivers at both ends (and your switch?) support DSCP
priorities for the traffic, the recordings from the tuners may be
swamped by that traffic. Last time I looked, the hdhomerun tuner
documentation did say they set a high priority DSPC flag on their
traffic. So if you ever want to copy large files, you really want to
put your network tuners on a separate Ethernet port, if possible.

One thing to watch out for is CD/DVD/Bluray drives - if you want one
still in your new build, and are getting a new case, there are only a
few cases now that have 5.25" slots. So you may need to get an
external USB one, or search out a case that still has an optical drive
slot. I went with a SilverStone Grandia GD08B, as my 16 year old HTPC
case was dying (LEDs and buttons not working).
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 9:57 p.m. Stephen Worthington <
stephen_agent@jsw.gen.nz> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:42:43 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >Thinking of my next backend build. Any considerations to take into account
> >if I run both MythTV and Jellyfin on the same box so as not to negatively
> >affect recordings.
> >
> >MythTV: occasionally up to 4 recordings at once off of a network tuner
> >(hdhomerun).
> >
> >Jellyfin: mostly direct lan connection to client. Maybe the odd wireless
> >client in house that would need harware transcoding. Jellyfin content
> would
> >not be on the MythTV recording drives.
> >
> >Any thoughts on minimum memory, etc?
> >
> >Thanks.
>
> For 11 years I ran MythTV with 8 Gibytes of RAM, and found that while
> it did push large chunks of code to swap, it was mostly unused code
> and everything was fine. The RAM needs of the base Ubuntu system
> increased significantly over the years. I have seven recording drives
> and at times am recording up to 14 channels at once. Remember that
> there will be up to twice as many recordings running when there are
> overlaps due to the pre- and post-roll times.
>
> However, I do not do any commercial flagging, which requires lots of
> CPU and a bit more RAM. Jellyfin transcoding would affect commercial
> skip processing, but is unlikely to affect recording (which is very
> low CPU usage). And commercial skip processing does not need to be
> real-time, so a bit of delay in completing it is not a problem.
>
> For my new MythTV box in April, I chose to get 32 Gibytes of RAM, as
> RAM is cheap (I was getting DDR4, not DDR5). Now even DDR5 seems to
> be fairly cheap, so if you want the new system to last a long time,
> why not get lots?
>
> If you are using your network tuners on the same Ethernet connection
> that you will be using for normal network traffic, then there is a
> probability of getting contention at times, which can affect
> recordings. I think the MythTV may now be using TCP for recording
> connections to hdhomeruns, which would help a lot with that problem.
> Unless you have lots of 4k connections to Jellyfin at the same time,
> you are unlikely to saturate a 1 Gbit/s Ethernet connection, but every
> time you copy a large video file on that connection, the speeds of
> hard drives and especially NVME drives now means that the 1 Gbit/s
> will be completely filled by the copy operation, so unless your
> Ethernet adapters/drivers at both ends (and your switch?) support DSCP
> priorities for the traffic, the recordings from the tuners may be
> swamped by that traffic. Last time I looked, the hdhomerun tuner
> documentation did say they set a high priority DSPC flag on their
> traffic. So if you ever want to copy large files, you really want to
> put your network tuners on a separate Ethernet port, if possible.
>
> One thing to watch out for is CD/DVD/Bluray drives - if you want one
> still in your new build, and are getting a new case, there are only a
> few cases now that have 5.25" slots. So you may need to get an
> external USB one, or search out a case that still has an optical drive
> slot. I went with a SilverStone Grandia GD08B, as my 16 year old HTPC
> case was dying (LEDs and buttons not working).
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
> MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org


A great answer from you as always. Many thanks.

A networking question: OK, so say the motherboard has two ports. I have two
hdhomeruns. Do I plug the hdhomeruns into a small switch and plug that
directly into one of the two ports on the backend? (port #2)

Or using, say, a pfsense router (I want to learn and expand my network) and
a managed switch, does it do anything to plug the hdhomeruns into the main
switch (with other devices in the home) and use pfsense/switch and vlans to
send it to port #2 on the backend?

I'm a networking newbie - just have a consumer router right now - so I'm
just tossing words I've heard out. Feel free to correct me. :-p

>
>

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:01:00 -0400, you wrote:

>On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 9:57 p.m. Stephen Worthington <
>stephen_agent@jsw.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:42:43 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> >Thinking of my next backend build. Any considerations to take into account
>> >if I run both MythTV and Jellyfin on the same box so as not to negatively
>> >affect recordings.
>> >
>> >MythTV: occasionally up to 4 recordings at once off of a network tuner
>> >(hdhomerun).
>> >
>> >Jellyfin: mostly direct lan connection to client. Maybe the odd wireless
>> >client in house that would need harware transcoding. Jellyfin content
>> would
>> >not be on the MythTV recording drives.
>> >
>> >Any thoughts on minimum memory, etc?
>> >
>> >Thanks.
>>
>> For 11 years I ran MythTV with 8 Gibytes of RAM, and found that while
>> it did push large chunks of code to swap, it was mostly unused code
>> and everything was fine. The RAM needs of the base Ubuntu system
>> increased significantly over the years. I have seven recording drives
>> and at times am recording up to 14 channels at once. Remember that
>> there will be up to twice as many recordings running when there are
>> overlaps due to the pre- and post-roll times.
>>
>> However, I do not do any commercial flagging, which requires lots of
>> CPU and a bit more RAM. Jellyfin transcoding would affect commercial
>> skip processing, but is unlikely to affect recording (which is very
>> low CPU usage). And commercial skip processing does not need to be
>> real-time, so a bit of delay in completing it is not a problem.
>>
>> For my new MythTV box in April, I chose to get 32 Gibytes of RAM, as
>> RAM is cheap (I was getting DDR4, not DDR5). Now even DDR5 seems to
>> be fairly cheap, so if you want the new system to last a long time,
>> why not get lots?
>>
>> If you are using your network tuners on the same Ethernet connection
>> that you will be using for normal network traffic, then there is a
>> probability of getting contention at times, which can affect
>> recordings. I think the MythTV may now be using TCP for recording
>> connections to hdhomeruns, which would help a lot with that problem.
>> Unless you have lots of 4k connections to Jellyfin at the same time,
>> you are unlikely to saturate a 1 Gbit/s Ethernet connection, but every
>> time you copy a large video file on that connection, the speeds of
>> hard drives and especially NVME drives now means that the 1 Gbit/s
>> will be completely filled by the copy operation, so unless your
>> Ethernet adapters/drivers at both ends (and your switch?) support DSCP
>> priorities for the traffic, the recordings from the tuners may be
>> swamped by that traffic. Last time I looked, the hdhomerun tuner
>> documentation did say they set a high priority DSPC flag on their
>> traffic. So if you ever want to copy large files, you really want to
>> put your network tuners on a separate Ethernet port, if possible.
>>
>> One thing to watch out for is CD/DVD/Bluray drives - if you want one
>> still in your new build, and are getting a new case, there are only a
>> few cases now that have 5.25" slots. So you may need to get an
>> external USB one, or search out a case that still has an optical drive
>> slot. I went with a SilverStone Grandia GD08B, as my 16 year old HTPC
>> case was dying (LEDs and buttons not working).
>> _______________________________________________
>> mythtv-users mailing list
>> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
>> http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>> http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
>> MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
>
>
>A great answer from you as always. Many thanks.
>
>A networking question: OK, so say the motherboard has two ports. I have two
>hdhomeruns. Do I plug the hdhomeruns into a small switch and plug that
>directly into one of the two ports on the backend? (port #2)

Yes. You will need to also set up a DHCP server on that port. This
looks like an OK guide for Ubuntu:

https://www.linuxtechi.com/how-to-configure-dhcp-server-on-ubuntu/

>Or using, say, a pfsense router (I want to learn and expand my network) and
>a managed switch, does it do anything to plug the hdhomeruns into the main
>switch (with other devices in the home) and use pfsense/switch and vlans to
>send it to port #2 on the backend?

With a proper managed switch that does full VLANs, you can run
multiple different subnets on the same switch. You just set the
switch to use a different VLAN number for all the ports on each
different subnet. Set it to add the VLAN header on packets entering
the switch and to remove it from packets leaving the switch, so they
only have the VLAN headers while in the switch. You would normally
leave all the original subnet ports set to no VLAN, but you could
choose to put them all on a different VLAN. This is exactly what I do
on my commercial grade switch to keep my main subnet, my guest subnet
and my IoT subnet separate. My switch is a Ubiquiti EdgeSwitch 24
Lite.

The downside of using your main switch in this way is that you need
another cable from the MythTV box to the switch and two cables back to
the two hdhomeruns. The upside is that you do not have to pay for the
extra electricity to run a small switch (2-6 Watts 24/7).

There is nothing to do on the router - you do not want the router to
even see the packets that are moving on a subnet between the devices
of that subnet. It should only handle routing between the subnets and
between the subnets and the WAN port.

>I'm a networking newbie - just have a consumer router right now - so I'm
>just tossing words I've heard out. Feel free to correct me. :-p
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org

On 13/10/2023 04:44, Stephen Worthington wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:01:00 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 9:57 p.m. Stephen Worthington <
>> stephen_agent@jsw.gen.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:42:43 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thinking of my next backend build. Any considerations to take into account
>>>> if I run both MythTV and Jellyfin on the same box so as not to negatively
>>>> affect recordings.
>>>>
>>>> MythTV: occasionally up to 4 recordings at once off of a network tuner
>>>> (hdhomerun).
>>>>
>>>> Jellyfin: mostly direct lan connection to client. Maybe the odd wireless
>>>> client in house that would need harware transcoding. Jellyfin content
>>> would
>>>> not be on the MythTV recording drives.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts on minimum memory, etc?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> For 11 years I ran MythTV with 8 Gibytes of RAM, and found that while
>>> it did push large chunks of code to swap, it was mostly unused code
>>> and everything was fine. The RAM needs of the base Ubuntu system
>>> increased significantly over the years. I have seven recording drives
>>> and at times am recording up to 14 channels at once. Remember that
>>> there will be up to twice as many recordings running when there are
>>> overlaps due to the pre- and post-roll times.
>>>
>>> However, I do not do any commercial flagging, which requires lots of
>>> CPU and a bit more RAM. Jellyfin transcoding would affect commercial
>>> skip processing, but is unlikely to affect recording (which is very
>>> low CPU usage). And commercial skip processing does not need to be
>>> real-time, so a bit of delay in completing it is not a problem.
>>>
>>> For my new MythTV box in April, I chose to get 32 Gibytes of RAM, as
>>> RAM is cheap (I was getting DDR4, not DDR5). Now even DDR5 seems to
>>> be fairly cheap, so if you want the new system to last a long time,
>>> why not get lots?
>>>
>>> If you are using your network tuners on the same Ethernet connection
>>> that you will be using for normal network traffic, then there is a
>>> probability of getting contention at times, which can affect
>>> recordings. I think the MythTV may now be using TCP for recording
>>> connections to hdhomeruns, which would help a lot with that problem.
>>> Unless you have lots of 4k connections to Jellyfin at the same time,
>>> you are unlikely to saturate a 1 Gbit/s Ethernet connection, but every
>>> time you copy a large video file on that connection, the speeds of
>>> hard drives and especially NVME drives now means that the 1 Gbit/s
>>> will be completely filled by the copy operation, so unless your
>>> Ethernet adapters/drivers at both ends (and your switch?) support DSCP
>>> priorities for the traffic, the recordings from the tuners may be
>>> swamped by that traffic. Last time I looked, the hdhomerun tuner
>>> documentation did say they set a high priority DSPC flag on their
>>> traffic. So if you ever want to copy large files, you really want to
>>> put your network tuners on a separate Ethernet port, if possible.
>>>
>>> One thing to watch out for is CD/DVD/Bluray drives - if you want one
>>> still in your new build, and are getting a new case, there are only a
>>> few cases now that have 5.25" slots. So you may need to get an
>>> external USB one, or search out a case that still has an optical drive
>>> slot. I went with a SilverStone Grandia GD08B, as my 16 year old HTPC
>>> case was dying (LEDs and buttons not working).
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mythtv-users mailing list
>>> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
>>> http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>>> http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
>>> MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
>>
>>
>> A great answer from you as always. Many thanks.
>>
>> A networking question: OK, so say the motherboard has two ports. I have two
>> hdhomeruns. Do I plug the hdhomeruns into a small switch and plug that
>> directly into one of the two ports on the backend? (port #2)
>
> Yes. You will need to also set up a DHCP server on that port. This
> looks like an OK guide for Ubuntu:
>
> https://www.linuxtechi.com/how-to-configure-dhcp-server-on-ubuntu/
>
>> Or using, say, a pfsense router (I want to learn and expand my network) and
>> a managed switch, does it do anything to plug the hdhomeruns into the main
>> switch (with other devices in the home) and use pfsense/switch and vlans to
>> send it to port #2 on the backend?
>
> With a proper managed switch that does full VLANs, you can run
> multiple different subnets on the same switch. You just set the
> switch to use a different VLAN number for all the ports on each
> different subnet. Set it to add the VLAN header on packets entering
> the switch and to remove it from packets leaving the switch, so they
> only have the VLAN headers while in the switch. You would normally
> leave all the original subnet ports set to no VLAN, but you could
> choose to put them all on a different VLAN. This is exactly what I do
> on my commercial grade switch to keep my main subnet, my guest subnet
> and my IoT subnet separate. My switch is a Ubiquiti EdgeSwitch 24
> Lite.
>
> The downside of using your main switch in this way is that you need
> another cable from the MythTV box to the switch and two cables back to
> the two hdhomeruns. The upside is that you do not have to pay for the
> extra electricity to run a small switch (2-6 Watts 24/7).
>
> There is nothing to do on the router - you do not want the router to
> even see the packets that are moving on a subnet between the devices
> of that subnet. It should only handle routing between the subnets and
> between the subnets and the WAN port.
>
A note on pfSense and VLANs.

I have used pfSense for years to manage my far-too-large network and I will give the software a big
thumbs up. Out of all those I have tried pfSense is easily the most straightforward to configure and
use. Caveat is that it is still something of an art.

BUT. You do not want to send HDHR traffic in through your router and out again, especially on the
same port but a different VLAN! This effectively doubles the traffic on that port when, as Steven
says, it doesn't need to go there at all. (Ask me how I know!)

My setup uses a 6-port Mini-ITX board with one WAN port and five LAN ports, isolating
high-throughput segments from one another where possible. Each of the LAN ports connects to a
switch, some are smart, some are not. The Mythtv backend, frontend and two HDHRs are connected to a
simple 8-port gigabit switch which keeps that traffic away from everything else. I have had no
trouble with bandwidth, but I do not (yet) run 4K.

Other subnets? One carries a zoneminder setup which is running 24/7 and obviously a lot of traffic
from the cameras. A third is the Wifi access which uses different VLANS to permit several separate
SSIDs from the access point. A fourth is the 'main' subnet which has most of the major servers on
it, the last is the 'odds and sods' subnet which carries, via VLAN, things like our printer and the
Central Heating connection.

Making rules to permit things the appropriate access over that lot is fun.

--

Mike Perkins


_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:02 a.m. Mike Perkins <mikep@randomtraveller.org.uk>
wrote:

> On 13/10/2023 04:44, Stephen Worthington wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:01:00 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 9:57 p.m. Stephen Worthington <
> >> stephen_agent@jsw.gen.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:42:43 -0400, you wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thinking of my next backend build. Any considerations to take into
> account
> >>>> if I run both MythTV and Jellyfin on the same box so as not to
> negatively
> >>>> affect recordings.
> >>>>
> >>>> MythTV: occasionally up to 4 recordings at once off of a network tuner
> >>>> (hdhomerun).
> >>>>
> >>>> Jellyfin: mostly direct lan connection to client. Maybe the odd
> wireless
> >>>> client in house that would need harware transcoding. Jellyfin content
> >>> would
> >>>> not be on the MythTV recording drives.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any thoughts on minimum memory, etc?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> For 11 years I ran MythTV with 8 Gibytes of RAM, and found that while
> >>> it did push large chunks of code to swap, it was mostly unused code
> >>> and everything was fine. The RAM needs of the base Ubuntu system
> >>> increased significantly over the years. I have seven recording drives
> >>> and at times am recording up to 14 channels at once. Remember that
> >>> there will be up to twice as many recordings running when there are
> >>> overlaps due to the pre- and post-roll times.
> >>>
> >>> However, I do not do any commercial flagging, which requires lots of
> >>> CPU and a bit more RAM. Jellyfin transcoding would affect commercial
> >>> skip processing, but is unlikely to affect recording (which is very
> >>> low CPU usage). And commercial skip processing does not need to be
> >>> real-time, so a bit of delay in completing it is not a problem.
> >>>
> >>> For my new MythTV box in April, I chose to get 32 Gibytes of RAM, as
> >>> RAM is cheap (I was getting DDR4, not DDR5). Now even DDR5 seems to
> >>> be fairly cheap, so if you want the new system to last a long time,
> >>> why not get lots?
> >>>
> >>> If you are using your network tuners on the same Ethernet connection
> >>> that you will be using for normal network traffic, then there is a
> >>> probability of getting contention at times, which can affect
> >>> recordings. I think the MythTV may now be using TCP for recording
> >>> connections to hdhomeruns, which would help a lot with that problem.
> >>> Unless you have lots of 4k connections to Jellyfin at the same time,
> >>> you are unlikely to saturate a 1 Gbit/s Ethernet connection, but every
> >>> time you copy a large video file on that connection, the speeds of
> >>> hard drives and especially NVME drives now means that the 1 Gbit/s
> >>> will be completely filled by the copy operation, so unless your
> >>> Ethernet adapters/drivers at both ends (and your switch?) support DSCP
> >>> priorities for the traffic, the recordings from the tuners may be
> >>> swamped by that traffic. Last time I looked, the hdhomerun tuner
> >>> documentation did say they set a high priority DSPC flag on their
> >>> traffic. So if you ever want to copy large files, you really want to
> >>> put your network tuners on a separate Ethernet port, if possible.
> >>>
> >>> One thing to watch out for is CD/DVD/Bluray drives - if you want one
> >>> still in your new build, and are getting a new case, there are only a
> >>> few cases now that have 5.25" slots. So you may need to get an
> >>> external USB one, or search out a case that still has an optical drive
> >>> slot. I went with a SilverStone Grandia GD08B, as my 16 year old HTPC
> >>> case was dying (LEDs and buttons not working).
>
> >>
> >> A great answer from you as always. Many thanks.
> >>
> >> A networking question: OK, so say the motherboard has two ports. I have
> two
> >> hdhomeruns. Do I plug the hdhomeruns into a small switch and plug that
> >> directly into one of the two ports on the backend? (port #2)
> >
> > Yes. You will need to also set up a DHCP server on that port. This
> > looks like an OK guide for Ubuntu:
> >
> > https://www.linuxtechi.com/how-to-configure-dhcp-server-on-ubuntu/
> >
> >> Or using, say, a pfsense router (I want to learn and expand my network)
> and
> >> a managed switch, does it do anything to plug the hdhomeruns into the
> main
> >> switch (with other devices in the home) and use pfsense/switch and
> vlans to
> >> send it to port #2 on the backend?
> >
> > With a proper managed switch that does full VLANs, you can run
> > multiple different subnets on the same switch. You just set the
> > switch to use a different VLAN number for all the ports on each
> > different subnet. Set it to add the VLAN header on packets entering
> > the switch and to remove it from packets leaving the switch, so they
> > only have the VLAN headers while in the switch. You would normally
> > leave all the original subnet ports set to no VLAN, but you could
> > choose to put them all on a different VLAN. This is exactly what I do
> > on my commercial grade switch to keep my main subnet, my guest subnet
> > and my IoT subnet separate. My switch is a Ubiquiti EdgeSwitch 24
> > Lite.
> >
> > The downside of using your main switch in this way is that you need
> > another cable from the MythTV box to the switch and two cables back to
> > the two hdhomeruns. The upside is that you do not have to pay for the
> > extra electricity to run a small switch (2-6 Watts 24/7).
> >
> > There is nothing to do on the router - you do not want the router to
> > even see the packets that are moving on a subnet between the devices
> > of that subnet. It should only handle routing between the subnets and
> > between the subnets and the WAN port.
> >
> A note on pfSense and VLANs.
>
> I have used pfSense for years to manage my far-too-large network and I
> will give the software a big
> thumbs up. Out of all those I have tried pfSense is easily the most
> straightforward to configure and
> use. Caveat is that it is still something of an art.
>
> BUT. You do not want to send HDHR traffic in through your router and out
> again, especially on the
> same port but a different VLAN! This effectively doubles the traffic on
> that port when, as Steven
> says, it doesn't need to go there at all. (Ask me how I know!)
>
> My setup uses a 6-port Mini-ITX board with one WAN port and five LAN
> ports, isolating
> high-throughput segments from one another where possible. Each of the LAN
> ports connects to a
> switch, some are smart, some are not. The Mythtv backend, frontend and two
> HDHRs are connected to a
> simple 8-port gigabit switch which keeps that traffic away from everything
> else. I have had no
> trouble with bandwidth, but I do not (yet) run 4K.
>
> Other subnets? One carries a zoneminder setup which is running 24/7 and
> obviously a lot of traffic
> from the cameras. A third is the Wifi access which uses different VLANS to
> permit several separate
> SSIDs from the access point. A fourth is the 'main' subnet which has most
> of the major servers on
> it, the last is the 'odds and sods' subnet which carries, via VLAN, things
> like our printer and the
> Central Heating connection.
>
> Making rules to permit things the appropriate access over that lot is fun.
>
>
Mike and Stephen,

Thanks so much for the education about these issues. Looking forward to
when I can roll up my sleeves and get hands-on with this.

> <https://forum.mythtv.org>
>

Stephen,

Just circling back to one point:

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 11:45?p.m. Stephen Worthington <
stephen_agent@jsw.gen.nz> wrote:

> <snip>
> >A networking question: OK, so say the motherboard has two ports. I have
> two
> >hdhomeruns. Do I plug the hdhomeruns into a small switch and plug that
> >directly into one of the two ports on the backend? (port #2)
>
> Yes. You will need to also set up a DHCP server on that port. This
> looks like an OK guide for Ubuntu:
>
> https://www.linuxtechi.com/how-to-configure-dhcp-server-on-ubuntu/
>
> <snip>


(Reminder that my current home networking experience is limited to plugging
into a consumer router and setting up some static assignments.)

Do you only need to set up the DHCP server on the second port of the
backend if you're doing the "plug the homeruns into a small switch and plug
that into port #2 of the backend" option? Does it still have to be done if
using the second option, which was "plug everything into a managed switch
and create an HDHomerun VLAN and have that go to port #2 of the backend"?

Also why would the backend require its own DHCP server as opposed to the
router's?

Thanks again.



>

Hoi Ian,

Wednesday, October 18, 2023, 7:16:36 PM, you wrote:

> Stephen, 


> Just circling back to one point:


> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 11:45?p.m. Stephen Worthington <stephen_agent@jsw.gen.nz> wrote:

> <snip>
>>A networking question: OK, so say the motherboard has two ports. I have two
>>hdhomeruns. Do I plug the hdhomeruns into a small switch and plug that
>>directly into one of the two ports on the backend? (port #2)
>
> Yes.  You will need to also set up a DHCP server on that port.  This
> looks like an OK guide for Ubuntu:
>
> https://www.linuxtechi.com/how-to-configure-dhcp-server-on-ubuntu/
>
> <snip>



> (Reminder that my current home networking experience is limited to
> plugging into a consumer router and setting up some static assignments.)


> Do you only need to set up the DHCP server on the second port of
> the backend if you're doing the "plug the homeruns into a small
> switch and plug that into port #2 of the backend" option? Does it
> still have to be done if using the second option, which was "plug
> everything into a managed switch and create an HDHomerun VLAN and
> have that go to port #2 of the backend"?


> Also why would the backend require its own DHCP server as opposed to the router's? 


> Thanks again. 

It will be a separate network with no direct connection to the router
(and unless you enable routing by your backend neither an indirect
one). As the hdhr can not be setup with a hard ip-address, you will
need dhcp. Either through a switch that can offer this, (which
capability is rare to non existent) or through one of the to that
subnet connected machines. The most logical one is the backend.



>




Tot mails,
Hika mailto:hikavdh@gmail.com

"Zonder hoop kun je niet leven
Zonder leven is er geen hoop
Het eeuwige dilemma
Zeker als je hoop moet vernietigen om te kunnen overleven!"

De lerende Mens

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org

On 18/10/2023 18:16, Ian Evans wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> Just circling back to one point:
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 11:45?p.m. Stephen Worthington <
> stephen_agent@jsw.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>> A networking question: OK, so say the motherboard has two ports. I have
>> two
>>> hdhomeruns. Do I plug the hdhomeruns into a small switch and plug that
>>> directly into one of the two ports on the backend? (port #2)
>>
>> Yes. You will need to also set up a DHCP server on that port. This
>> looks like an OK guide for Ubuntu:
>>
>> https://www.linuxtechi.com/how-to-configure-dhcp-server-on-ubuntu/
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
> (Reminder that my current home networking experience is limited to plugging
> into a consumer router and setting up some static assignments.)
>
> Do you only need to set up the DHCP server on the second port of the
> backend if you're doing the "plug the homeruns into a small switch and plug
> that into port #2 of the backend" option? Does it still have to be done if
> using the second option, which was "plug everything into a managed switch
> and create an HDHomerun VLAN and have that go to port #2 of the backend"?
>
> Also why would the backend require its own DHCP server as opposed to the
> router's?
>
In general the DHCP server has to be on the same subnet as that of the hosts that require
addresses[1]. This is what you would get naturally for your option 1 above.

If you have a managed switch it is your choice if the VLAN also extends to the router; if so, the
router's DHCP server can serve the VLAN as well as the other traffic (though different subnets).

If you don't extend the VLAN to the router, then something else on the at VLAN subnet must provide
DHCP; logically the best place would be the backend.

(As I mentioned previously my router has five LAN ports. There are a total of 14 subnets of which
nine are therefore VLANS; two of those are essentially test, guest or experimental. pfSense is quite
happy serving DHCP to all of them.)

[1] There are arcane ways of doing DHCP proxy. I have yet to find a need for it.

--

Mike Perkins


_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org

On Wed, 2023-10-18 at 13:16 -0400, Ian Evans wrote:
> Stephen, 
>
> Just circling back to one point:
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 11:45?p.m. Stephen Worthington
> <stephen_agent@jsw.gen.nz> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > A networking question: OK, so say the motherboard has two ports.
> > > I have two
> > > hdhomeruns. Do I plug the hdhomeruns into a small switch and plug
> > > that
> > > directly into one of the two ports on the backend? (port #2)
> >
> > Yes.  You will need to also set up a DHCP server on that port. 
> > This
> > looks like an OK guide for Ubuntu:
> >
> > https://www.linuxtechi.com/how-to-configure-dhcp-server-on-ubuntu/
> >
> > <snip>
>
> (Reminder that my current home networking experience is limited to
> plugging into a consumer router and setting up some static
> assignments.)
>
> Do you only need to set up the DHCP server on the second port of the
> backend if you're doing the "plug the homeruns into a small switch
> and plug that into port #2 of the backend" option? Does it still have
> to be done if using the second option, which was "plug everything
> into a managed switch and create an HDHomerun VLAN and have that go
> to port #2 of the backend"?
>
> Also why would the backend require its own DHCP server as opposed to
> the router's? 
In my experience routers DHCP servers are terrible for many reasons and
I avoid them. YMMV but running your own is quick and easy. Look at
dnsmasq.
James
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:10:58 +0100, you wrote:

>On 18/10/2023 18:16, Ian Evans wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>> Just circling back to one point:
[snip]
>> (Reminder that my current home networking experience is limited to plugging
>> into a consumer router and setting up some static assignments.)
>>
>> Do you only need to set up the DHCP server on the second port of the
>> backend if you're doing the "plug the homeruns into a small switch and plug
>> that into port #2 of the backend" option? Does it still have to be done if
>> using the second option, which was "plug everything into a managed switch
>> and create an HDHomerun VLAN and have that go to port #2 of the backend"?
>>
>> Also why would the backend require its own DHCP server as opposed to the
>> router's?
>>
>In general the DHCP server has to be on the same subnet as that of the hosts that require
>addresses[1]. This is what you would get naturally for your option 1 above.

This is the problem - the DHCP server needs to be run on the new
subnet you are creating. Even when the subnet is using VLANs on the
switch, it is using the VLAN headers to isolate the new VLAN from the
rest of the traffic on the switch, so it has no connection to the
router where your main DHCP server is. And you do not want to use a
VLAN (in a different way to using VLANs on the switch, where the VLAN
headers are added outside the switch) to connect the new subnet to the
router, as that would be sending all the broadcast traffic on the new
subnet over the existing Ethernet connection between the backend and
the router, increasing the traffic. It is best to just run a DHCP
server on the backend box, only talking to the new subnet on the
second Ethernet port.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org

On 19/10/2023 03:53, Stephen Worthington wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:10:58 +0100, you wrote:
>
>> On 18/10/2023 18:16, Ian Evans wrote:
>>> Stephen,
>>>
>>> Just circling back to one point:
> [snip]
>>> (Reminder that my current home networking experience is limited to plugging
>>> into a consumer router and setting up some static assignments.)
>>>
>>> Do you only need to set up the DHCP server on the second port of the
>>> backend if you're doing the "plug the homeruns into a small switch and plug
>>> that into port #2 of the backend" option? Does it still have to be done if
>>> using the second option, which was "plug everything into a managed switch
>>> and create an HDHomerun VLAN and have that go to port #2 of the backend"?
>>>
>>> Also why would the backend require its own DHCP server as opposed to the
>>> router's?
>>>
>> In general the DHCP server has to be on the same subnet as that of the hosts that require
>> addresses[1]. This is what you would get naturally for your option 1 above.
>
> This is the problem - the DHCP server needs to be run on the new
> subnet you are creating. Even when the subnet is using VLANs on the
> switch, it is using the VLAN headers to isolate the new VLAN from the
> rest of the traffic on the switch, so it has no connection to the
> router where your main DHCP server is. And you do not want to use a
> VLAN (in a different way to using VLANs on the switch, where the VLAN
> headers are added outside the switch) to connect the new subnet to the
> router, as that would be sending all the broadcast traffic on the new
> subnet over the existing Ethernet connection between the backend and
> the router, increasing the traffic. It is best to just run a DHCP
> server on the backend box, only talking to the new subnet on the
> second Ethernet port.
>
Agree completely, but with one caveat: the HDHR traffic is /not/ broadcast, it is standard TCP.
Therefore, although (on mine) it does go to my router, because it it not addressed to anything on a
different subnet it is immediately dropped at low cost to the router.

--

Mike Perkins


_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 11:17, Mike Perkins <mikep@randomtraveller.org.uk>
wrote:

> On 19/10/2023 03:53, Stephen Worthington wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:10:58 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> >> On 18/10/2023 18:16, Ian Evans wrote:
> >>> Stephen,
> >>>
> >>> Just circling back to one point:
> > [snip]
> >>> (Reminder that my current home networking experience is limited to
> plugging
> >>> into a consumer router and setting up some static assignments.)
> >>>
> >>> Do you only need to set up the DHCP server on the second port of the
> >>> backend if you're doing the "plug the homeruns into a small switch and
> plug
> >>> that into port #2 of the backend" option? Does it still have to be
> done if
> >>> using the second option, which was "plug everything into a managed
> switch
> >>> and create an HDHomerun VLAN and have that go to port #2 of the
> backend"?
> >>>
> >>> Also why would the backend require its own DHCP server as opposed to
> the
> >>> router's?
> >>>
> >> In general the DHCP server has to be on the same subnet as that of the
> hosts that require
> >> addresses[1]. This is what you would get naturally for your option 1
> above.
> >
> > This is the problem - the DHCP server needs to be run on the new
> > subnet you are creating. Even when the subnet is using VLANs on the
> > switch, it is using the VLAN headers to isolate the new VLAN from the
> > rest of the traffic on the switch, so it has no connection to the
> > router where your main DHCP server is. And you do not want to use a
> > VLAN (in a different way to using VLANs on the switch, where the VLAN
> > headers are added outside the switch) to connect the new subnet to the
> > router, as that would be sending all the broadcast traffic on the new
> > subnet over the existing Ethernet connection between the backend and
> > the router, increasing the traffic. It is best to just run a DHCP
> > server on the backend box, only talking to the new subnet on the
> > second Ethernet port.
> >
> Agree completely, but with one caveat: the HDHR traffic is /not/
> broadcast, it is standard TCP.
> Therefore, although (on mine) it does go to my router, because it it not
> addressed to anything on a
> different subnet it is immediately dropped at low cost to the router.
>
> --
>
> Mike Perkins
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
> MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org


I have on my production mythbackend a dedicated network card connected to
one HDHomeRun with only a cable. This then autoconfigures itself and it
just works.
No manual configuration required at all.
This is on Fedora 38 but I have it like this already for years.

Klaas.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:16:26 +0100, you wrote:

>On 19/10/2023 03:53, Stephen Worthington wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:10:58 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/10/2023 18:16, Ian Evans wrote:
>>>> Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> Just circling back to one point:
>> [snip]
>>>> (Reminder that my current home networking experience is limited to plugging
>>>> into a consumer router and setting up some static assignments.)
>>>>
>>>> Do you only need to set up the DHCP server on the second port of the
>>>> backend if you're doing the "plug the homeruns into a small switch and plug
>>>> that into port #2 of the backend" option? Does it still have to be done if
>>>> using the second option, which was "plug everything into a managed switch
>>>> and create an HDHomerun VLAN and have that go to port #2 of the backend"?
>>>>
>>>> Also why would the backend require its own DHCP server as opposed to the
>>>> router's?
>>>>
>>> In general the DHCP server has to be on the same subnet as that of the hosts that require
>>> addresses[1]. This is what you would get naturally for your option 1 above.
>>
>> This is the problem - the DHCP server needs to be run on the new
>> subnet you are creating. Even when the subnet is using VLANs on the
>> switch, it is using the VLAN headers to isolate the new VLAN from the
>> rest of the traffic on the switch, so it has no connection to the
>> router where your main DHCP server is. And you do not want to use a
>> VLAN (in a different way to using VLANs on the switch, where the VLAN
>> headers are added outside the switch) to connect the new subnet to the
>> router, as that would be sending all the broadcast traffic on the new
>> subnet over the existing Ethernet connection between the backend and
>> the router, increasing the traffic. It is best to just run a DHCP
>> server on the backend box, only talking to the new subnet on the
>> second Ethernet port.
>>
>Agree completely, but with one caveat: the HDHR traffic is /not/ broadcast, it is standard TCP.
>Therefore, although (on mine) it does go to my router, because it it not addressed to anything on a
>different subnet it is immediately dropped at low cost to the router.

There is always broadcast traffic on any active subnet - it is used to
find devices and assign addresses and so on. At the very least, there
is ARP traffic, and usually also DHCP. It tends to be small messages,
so its impact on other throughput is not great, but depending on the
protocols in use on the subnet, you might be surprised about how many
broadcast messages are whizzing by.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org

Hoi Klaas,

Thursday, October 19, 2023, 1:03:53 PM, you wrote:




> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 11:17, Mike Perkins
> <mikep@randomtraveller.org.uk> wrote:

> On 19/10/2023 03:53, Stephen Worthington wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:10:58 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/10/2023 18:16, Ian Evans wrote:
>>>> Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> Just circling back to one point:
>> [snip]
>>>> (Reminder that my current home networking experience is limited to plugging
>>>> into a consumer router and setting up some static assignments.)
>>>>
>>>> Do you only need to set up the DHCP server on the second port of the
>>>> backend if you're doing the "plug the homeruns into a small switch and plug
>>>> that into port #2 of the backend" option? Does it still have to be done if
>>>> using the second option, which was "plug everything into a managed switch
>>>> and create an HDHomerun VLAN and have that go to port #2 of the backend"?
>>>>
>>>> Also why would the backend require its own DHCP server as opposed to the
>>>> router's?
>>>>
>>> In general the DHCP server has to be on the same subnet as that of the hosts that require
>>> addresses[1]. This is what you would get naturally for your option 1 above.
>>
>> This is the problem - the DHCP server needs to be run on the new
>> subnet you are creating.  Even when the subnet is using VLANs on the
>> switch, it is using the VLAN headers to isolate the new VLAN from the
>> rest of the traffic on the switch, so it has no connection to the
>> router where your main DHCP server is.  And you do not want to use a
>> VLAN (in a different way to using VLANs on the switch, where the VLAN
>> headers are added outside the switch) to connect the new subnet to the
>> router, as that would be sending all the broadcast traffic on the new
>> subnet over the existing Ethernet connection between the backend and
>> the router, increasing the traffic.  It is best to just run a DHCP
>> server on the backend box, only talking to the new subnet on the
>> second Ethernet port.
>>
> Agree completely, but with one caveat: the HDHR traffic is /not/ broadcast, it is standard TCP.
> Therefore, although (on mine) it does go to my router, because it
> it not addressed to anything on a
> different subnet it is immediately dropped at low cost to the router.
>
> --
>
> Mike Perkins
>
>



> I have on my production mythbackend a dedicated network card
> connected to one HDHomeRun with only a cable. This then
> autoconfigures itself and it just works.
> No manual configuration required at all.
> This is on Fedora 38 but I have it like this already for years.


> Klaas.

Yes, if you use the hdhomerun only with mythtv it is no problem if the
ip-address on a dedicated cable connection changes all the time.
Finding and connecting is done through the proprietary id from the
hdhomerun. So in that case you can use the random autoip addresses.

Caveat, this only works when both sides are on the same subnet. If you
also want to connect to the hdhomerun from another subnet, it must go
by ip-address. So then you need a predictable address by dhcp and a
connection through a router between the two subnets. Alternately, if
you do not want to connect through the router, you must setup, next to
the dhcp, routing functionality on the backend to connect to the
hdhomerun through the backend.


Tot mails,
Hika mailto:hikavdh@gmail.com

"Zonder hoop kun je niet leven
Zonder leven is er geen hoop
Het eeuwige dilemma
Zeker als je hoop moet vernietigen om te kunnen overleven!"

De lerende Mens

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 9:10?AM Hika van den Hoven <hikavdh@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi Klaas,
>
> Thursday, October 19, 2023, 1:03:53 PM, you wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 11:17, Mike Perkins
> > <mikep@randomtraveller.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 19/10/2023 03:53, Stephen Worthington wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:10:58 +0100, you wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 18/10/2023 18:16, Ian Evans wrote:
> >>>> Stephen,
> >>>>
> >>>> Just circling back to one point:
> >> [snip]
> >>>> (Reminder that my current home networking experience is limited to
> plugging
> >>>> into a consumer router and setting up some static assignments.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you only need to set up the DHCP server on the second port of the
> >>>> backend if you're doing the "plug the homeruns into a small switch
> and plug
> >>>> that into port #2 of the backend" option? Does it still have to be
> done if
> >>>> using the second option, which was "plug everything into a managed
> switch
> >>>> and create an HDHomerun VLAN and have that go to port #2 of the
> backend"?
> >>>>
> >>>> Also why would the backend require its own DHCP server as opposed to
> the
> >>>> router's?
> >>>>
> >>> In general the DHCP server has to be on the same subnet as that of
> the hosts that require
> >>> addresses[1]. This is what you would get naturally for your option 1
> above.
> >>
> >> This is the problem - the DHCP server needs to be run on the new
> >> subnet you are creating. Even when the subnet is using VLANs on the
> >> switch, it is using the VLAN headers to isolate the new VLAN from the
> >> rest of the traffic on the switch, so it has no connection to the
> >> router where your main DHCP server is. And you do not want to use a
> >> VLAN (in a different way to using VLANs on the switch, where the VLAN
> >> headers are added outside the switch) to connect the new subnet to the
> >> router, as that would be sending all the broadcast traffic on the new
> >> subnet over the existing Ethernet connection between the backend and
> >> the router, increasing the traffic. It is best to just run a DHCP
> >> server on the backend box, only talking to the new subnet on the
> >> second Ethernet port.
> >>
> > Agree completely, but with one caveat: the HDHR traffic is /not/
> broadcast, it is standard TCP.
> > Therefore, although (on mine) it does go to my router, because it
> > it not addressed to anything on a
> > different subnet it is immediately dropped at low cost to the router.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Mike Perkins
> >
> >
>
>
>
> > I have on my production mythbackend a dedicated network card
> > connected to one HDHomeRun with only a cable. This then
> > autoconfigures itself and it just works.
> > No manual configuration required at all.
> > This is on Fedora 38 but I have it like this already for years.
>
>
> > Klaas.
>
> Yes, if you use the hdhomerun only with mythtv it is no problem if the
> ip-address on a dedicated cable connection changes all the time.
> Finding and connecting is done through the proprietary id from the
> hdhomerun. So in that case you can use the random autoip addresses.
>
> Caveat, this only works when both sides are on the same subnet. If you
> also want to connect to the hdhomerun from another subnet, it must go
> by ip-address. So then you need a predictable address by dhcp and a
> connection through a router between the two subnets. Alternately, if
> you do not want to connect through the router, you must setup, next to
> the dhcp, routing functionality on the backend to connect to the
> hdhomerun through the backend.


Just wanted to thank everyone for the advice and education. Without a
doubt, this is one of the friendliest mailing lists I'm on.

When I get the additional hardware it'll be easier to grasp as right now
I'm working on ideas rather than rolling up my sleeves and getting into the
config end of things. I guess my first real step is finding a 24 port
managed network switch that's also quiet. :-)

Hoi Ian,

Friday, October 20, 2023, 11:12:13 PM, you wrote:

-snip-

> When I get the additional hardware it'll be easier to grasp as
> right now I'm working on ideas rather than rolling up my sleeves and
> getting into the config end of things. I guess my first real step is
> finding a 24 port managed network switch that's also quiet. :-)

I have a Zyxel GS1900-24E. It's the relatively cheap one from Zyxel.
You have more expensive versions with for instance PoE (power over
Ethernet) and aditional glasfiber ports. I never hear it making a
sound!
A nice thing is that the simpler Zyxel desktop switches like the
GS1200-5 (5 port) also understand the vlans.



Tot mails,
Hika mailto:hikavdh@gmail.com

"Zonder hoop kun je niet leven
Zonder leven is er geen hoop
Het eeuwige dilemma
Zeker als je hoop moet vernietigen om te kunnen overleven!"

De lerende Mens

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 23:30:07 +0200, you wrote:

>Hoi Ian,
>
>Friday, October 20, 2023, 11:12:13 PM, you wrote:
>
>-snip-
>
>> When I get the additional hardware it'll be easier to grasp as
>> right now I'm working on ideas rather than rolling up my sleeves and
>> getting into the config end of things. I guess my first real step is
>> finding a 24 port managed network switch that's also quiet. :-)
>
>I have a Zyxel GS1900-24E. It's the relatively cheap one from Zyxel.
>You have more expensive versions with for instance PoE (power over
>Ethernet) and aditional glasfiber ports. I never hear it making a
>sound!
>A nice thing is that the simpler Zyxel desktop switches like the
>GS1200-5 (5 port) also understand the vlans.

I use a Ubiquiti EdgeSwitch 24 Lite. It does have fans, but it does
not use them at any time I have heard. It seems to have all the
features that full commercial grade switches have. The only downside
of this switch that I have found to date is that its two optical ports
are only SFP (1 Gbit/s), not SFP+ (10 Gbit/s). The non-lite model has
PoE but it is rather more expensive and also takes more power to run
24/7, so I chose the Lite model as I only have one PoE device and an
aversion to paying too much for my electricity. They are currently
sold out on Ubiquiti's web site so may be hard to find.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org