Is there a way to network with TiVo and second computer?

"AKA gray asphalt" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"GTD" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 00:33:38 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
wrote:

I've got TiVo connected through a router to a computer
which is connected through a seperate NIC card to another
computer because the router doesn't have gigabit bandwidth.
Would it help if I bought a gigabit switch?
Thanks, I'm really like ignorant in this area.
: -)



If you want your computers to communicate with each other at gigabit
speeds, the best way is a gigabit switch between them, with the uplink
of the gigabit switch cabled to any port on the router. The tivo would
of course also be connected to the router or the gigabit switch, but
of course would see no speed benefit from being connected to the
gigabit switch.
This means your computers would both be directly on the network (no
more need for internet connection sharing), as well as the tivo.

Let me know if you need further clarification or have any questions.
-Greg

Thanks. That was my guess but I would not have tried it
without the oversight of someone who sounds like thay know
what they are talking about. Thanks.


You might want to consider the SMC 8508T as it handles Jumbo
packets and is totally "Auto-Sensing", making setup a breeze.

Luck;
Ken

In article , Jeff Rife wrote:
Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
True. OTOH, AMD is supposed to come out w/ Quad cores this year ;-).

Unfortunately, even if these are sold at a loss, any Microsoft OS will cost
you so much more to be able to utilize the extra 2 "processors" that it would
be hard to justify.

Form what i understand the Windows Xp pro version is designed ground up to
utilize multiprocessors. So it should scale up.




And, the support for games on Windows Server 2003 isn't very good.

GMAN ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
Unfortunately, even if these are sold at a loss, any Microsoft OS will cost
you so much more to be able to utilize the extra 2 "processors" that it would
be hard to justify.

Form what i understand the Windows Xp pro version is designed ground up to
utilize multiprocessors. So it should scale up.

Yes and no.

The problem is that Windows XP absolutely will not use more than 2
processors despite the fact that it uses the same kernel as Windows Server
2003 (which can use 4 processors) and Windows Server 2003 Datacenter
Edition (which has an even higher limit...8 or 16 processors). The
limitation is purely artificial and license-based.

But, the problem is that the "server" products aren't as good at "desktop"
things as XP (mostly because of tighter security). It would appear that
Vista Ultimate Edition will help solve this by having all the "home",
"desktop", and "multimedia" features while getting some of the "power"
features (like more processor support) that are currently only part of
the "server" line.

It's certainly what I'll end up running, since I have to have the ability
to log in to a domain, yet I'll want to play games, and that's the only
Vista version that really seems to do both of those well.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/UserFri...rCustomers.gif

Jeff Rife wrote:
GMAN ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

Unfortunately, even if these are sold at a loss, any Microsoft OS will cost
you so much more to be able to utilize the extra 2 "processors" that it would
be hard to justify.


Form what i understand the Windows Xp pro version is designed ground up to
utilize multiprocessors. So it should scale up.


Yes and no.

The problem is that Windows XP absolutely will not use more than 2
processors despite the fact that it uses the same kernel as Windows Server
2003 (which can use 4 processors) and Windows Server 2003 Datacenter
Edition (which has an even higher limit...8 or 16 processors).

A Quibble. While similar, the XP kernel and the 2003 kernel are
different. Part of the reason Vista got further delayed is because they
moved it off of the XP kernel to the 2003 kernel.

The
limitation is purely artificial and license-based.

This is very true.

But, the problem is that the "server" products aren't as good at "desktop"
things as XP (mostly because of tighter security).

You can turn most of these features off, but they're on by default and
finding all of them is a PITA. I never recommend running a server OS as
a desktopo machine anyway, too many extraneous processes that slow you
down and increase vulnerability (esp. if you've turned all the enhanced
security off).

It would appear that
Vista Ultimate Edition will help solve this by having all the "home",
"desktop", and "multimedia" features while getting some of the "power"
features (like more processor support) that are currently only part of
the "server" line.

It's certainly what I'll end up running, since I have to have the ability
to log in to a domain, yet I'll want to play games, and that's the only
Vista version that really seems to do both of those well.


I would imagine most of what "Ultimate" adds to the "Pro" version of
Vista is the multimedia features rather than enhanced gaming. But I can
certainly see that being desireable.

Randy S.

Well, I bought a gigbit router to go with the CAT6
cables so
that my gigabit NIC cards would be getting full
bandwidth.
Now I'm told that since the controllers in my
external hard
drives are ATA100 and 133 for the internal ones,
which is
burst speed, that I will get no more bandwidth
that I would
with the 10/100 router I had before. And since I
do not
have a superfast internet connection and don't
play games,
I'm gaining nothing with the gigabit router.
: -) ?

"AKA gray asphalt" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

Well, I bought a gigbit router to go with the CAT6 cables so
that my gigabit NIC cards would be getting full bandwidth.
Now I'm told that since the controllers in my external hard
drives are ATA100 and 133 for the internal ones, which is
burst speed, that I will get no more bandwidth that I would
with the 10/100 router I had before. And since I do not
have a superfast internet connection and don't play games,
I'm gaining nothing with the gigabit router.
: -) ?


I'm sorry to hear that, because with my Gigabit switch
I noticed a very substantial difference in the transfer
speeds between my computers as well as between my
computers and my NAS. In fact, I now see no real
difference between sending a file to a local drive or one
elsewhere on my LAN.

My router, as does yours, connects to the Internet through
a modem that functions at only 10 Mbps. That is the state
of things for consumer Internet service.

I also have a HD Media Player on my LAN that connects
at 100 Mbps, to play High Definition WMV files as well as
more modest bandwidth MPEG2 files. So there is still much
that can fit down a 100 Mbps pipe. But there is a difference
between what can be streamed and how long it takes to transfer
the whole file.

When I was transferring files at 100 Mbps there was a
noticeable delay for all but the smaller files, at 1000 Mbps all
but the largest files transfer without delay.

Luck;
Ken

"Ken Maltby" wrote in
message
...

"AKA gray asphalt"
wrote in message
news:[email protected]

Well, I bought a gigbit router to go with the
CAT6 cables so
that my gigabit NIC cards would be getting full
bandwidth.
Now I'm told that since the controllers in my
external hard
drives are ATA100 and 133 for the internal
ones, which is
burst speed, that I will get no more bandwidth
that I would
with the 10/100 router I had before. And since
I do not
have a superfast internet connection and don't
play games,
I'm gaining nothing with the gigabit router.
: -) ?


I'm sorry to hear that, because with my Gigabit
switch
I noticed a very substantial difference in the
transfer
speeds between my computers as well as between
my
computers and my NAS. In fact, I now see no
real
difference between sending a file to a local
drive or one
elsewhere on my LAN.

My router, as does yours, connects to the
Internet through
a modem that functions at only 10 Mbps. That is
the state
of things for consumer Internet service.

I also have a HD Media Player on my LAN that
connects
at 100 Mbps, to play High Definition WMV files
as well as
more modest bandwidth MPEG2 files. So there is
still much
that can fit down a 100 Mbps pipe. But there is
a difference
between what can be streamed and how long it
takes to transfer
the whole file.

When I was transferring files at 100 Mbps
there was a
noticeable delay for all but the smaller files,
at 1000 Mbps all
but the largest files transfer without delay.

Luck;
Ken

Technically, I think, the hard drives are the
weakest link.
the slowest but I'm going to do some tests with
both
routers since maybe that is only the way to know
with a
little more certainty what is real and what is
statistics.
: -)

"AKA gray asphalt" wrote in message
news:[email protected]


Technically, I think, the hard drives are the weakest link.
the slowest but I'm going to do some tests with both
routers since maybe that is only the way to know with a
little more certainty what is real and what is statistics.
: -)


First off, fix your word wrap.

Unless something is slowing down your LAN you should
notice the difference right away. Try timing the transfer of
a 500MB file.

Luck;
Ken

"Ken Maltby" wrote in
message
...

"AKA gray asphalt"
wrote in message
news:[email protected]


Technically, I think, the hard drives are the
weakest link.
the slowest but I'm going to do some tests with
both
routers since maybe that is only the way to
know with a
little more certainty what is real and what is
statistics.
: -)


First off, fix your word wrap.

Unless something is slowing down your LAN you
should
notice the difference right away. Try timing
the transfer of
a 500MB file.

Luck;
Ken

What do you see about my word wrap? It looks fine
from here. Wrapping at about 50 characters...

I tried to transfer a 4 Gig file and it seemed to
be cruising until about the 1/4 way, then it went
to 30 minutes or so, so I cancelled it.

"AKA gray asphalt" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"Ken Maltby" wrote in message
...

"AKA gray asphalt" wrote in message
news:[email protected]


Technically, I think, the hard drives are the weakest link.
the slowest but I'm going to do some tests with both
routers since maybe that is only the way to know with a
little more certainty what is real and what is statistics.
: -)


First off, fix your word wrap.

Unless something is slowing down your LAN you should
notice the difference right away. Try timing the transfer of
a 500MB file.

Luck;
Ken

What do you see about my word wrap? It looks fine from here. Wrapping at
about 50 characters...

I tried to transfer a 4 Gig file and it seemed to be cruising until about
the 1/4 way, then it went to 30 minutes or so, so I cancelled it.


Ok, for comparision I just copied a 4,654,580 KB VOB
File from one computer to my NAS and it took 5min. 28sec.

Copping the same file from one 10,000rpm SATA Raptor to
another one on the same computer took 1min 29sec.

I just did another set using a 515,612 KB file :

from one computer to my NAS and it took 37sec.

from one 10,000rpm SATA Raptor to another one on the same
computer took 12sec.

There is something wrong with your gigabit LAN, if your
4Gig file is taking more than 6min.

Luck;
Ken