|
emocrat posted:So, do powerline ethernet adapters work well? I would like to connect my home theater setup to my router through ethernet, but the locations in the home make that difficult (but not impossible). Realistically, what would I expect from using a powerline adapter to connect a hub in the home theater to my router? Any recommended units? I'm really liking the TP-Link powerline kit I used to bring internet and wifi to the upper reaches of my home. It has been dead reliable and has enough bandwidth to take full advantage of my 30mbps cable service. I've read that actual speeds for these kits is around 40-60mbps per second (not 300, 600, etc), so keep that in mind I guess if you plan on using it to transfer large files. This is it here. Has the advantage of having wifi built into one of the modules so you can expand your wireless network or create another one. Edit: VVV Yeah the old ones were pretty lovely from what I understand. VVV Mental Hospitality fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Sep 2, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
A couple of years ago I put a 200mbps powerline kit in my parents' house, which was built in the '00s and has an AFCI circuit breaker, and it's lucky to get 20mbps from one plug to another within the same room. Speeds from one room to the next that have to go through the circuit breaker are conistently almost unusably slow, and nothing connected to the internet via powerline can get close to the pitiful 60mbps downstream on their cable. Apparently they really dislike AFCI breakers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
SouthLAnd posted:I'm really liking the TP-Link powerline kit I used to bring internet and wifi to the upper reaches of my home. It has been dead reliable and has enough bandwidth to take full advantage of my 30mbps cable service. I've read that actual speeds for these kits is around 40-60mbps per second (not 300, 600, etc), so keep that in mind I guess if you plan on using it to transfer large files. Cool, thanks for the info and the link. The Goatfather posted:A couple of years ago I put a 200mbps powerline kit in my parents' house, which was built in the '00s and has an AFCI circuit breaker, and it's lucky to get 20mbps from one plug to another within the same room. Speeds from one room to the next that have to go through the circuit breaker are conistently almost unusably slow, and nothing connected to the internet via powerline can get close to the pitiful 60mbps downstream on their cable. Apparently they really dislike AFCI breakers. Also good to know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
I've used the TP-Link 500 powerline adapters for about 19 months now. They hold a solid 100+mbit connection in my house and feed one of HTPC's with zero issue. I recommend them when Ethernet isn't possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
My TP-Link power line adapters still will intermittently drop their connection unless I leave a ping to the router running constantly. I also recently discovered that I can cause interference by turning on a floor lamp in the same room as the router, but that's probably not as much the adapter's fault.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
The Goatfather posted:A couple of years ago I put a 200mbps powerline kit in my parents' house, which was built in the '00s and has an AFCI circuit breaker, and it's lucky to get 20mbps from one plug to another within the same room. Speeds from one room to the next that have to go through the circuit breaker are conistently almost unusably slow, and nothing connected to the internet via powerline can get close to the pitiful 60mbps downstream on their cable. Apparently they really dislike AFCI breakers. The 200 mbps spec is like version 1.0 of the powerline spec, they introduced av2 which brought speeds up to 500 megabits, then introduced a 600 megabit standard, and a 1 gigabit standard now. The av2 500 devices get about 40-80 megabits throughput depending on range. The av2 600 devices can hit 140-200. It's not a problem with GFCI which is what most homes have. If you have AFCI in particular (which is kinda unusual) the way that plug works interferes with the frequencies the devices can transmit / receive. A $60 test purchase for something that 'generally works well or if it doesn't you'll know' is really not too shabby, especially given the alternatives of trying to get solid connectivity to places where you can't drill or run cable. quote:My TP-Link power line adapters still will intermittently drop their connection unless I leave a ping to the router running constantly. There's a bug with tp-links and powersave mode. If you have the model TL-PA-511 there's a beta firmware fix for it I believe. If not then it seems to be a tp-link specific quirk and one that they've probably fixed since based on posts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached peak antenna.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached peak antenna. I don't trust it. It looks like replicator in repose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Ubiquiti recently announced updated AC access points. The prices are also much better than their old AP-AC: UAP-AC-LITE (AC1200) $90 UAP-AC-PRO (AC1700) $150 Pairing the Lite up with a $50 Edge Router X would make for a pretty nice home setup for just $140 especially since you can power the AP through the POE port on the router.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Krailor posted:Ubiquiti recently announced updated AC access points. That would be right. Just after I caved and bought the UNIFI AP...and drilled holes in the wall for the larger size unit!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
fliptophead posted:That would be right. Just after I caved and bought the UNIFI AP...and drilled holes in the wall for the larger size unit! Just return it and buy the new Pro, it uses the same mount 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Looks like distributors probably won't get them in stock until sometime next week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
parasyte posted:Just return it and buy the new Pro, it uses the same mount Yeah I'm investigating that right now! Just need business approval...
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
If the EDU version wasn't so expensive I'd be tempted to get it just so I could use the speaker to gently caress with people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Where'd you guys get the pricing on the new Unifi gear? I had a look on the website and it was only the old stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
I found the UAP-AC-LITE here. Its out of stock but the price is listed as $86.32 if you put one in your cart. $10.04 shipping for a total of $96.36 before tax. Not bad really for what a Unifi AP can do. Once they are more widely available I imagine you will be able to find them on Amazon in the $85-$90 range, possibly prime too for free shipping. Unless you have some kind of burning need I would give it a couple of weeks for Unifi to ship a few more production runs to retailers.
Antillie fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
fliptophead posted:Where'd you guys get the pricing on the new Unifi gear? I had a look on the website and it was only the old stuff They put the pricing on their Facebook page under the announcement post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Antillie posted:I found the UAP-AC-LITE here. Its out of stock but the price is listed as $86.32 if you put one in your cart. $10.04 shipping for a total of $96.36 before tax. Not bad really for what a Unifi AP can do. Once they are more widely available I imagine you will be able to find them on Amazon in the $85-$90 range, possibly prime too for free shipping. Unless you have some kind of burning need I would give it a few weeks for Unifi to ship a few more production runs to retailers. Thanks for the link! I'm in Australia so getting Amazon to ship anything other than media is a no go. These guys ship worldwide though so they might be a better option when the exchange rate is a little better!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Krailor posted:They put the pricing on their Facebook page under the announcement post. That explains it - I'm not on FB
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
fliptophead posted:Where'd you guys get the pricing on the new Unifi gear? I had a look on the website and it was only the old stuff These guys IIRC are the west coast's largest Ubiquiti distributor: http://www.streakwave.com/items.asp?Cc=UniFi
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Anyone have experience with Monoprice powerline adapters? The 1Gbps version is about $33 with coupon. http://www.monoprice.com/mobile/Product/Details/12288
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
AppleCider posted:Anyone have experience with Monoprice powerline adapters? The 1Gbps version is about $33 with coupon. Hmmmmm I'd like to know too. I assume these will work with my existing powerline devices at the lowest common speed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:There's a bug with tp-links and powersave mode. If you have the model TL-PA-511 there's a beta firmware fix for it I believe. If not then it seems to be a tp-link specific quirk and one that they've probably fixed since based on posts. I have the 4010 series, and unless there's a new firmware out in the last couple weeks, it still hasn't been fixed. Updates, using the power save tool, making adjustments to my ethernet adapter settings, nothing worked. I did discover the program they use for applying the firmware updates has a bug that results in severe DPC latency issues if you leave it running, though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Mantle posted:Hmmmmm I'd like to know too. I assume these will work with my existing powerline devices at the lowest common speed? Not sure about compatibility, but I went ahead and bought one from Monoprice on eBay since the free shipping ended up being cheaper than the promo code+shipping on their site. Will post my thoughts once I get it hooked up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
So the question is, is this new for this version as it follows my comments earlier:
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the new unit. Apparently they cooked up a LR version of the UniFi UAP-AC-LR. I think that's the antenna array inside one, though it could just be the regular UAP-AC. I'll take one of the UAP-AC-Pro's apart when they finally ship and see what it looks like inside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached peak antenna. Honestly, I kinda like the way it looks, sorta got a cylon thing going on. What I don't like is how loving useless it is. It's got 2 4x4 5ghz arrays (of which there zero clients with 4 radios, let alone enough to require two separate arrays) plus a 4x4 2.4ghz array (is that even a thing?) Bottom line: that's a 400 dollar router that won't be any faster than midrange available today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
UndyingShadow posted:of which there zero clients with 4 radios Heck, are there any clients/laptops with more than two radios? IIRC macbooks are only 2x2 mimo
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
UndyingShadow posted:Honestly, I kinda like the way it looks, sorta got a cylon thing going on. What I don't like is how loving useless it is. It's got 2 4x4 5ghz arrays (of which there zero clients with 4 radios, let alone enough to require two separate arrays) plus a 4x4 2.4ghz array (is that even a thing?) It's only useless if you only have 1 wireless client. While the maximum throughput is not any higher for any individual client, two separate arrays means 2 different channels and twice the (theoretical) throughput that can be shared in a multi-client environment. CrazyLittle posted:Heck, are there any clients/laptops with more than two radios? IIRC macbooks are only 2x2 mimo The MacBook Pro has had 3x3:3 radios since dating back to before the rMBP was introduced, and both the 15" and 13" current rMBPs have it. The MacBook and MacBook Air models make do with 2x2:2, along with iPads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
GokieKS posted:It's only useless if you only have 1 wireless client. While the maximum throughput is not any higher for any individual client, two separate arrays means 2 different channels and twice the (theoretical) throughput that can be shared in a multi-client environment. Yes, but wouldn't 2 different arrays of 3x3 work the same way? My complaint isn't the multi-radio, which I think has potential, but the fact that they're doubling up on 4x4, which I don't see many clients supporting...ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
UndyingShadow posted:Yes, but wouldn't 2 different arrays of 3x3 work the same way? My complaint isn't the multi-radio, which I think has potential, but the fact that they're doubling up on 4x4, which I don't see many clients supporting...ever. AP that's MU-MIMO capable would be able to take advantage of it regardless of client arrays. MU-MIMO is all about splitting the beamforming data streams across different clients if the clients don't have the same capacity. Without MU-MIMO, an AP can send only send all the data streams to a single client. So if the AP is capable of three data streams, and the client can only do one, you've left close to 900Mbps on the table. With MU-MIMO, now I can do 433Mbs to three separate clients simultaneously. Proteus Jones fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Sep 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
GokieKS posted:The MacBook Pro has had 3x3:3 radios since dating back to before the rMBP was introduced, and both the 15" and 13" current rMBPs have it. The MacBook and MacBook Air models make do with 2x2:2, along with iPads. Thanks. That's what I get for living in network world and not giving a gently caress about client hardware (mostly)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
redeyes posted:That's sad. I figured it would be able to keep up with Google Fiber. Nope. Has anyone compared this thing to the "Network Box" that Google already ships with google fiber?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Naffer posted:Has anyone compared this thing to the "Network Box" that Google already ships with google fiber? Well the Network Box can actually NAT at 1Gbps so it's already better 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Naffer posted:Has anyone compared this thing to the "Network Box" that Google already ships with google fiber? The "Network Box" does a bunch of odd yet very important things that go well beyond the feature sets of most home routers. It tags all WAN traffic as VLAN 2, sets some funny QoS bits on WAN traffic, contains hidden inbound rules for certain parts of the 10.0.0.0/8 network, and has some odd custom hidden rules for IGMP traffic. The first two are needed for Google Fiber internet service, the VLAN tagging allows basic connectivity and the QoS allows for gigabit speeds by controlling how Google's network prioritizes the traffic. The second two things are needed for Google's TV service to function. While it is possible to replace the Network Box with your own device doing so requires that you have a router (or a switch if you are clever, the common/cheap way is a pfSense router paired with a managed switch) that is very much outside the "home networking" category and that you have a solid understanding of advanced networking concepts and less common protocols. Unless Google issues a firmware update to allow the OnHub router to support terminating a Google Fiber connection the OnHub can only sit behind the Network Box like any other router. Since the Network Box can already do pretty much everything OnHub can do this is kinda pointless. However the OnHub is crammed with a beyond suspicious amount of interesting hardware that is not currently enabled. So clearly the OnHub is supposed to do all sorts of things in the future that it cannot do at the moment. What those things are and when/if they will be made available is anyone's guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that the OnHub is supposed to just be a fancy-pants AP for people who don't get the need for a device that's an "AP" first and a router second. The biggest sin of AP/router combos is that everyone tucks the damned thing away in a closet or nook or corner of the room and then bitches about why "the internet is slow" when it's really just their lovely wifi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Antillie posted:However the OnHub is crammed with a beyond suspicious amount of interesting hardware that is not currently enabled. So clearly the OnHub is supposed to do all sorts of things in the future that it cannot do at the moment. What those things are and when/if they will be made available is anyone's guess. I guess it just seems odd to me that that google wouldn't just standardize on a single router box, or at least find a way to integrate them. All these un-initiated features reminds me of the Nexus Q. Hopefully they learned their lesson and actually have plans for the hardware.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
I have an OpenBSD PC in the basement that acts as my gateway to the internet. Since OpenBSD 5.7 removed named from the base distribution, I looked to migrate my local network DNS requirements from it. Therefore, from a isc-dhcpd with ddns-updates and named solution I went with dnsmasq and unbound. Everything works well enough right now, except that every now and then I get domains that cannot be resolved, but if I try a second time it works. Currently I am using the following forwarders for my unbound: forward-addr: 208.67.222.222 # OpenDNS forward-addr: 208.67.220.220 # OpenDNS forward-addr: 74.82.42.42 # he.net forward-addr: 8.8.8.8 # google.com Could it be OpenDNS itself to blame? Should I move google's DNS in the first position? Is unbound just lovely (everyone is praising it though)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Volguus posted:Could it be OpenDNS itself to blame? Should I move google's DNS in the first position? Is unbound just lovely (everyone is praising it though)? You should use nslookup or dig to see if your local ISP's DNS servers give faster responses than Google or OpenDNS, and if they do, then use the ISP's name servers first and second, then Google third. Use OpenDNS if you want to subscribe to their DNS filtering services, but otherwise I probably wouldn't bother.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
I have a lot of embedded devices (Raspberry Pis) that come out of the factory with a fixed IP 192.168.1.1. I want to bulk configure them through scripting and plugging them into a 24 port switch instead of configuring them one by one because I have 100s of them. Is it possible for switches or other multi-port network equipment to do something like this? - Configure the switch to subnet 1 (ex 192.168.10.X) - Have my PC plugged into a fixed IP port 1 (ex 192.168.10.1) - Have the Pis plugged into fixed IP ports 2-24 (ex 192.168.10.2-24) - Somehow configure the switch to allow subnet 1 IPs (192.168.10.2-24) to reach the fixed IP 192.168.1.1 device that is connected to the port?? Or is there any other way to achieve "bulk configuring multiple devices with the same fixed IP"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 02:50
|
|