Non-dedicated Server Switch-thoughts?

[sabre]

I wanted to get some input on a change i may make given poor PQ/stutter on my SageTV server PC hooked up to main SDTV.

Current: I am using a PIII, 600Mhz PC to run a 250 PVR and 150 PVR, 512MB RAM and 240 GB in 2 HDDs. MX440 Video card, and NV decoder

Proposed: Given poor performance and to combine w/ audios files, I was thinking of moving Sage to my main desktop, where I have MS Office, Other media software (and my burners), itunes, do most my browsing, etc...
This is P4 2.6Ghz, ABIT IS7-G Mobo, 1.5GB RAM, and will add the 2HDDs to existing 120GB drive. I would run SageTV (2.2.8) as a service and install a client on the PC and send video (over a G network-I have tested and should be fine) to a Media MVP using the MVP client from Matt.

The reason I want to go w/ the MVP (and possibly others down the line) is due to my frustration with stuttering on the original setup (maybe due to low end machine), and not wanting to spend much more $$ or time trying to fix it. I have setup the MVP on another TV, and while a bit dark, it is very smooth (CNN text actually scrolls). But my concern is that serving Sage on a non-dedicated PC would not make sense. However, I cant see too much CPU usage needed by Sage here, and thus think it should co-exist w/ other apps (mainly used 2-3 hrs/day).

Can anyone tell me if I am only asking for trouble, and keep the dedicated PIII, and a separate desktop? Thanks in advance.

[ke6guj]

Have you tried to see if the server can run SageClient for the MVP plugin decently? If so, then run Sage as a service, and have SageClient run the MVP. Basically, use the MVP as a better video card than the MX440. IIRC, no extra licenses are required for that setup. Basically

Otherwise, you could still leave the server alone, and run SageClient/MVP on the desktop as a client. Runnig that setup would probably require a client license, versus no client needed if run on the server.

edit: I just like dedicated servers, I guess thats the IT in me. Servers just doing their thing, such as just doing its Sage business, will be a lot more reliable than a desktop in the long run.

[sabre]

Yes, i have been able to run MVP directly from the server. That it how i see the better PQ it produces. That is how i have it setup now, and was the reason i had wanted to setup crossover connection (see prior post)--right now it is wireless from server to router back to MVP.

I am thinking I can just run it on the more powerful (albeit not dedicated) PC and cut down on hardware/power usage. And the main PC would run 24/7, but only 2-3 hours a day doing things perhaps other than Sage.

I wonder if Sage uses so little CPU given the PVR cards encoding, why keep a separate PC running if I could just add to my main PC. Especially if I am not going to run video from that server. [I realize that there a lot of other things I could do with the server, but just focused on Sage here].

[blade]

I'd suggest keeping a dedicated Sage server especially since you already have the hardware.

The issue IMO isn't whether or not the desktop could handle running the server, there's no doubt it easily could. The problem I see is the reduced reliability. I like for my server to be totally independent of my desktop and HTPC. If I'm installing new software, updates, or experience a system crash it's not going to interrupt my recordings in any way. The bottom line is the less you mess with a computer the less problems you're going to have.

Your server should be powerful enough to run the MVP client and show analyzer (if you're not already).

[sabre]

Blade, thank you for the comments. That is legitimate, and what I am dealing with right now. To tag onto a prior post, if I kept the dedicated HTPC, could someone review how to use a crossover cable for direct connection to MVP client (I am unable to wire a connection out of my HTPC or into MVP, thus round trip wireless results in some freezing and, i think, slow reaction time on the menus).

[ke6guj]

ok. I'm trying to read into your posts and am getting that you are running a wireless connection from your server to the router?

It doesn't sound like you have any wired network cards in the server. If so, I'd pick up an inexpensive (~$20) NIC. Then you can either wire the server up to the router and run the MVP from the router as well. Or else, it will take more work but you could then run a crossover cable from the server to the MVP. YOu'd have to work on the IP addressing (different subnet) some to make sure it didn't conflict with the wireless network.

edit: if you are running wireless, what version, 802.11A,B, or G?

[sabre]

yes, i am running wireless on the server. Using G. I just put in a NIC into the server to try and connect via the crossover cable. I used 192.123.1.1 for the IP address, and subnet 255.255.255.0, same as wireless network. I took these from the MediaMVP setup manual. Then i put in a fixed IP in the sage client mvp properties. But no connection was established.

[ke6guj]

Ok, I haven't set up an MVP, so I don't know about the specifics on setting it up, but I do know networking. We have to have that correct before we can even think about having the MVP running right.

I'd set up the NIC on a different subnet than the wireless. If you have 2 separate network interfaces on the server on the same subnet, how is the server supposed to know which interface to use. Doubley so if they have the same IP address. IF the wireless is running on 192.168.1.x then use the 192.168.2.x subnet for the NIC. You mentioned 192.123.1.1, that looks like a typo. IP addresses behind routers usually run in the 192.168.x.x area, that is a non-routable network IP range that anybody can use. That 192.123.1.1 address is in the routable internet IP range that could cause problems. your Subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 is fine for everything.

Anyways. set up the NIC IP address to something like 192.168.2.1 and then set the MVP with an address like 192.168.2.2. If everything is set up correctly, you should have the indicator lights on the NIC card lite, if not, try a regular cable instead of a crossover. If you don't get any of the indicator lights, nothing will work. ONce you get the lights, then you can open a DOS prompt and "ping 192.168.2.2" without the quotes to see if the MVP responds. If so, then the network is up and you just need to finish the MVPclient stuff.

Since you now have a NIC in the server, the best way would be to just hard wire the server to the router and then just plug in the MVP to the router with a standard cable. Ignore or remove the wireless interface from the server to clean up your config. Depending on wiriing issues, it may not be possible or practical for you though.

[sabre]

Thanks ke6guj for the information. One thing is that i am not sure that it is possible to assign an IP address to the MVP. From my understanding we have to tell the MVP the IP address at the other end of the crossover cable (i have no router or hub at this end). But i will try to set it to x.x.2.1 with the same subnet and see how it works.

[ke6guj]

I read the manuals for the MVP just now. It appears that you can either set an IP address on the NIC card, the 192.123.1.1 that they mention and the MVP will find it, or else, just leave the NIC setup to "obtain an IP address automatically". It should still work, just take a bit longer.

Make sure that once you plug in the cable to the NIC that you get the connection lights on the NIC and the ethernet port of the MVP, if not, you aren't getting a valid connection between the two items. YOu would most likely have a cable problem or else, the NIC isn't set up correctly. You can test the MVP lights to see what they should look like by hooking it up the way you had it before on the router and seeing the lights.

If you get the lights and it still doesnt' work then we will need to dig deeper.

[sabre]

Thanks again. I did try it with 192.123.1.1 and also obtain IP automatically, and as you mentioned the lights do not show on either end. When hooked up via an access point with a normal cable, both the PC and MVP do get the lights. I have not used the crossover cable in a couple years, but last time i did it worked fine. Could it be the fact that there is the wireless adapter on the PC? Or perhaps Matt's MVP client does not work in such a way (which I think used to be the case, but thourgt was resolved).

[amg]

if I remeber correctly, the MVP client is different than the "stock" software from Happauge, in that there is no ip assignment software in Matt's plugin. So you either need to be running a DHCP server or have a router do your DHCP.

amg

[sabre]

I will theow in this question in the main Client thread. In the meantime, I would still like some thoughts about moving away from a dedicated HTPC box and integrate into office PC, and serve to MVP clients.

[ke6guj]

Regarding the lights, they should light up as soon as there is a valid cable connection between two items. It doesn't matter if it aquires an IP addresss or not.

I think its either a bad cable (dead or not a crossover) or else, a non-working NIC.

I'd try a different cable, maybe test to make sure that the crossover cable really is a crossover cable by swaping it with a regular cable, if it works in place of the standard cable, then it isn't a crossover cable. Or else setting up something else in a crossover configuration to see if it works there to make sure it does work as a crossover cable. software configuration is not needed, just the pyhsical connecition should be needed to get the lights to come on.

If you are concerned that the NIC may not work right with the wireless adapter installed, either temporarily remove the wireless and see if it works then. Or else, easier is to plug a hub or router into the NIC with a standard cable and see if that works.

Since you mention clients, I'd look into hardwiring your sever to the router if at all possible, and then cabling your clients from there. That would let you have the router do DHCP for the clients and keep everything on one subnet. You troubleshooting would be a lot easier also. Otherwise, you'l need to use a hub at the NIC, with standard cable, and then hook up the clients there. If your going to have to pull cable to different rooms for clients, I"d try to pull one for the server to the router.

[sabre]

Ok, i ditched the crossover cable and am going to keep the dedicated box for now. I still think I can economize by putting it on my main PC-will think about that for the future. To connect the MVP, I used a router i had lying around and created a new network x.x.2.1 coming out of my HTPC. This could allow additional wireless MVP to other rooms in the future.

Response on the MVP is a bit faster, but still a lot of lag in remote and actions. And did lose connection to server when watching [how can that be, when there is a direct connection..?] Disappointed with darkness on the MVP (D3A), but not stutter so better picture.

I still have the wireless connection to main router (x.x.1.1) for internet access. thanks ke6guj for you input. And Matt for the client, great work.

[cmaffia]

FYI
The lag between remote commands and menu has nothing to do with your network connection (be it wired or wireless) it is a limitation inherent in the MVP plugin. If you read the release notes, it list this lag as an issue.

Originally Posted by sabre

Ok, i ditched the crossover cable and am going to keep the dedicated box for now. I still think I can economize by putting it on my main PC-will think about that for the future. To connect the MVP, I used a router i had lying around and created a new network x.x.2.1 coming out of my HTPC. This could allow additional wireless MVP to other rooms in the future.

Response on the MVP is a bit faster, but still a lot of lag in remote and actions. And did lose connection to server when watching [how can that be, when there is a direct connection..?] Disappointed with darkness on the MVP (D3A), but not stutter so better picture.

I still have the wireless connection to main router (x.x.1.1) for internet access. thanks ke6guj for you input. And Matt for the client, great work.

[sabre]

Hey ke6guj, can you answer something given your networking know-how. I plan to put this back to a single network and run wires to the HTPC and MVP from my main router.

The question is, if I do this and am watching a video (or two with more MVPs) that will have to go across the router, will it degrade my Internet (surfing and downloading, streaming etc.) performance (both wired and wireless) given the large load being passed through the main router from the Sage server? My videos are 'great' quality/1GB per 30 mins. Thanks

[ke6guj]

It should not affect your Internet connection. The LAN ports in most routers is usually a network switch, which means that it knows where each computer in the network is at and when 2 computers are transferring data, only those 2 computers see the traffic. The other computers should see no traffic, and are free to transfer whatever they need. There should be no loss of performance. That is, if the computer doing the surfing is not tranferring data otherwise, even then, I've transferred files from a computer while surfing and have not seen a major slowdown.

If you had a hub, then all computers on the hub would see all the traffic, and then, yes, you could see some slowdown due to data collisions.



Glad to see you got something working and are planning on stringing some cable later on. Wireless is cool, but for the amount of data you'll be moving around, a wired connection is going to be better in the long run.



you marked your IP addressing as x.x.1.1 and x.x.2.1, just to clarify, for proper networking, the x.x portion should designate a non-routable IP range, and if so, there is no real harm in mentioning it. So, the x.x should either be, most likely, 192.168, or 172.16 to 172.31, or 10.0 to 10.255. Most people on a home network use the 192.168.0.x to 192.168.255.x subnets with the 255.255.255.0 subnet mask. Basically, the last number changes from computer to computer, that is why we use an x for it. The way you have it mentioned, the first two numbers are changing, with the last two static. Not possible, so I assume you were stating it that way for privacy.

[sabre]

Originally Posted by ke6guj

you marked your IP addressing as x.x.1.1 and x.x.2.1, just to clarify, for proper networking, the x.x portion should designate a non-routable IP range, and if so, there is no real harm in mentioning it. So, the x.x should either be, most likely, 192.168, or 172.16 to 172.31, or 10.0 to 10.255. Most people on a home network use the 192.168.0.x to 192.168.255.x subnets with the 255.255.255.0 subnet mask. Basically, the last number changes from computer to computer, that is why we use an x for it. The way you have it mentioned, the first two numbers are changing, with the last two static. Not possible, so I assume you were stating it that way for privacy.

You are correct, although me more being lazy. Main router is 192.168.1.1 (Netgear WGR614) and other is 192.168.2.1 (LKS WRT64 - also for wireless bridge w/ hacked f/w). Thanks for the input.

[ke6guj]

You're welcome.