1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

interesting 'new' problem with whole-home service

Discussion in 'DIRECTV HD DVR/Receiver Discussion' started by dhines, Mar 29, 2011.

  1. dhines

    dhines Godfather

    398
    0
    Aug 16, 2006
    i am running my whole home system over my personal gigabyte network, and recently started having problems when viewing items recorded on another DVR. in the past, i was able to pull up movies from the DVR and view them (at the same time) from multiple rooms. now it appears that i can't perform such functionality.

    as it now stands, i can access the DVR from only one other room, and then when trying to view the dvr's playlist from an additional room i see a red bar next to the playlist items that says (paraphrasing) "show being access by too many other receivers"

    anyone have any idea what is causing this? i am 100% sure only one other receiver (H21, i think) is viewing it.

    i have tried re-booting all receivers, etc . . . and i still get this error.
     
  2. hilmar2k

    hilmar2k Hall Of Fame

    5,251
    4
    Mar 18, 2007
    That's normal behavior. Only one stream per DVR at a time. That has always been the case.
     
  3. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    If you're watching a recording from DVR1 on DVR2 then DVR3 will see the "do not enter" type icon next to recordings on DVR1 in the playlist. That is because you can only stream a recording to 1 DVR at a time.
     
  4. hilmar2k

    hilmar2k Hall Of Fame

    5,251
    4
    Mar 18, 2007
    Isn't that exactly what I said?
     
  5. toneman

    toneman Legend

    114
    0
    Oct 23, 2007
    Dang, and I don't even have a one gigabit network at home...

    Sorry for the off-topic--I'm guessing that was simply a typo on your part...or do you have network hardware that many of us mere mortals either can't afford and/or don't have access to? ;)
     
  6. CCarncross

    CCarncross Hall Of Fame

    7,058
    60
    Jul 19, 2005
    Jackson
    Since all D* devices currently only offer 10/100 NIC performance, besides overhead, having Gb connectivity doesnt make the unsupported method of MRV over ethernet work any better.
     
  7. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008
    10/100/1000 has been out for quite some time and really isn't that expensive.
     
  8. dhines

    dhines Godfather

    398
    0
    Aug 16, 2006
    ahh the joys of typos among fellow IT people and seeing how it gets them in a stir :p

    ;)

    yep, indeed it was a typo . . . as my ethernet network is a gigabit.

    was able to determine that last night. apparently before i only went to the list and viewed the shows while they were grouped under the season pass, and therefore the little red bar was hidden from view.

    kinda stinks that we can only have one viewer at a time (from a given DVR). anyone aware if this is a hardware or software restriction?
     
  9. The Merg

    The Merg 1*

    10,289
    35
    Jun 24, 2007
    Northern VA
    It's a software restriction, but it might be there to prevent issues with taxing the hardware.

    - Merg
     
  10. Beerstalker

    Beerstalker Hall Of Fame

    3,549
    70
    Feb 9, 2009
    Peoria, IL
    Also, you aren't completely hampered by this. You can still watch recordings locally on the DVR while it is streaming a different recording to a different room.
     
  11. mjwagner

    mjwagner Icon

    641
    30
    Oct 8, 2005
    However, what implementing a Gb home network does provide is additional 'headroom/capacity' on the network backbone so that the other traffic on your network doesn't slow up or interfere with the MRV traffic.
     
  12. hilmar2k

    hilmar2k Hall Of Fame

    5,251
    4
    Mar 18, 2007
    There's a whole lotta overhead on even a 100 Mb network. Unless you are trying to stream 8+ shows at once, or have something else using a massive chunk of the network, gigabit is massive overkill. Not that I thinks it's a bad idea, just sayin'....
     
  13. dhines

    dhines Godfather

    398
    0
    Aug 16, 2006
    if you are looking at it from a '1 DVR' perspective, sure. but what about a person that has 5+ HDDVR's, a couple of HD-NONDVR, netflix streaming to a wii, slingbox, and internet traffic going to computer . . . in that case i don't think it is overkill at all

    IMO, the additional cost of doing 10/100/1000 instead of 10/100 is minimal considering the cost of laying cable and everything invested in hardware.
     
  14. hilmar2k

    hilmar2k Hall Of Fame

    5,251
    4
    Mar 18, 2007
    Did you read the post that you quoted? I basically said exactly that.
     
  15. mjwagner

    mjwagner Icon

    641
    30
    Oct 8, 2005
    With the current price of Gb gear I honestly don't see why anyone would bother with anything less at this point. Network bandwidth requirements only ever go in 1 direction. And I don't agree that it is massive overkill. I have a NAS drive that I backup my PC's to once a day, They all have Gb NIC's and take advantage of my Gb network to significantly reduce the time it takes for the data transfers. It all depends on how you are using your network.
     
  16. dhines

    dhines Godfather

    398
    0
    Aug 16, 2006
    not intending to get into a back and forth pissing contest, but no i don't see that you said that. either way, it is all cool with me.

    my point is, i don't agree that it is overkill in any sense . . . as i doubt someone is going to string up a network just for one DVR.
     
  17. hilmar2k

    hilmar2k Hall Of Fame

    5,251
    4
    Mar 18, 2007
    I agree with what you said, gigabit certainly leaves more room for other traffic. My point was that 10/100 should be adequate for all but the most congested home networks.
     
  18. dhines

    dhines Godfather

    398
    0
    Aug 16, 2006
    ahh, gotcha. :)
     
  19. toneman

    toneman Legend

    114
    0
    Oct 23, 2007
    Gigabit--yes...Gigabyte--not too sure about that...but it's all moot anyways since the OP acknowledged that it was a typo on his part. :grin:
     

Share This Page