Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Citivas, Jan 8, 2011.
I've wondered the same. It'd be cool if the HR34's could "share" the clients on the go.
I see no reason why they couldn't share content just like the current WHDVR system.
Given DECA bandwidth limitations and that two HR34s would consume 10 SWiM slots, I'm guessing that only one HR34 will be supported per household.
The DECA networks would be separate, and SWiM is supposed to be getting a capacity bump to 11 channels. I see no reason why two HR34s in one household could not be supported.
Ever hear of a SWiM 16???? :nono2:
If the DECA networks are separate, you can't choose which one you connect to.
I also hear that it doesn't have enough network bandwidth to support six clients and that the internal bridging doesn't let you split the sides.
2 things ..
(1) Why would you split the sides when the whole point folks are talking about is to make use of 2 HR34s .. It doesn't even matter if it lets you split the sides in this case.
(2) Every hear of a Band Stop Filter? While you could use one on each SWiM port on a SWiM16, one BSF on either port effectively splits the SWiM16 into two SWiM8s.
There aren't separate DECA networks .. Jeremy was simply saying that DECA and SWiM are separate.
DECA bridges both SWiM ports and can handle 16 devices
SWiM ONLY support 8 channels per SWiM port (going to 11 channels)
He never said anything about multiple DECA networks.
Care to make reference? I've seen exactly one person make that claim here at DBSTalk and I'm still skeptical of that assertion. Secondly, RVU & MRV are two different beasts. You are mistaken to lump them into the same group when calculating bandwidth. Thirdly .. hearsay doesn't hold up in court and it doesn't hold up here.
I think Rich is still using 11 DVRs, connected to two SWiM-16s and has yet to find a bandwidth limitation, let alone have problems with MRV.
I guess real world use would seem to say bandwidth is just fine.
PHY MESH rates in the 250 range are real.
How this relates to bits/sec has yet to be tested by or in any setup that I know of.
I've got 7 DVRs on one SWM16 and everything is working Great!!!
No problem with Bandwidth here.
Why would the SWiM bandwidth have anything to do with DECA capacity? 1 tuner or a 100, it doesn't matter they're not operating in the same frequency ranges...
You would split the sides to give sufficient bandwidth to support the client bandwidth load on each side.
I hadn't contemplated this.
I was suggesting that in order to get enough bandwidth, you would have to create multiple networks but if you did that, you wouldn't be offered a choice between which server you connected to; you could only connect to the one that was on your cloud.
If you were an actual Directv customer or installer, or even as truly knowledgable as you try to portray yourself to be, you might have contemplated this.
Since you haven't, nor have you used Directv products and services yourself in your own home, perhaps you should refrain from commenting on such topics further, until you contemplate them sufficiently to make accurate statements.
Many seem to mix up SWiM & DECA, which have nothing to do with each other. The current SWiM is based on eight tuners, so even the SWiM-16 & SWiM-32 still only handle tuners in blocks of eight [each output handles eight]. DECA can have 16 nodes [devices], but currently only a SWiM-16 can have all of them on one DECA cloud, which limits the streams to only 8 at the most.
Once tunerless clients come into play, the DECA bandwidth might become the limiting factor with more streaming possible [Two 5 tuner servers feeding 10 clients].
It's a suggestion, yeah, but not needed for bandwidth purposes. If you want separate "clouds", sure .. but why even bring in the word bandwidth? Most folks were asking for two servers that talked to each other and clients could select the server to talk to. Separation was not what people were looking for.