Done.

[robertg]

Originally Posted by Bill Denton

Obviously, this is a highly simplified explanation ...

Did you miss that part? I am not trying to discuss networking with network engineers, which I can do...I am trying to describe a complex scenario to people who often have zero interest in the "nuts and bolts" being discussed. They just want their stuff to work. By using the "hen and chick" analogy, it helps these folks understand complex concepts.

The first network I built was 10 Mb/s, using mostly hubs because switches were too expensive...the most recent was a 1 Gb/s with all switches, not a hub in sight. So yes, I know the difference between switches and hubs and I know how fast 1 Gb/s Ethernet is.

The first web site I built was all static .html, the ones I have built over the last few years are ASP.NET, so I also know how exponentially network traffic has increased.

Here is the point...if someone follows my advice and uses a separate physical network for their Eucon stuff, which is totally isolated from Internet or other network traffic, they will not have to worry about Eucon bandwidth issues, ever. If they use proper IP address ranges, they won't have to worry about trying to figure out what they did a year ago if they want to add another Eucon device.

And, if someone follows my advice, they will have eliminated all of the network variables, and they will then be able to go to Avid and say with absolute certainty "It's a Eucon problem".

Even you will have to admit that there is nothing "wrong" in my explanation of how Ethernet works. So, if you don't like my explanations, don't read them, just provide your own explanations.

And I will continue to provide explanations that will allow people to accomplish what they want to do, which is not becoming a network engineer...

No, what you are actually doing is giving people BAD information.

#1 There are no Eucon "bandwidth" issues. Eucon uses a tiny percentage of ethernet bandwidth. It's a non-issue.

#2 Switches don't have a problem with packet "collisions" - that's a problem with hubs. If you really understood the difference, you would not be using the term collision at all, it confuses people.

From your *wrong* description of ethernet, it's this touchy-sensitive thing that can easily get screwed up because people are shopping online or streaming video on the same segment. Give me a break.

#3 Ethernet is plenty fast and "real time" enough for this application. Everything has some latency. At < 10ms that is perfectly adequate for the extremely basic task of moving a fader or updating a display. It's just little text data.

Saying that it has to be *perfectly* real-time is another crock of nonsense. Quit confusing people.

Eucon definitely has some problems but your advice for folks to unnecessarily complicate their setups isn't going to fix them.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by Bill Denton

As both I and the original poster pointed out, 192.169.#.# is a routable, public network. Using a public network is bad practice in the situation being discussed here.

Yes, Bill. As I said standards are in place for a reason. I was simply reiterating that using a public IP on a local network doesn't necessarily mean it is accessible by the outside world.

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by robertg

No, what you are actually doing is giving people BAD information.
Saying that it has to be *perfectly* real-time is another crock of nonsense. Quit confusing people.

Well the only thing I could see where having latency issues could be a problem is with writing automations but then again <10 milliseconds is not a lot.

[robertg]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

Well the only thing I could see where having latency issues could be a problem is with writing automations but then again <10 milliseconds is not a lot.

It's definitely a far cry from what this guy is trying to peddle. I get between 1 and 3 ms pings via wireless, <1 ms on wired. 10 would be a rather high, extreme case.

[tristan klein]

I had many issues with my artist mix and controls. uninstaling eucon, repairing authorizations, rebooting, reinstsalling, rebooting definitly fixed everything.

[Bill Denton]

Originally Posted by robertg

No, what you are actually doing is giving people BAD information.

#1 There are no Eucon "bandwidth" issues. Eucon uses a tiny percentage of ethernet bandwidth. It's a non-issue.

#2 Switches don't have a problem with packet "collisions" - that's a problem with hubs. If you really understood the difference, you would not be using the term collision at all, it confuses people.

From your *wrong* description of ethernet, it's this touchy-sensitive thing that can easily get screwed up because people are shopping online or streaming video on the same segment. Give me a break.

#3 Ethernet is plenty fast and "real time" enough for this application. Everything has some latency. At < 10ms that is perfectly adequate for the extremely basic task of moving a fader or updating a display. It's just little text data.

Saying that it has to be *perfectly* real-time is another crock of nonsense. Quit confusing people.

Eucon definitely has some problems but your advice for folks to unnecessarily complicate their setups isn't going to fix them.

No, what you are actually doing is giving people BAD information.

There is nothing at all "bad" about the information I have provided.

By following the instructions I provided, folks will end up with a technically correct setup. That is what most users here want.

I am not confusing anyone...it is you who are confusing people by claiming my advice is "bad" without providing even one piece of refutation of my recommendations!

One advantage of being old is that I have seen a lot of things come and go in IT. On my first IT job my computer had a 5 MB hard disk. Nobody thought we'd ever be able to fill it up. But, later this week I will be adding two more 1 TB drives to my music computer.

I remember when I had 100 users on a 10 Mb/s network, and traffic was barely even a "blip". And less than two years later the network was getting saturated.

On a network with <10 users carrying both Internet and Eucon traffic suffer from bandwidth issues today? Probably not. But what about two years from now?

On a network with <10 users carrying only Eucon traffic ever suffer from bandwidth issues due to heavy Internet traffic? No. Since there is no Internet traffic on the Eucon network an increase in Internet traffic will have absolutely zero effect on the Eucon network.

Were it going to cost $100,000 to create a separate Eucon network, I would probably say, "Don't bother".

But since creating a separate Eucon network will cost <$100 and will guarantee that one will never suffer from bandwidth issues due to non-Eucon traffic, that is what I recommend.

If you have what you believe to be "good" information that refutes my information please post it...I have no problem with saying I'm wrong about something and learning what is correct.

But until you can refute what I have posted, may I suggest you stay out of this conversation, as it is you who is creating confusion here...

[RyanC]

Originally Posted by C52382P

I tried fixed IP addresses when I first got them (obviously with an older version of the software as well as firmware) and it didn't help anything at that time. Admittedly I haven't tried it again. As far as the CAT 5 cables go they are the ones that came with the units and one that came with the switch. I've never considered changing the switch, I bought the "nice one" ... by nice I mean more expensive. Maybe that's worth changing out but it seems like they wouldn't work at all if it were an incompatible switch. They have had periods off and on of relative stability, with various software versions. It's a strange thing though, it seems as if every different SW version has been both more AND less stable in different areas. I may attempt to connect the switch to my main router along with the mac pro and see if that changes anything. That seems counterintuitive to me but I understand that networking is it's own thing. It's hard to imagine the units being more stable while having to deal with more traffic as opposed to being isolated on their own but I'll try it.

Yeah man I'm just saying you have to try stuff. This is a wide-scale consumer format being adapted to a small niche market, there will be various issues with it considering all the variables involved. The same is going to go for having a big mess of USB stuff, it certainly can have issues...

IMO, cheap switches (and even sometimes USB hubs etc) are often better as the expensive ones often have extra *features* (IE firewallish stuff etc) that are not needed and sometimes conflict.

Also I always keep cloned boot disks so once you troubleshoot and get it all up and running you can always go back to a safe place if you need to. I like carbon copy cloner and a naked usb drive dock.

I see the wisdom of bill's approach is it's simplicity, but sometimes the *other* simple is more *simple*. IE having the possibility of a computer connecting to 2 different networks simultaneously can be a mess too.

I have had good luck setting my units fixed to 192.168.1.(252-255), this way they aren't fighting for IP's with any DHCP.

Lol at whoever said that "if a PoE cam is easy"...my experience is getting anything really running perfect on a network can be finicky (you might get lucky!), PoE cam's definitely included.

[robertg]

Originally Posted by Bill Denton

No, what you are actually doing is giving people BAD information.

There is nothing at all "bad" about the information I have provided.

By following the instructions I provided, folks will end up with a technically correct setup. That is what most users here want.

Yes there is. It's unnecessarily complicated and NOT NEEDED. Most users want to keep things simple.

It is NOT. NECESSARY. to separate Eucon from the rest of the network.

I am not confusing anyone...it is you who are confusing people by claiming my advice is "bad" without providing even one piece of refutation of my recommendations!

Pay attention. I just got done listing why it's bad. You are telling people that Eucon has to "wait in line" and other such nonsense. You are confusing people with fake bottlenecks in the protocol because you don't understand what you are talking about.

One advantage of being old is that I have seen a lot of things come and go in IT. On my first IT job my computer had a 5 MB hard disk. Nobody thought we'd ever be able to fill it up. But, later this week I will be adding two more 1 TB drives to my music computer.

One disadvantage of being old is that your mind is made up about the way things were 30 years ago and you don't bother to keep current. I do.

I remember when I had 100 users on a 10 Mb/s network, and traffic was barely even a "blip". And less than two years later the network was getting saturated.

And here lies the flaw in your logic. You are assuming that because it was easy to saturate 10 mb that it's just as easy to saturate 1000. It's not.

On a network with <10 users carrying both Internet and Eucon traffic suffer from bandwidth issues today? Probably not. But what about two years from now?

Give me a break, dude. No, it won't. Eucon doesn't use enough bandwidth to put even the tiniest *DENT* into a gigabit network. Eucon moves KILOBYTES of data. You want to tell me again how much this matters vs a gigabit of bandwidth? Do you seriously not understand how much capacity there is in a gigabit?

On a network with <10 users carrying only Eucon traffic ever suffer from bandwidth issues due to heavy Internet traffic? No. Since there is no Internet traffic on the Eucon network an increase in Internet traffic will have absolutely zero effect on the Eucon network.

Internet traffic right now, through cable and DSL will never reach anywhere CLOSE to 1000 mb/s. It already has close to zero effect on Eucon. It's irrelevant.

Were it going to cost $100,000 to create a separate Eucon network, I would probably say, "Don't bother".

But since creating a separate Eucon network will cost <$100 and will guarantee that one will never suffer from bandwidth issues due to non-Eucon traffic, that is what I recommend.

It's not suffering from bandwidth issues RIGHT NOW. Your recommendation is not necessary, and the users are ill-advised to listen to you.

I'm not going to ramble on about hard drives and other nonsense. Suffice it to say that I have nearly two decades of experience in corporate IT, dealing with matters way more complicated than this. Keep it simple, stupid.

If you have what you believe to be "good" information that refutes my information please post it...I have no problem with saying I'm wrong about something and learning what is correct.

But until you can refute what I have posted, may I suggest you stay out of this conversation, as it is you who is creating confusion here...

I just did, several times already, and you are just being stubborn and arrogant. Read the following sentence very carefully.

The current problems with Eucon right now have *NOTHING* to do with lack of bandwidth.

[robertg]

Originally Posted by RyanC

Yeah man I'm just saying you have to try stuff. This is a wide-scale consumer format being adapted to a small niche market, there will be various issues with it considering all the variables involved. The same is going to go for having a big mess of USB stuff, it certainly can have issues...

IMO, cheap switches (and even sometimes USB hubs etc) are often better as the expensive ones often have extra *features* (IE firewallish stuff etc) that are not needed and sometimes conflict.

Also I always keep cloned boot disks so once you troubleshoot and get it all up and running you can always go back to a safe place if you need to. I like carbon copy cloner and a naked usb drive dock.

I see the wisdom of bill's approach is it's simplicity, but sometimes the *other* simple is more *simple*. IE having the possibility of a computer connecting to 2 different networks simultaneously can be a mess too.

I have had good luck setting my units fixed to 192.168.1.(252-255), this way they aren't fighting for IP's with any DHCP.

Lol at whoever said that "if a PoE cam is easy"...my experience is getting anything really running perfect on a network can be finicky (you might get lucky!), PoE cam's definitely included.

Of course a multi-homed NIC setup can be a mess, and he hasn't even considered the people with iMacs that have just one NIC. It's stupid.

And when I brought up PoE cameras I was referring to the fact that they work reliably without the nonsense ethernet bottlenecks like packet collisions that he thinks are still a serious factor 30 years later.

[RyanC]

Originally Posted by robertg

Of course a multi-homed NIC setup can be a mess, and he hasn't even considered the people with iMacs that have just one NIC. It's stupid.

And when I brought up PoE cameras I was referring to the fact that they work reliably without the nonsense ethernet bottlenecks like packet collisions that he thinks are still a serious factor 30 years later.

Gotcha-

You guys are way more advanced with network stuff than I, just had to laugh when I saw that because I had a hell of time getting a little PoE cam to work for my wife. I'm sure the problem there was something else entirely...but point being any networked stuff can either just work and be easy or it can be a lot harder than you'd hoped.