 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.202.65.122
. . . what the heck, I'll ask the question anyway.
So I just got a replacement cable modem from Xfinity, supposedly one which supports 2Gb. Using the old 1Gb modem I checked the speed using a couple of "speedtest" web sites and got 935mbps. I'm OK with that - it's close enough to 1Gb that I'm not going to worry about it.
However, I've recently been paying for 2Gb service from Xfinity, and that's why they sent me the new modem with 2Gb (actually 2.5Gb) capability, which I installed on Saturday (day before yesterday). When I first connected it up, I tested again - but I was getting the same top speed as on the old modem. That wasn't surprising either, since I was going through my old 1Gb ethernet switch. So I bought a switch which is said to support 2Gb, and ran the connection through that. Same top speed (935mbps). I then bypassed the switch and connected my computer (a 2019 Retina 5K iMac - the last one Apple made using Intel chips) directly to the new cable modem. Same top speed (935mbps).
So I'm now wondering, is it time for me to start complaining to Xfinity, or should I try anything else before doing so? Or am I up against a limitation of my particular iMac itself? I do have a couple of Mac Minis which run on "Apple Silicon" (an M1 and an M2 Pro respectively) which I haven't tested yet - they're now connected to the new switch too.
Follow Ups:
. . . especially Lman and grumpyanddopey. I got the exact ethernet converter recommended by Lman - it's connected to one of the Thunderbolt ports on my Mac Mini (the one with the M2 processor). And I DID have to get Cat 6e cable to replace my existing ethernet cable. That was all it took. Right now, I'm connected directly to the Xfinity cable modem - but it has four ethernet ports, and I still have one free even now.
It'll take about 10 years of them bloating all of the software before that speed will be necessary. That seems to be the cycle I've experienced where that blazing fast computer/phone/device suddenly seems slow. I'm using an M1 MBA to post this message that I had originally set up for my biking apps and then swapped with my 2015 iMac as my main computer. Yesterday was my first day of indoor biking for the season after 5 months and I used the iMac for it and it was slow. It still supported the bike app in full 4k mode though at full framerate. But startup was slow, updating the app was slow. When I got that computer 9 years ago it felt blazing fast.
Congrats on getting this to work in any case! I'm sticking with 1gbps.
I completely understand - I mainly wanted to see if I could get it to work for myself. But I have noticed that an initial delay in the sound which I used to have after first logging on to a certain site is gone now - again, not that that makes much difference! ;-)
I was going to ask you what you will do with all that internet speed. You are now the king of ISP speed here on the Asylum!
I'm glad you went through this exercise for the benefit of others. I'm not sure when I'll need that kind of speed but thanks just the same.
You are now the king of ISP speed here on the Asylum!
for uploads. ;)
. . . where the uploads are faster than the downloads?
we used a local cable provider and got 95/20. Over a year ago, AT&T brought fiber to our small college town and I jumped on the opportunity. Ironically, it is less expensive ($60/mo) than the slower approach it replaced.Have no idea why one is faster than the other. Generally speaking fiber is equally bi-directional in speed. Maybe it has to do with a somewhat older Cisco RV320 VPN router I use that was provided by my former employer years ago. Upload speed is especially useful for video conferencing (Zoom, Teams, GotoMeeting, etc.) where wifey benefits from occasional use at home. Wish I had that capability long ago when I was constantly doing software demos and training!
Like the processing power of my Mac Mini (200x Cray 2), I'm good with the performance and really don't find any useful need for more. :)
Edits: 10/03/24
Just last week I downgraded our internet service to 500 Mbps Down / 25 Mbps Up (about half of what we had) with no perceived difference in performance for typical daily use including video conferencing. Before I retired the faster speeds were sometimes useful for uploading or downloading HUGE software image files. I no longer have a need to do that.
"Upload speed is especially useful for video conferencing (Zoom, Teams, GotoMeeting, etc.) where wifey benefits from occasional use at home."
According to Zoom : there are no scenarios that require more than 4 Mbs UPLOAD or DOWNLOAD speed but enjoy.
"The bandwidth used by Zoom will be optimized for the best experience based upon the participant's network .
"Optimized" exactly how? You have enough for immediate high quality video or you don't. For a time, I had only 5 up and online demos and remote staff meetings were sluggish or paused at times.
Doesn't matter since I retired!
Relative to most ISP offerings today video doesn't need much."Optimized" exactly how? You have enough for immediate high quality video or you don't."
If your ISP provides anything over 5 Mbs (pretty much all do!) you have enough for immediate high quality video. If you have a flakey ISP or perhaps you're on a Zoom from a mobile phone that's where this really comes into play:
"The bandwidth used by Zoom will be optimized for the best experience based on the participant's' network. It will automatically adjust for 3/4/5G, WiFi, or wired networks."
Most Zoom video conferences are at 720p. Even 1080p (HD) only requires 5 Mbps.
Edits: 10/03/24 10/03/24
doesn't change the level of performance I used to get a 5 mbits upload.End of story.
Edits: 10/03/24
Your comment here doesn't make much sense to me.
"doesn't change the level of performance I used to get a 5 mbits download"
A 5 megabit download would be a 0.625 Megabyte download..... which will take only 1 second to download if you have 5-Mbs service, or 0.1 sec to download if you have 50-Mbs service, or 0.01 sec to download if you have 500 Mbps service. But at this point it becomes more about latency response vs throughput speed.
Which gets me back to one of my earlier comments about there being no perceptible difference between my 500 Mbs service vs 1 Gbps.
As for streaming, if the video is streamed at 5 Mbs, a 50 or 500 Mbs service will net no improvement in the video. It will simply stream at the 5 Mbs rate.
I usually just lurk here, sorry for the slow response. I've been running the 2.0 offering since December 2023. Your problem is the garbage 3rd party hardware from Comcast. Their docsis 3.1 modem is not made for the new offering or they sent you the wrong hardware, regardless of what you're being told by Comcast support. Even though I told them I would run my own hardware, they sent theirs and before I sent it back I tested it and had the same results you are getting.
Here is a list of approved hardware. If the link doesn't work, I've also included the URL. Sorry for being obtuse.
Hardware
In my general application, my house and user base (my family) I'm using the CODA56, rated at 2.3 Gbps which I'm getting at the router; Available on Amazon. The cost has gone up a bit but it's cheaper then the offerings from Netgear and Arris (good equipment but the Hitron is cheaper).
A couple of other random comments. I don't know your config, however, for wireless devices you are probably only seeing between 300 - 500 Mbps at the wireless device at best.
For the average user (email, video conferencing, streaming) 100 Mbps is fine. I'm an edge case, so I need everything I can get.
With Mac: IMacs 2019 have Gbps capabilities and run WIFI5. I'm aware the Mac Mini M1 and M2 having Gbps hardware and Wifi 6.
BTW, it's not that web sites can't send content out quicker, they can and in many cases do but are hindered by dumping their content on the general (web) network, the limiter is mostly based on quality of the networks, hops, locations and stuff.
This is the type of help I was hoping for when I originally started this thread!
If getting 2Gbps requires replacing Xfinity's cable modem (even their latest and greatest), I will very likely do it!
Thanks again.
Maybe I'm not understanding your setup but are you actually achieving over 1-Gigabit/Sec throughout your home?Do you have network switches that support over 1-Gigabit/Sec?
Do your PCs or Macs have Ethernet ports that can deliver over 1-Gigabit/Sec?
If you do, then you do in fact have the networking infrastructure to support faster than 1-Gigabit/Sec service from your ISP. Most of us don't so paying for anything over 1-Gibabit/Sec would be a waste.
Even if I had Xfinity 2-Gbs/sec service I would never see that on any of my devices as the hardware is all capped at 1-Gigabit/Sec.
WiFi is the wildcard. Can you achieve anything over 1-Gigabit/Sec over your WiFi? I'm on Xfinity 800 Mbs/sec service and I achieve about 930 Mbs over Ethernet and around 600 Mbs/sec over WiFi depending on where I'm at in the house. I'm on a fairly recent Xfinity WiFi gateway (with the 2.5Gpbs ports on back).
I'm more curious about what you're able to achieve over WiFi.
Thanks.
Edits: 09/25/24
Hi Abe, answers inline:
Maybe I'm not understanding your setup but are you actually achieving over 1-Gigabit/Sec throughout your home?
Yes but only on my PCs.
Do you have network switches that support over 1-Gigabit/Sec?
Yes. A few 10g connected through wired backhaul mostly. I do have the capabilities for MoCA 2.5.
Do your PCs or Macs have Ethernet ports that can deliver over 1-Gigabit/Sec?
Not my Macs - Mac Mini M2 can't. I have a couple of PCs I built that can. I'm running Linux BTW.
If you do, then you do in fact have the networking infrastructure to support faster than 1-Gigabit/Sec service from your ISP. Most of us don't so paying for anything over 1-Gibabit/Sec would be a waste.
As I've measured, yes. I agree, if you can't use it why pay for it.
Even if I had Xfinity 2-Gbs/sec service I would never see that on any of my devices as the hardware is all capped at 1-Gigabit/Sec.
WiFi is the wildcard. Can you achieve anything over 1-Gigabit/Sec over your WiFi? I'm on Xfinity 800 Mbs/sec service and I achieve about 930 Mbs over Ethernet and around 600 Mbs/sec over WiFi depending on where I'm at in the house.
Currently the only devices that take advantage of the 2.5 network are hardware I'm built. I'm currently running Wifi 7 with MLO on a quad band mesh, so 2.4g, 5g, and two 6g channels. On my wireless devices I'm seeing ~850 - 900 Mbs connected to a wireless mesh. I have segregated my 2.4G traffic to it's own network. Two of my 4 nodes are using wireless backhaul. Where I need faster networking (my Linux machines) are attached. I didn't mention it but I'm also using CAT8 for the non-MoCA backhaul.
To your point, using the faster network for Roku (awful networking), AppleTV, IPhones, Ipads is a waste.
I have two separate implementations of the network, my office and the house. I'm running Wifi 7 with MLO and everything is directly attached to a 10G switch using CAT 8. I don't run wireless in my office and the office is separate from my house. Early on, mostly because of the development I was doing I was worried my son might development a third eye or something, so I moved my work area to it's own unattached building.
I'm more curious about what you're able to achieve over WiFi.
Hope that answers your questions?
Thanks for the detailed response! I understood maybe 90% of it but I haven't researched Wifi 7 or MLO, or VLANs for home networks.
If I'm understanding correctly Wifi is unidirectional (send or receive but not both at the same time) and I think MLO solves that limitation but I'm not sure if MLO came about with Wifi 7. Most folks (like me) are barely transitioned to Wifi 6.
Thanks!
I have a recent Wifi gateway from Xfinity with 2.5 Gigabit/Sec Ethernet ports on the back of the unit. But my entire home Ethernet infrastructure is limited to 1 Gigabit/Sec along with all of our Macs.IMHO it's not worth the effort trying to achieve 2 Gigabit/Sec internet speeds at this point. I would call Comcast/Xfinity and tell them you want to downgrade your internet speed to 1 Gigabit/Sec or slower.
I should probably do the same and downgrade from my current 1 Gigabit service [Edit: I just checked on Wednesday and I'm paying for their 800 Mbs service]. The only reason I have that much speed is because I would often upload and download large software images when I was working from home - and my employer paid for my internet. I've been retired for two years now and I should take my own advise and cut back.
Typical webpages will load just as fast with a slower internet connection. It's the latency response from the website that we are usually waiting on.
Edits: 09/24/24 09/24/24 09/24/24 09/25/24
. . . I begin to wonder why Xfinity is even offering 2Gb service.
BTW, for whatever reason, it seems like I'm getting a better upload speed (not that I upload much at all - except posts to AA!):
You might have a business plan and/or possibly paying for a fixed IP address ?? Most home consumer internet from Xfinity (as best I can tell) have upload speeds capped significantly lower than the download speed.
BTW in my last post I thought I had their 1-Gigabit service when in fact I'm on their 800 Mbs internet (but achieving about 930 Mbs downloads).
You should be able to check your plan by logging into Xfinity.com. It's not the most intuitive website to navigate but poking around will get you to your online billing statement.
Just today I downgraded my plan to 500 Mbs, removed one cable TV box, renewed our Channel Lineup (no contract), and will supposedly save about $60. I was surprised to see that they lowered the price slightly on the exact channel lineup package we currently have so I re-selected that one online and got the lower price. It figures that Comcast would never lower the price for you automatically. They've done this in the past so you have to check every couple years or sooner.
Our total bill should drop from $261 to about $198.... according to what I saw online upon checkout. I'm not sure if that included every fee, tariff, tax, and others. We'll see in a couple complete billing cycles.
I'm off to return one cable box to Comcast.
As I say, I may do so too later today, although I'd really like to see for myself what 2Gb is like before I make changes! ;-)
(BTW, I just checked my own account a couple of days ago - yes, the internet plan is theoretically 2GB. We have internet and home security through Xfinity - no TV, although we do get TV over the internet via Fubo. So the total for Xfinity and Fubo together is about $200/month. It seems high, but it's still less than when we had TV through Xfinity too.)
We've got AT&T 1 GB fiber and I get very close to that with both upload and down. They hit us up for $80/month which was an increase this year from $70 previously. We also have Fubo and several Roku players -- the main reason we use Fubo is to get Bally Sports to watch the Cardinals, our local MBL team. (Also still have an antenna connection for over-the-air broadcasts. With digital OTA, that's about 50 additional channels, some quite unique.) I still work part-time, occasionally from home, so like the speed for both work and video, though the speed is way beyond what is needed for streaming audio. No complaints whatever about the AT&T service, it's consistent and reliable.
I've been casually investigating streaming services. A couple friends like their YouTube TV and another has Fubo. They were fed up with Comcast!I'm playing with a Roku streaming box which has the Xfinity App so we can get our Xfinity service without the Xfinity cable box + remote. The Xfinity App works but it's not nearly as easy to navigate vs the cable box + Xfinity remote. The Roku remote (and others like it) lack a Guide button that jumps directly to the Xfinity program guide grid and there are no numeric keys to jump directly to a channel. We have to scroll through several channels in the guide and then select the one we want to view.
I think we can live with some of these limitations. Our newer Samsung TV also has the Xfinity App built-in so there's no need for an external streaming box. However, I found the Xfinity App on Roku to be a little more flexible and it responds and navigates much faster.
I adapt much quicker to tech changes but my wife has grown very familiar with the capability and convenience of the Xfinity/Comcast remote.
Edits: 09/25/24 09/25/24
Rokus that is.
We have to scroll through several channels in the guide
You can rearrange their order however you please. Delete ones not used. Select channel by talking to it.
We use the Media app for server based video playback.
Yes, you can control Roku channels with a lot of flexibility but I haven't been able to do that with CableTV channels via Roku.- Launch the downloaded Comcast/Xfinity cable TV App on Roku.
- Launch the Xfinity Program Guide in grid view.
Here's where it gets really combersome.
There are no numeric keys on the Roku remote so you can't simply input a channel number and jump to it. There are no Channel UP/Down buttons either. You have to launch the gird view program guide (which exits the show you're currently watching) then scroll through the channel lineup in grid view then press OK on the remote to change channel. This is sort of OK if your desired channel is adjacent to the one you're presently watching but often they are not. You have scroll through several grid view screens to the desired channel then press OK on the Roku remote.
In other words there are no quick ways to switch channels using the Roku remote within the Comcast/Xfinity cable TV App on Roku.
Similarly, voice commands via the Roku remote will not control channels within the Comcast/Xfinity cable TV App. You cannot speak the channel you want.
The current plan: Keep two CableTV boxes and Remotes. One in the main family room on the 55" TV. The other will be in the master bedroom. These are the ones that my wife uses most often. The other 3 TV's will get Roku boxes or sticks.
Edits: 09/26/24
no quick ways to switch channels using the Roku remote within the Comcast/Xfinity cable TV App on Roku.
For us, the Roku is used for subscription services (Netflix, Max, Disney, etc.), some free channels like Pluto and for streaming local movies.
We use a DVR/cable box for navigating "channels".
I played musical TV's last weekend wall mounting two new TVs, moving an older but excellent Sony, and giving a couple away.
--> "We use a DVR/cable box for navigating "channels"." <--Here's what I'm setting up as we speak. The first two will be like yours. It could change but this is the plan right now:
- DVR/Cable Box on new 55" Samsung OLED TV on family room wall.
- DVR/Cable Box on new 43" Samsung QLED TV on master bedroom wall.
- Xfinity App on Roku for 46" Sony LCD TV on front bedroom wall.
- Xfinity App on Roku for 32" Panasonic LCD TV on quilting room wall.
- Xfinity App built-in on 75" Samsung QLED TV on basement wall.
The first two TV's listed above will keep the DVR/Cable Box but will additionally be able to stream our services including Netflix, AppleTV+, and Amazon Video as these newer smart TV's have a multitude of Apps built-in.
The Sony and Panasonic are older 'dumb TV's' and will require a Roku. These oldies still have outstanding picture quality.
The 75" Samsung in the basement will run built-in Apps for streaming services and the downloaded Xfinity App for CableTV. When we watch the big TV there's almost no 'channel hopping' going on as we use it mainly to view movies straight through or a sporting event.
By the number of TV's we have you'd think we spend all of our time watching! I watch mostly news and weather in the family room after dinner. We record late night TV hosts (Jimmy, Jimmy, and Stephen) and watch all three monologues in bed as our routine before falling asleep. The TV in the front bedroom is for guests. The 75" TV in the basement is mainly for movies and our NFL and NBA games when our teams are playing.
Edits: 09/26/24 09/26/24
but distributed a bit differently. How decadent is that? ;)
For us, "family room" and "basement" are the same. Master bathroom Sony gets use most days as wifey gets ready for work/church.
Swings towards her knee space or shower stall.
Bathroom TV? Now that's decadent.
We were under the pergola behind our house when wifey was wondering about putting a TV out there to watch sports outside. It can be done but I had to explain to her that it wouldn't be the typical sub $1000 55" TV from Best Buy or Costco. And, we wouldn't use it but a few times a year.
That's her initial source of news in the morning for the hour or so she takes getting ready for work.
First, why do you need anything over 100Mbps? Seriously, you're not going to notice anything on basic browsing and streaming. Most of the sites servers don't have anything above gigabyte switches either.Secondly, none of your PCs support anything over 1GB. You require a new ethernet board for your computer and only a few new computers might have 2.5GB ethernet. And then, if you're on CAT5, you might not be able to do 2.5GB and would need to re-wire your cables.
Of course, your old switches and routers have to be upgraded for 2.5GB too.
But the real reason is that unless you're uploading terabytes of porn, you're never going to see the difference between 1GB and 2.5.
Our Cox internet sucks and is intermittent, so I downgraded to 50Mbps. Upload only gives my 19Mbps, but I don't upload stuff. It's takes a while, who cares. But I still get 290Mbps download after paying only for 50Mbps.
Send back the 2GB modem.
-Rod
Edits: 09/23/24
having 724 Mbps down via AT&T Fiber really is nice. It seems you are now waiting on websites rather than the other way around.
As you indicated, however, 10 Gbps ethernet connectivity is rare.
. . . and is no more expensive than the old modem was. I did buy the new switch I mentioned however.
That's disappointing news about the lack of 2Gb capabilities on most computers. I will let you know of future developments (and what Xfinity may have to say) on this issue however.
Thanks for the info!
You can pickup a 2.5GB Ethernet PCIE card for $20 -$25 and use that for your computer's ethernet connection. If that doesn't work for you you can buy a 2.5GB USB to Ethernet connector for your computer - that is what I'm currently using on my machine.
As mentioned, check your cables. Some cat 5 cables may work but I switched over to cat 6.
I doubt the computer could support it over USB either. Maybe over Thunderbolt, and then you'd need a TB cable. A 2019 computer just won't be able to use it. I'm running an M1 MBA and it can do the 1gbps that no other computer or device in my house can. And as others have said, does it really matter? Nothing we do these days needs that kind of speed. You only need a tiny fraction of that to run DSD512 or DxD 24/384. And how much material supports that?
Your iMac's ethernet port only supports up to 1 gigabit per second. It has usb 3.0 ports which support up to 5 gbps so, in order to maximize your connection, you need something like this:
And get a good cable too. If your iMac has a combined usb-c/TB port use a TB cable. Newer Apple silicon Macs all have them. I don't know about 2019 iMacs but probably does too. My 2015 iMac does not have that, but my 2016 MBP does.
It's kind of funny how we talk about digital cables for audio, where I don't think they make a difference, but for high speed computer applications they are important because they need to meet the standards.
The adapter is supposed to arrive later today. I think I'll try the TB port first.
The USB-C port is just the physical connector and should carry 5 Gbps or 10 Gbps just fine but as you stated, the newer Macs have a combined USB-C/Thunderbolt port. So in order to get the highest possible speed you have to buy an actual Thunderbolt cable. But I don't think this is necessary for the USB-C to Ethernet adapter. A high quality USB-C cable rated for USB 3.1 Gen 1 or Gen 2 should do. A Thunderbolt 3 or 4 cable would be rated for faster speeds but might cost a bit more. A Thunderbolt cable will have the bolt of lightning logo on it.They made USB so confusing!
The chart is a little old as it doesn't show Thunderbolt 4 and it will get even more confusing moving forward as USB makes more progress.
Edits: 09/26/24 09/26/24
Same max speed as my 2019 Intel-based iMac I referred to in my OP for this thread (just under 1Gb).
I don't understand why thunderbolt would be necessary. (And I do have a spare thunderbolt port on my 2024 Mac Mini.) But I'm connected as follows:
mac (either 2019 iMac or 2024 Mac Mini) -> Ethernet to 2Gb switch supporting 2Gb on each of its ports -> Ethernet to new Xfinity 2Gb cable modem. It's possible that one or both of these connections may use Cat5 cable (I don't remember), so I might swap it out with a Cat 6 cable if that would have a chance to improve things.
Is it really more complicated than this?
TB would only be necessary if you used an external device for the ethernet and maybe even that is overkill.
And to think, I do everything with my audio over the wifi and never have an issue, even with DSD 256. My old iMac couldn't convert to it fast enough but my M1 can.
As for speed though cables do matter. As does proper termination, and properly designed ports. Just because there is a USB-C connector doesn't mean that it can carry everything, same with ethernet cables.
"As for speed though cables do matter. As does proper termination, and properly designed ports. Just because there is a USB-C connector doesn't mean that it can carry everything, same with ethernet cables."It DOES matter especially at higher speeds approaching 10-Gigabit but in my experience even typical Cat5e cable from Home Depot or Amazon seems fully sufficient for home networking at 1-Gigabit speeds. That's what we ran in our previous home. But in a newer home I would opt for CAT6A which is what 's in our current home. 10-Gigabit adoption in homes have been slow due to cost but some folks are running 2.5 Gbs.
Mac Mini + Mac Studio are available with optional 10-Gigabit Ethernet for $99 additional. That's a decent price but I would have no way to take advantage of it in my 1-Gigabit network.
Don't get me started ranting about overpriced audiophile Ethernet cables. Those are TOTAL audiophoolery B.S.
Edits: 09/25/24
Whoops, I need to revise my last post. I paid for the 10G upgrade for my M2 Mac Mini. I went back, something I hadn't done before and measured my network speed. I am indeed getting the full 2.3 down and 400 up on that device as well attached to an extra 10G port on my Wifi 7 router. Sorry for the misinformation in the prior post.
That's great news! I'm sure you have your reason for needing that kind of speed - probably work or business related. I can't imagine anyone needing it for typical home internet and streaming. But it would be nice if my NAS backups were faster. I'm stuck at approximately 100 MB/Sec max which coincides with the 1-Gigabit Ethernet.
Edits: 09/25/24
I'd thought about upgrading our internet network for 2.5Gbps. My wife uses our NAS storage for all her documents and video work. It works for her as she's got a couple of workstations and a laptop so she can pull up anything on any of the PCs.
After looking at the cost for a new NAS and the other hardware and switches, it didn't seem worthwhile. Even doing video editing and exporting from the NAS, I wasn't convinced it would make a significant change. Exporting is the most intensive and depends on the CPU, GPU and lots of RAM. Moving the data to the NAS is nothing.
-Rod
My Synology NAS has 1-Gigabit Ethernet ports and I believe there's a way to configure two of them for port aggregation (teaming) but I'm not sure how w/o researching. Those ports would have to feed into a 2.5 Gbs switch that can aggregate those inputs and support 2.5 Gbs on another free port. This could solve the NAS bottleneck but then my Macs are all limited to 1-Gbs anyway. There are inexpensive USB-C to 2.5 Gbs Ethernet adapters but I have no idea how well those work. I've decided that it's not worth the effort for my needs but it could be something fun for you try and report back ;-)
If I had 2.5Gbps ports on my QNAP boxes, I'd think about it. It seems that all the new QNAP boxes do include 2.5Gbps ports, but buying another 8 drive box doesn't seem worth the whole cost of all the hardware needed.
-Rod
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
