MoCA 2.0 Actiontech ECB6000

[pec]

Ping's are about 3 msec greater than what I see via Wi-Fi.

The MoCA 2.0 spec requires a latency less than 3.6 msec (average) and less 5.1 msec (99.9%). This is almost identical to the MoCA 1.0 spec, and it is less than the MoCA 1.1 spec of 4.5 msec (average) and 7.5 msec (99.9%). One of the ways they reduced the latency in MoCA 2.0 was to implement OFDMA for the Reservation Requests (RR), which allows the RR's to be made in parallel (see Monk, et al, The Multimedia Over Coax Alliance, Proc. of the IEEE, Vol 101, No, 11, Nov. 2013).

-pc

 

[stevech]

I did some further testing back to back with a 3' coax against a Synology NAS that can do about 150mbps read on a direct ethernet cable and got about 120mbps. So it seems that my coax infrastructure is approximately halving the data rate. I don't know where to go from here as I need to share the coax via splitters. Seems like my situation represents the more typical environment so the actiontec devices will only work at 2.0 speeds if you dedicate coax or, when amplifiers are generally available (untested theory). So for my situation = fail.

Do your "mbps" mean MBps = mega-Bytes/sec?
Whereas
"mbps" by industry conventions means mega-bits/sec.
b=bits
B=bytes

 

[stevech]

The ECB6000 lacks a coax loop-through (tap, not splitter inside MoCA box)as I've seen in older MoCA. So one has to use a 3.5dB loss splitter if there is a TV/STB on the same coax jack?

FYI: full MSRP is USD$90 each.

 

[jmelan]

looks like more part numbers are starting to show up online

ECB6200s02 does have a second coax port to go to cable modem, etc and is available showing in stock at several online stores

ECB6200K02 is a kit of 2 but no stock yet
ECB6000K02 is also showing up online but no stock yet

looks like the price may be a little better for the kits of 2 adapters as well

 

[pec]

The ECB6200s02 looks to be a MoCA 2.0 Bonded device, which means it bonds two 100 MHz channels together. MoCA 2.0 Bonded devices are supposed to provide >800 Mbps of MAC throughput (i.e., twice the throughput of the single channel devices). I wish I had known this was coming out before I purchased the ECB6000, which is a MoCA 2.0 basic device.

-pc

 

[stevech]

I didn't find any No. America sellers with stock.

 

[azazel1024]

If the bonded ones really stack up and prove to be noise resistant, that would be interesting. If 800mbps MAC is possible, it might be a viable option versus something like direct bury Ethernet or fiber for outdoor runs, especially long ones. Lightning arresters are a ridiculous amount cheaper for coax than they are for Ethernet and coax is a lot cheaper than fiber for burial.

I'd probably still do fiber for the future project I have in mind, but it is nice having a possible second option. I'll have to wait and see how this stacks up, because I was considering running coax out to the location of my shed (future 1 car garage and workshop) in addition to power and fiber. If I might get away with saving $100 or so on fiber to get >500Mbps actual speeds, along with savings on an SFP module and media converter in the shed (already have SFP module and switch that can use it for my core) and also labor savings (well, just my time) from not needing to run the fiber through my garage, through a crawl space and in to my basement to connect it up (coax tap in my garage by the breaker box already)...that would be nice.

Something to think about. Also a nice option for any future projects if I have extreme runs (this one is only about 70ft to the shed, but about 110ft overall from structure to the switch in my basement) of several hundred feet, the savings on coax vs fiber might make it really worth while going with coax. At least if MoCA 2.0 bridges are going to be able to stand up on speeds over long distances to supply remote structures.

 

[stevech]

most any media translation (ethernet to WiFi, ethernet to MoCA, Ethernet to Power-line), will add a small delay.
I'd say that 10mSec or less will be inconsequential.

 

[hungarianhc]

So if you have a MoCA 1.0 or 1.1 device on there, they'll bump down to that, even if they are capable of 2.0. Also if the condition of the Coax, splitters and what not are poor, you won't get faster performance. If you are only getting 50-70Mbps, I'd suspect a bad setup. Just like Wifi or Powerline, you'll only see higher performance with "faster" standards if the medium can support it. If it is noisy, poor signal attenuation, etc., you won't get things faster or only marginally.

Darn. Homeplug AV1200 isn't so hot for my parents' house - older wiring, I believe. I wanted to try this route out, but they have a TiVo Premiere. The existence of that TiVo will force this adapter to use MoCa 1.1, correct?

 

[bds3151]

female to female coupler a.k.a. barrel connector.
TV coax connectors in general are "F" connectors.

F connectors are famous for unreliable long term - corrosion, shield not contacting connector, center conductor too short, etc. CableCo techs use super high quality F connectors and proper tools for installing them on coax. RG6 coax, not RG59 (crappy).

So I installed a moca blocking/reflecting device on the input coax and no change in speeds. I'll try to reterminate and replace the barrel connector next.

 

[bds3151]

Do your "mbps" mean MBps = mega-Bytes/sec?
Whereas
"mbps" by industry conventions means mega-bits/sec.
b=bits
B=bytes

Megabits not bytes. I'm using the Lan speed test application.

 

[bds3151]

Does anyone have this working at 2.0 speeds on a non-dedicated coax? That is, with splitters and tv tuners sharing the line?

 

[bds3151]

So I changed the configuration to pluging the NAS directly into the router instead of across a set of powerline devices and got some improvement of up to 97 mbps download. Keep in mind that the powerline devices were reporting a connection of over 600 mbps! Maybe the additional latency of the powerline devices was impacting overall throughput. Still not very good though and I'm continuing to troubleshoot.

 

[stevech]

So I changed the configuration to pluging the NAS directly into the router instead of across a set of powerline devices and got some improvement of up to 97 mbps download. Keep in mind that the powerline devices were reporting a connection of over 600 mbps! Maybe the additional latency of the powerline devices was impacting overall throughput. Still not very good though and I'm continuing to troubleshoot.

Clarification... NAS on gigE LAN (no power line IP, no MoCA)... the 97Mbps transfer rate seems incorrect. For 97MBps (bytes), it makes sense. bits or Bytes? Were you transferring one large file? Lots of small files will be rather slow.

 

[stevech]

... Keep in mind that the powerline devices were reporting a connection of over 600 mbps! M.

Is 600Mbps as the connection speed the raw layer 2 bit rate, like in WiFi? Rather than the net throughput at the IP layer? The net throughput rate is a fraction of the raw bit rate.

 

[bds3151]

Is 600Mbps as the connection speed the raw layer 2 bit rate, like in WiFi? Rather than the net throughput at the IP layer? The net throughput rate is a fraction of the raw bit rate.

Yep 600mbps connection rate like wifi - so maybe 200 mbps layer 3. My NAS is the limiting factor. It's a low end Synology 212j and direct attached it only does ~150 mbps. I moved the NAS to a gige lan direct attached to the router and the other end is across coax via actiontec moca 2.0 adapters attached to a I3 computer on another segment of gigE lan. The Lan speed test reports 97 mbps. Slow for moca 2.0 no? If I place the Moca 2.0 adapters back to back I only get 120mbps to the NAS so I'm at least approaching the maximum NAS rate.

 

[stevech]

My DS212 (a wee bit faster than the 212j) on gigE to a fast PC - like all NASes, is limited by file system, SMB and TCP overhead. For certain jobs, it sometimes gets to 60-80MBps (x8 for mbps); but normally for big files it's 40+MBps (320Mbps). You should see at least 80% of these numbers on your DS212j, I think. It might be PC-limited.

Tests I've done in the past show a remarkable difference in LAN throughput (no disks used in the tests) between fast and lesser CPUs, for Windows. The fastest I have is a quad core I5. I think it's huge overhead in Microsoft's IP stack and moreso NTFS and SMB.

That said, it's rare that I do Gigabyte file transfers. Most common are my drive imaging (Acronis) of several PCs), yielding a 40GB file for each. In that case, the backup utility is the constraint - as it works to eliminate empty blocks and so on.

But still, I'm quite satisfied with the cost/benefit of GigE LAN and the NAS. And $20 Acronis 2015 is finally improved in ease of use. A staple for me is Centered Systems' SecondCopy and versioning for my (professional) work in process so I can easily fall back if need be.

 

[bds3151]

My DS212 (a wee bit faster than the 212j) on gigE to a fast PC - like all NASes, is limited by file system, SMB and TCP overhead. For certain jobs, it sometimes gets to 60-80MBps (x8 for mbps); but normally for big files it's 40+MBps (320Mbps). You should see at least 80% of these numbers on your DS212j, I think. It might be PC-limited.

Tests I've done in the past show a remarkable difference in LAN throughput (no disks used in the tests) between fast and lesser CPUs, for Windows. The fastest I have is a quad core I5. I think it's huge overhead in Microsoft's IP stack and moreso NTFS and SMB.

That said, it's rare that I do Gigabyte file transfers. Most common are my drive imaging (Acronis) of several PCs), yielding a 40GB file for each. In that case, the backup utility is the constraint - as it works to eliminate empty blocks and so on.

But still, I'm quite satisfied with the cost/benefit of GigE LAN and the NAS. And $20 Acronis 2015 is finally improved in ease of use. A staple for me is Centered Systems' SecondCopy and versioning for my (professional) work in process so I can easily fall back if need be.

Re: PC limited - I get the same numbers for both and I5 laptop via AC wireless and a i3 media center PC gigE attached so I don't think either are limiting factors at that level of transfer rate. I do agree that the 212j ought to be doing better on large files. I think it may be the "green" drives.

 

[stevech]

Re: PC limited - I get the same numbers for both and I5 laptop via AC wireless and a i3 media center PC gigE attached so I don't think either are limiting factors at that level of transfer rate. I do agree that the 212j ought to be doing better on large files. I think it may be the "green" drives.

I doubt the 5400RPM green drives are the cause. I used to have one green and one common drive in my NAS - no real difference in practical use.

If you're not seeing 40+ MBytes/sec reading a big file from the NAS, something's amiss ... likely the networking such as somewhere there's a cable running 100BT rather than 1000BT.

 

[bds3151]

Thanks for the feedback Steve re: your experience with green drives. Mine are 5900rpm seagate and I have checked to see they are aligned so the speed is puzzling. I have ordered new 7200rpm drives and a new qnap NAS as it doesn't seem resolvable. 15MBs transfer rate is too slow!