Another Noob..kinda..

[cbelling]

Hi,

First time poster here on the forum so be kind

I've had MoCA for a few years but haven't really done anything with it other than hook it up. Recently I upgraded to the 2.0 adapters and decided to actually pay attention. My current problem is when I hook my laptop up straight to my router I get pretty good network speeds (400mbps awhile ago), but when I use the same laptop going through MoCA the best I get is 60mbps.

I'm attaching a crude diagram of my simplified setup (I've got a lot more going on but for this test I unhooked everything down to this basic setup). I'm guessing my splitter (attached) isn't MoCA friendly but is that really enough to knock my speed down so low?

Any help is appreciated, even if it's RTFM.

PS: The splitter shows a 3rd split. For this test I removed that cable to reduce any other shenanigans going on.

 

[thiggins]

Try taking the splitter out of the connection temporarily and see throughput improves.

Yes, if the splitter isn't rated to handle at least 1 GHz, your throughput will be reduced.

 

[cbelling]

Perhaps I'm dense but I'm not quite sure how I would close the loop on the network then.

I've got the coax coming into the Moca Adapter (Coax-In) then using out to the Cable Modem (TV/STB out) which then sends Cat6 to the router. How would the signal get back to the other adapter? (remedial pic attached)

*** Update. Found what looks like a Moca Splitter. Replaced the other splitter, re-ran the test and still got awful speeds.

 

[cbelling]

Ok, tried some more testing. From the PC hardwired into the router I ran iperf in server mode, then took the laptop and hooked it up to the moca adapter in the living room and ran iperf client mode. Got around 300mbps that way. Not entirely sure what to do next but I'm guessing maybe something in my router is the problem?

 

[OzarkEdge]

MOCA novice here... so no charge!

Shouldn't it be connected like this:

Cable ISP <coax> Modem <cat6> Router <cat6> ...
... MOCA <coax network> MOCA <cat6> AP <cat6> ...
... LAN Client(s)

Where to locate what depends on where you have the <coax> and <cat6> links.

OE

 

[degrub]

so connect the laptop into one of the router switch ports with the PC in another one and see what iperf indicates. There was one thread here somewhere about the commands to use with iperf and it solved another users bandwidth measurement issue when the hardware looked to be set up fine.

the two switch ports should run at close to line speed as there is no routing involved if on same subnet.

 

[thiggins]

I said *temporarily* remove the splitter to see if it makes a difference.

 

[cbelling]

so connect the laptop into one of the router switch ports with the PC in another one and see what iperf indicates. There was one thread here somewhere about the commands to use with iperf and it solved another users bandwidth measurement issue when the hardware looked to be set up fine.

the two switch ports should run at close to line speed as there is no routing involved if on same subnet.

A significant increase in speed when doing that. 915mbps.

 

[cbelling]

I said *temporarily* remove the splitter to see if it makes a difference.

haha. Yeah, I got ya. I think there may be a fundamental flaw in my base setup/knowledge. Going to check on something after the teenagers go to sleep ("We'll die with out wifi..."). Will confirm/deny my stupidity in a few hours.

 

[cbelling]

MOCA novice here... so no charge!

Shouldn't it be connected like this:

Cable ISP <coax> Modem <cat6> Router <cat6> ...
... MOCA <coax network> MOCA <cat6> AP <cat6> ...
... LAN Client(s)

Where to locate what depends on where you have the <coax> and <cat6> links.

OE

The challenge for me in this setup is that only coax coming into the room is for the Modem. I have nothing that can goes back out on the coax network.

 

[cbelling]

haha. Yeah, I got ya. I think there may be a fundamental flaw in my base setup/knowledge. Going to check on something after the teenagers go to sleep ("We'll die with out wifi..."). Will confirm/deny my stupidity in a few hours.

Appreciate your patience in all this...

That said, I think I did what you initially meant with the "temporarily" (see pic). Still download speeds around 60mpbs, and with iperf I'm only getting 300mbps throughput. I believe I should expect 3x that speed.

 

[cbelling]

Another update in case anyone is out there watching..

As directed by ActionTec I hooked up 2 adapters like so: https://actiontecsupport.zendesk.co...n-I-test-the-MoCA-adapters-for-functionality-

then removed one cat cable and hooked it up to my PC. My Phy Rate was 670 so according to them the adapters are fine and it's a problem on my network. Being that I've removed the splitter from the equation and I also used an entirely different router (had an old one lying around, put it back to factory reset) and I'm still getting slow speeds I'm not really sure where to turn next.

 

[degrub]

I would start checking coax cables one by one using essentially the same set up Actiontec had you use untill you find the “bad” segment.
It could be another splitter you have not found or a bad cable.
Do you have two machines so you can run iperf on each, one client and one server ?

It could also be an end connector that is poorly done.

 

[OzarkEdge]

Another update in case anyone is out there watching..

As directed by ActionTec I hooked up 2 adapters like so: https://actiontecsupport.zendesk.co...n-I-test-the-MoCA-adapters-for-functionality-

then removed one cat cable and hooked it up to my PC. My Phy Rate was 670 so according to them the adapters are fine and it's a problem on my network. Being that I've removed the splitter from the equation and I also used an entirely different router (had an old one lying around, put it back to factory reset) and I'm still getting slow speeds I'm not really sure where to turn next.

Do you need/have coax cable terminators everywhere? Maybe some transmission 'reflections' are messing things up.

OE

 

[cbelling]

I would start checking coax cables one by one using essentially the same set up Actiontec had you use untill you find the “bad” segment.
It could be another splitter you have not found or a bad cable.
Do you have two machines so you can run iperf on each, one client and one server ?

It could also be an end connector that is poorly done.

I do have two machines. I just tested as you suggested (one pc plugged into one moca adapter, the laptop plugged into another moca adapter, both connected via a coax) and ran iperf client/server. Again, it was right around 300mbps.

My questions at this point are:

1) Is a 670 phy rate good? I was thinking it should be somewhere around a gig. (NOTE: I tried with a 6 ft cable, and a 100 ft cable and no difference)
2) What should I expect for throughput with the iperf test when running it on a closed system as described above? Being that I got 915mbps when going through the router I was HOPING to get near that when going through MoCA.

Also, anyone in the market to buy a bunch of MoCA 2.0 boxes? I think I'm just going to tear down my walls and run cat6...

 

[krkaufman]

1) Is a 670 phy rate good?

I believe so, yes, for MoCA 2.0, but the question is whether the adapters are using two bonded channels or just a single channel; if just a single channel, for some reason, you'd really just have a standard MoCA 2.0 connection, and effective throughput would be somewhere sub-400 Mbps. The MoCA adapter RX & TX power levels also provide valuable info on how hard the MoCA gear is having to work to maintain a connection, helping to identify when a MoCA setup is near the edge of failure.

And as for testing throughput, I'm not 100% certain you captured all of @degrub's earlier post...

There was one thread here somewhere about the commands to use with iperf and it solved another users bandwidth measurement issue when the hardware looked to be set up fine.

You'll want to track down this thread/information, as it's important to run iPerf with the proper command-line options to ensure you're saturating the link. (e.g. Using jPerf, I recall needing to up the number of threads in order to stress the link and get throughput results near what I had expected.)

p.s. Reviewing the diagram in the OP, it doesn't show a "PoE" MoCA filter. Ideally, a MoCA filter would be installed on the input of that first 2-way splitter encountered by the incoming cable signal, to maximize the performance benefit of the "PoE" MoCA filter.

 

[degrub]

It sounds like the two devices are not bonded. 671 physical rate is about exactly what you would get for single channel turbo mode (600*1.12).

Dumb question - the coax is RG6, correct ?

 

[cbelling]

I believe so, yes, for MoCA 2.0, but the question is whether the adapters are using two bonded channels or just a single channel; if just a single channel, for some reason, you'd really just have a standard MoCA 2.0 connection, and effective throughput would be somewhere sub-400 Mbps. The MoCA adapter RX & TX power levels also provide valuable info on how hard the MoCA gear is having to work to maintain a connection, helping to identify when a MoCA setup is near the edge of failure.

And as for testing throughput, I'm not 100% certain you captured all of @degrub's earlier post...

​

You'll want to track down this thread/information, as it's important to run iPerf with the proper command-line options to ensure you're saturating the link. (e.g. Using jPerf, I recall needing to up the number of threads in order to stress the link and get throughput results near what I had expected.)

p.s. Reviewing the diagram in the OP, it doesn't show a "PoE" MoCA filter. Ideally, a MoCA filter would be installed on the input of that first 2-way splitter encountered by the incoming cable signal, to maximize the performance benefit of the "PoE" MoCA filter.

I had -37 for the RX and -27 for the TX levels. I believe that's pretty good?

Good reminder on the proper command-line options. I did a quick search and found a few things, but not the magic stuff yet. I'll keep at it.

I do have a PoE MoCA filter on the splitter now (put it on last night). Didn't make much of a difference though.

 

[cbelling]

It sounds like the two devices are not bonded. 671 physical rate is about exactly what you would get for single channel turbo mode (600*1.12).

Dumb question - the coax is RG6, correct ?

How does one get them to bond as opposed to single channel?

Not a dumb question as I'm a noob, but yes, it is RG6 (checked that tonight..).

 

[krkaufman]

but when I use the same laptop going through MoCA the best I get is 60mbps.

The laptop has a Gigabit Ethernet interface, apparently. And you've verified that the laptop is establishing a Gigabit Ethernet link to the MoCA adapter? And when doing the testing you're always disabling the laptop's wireless interface, just to make sure there's no confusion?

I'm guessing my splitter (attached) isn't MoCA friendly

MoCA can work fine with most cable-rated splitters, but you're not just doing MoCA, now, you're pushing bonded MoCA 2.0 -- so where MoCA 1.1 just needed the cable splitter to not muck too much with signals in the 1125-1175 MHz range (the lowest 50 MHz-wide channel), bonded MoCA 2.0 requires 225 MHz of bandwidth. If having issues, it would be worthwhile to upgrade to known-good MoCA 2.0 splitters, either the Verizon MoCA 2.0 series you noted or Holland's GHS-PRO-M series (these).

The challenge for me in this setup is that only coax coming into the room is for the Modem. I have nothing that can goes back out on the coax network.

That's pretty typical and shouldn't be a problem. If'/when your provider starts doing DOCSIS 3.1, you may find a need to run a dedicated coax line to the modem, but your current setup is pretty much what MoCA was designed to deal with.

That said, I think I did what you initially meant with the "temporarily" (see pic). Still download speeds around 60mpbs, and with iperf I'm only getting 300mbps throughput. I believe I should expect 3x that speed.


View attachment 14467

You might try this test again, except you should be connecting the two MoCA adapters via each of their "COAX IN" ports. (I'm a little surprised the adapter was even able to make a connection, since the pass-through port severely attenuates the signal at MoCA frequencies.)

Oh, right, looks like you already did...

Another update in case anyone is out there watching..

As directed by ActionTec I hooked up 2 adapters like so: https://actiontecsupport.zendesk.co...n-I-test-the-MoCA-adapters-for-functionality-

then removed one cat cable and hooked it up to my PC. My Phy Rate was 670 so according to them the adapters are fine and it's a problem on my network. Being that I've removed the splitter from the equation and I also used an entirely different router (had an old one lying around, put it back to factory reset) and I'm still getting slow speeds I'm not really sure where to turn next.

But what throughput were you seeing with the MoCA adapters direct-connected like this? (One connected via Ethernet directly to your router LAN, and the other to your laptop?)

2) What should I expect for throughput with the iperf test when running it on a closed system as described above? Being that I got 915mbps when going through the router I was HOPING to get near that when going through MoCA.

Assuming you've found the magic iPerf command-line options, the test setup you just described, two ECB6200 MoCA adapters direct-connected, should be capable of TURBO mode bonded MoCA 2.0 ... up to 1000 Mbps (rather than the 800 Mbps top for non-TURBO bonded MoCA 2.0).

You're reporting PHY rates, so I'm guessing that you have access to the status page for the ECB6200 adapters. If so, can you post a screenshot of what you're seeing, including the frequency chart/diagram.