MoCA 2.5 adapters?

[gocoax]

Someone from Singapore tested our products.
https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...moca-network-setup-5675388.html#post120932968

 

[tapokata]

After running iperf3 in Windows, I was consistently seeing ~350Mbps. I thought it was odd that it wouldn't go any faster. For those unfamiliar with iperf3, it's a common network performance tool. I admit that it's been a while since I've used it though, and I typically run it in Linux.

After testing different PC's, different MoCA adapters, and different cables, I was still seeing ~350Mbps. The problem turns out to be an issue with how iperf3 runs in Windows by default, using TCP instead of UDP and a small buffer size. After adjusting the command a bit, I am now seeing ~920Mbps, well within the margin of error for a 1GbE adapter. In fact, Windows Task Manager shows the adapter at ~950Mbps, so maybe it's overhead or something.

I'm going to start testing through my 9-port powered MoCA splitter, and start to configure security settings. I'll report back how it goes, as I am especially interested in running multiple tests with four or more adapters. When running iperf3, use the following command:

On your server, run:

iperf3 -s -1

On your client, run:

iperf3 -c 192.168.x.x -u -b 1g -l 32k -i 1 -t 10

This assumes you're pointing your client at your server IP address. I've also found that repeat tests are faster if you start the server each time, instead of leaving it running.

Interesting. That's the same iperf3 behavior I have experienced on my small network of three Motorola MM1000 adapters. I can get over the 800 Mbps bonded 2.0 rates with iperf3, but the connection has to be saturated. I was wondering if that would be the same situation with these units. Thanks for sharing your observations.

 

[rayik]

I received 4 units and am very happy with them.

Using iperf3 with set -w 1M aimed at a local server on the lan, speeds are:

810 Mbitx/sec send
810 Mbits/sec receive

Using LAN speed test with 1GB packets aimed at a local server on the lan, speeds are:

809 Mbits / sec send
563 Mbits / sec recieve

Much improved over the 2.0 bonded adapters they replaced.

Thank you for making these available

 

[Unibrowser]

Alright. I've decided to buy a pair. But they are out of stock. Hopefully they take PayPal. I was going to wait till there was a 2.5GbE port option at some point but I dont feel like waiting. Plus a pair of these are like $80 cheaper then Actiontec. If there ever ends up being a faster option I will buy that in the future, I have a backup plan for these now. I have so many devices on my wifi network that I was going to have to buy a Wifi6 AX router($200-$300) just to keep everything smooth, but I would rather use the Moca adapters to fix my Wifi problem by 80% at least. If anyone knows if they take PayPal or when they will be available, that would be great info.

 

[flyoffacliff]

Alright. I've decided to buy a pair. But they are out of stock. Hopefully they take PayPal. I was going to wait till there was a 2.5GbE port option at some point but I dont feel like waiting. Plus a pair of these are like $80 cheaper then Actiontec. If there ever ends up being a faster option I will buy that in the future, I have a backup plan for these now. I have so many devices on my wifi network that I was going to have to buy a Wifi6 AX router($200-$300) just to keep everything smooth, but I would rather use the Moca adapters to fix my Wifi problem by 80% at least. If anyone knows if they take PayPal or when they will be available, that would be great info.

Yes they take PayPal, I used it. I would assume they'd be back in stock sometime this week, but I'd check with them.

 

[Unibrowser]

Yes they take PayPal, I used it. I would assume they'd be back in stock sometime this week, but I'd check with them.

Thank you!

 

[Unibrowser]

Someone from Singapore tested our products.
https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...moca-network-setup-5675388.html#post120932968

Any ETA on when you will have more available?

 

[Samir]

Glad to hear the buzz around this product. Now I almost wish I didn't get my Actiontec 2.0 units.

 

[zoomlenz]

I purchased 4 of these to replace my Actiontec bonded 2.0 units.

Between sections of the house with relatively modern (read: RG-6) cabling the units are stellar- stable at ethernet line speed. The sections with (admittedly janky) RG-58 cabling are not stable when running with the 2.5 adapters. Works fine with the Actiontec back on those nodes.

Ultimately not really an upgrade for me, overall. Anyone interested in some 2.5 adapters?

 

[flyoffacliff]

I purchased 4 of these to replace my Actiontec bonded 2.0 units.

Between sections of the house with relatively modern (read: RG-6) cabling the units are stellar- stable at ethernet line speed. The sections with (admittedly janky) RG-58 cabling are not stable when running with the 2.5 adapters. Works fine with the Actiontec back on those nodes.

Ultimately not really an upgrade for me, overall. Anyone interested in some 2.5 adapters?

That's not good. I purposely waited for these to give me a safety margin because I have RG59 cabling. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Unibrowser]

That's not good. I purposely waited for these to give me a safety margin because I have RG59 cabling. We'll see how it goes.

How do you find out which type of Coax you have?

 

[flyoffacliff]

How do you find out which type of Coax you have?

RG6 is thicker. Should say 18 awg on the jacket. RG59 should say 20 awg on jacket.

 

[Unibrowser]

RG6 is thicker. Should say 18 awg on the jacket. RG59 should say 20 awg on jacket.

Is it safe to say that my house not being more than 10 years old probably has RG6?

 

[L&LD]

Is it safe to say that my house not being more than 10 years old probably has RG6?

I would not make assumptions like that.

 

[Unibrowser]

I would not make assumptions like that.

I respect that haha

 

[Samir]

Is it safe to say that my house not being more than 10 years old probably has RG6?

It should, but who knows what type of corners were cut--and cabling can be one of them.

Still, even if you have rg59, the actiontecs don't have a problem. And I think even with a properly terminated rg59, the gocoax models wouldn't either.

 

[Dade49]

The sections with (admittedly janky) RG-58 cabling are not stable when running with the 2.5 adapters.

RG6 has been the standard for 10-15 years at least. Maybe longer (late 90's?). Some builders may have used RG59 for a bit longer, but I wouldn't expect RG58 to work at all in Band D (1125MHz - 1675MHz). It's just too high a frequency for the cable to handle. Thanks for confirming that. I wonder if the Actiontek units are falling back to Band E (500MHz - 600MHz) or something with the RG58. RG59 might still work in Band D, but maybe you should look into replacing some of the cable. Then again, if you're running new cable, you could pull CAT6 so...

 

[zoomlenz]

RG6 has been the standard for 10-15 years at least. Maybe longer (late 90's?). Some builders may have used RG59 for a bit longer, but I wouldn't expect RG58 to work at all in Band D (1125MHz - 1675MHz). It's just too high a frequency for the cable to handle. Thanks for confirming that. I wonder if the Actiontek units are falling back to Band E (500MHz - 600MHz) or something with the RG58. RG59 might still work in Band D, but maybe you should look into replacing some of the cable. Then again, if you're running new cable, you could pull CAT6 so...

I meant to say RG-59.

Replacing the cable is the ultimate goal, but it's a larger project that gets trumped by the rest of the honey-do list. Maybe when we decide to paint and opening up the drywall isn't all that bad. At that point I'll probably pull both RG-6 and CAT5e. (the bend radius restriction on CAT6 is intimidating... besides, I'm getting 5-10 multi-gig rates on my quality 5e runs)

 

[Samir]

I'm so glad we ran two rg6 runs in each room of my parent's house back in the early 1990s--I would have never imagined they could be used for 2.5G of bandwidth in the future--that was an FDDI backbone back in the day.

And if a unit would be made with a 2.5G port on it, it would actually be faster than cat5e without the high cost of a 2.5g switch even though it would be a shared medium.

 

[sfx2000]

I'm so glad we ran two rg6 runs in each room of my parent's house back in the early 1990s--I would have never imagined they could be used for 2.5G of bandwidth in the future--that was an FDDI backbone back in the day.

And if a unit would be made with a 2.5G port on it, it would actually be faster than cat5e without the high cost of a 2.5g switch even though it would be a shared medium.

Coax is actually a decent medium compared to wifi, and there one can do a fair amount of error correction...

I'll refer you back to the Shannon Limit... and MOCA 2.5 gets pretty close - touching the edge and stepping back just enough.

http://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-shannon-0115

I've been playing with the limit since IS-95 and 802.11 - how many bits can we push into a channel and expect them to survive on the other side.