MoCA 2.5 adapters?

[gocoax]

Does anyone know when this batch will start shipping? My order confirmation email didn’t say anything specific about when they would go out.

We are busying to prepare the shipping. hope to ship all the orders before this weekend.
Thanks.

 

[Coalescent]

We are busying to prepare the shipping. hope to ship all the orders before this weekend.
Thanks.

Great news; thanks for responding!

 

[Samir]

We are busying to prepare the shipping. hope to ship all the orders before this weekend.
Thanks.

Welcome back!

 

[halfrican]

Received my 3 pack today, just hooked up replacing an Actiontec MoCA 2.0 setup. Initial impressions are very positive, tested throughput to dslreports speed test from a PC connected via MoCA 2.5 is identical to the throughput from a pc connected directly via ethernet, previously I was seeing a max about 400 Mbps slower than via ethernet.

 

[Coalescent]

I received the 3 GoCoax units I ordered today as well. It's my first-ever MoCA network, and I was extremely happy to find that everything works--the wiring in my home is pretty ideal--RG6 coax, straight runs from the patch panel. I purchased a Holland MoCA splitter and connected only 3 coax cables--two to the remote nodes and one next to my Netgear router.

The devices are all communicating flawlessly and I've been running cat6 to my newly added MoCA node locations.

I logged in to the MoCA adapter nearest my office and the PHY rates look awesome. Later I will set up iperf3 and run some tests between nodes. These rates are in Mbps according to the web console.

 

[Coalescent]

I tested the GoCoax MoCA 2.5 adapters with iperf3:

➜  bin iperf3 -c 10.0.0.11 -t 10 -w 1M -O 3
Connecting to host 10.0.0.11, port 5201
[  5] local 10.0.0.9 port 51383 connected to 10.0.0.11 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
[  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   107 MBytes   898 Mbits/sec                  (omitted)
[  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   112 MBytes   943 Mbits/sec                  (omitted)
[  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   111 MBytes   933 Mbits/sec                  (omitted)
[  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   105 MBytes   883 Mbits/sec
[  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   112 MBytes   937 Mbits/sec
[  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   113 MBytes   949 Mbits/sec
[  5]   3.00-4.00   sec   112 MBytes   938 Mbits/sec
[  5]   4.00-5.00   sec   111 MBytes   933 Mbits/sec
[  5]   5.00-6.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
[  5]   6.00-7.00   sec   106 MBytes   891 Mbits/sec
[  5]   7.00-8.00   sec   103 MBytes   864 Mbits/sec
[  5]   8.00-9.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
[  5]   9.00-10.00  sec   111 MBytes   932 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
[  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.07 GBytes   921 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.07 GBytes   921 Mbits/sec                  receiver

 

[degrub]

those are MOCA 2 bonded rates, not faster.

 

[Coalescent]

I've been planning a MoCA network for some months and researching, but I've only had WiFi and powerline adapters before today.

Concerning the iperf3 results, I am just happy to see my first MoCA network blowing away my previous powerline adapters and hitting the NIC's 1Gbps limit.

I don't currently have enough systems set up to test the MoCA network's ability to exceed the 1Gbps limit on the ethernet ports, but @gocoax posted a link further back in the thread with data and videos on a setup testing multiple simultaneous maxed 1Gbps streams that demonstrate these adapters are capable of the 2.5Gbps they advertise:
https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...moca-network-setup-5675388.html#post120932968

Concerning the PHY rates--the rates I've seen advertised on MoCA 2.0 bonded threads are far, far less than 3500+ Mbps. Those demonstrate MoCA 2.5 speeds, do they not?

 

[Trekker]

I don't currently have enough systems set up to test the MoCA network's ability to exceed the 1Gbps limit on the ethernet ports, but @gocoax posted a link further back in the thread with data and videos on a setup testing multiple simultaneous maxed 1Gbps streams that demonstrate these adapters are capable of the 2.5Gbps they advertise:
https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...moca-network-setup-5675388.html#post120932968

I’ve ordered several of the adapters for the 2.5 Gbps shared bandwidth. I’ve used MoCA 1.1 adapters, upgraded to MoCA 2.0, and then to Bonded 2.0. I recently upgraded my home Internet connection to 500/500, which means that I’m saturating the MoCA 2.0 shared bandwidth if we are uploading and downloading more than about 450 Mbps in total. I also hit the limit when family members are heavily using our home server via MoCA links and others are using the Internet (even with Bonded 2.0 links). The 2.5 Gbps will be very welcome for us.

The MoCA 2.5 units are also welcome where we’ll be using them with 4x4 access points connected via a small switch.

 

[halfrican]

Mine are all being used as a backhaul for my 2nd gen eero access points, the difference between the MoCA 2.5 and the WiFi backhaul is NOT small. So far I can definitely say it was a worthwhile upgrade from the Actiontec 2.0 adapters I was previously using.

 

[Coalescent]

@Trekker eloquently described the reason I wanted to build my MoCA network around 2.5 rather than bonded 2.0. I work from home, have an actively used NAS and run Plex and other services to a range of connected devices. Some of my work involves transferring around very large media collections between home servers. I might or might not immediately need the extra overhead provided by 2.5, but it seems a far more future-proof decision than going for 2.0... especially when the price is so reasonable for the @gocoax adapters.

 

[krkaufman]

those are MOCA 2 bonded rates, not faster.

To which rates are you referring? 3500+ Mbps PHY rate is well above bonded MoCA 2.0’s ~1400 Mbps from just 2 channels; it appears the 2.5 adapters are using all 5 available channels.

​

The iPerf rates will be limited by the NIC, of course, but bonded adapters likely wouldn’t surpass 800 Mbps in a 3+ node setup (i.e. absent Turbo mode).

 

[Samir]

Received my 3 pack today, just hooked up replacing an Actiontec MoCA 2.0 setup. Initial impressions are very positive, tested throughput to dslreports speed test from a PC connected via MoCA 2.5 is identical to the throughput from a pc connected directly via ethernet, previously I was seeing a max about 400 Mbps slower than via ethernet.

This is really interesting. In theory if you were only using 3, it shouldn't have made that big of a difference. Unless you had some other lan traffic at the same time.

 

[Samir]

those are MOCA 2 bonded rates, not faster.

The physical ethernet port on these units are still gigabit so maxing them out is the best iperf result you can get atm.

Hopefully they'll upgrade it to a 2.5Gbps and then it will really shine!

 

[Samir]

Mine are all being used as a backhaul for my 2nd gen eero access points, the difference between the MoCA 2.5 and the WiFi backhaul is NOT small. So far I can definitely say it was a worthwhile upgrade from the Actiontec 2.0 adapters I was previously using.

Thank you for the feedback! Like how big of a difference did you see? This is an interesting application for them that I think others will also be curious about.

 

[halfrican]

This is really interesting. In theory if you were only using 3, it shouldn't have made that big of a difference. Unless you had some other lan traffic at the same time.

Yes, I would tend to agree, but I've run tests multiple times with consistent results. Perhaps for whatever reason I wasn't getting peak performance from my MoCA 2.0 setup prior to the change to the 2.5 upgrade?

 

[Dade49]

The physical ethernet port on these units are still gigabit so maxing them out is the best iperf result you can get atm.

Hopefully they'll upgrade it to a 2.5Gbps and then it will really shine!

Again; the performance with MoCA 2.5 using 1GbE is still much better than bonded 2.0, unless you're running point-to-point bonded 2.0 in turbo mode without multiple nodes. Running bonded 2.0 point-to-multipoint with multiple nodes yields ~800Mbps versus MoCA 2.5 point-to-multipoint still achieving ~950 Mbps with multiple nodes.

I've been running six goCoax 2.5 adapters for a few months now without any issues. I purchased in the first batch. I get multiple ~950Mbps when moving data around between nodes simultaneously. The improvement from bonded 2.0 is significant. While a 2.5 Gbps adapter would be nice, very few devices support this yet as a new standard. The goCoax adapters are fantastic for what they do, and are priced well too!

 

[Dade49]

Yes, I would tend to agree, but I've run tests multiple times with consistent results. Perhaps for whatever reason I wasn't getting peak performance from my MoCA 2.0 setup prior to the change to the 2.5 upgrade?

This can easily be due to many factors, like cabling, RG6 switch attenuation, read/write speeds on devices on each end, RAM, etc. In my testing, I saw the best performance with Iperf3 by starting the server each time I ran a test.

 

[Samir]

Yes, I would tend to agree, but I've run tests multiple times with consistent results. Perhaps for whatever reason I wasn't getting peak performance from my MoCA 2.0 setup prior to the change to the 2.5 upgrade?

That's what I would think--is that your existing 2.0 setup wasn't running properly. But it does show that 2.5 is a bit more 'forgiving' than 2.0.

 

[Samir]

Again; the performance with MoCA 2.5 using 1GbE is still much better than bonded 2.0, unless you're running point-to-point bonded 2.0 in turbo mode without multiple nodes. Running bonded 2.0 point-to-multipoint with multiple nodes yields ~800Mbps versus MoCA 2.5 point-to-multipoint still achieving ~950 Mbps with multiple nodes.

I've been running six goCoax 2.5 adapters for a few months now without any issues. I purchased in the first batch. I get multiple ~950Mbps when moving data around between nodes simultaneously. The improvement from bonded 2.0 is significant. While a 2.5 Gbps adapter would be nice, very few devices support this yet as a new standard. The goCoax adapters are fantastic for what they do, and are priced well too!

Agree that these are definitely better than 2.0, just that a 2.5Gbe port would have really allowed them to be in a class of their own allowing one to exceed 1Gb ethernet over cable wires.