There may be a way to have 2 modems one on cable and other on DSL if your computer supports 2 Ethernet cards. Then you can connect one card to one modem and the other to the second.
There's an idea! So that should work even if I use 2 routers (obviously 1 for each ISP), right?
The only problem with that idea is that I am using a Dell E510 for my cameras and the 2 card slots are taken as is the PCIe. Would perhaps a USB adaptor work? or would it be too slow?
You can get all the upload you want with one of their business offerings. It will be pricier than 1 home account, maybe even two but you'll get the bandwidth you are looking for.
Some home accounts are now available with extra bandwidth for extra money. I'd call the company and see what they offer. You'll have to know your requirements, your speed need and megabytes to figure out if it is worth it to you
Yes, I agree. However he is trying to get speed on the upload stream. The problem with that is that the upload speed it is much slower. Example I have a premium account. The download speed is 6,649Kbps, the upload is 492Kbps.....Big difference.
And, yes, you can get good band with your USB 2.0 480Mbps. However, If you take a look at FireWire; The throughput numbers would lead you to believe that USB 2.0 provides better performance. But, differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the actual sustained "real world" throughput. And for those seeking high-performance, sustained throughput is what it's all about (reading and writing files to an external hard drive or a modem for example).
Just experimrnt with these things, you will be amazed of things you can do.
Message Edited by mtabernig on 07-10-2008 05:44 PM
If you have two incoming lines, you'll want two routers, if you do not, you will be open to attacks. You'll actually have to get a decent router that will allow internet access. The decent routers will have the ability to pass at least 1 port. But doing this is a lot more work, how do you plan on load balancing? and won't get you much bandwith upstream
I understand completely about the band width is for uploading. That is why I made the suggestion I made. I figured most people here are not familiar with business accounts
I currently have 7 Mbps download and 512 Kbps upload. If I subscribe to cable video services I can up my broadband to 10 Mbps/ 2 Mbps for a total of $100 a month or I could have a business account for the same cost sans video cable (I forget the speeds off hand but think it was 10/ 2) but with the advantage of a Gigibyte modem.
This is why the DSL option at $35 a month sounded attractive despite only being 3 Mpbs/ 768 Kbps as an addional connection. It would both be cheaper plus I would have an alternate connection source should one be down for maintance. Seems like my cable tends to run maintance at the least convenient times for me.
So short of a router or other type hardware that could manage 2 ISPs at least 2 routers would be easier to work with I guess. Would work fantastic with my laptop if I didn't have 3 wireless cameras on my home security system of 8 cameras plus audio output the moment. I'd probably need a different computer to be able to switch those to hard wired due to a lack of card space. For this reason, interference you know, everything else at home is currently hardwired including the phones.
Did you explain to your provider that you were looking for more upstream bandwidth? You may be able to get 10 up, 10 down from your provider. What you seem to be seeing is the typical packages , not all that is available.
But maybe you don't need all that bandwidth. Do you continually want to stream all cameras to an offsite location? Why?
You have the cameras feeding the desktop now. And it is recording. Maybe the 10/2 would be plenty if you streamed a rotating view of the cameras to an off site location.
My software does not permit rotating uploads, just in house to a TV, but that's not preferable either. Just selective cameras can be omitted in streaming. But I pretty much like the idea of all cameras available. For example my backyard ususally sees little action but when I'm not home and there IS activity that becomes pretty important. And then when I'm having a backyard activity that becomes "event worthy" to mom. LOL
I do have the ability to stream to web enabled cell phones and the software has a warning notification. While I don't yet have a web enabled phone I wish to but the bandwidth concerns come first.
In all the 10/ 2 does sound like about the right sized pipe for my needs. I have played with different options such as limiting the bandwidth for certain cameras and I still have some issues with Vonage. Plus there are those dreaded cable slow down times that kill me since I'm close to using full upload capacity all the time.
Actually I'm out of town at mom's right now. The irony is she has ATT basic DSL which gives her 600 down/ 300 up. So while I was getting 5 - 7 FPS per camera at the airport I get here to find only 2 or 3 FPS. It's really funny to see jumping cats freezing in mid air! ROTF
Preferably I'd "like" to get closer to 10 - 15 FPS per camera as I do within my network but right now I do what I can.
mtabernig
208 Posts
0
July 5th, 2008 04:00
oldtec
40 Posts
0
July 5th, 2008 12:00
There's an idea! So that should work even if I use 2 routers (obviously 1 for each ISP), right?
The only problem with that idea is that I am using a Dell E510 for my cameras and the 2 card slots are taken as is the PCIe. Would perhaps a USB adaptor work? or would it be too slow?
tr4
1.7K Posts
0
July 9th, 2008 19:00
You can get all the upload you want with one of their business offerings. It will be pricier than 1 home account, maybe even two but you'll get the bandwidth you are looking for.
Some home accounts are now available with extra bandwidth for extra money. I'd call the company and see what they offer. You'll have to know your requirements, your speed need and megabytes to figure out if it is worth it to you
mtabernig
208 Posts
0
July 10th, 2008 23:00
Yes, I agree. However he is trying to get speed on the upload stream. The problem with that is that the upload speed it is much slower. Example I have a premium account. The download speed is 6,649Kbps, the upload is 492Kbps.....Big difference.
And, yes, you can get good band with your USB 2.0 480Mbps. However, If you take a look at FireWire; The throughput numbers would lead you to believe that USB 2.0 provides better performance. But, differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the actual sustained "real world" throughput. And for those seeking high-performance, sustained throughput is what it's all about (reading and writing files to an external hard drive or a modem for example).
Just experimrnt with these things, you will be amazed of things you can do.
mtabernig
208 Posts
0
July 10th, 2008 23:00
Sorry, no you should not need 2 routers, you can connect directly to a modem, no problem.
you can have a router on one modem to connect other PC's or whatever, on the second modem you can connect it direct without the need for a router.
Good luck.
tr4
1.7K Posts
0
July 11th, 2008 01:00
If you have two incoming lines, you'll want two routers, if you do not, you will be open to attacks. You'll actually have to get a decent router that will allow internet access. The decent routers will have the ability to pass at least 1 port. But doing this is a lot more work, how do you plan on load balancing? and won't get you much bandwith upstream
I understand completely about the band width is for uploading. That is why I made the suggestion I made. I figured most people here are not familiar with business accounts
oldtec
40 Posts
0
July 11th, 2008 13:00
First, thanks for all the responses!
I currently have 7 Mbps download and 512 Kbps upload. If I subscribe to cable video services I can up my broadband to 10 Mbps/ 2 Mbps for a total of $100 a month or I could have a business account for the same cost sans video cable (I forget the speeds off hand but think it was 10/ 2) but with the advantage of a Gigibyte modem.
This is why the DSL option at $35 a month sounded attractive despite only being 3 Mpbs/ 768 Kbps as an addional connection. It would both be cheaper plus I would have an alternate connection source should one be down for maintance. Seems like my cable tends to run maintance at the least convenient times for me.
So short of a router or other type hardware that could manage 2 ISPs at least 2 routers would be easier to work with I guess. Would work fantastic with my laptop if I didn't have 3 wireless cameras on my home security system of 8 cameras plus audio output the moment. I'd probably need a different computer to be able to switch those to hard wired due to a lack of card space. For this reason, interference you know, everything else at home is currently hardwired including the phones.
tr4
1.7K Posts
0
July 11th, 2008 15:00
Did you explain to your provider that you were looking for more upstream bandwidth? You may be able to get 10 up, 10 down from your provider. What you seem to be seeing is the typical packages , not all that is available.
But maybe you don't need all that bandwidth. Do you continually want to stream all cameras to an offsite location? Why?
You have the cameras feeding the desktop now. And it is recording. Maybe the 10/2 would be plenty if you streamed a rotating view of the cameras to an off site location.
oldtec
40 Posts
0
July 11th, 2008 21:00
Any option in excess of $100 is cost prohibitive.
My software does not permit rotating uploads, just in house to a TV, but that's not preferable either. Just selective cameras can be omitted in streaming. But I pretty much like the idea of all cameras available. For example my backyard ususally sees little action but when I'm not home and there IS activity that becomes pretty important. And then when I'm having a backyard activity that becomes "event worthy" to mom. LOL
I do have the ability to stream to web enabled cell phones and the software has a warning notification. While I don't yet have a web enabled phone I wish to but the bandwidth concerns come first.
In all the 10/ 2 does sound like about the right sized pipe for my needs. I have played with different options such as limiting the bandwidth for certain cameras and I still have some issues with Vonage. Plus there are those dreaded cable slow down times that kill me since I'm close to using full upload capacity all the time.
Actually I'm out of town at mom's right now. The irony is she has ATT basic DSL which gives her 600 down/ 300 up. So while I was getting 5 - 7 FPS per camera at the airport I get here to find only 2 or 3 FPS. It's really funny to see jumping cats freezing in mid air! ROTF
Preferably I'd "like" to get closer to 10 - 15 FPS per camera as I do within my network but right now I do what I can.