Router VS Direct connection?

[Bud Johnson]

In a setup with only one remote are there any inherent advantages / disadvantages to using a router instead of a direct computer - computer connection? Other than one less thing to plug in?
TIA

[Donnie Frank]

In a setup with only one remote are there any inherent advantages / disadvantages to using a router instead of a direct computer - computer connection? Other than one less thing to plug in?
TIA

I find a wireless router a must so that I can walk the room while mixing. For years I wished I could do this. Not that I can, I've become quite spoiled on this feature.

[Bud Johnson]

Yes, that is a wonderful feature.
Now my question?

Edit: My apologies Donnie, I should have (meant to ) specify in a WIRED setup.

[Brent Evans]

Using the router makes it easier to add other PCs if needed. The router provides DHCP, which means you don't have to program IPs. As for network communications, there would be little to no difference in a two-pc network.

[gdougherty]

I ended up with a static IP on my SAC host, but I do like DHCP for the remotes. Many newer NIC's will autosense even negating the need for a special crossover cable. Router may be your better bet though just based on my experience with mine.

If I have nothing connected to my host, ie, forget to grab the router out of the bag and plug it in, my NIC doesn't use the static IP and SAC pulls up on the localhost IP of 127.0.0.1. When I connect to the router the host swaps to its routable IP. I then have to cycle the network hosting in SAC with the menu option to get SAC configured with the correct IP.

If the remote went to sleep and dropped the network, the host may reconfigure the IP and leave SAC a little confused. I don't know, haven't played with it and it might pop back up, configure the old IP and roll right along with it. Just something to test before a gig. Having the router in place would definitely allow a remote to go offline without impacting the host.

[Brent Evans]

I ended up with a static IP on my SAC host, but I do like DHCP for the remotes. Many newer NIC's will autosense even negating the need for a special crossover cable. Router may be your better bet though just based on my experience with mine.

If I have nothing connected to my host, ie, forget to grab the router out of the bag and plug it in, my NIC doesn't use the static IP and SAC pulls up on the localhost IP of 127.0.0.1. When I connect to the router the host swaps to its routable IP. I then have to cycle the network hosting in SAC with the menu option to get SAC configured with the correct IP.

If the remote went to sleep and dropped the network, the host may reconfigure the IP and leave SAC a little confused. I don't know, haven't played with it and it might pop back up, configure the old IP and roll right along with it. Just something to test before a gig. Having the router in place would definitely allow a remote to go offline without impacting the host.

Some of this can be minimized by making the last octet on the router 1, SAC 2, and making 3-254 available to DHCP. Then, set the expire time for DHCP addresses to inf (or the max possible value) and the router will remember the alst 251 MAC addresses and always assign them the same IP... most of us don't have more remotes regularly accessing the system. :)

[Bud Johnson]

Thanks all! Some great info for multiple remote setups. For a single wired remote I'll go direct > computers for the 1 less thing to carry/plug in factor.

Am I correct that loading an instance of sac-remote on the host would keep SAC tuned in so if the real remote went to sleep it would just be a matter of re-establishing the connection with the host?

[Donnie Frank]

I'll add that I've never been a fan of ad-hoc networking. It's always persnickety. It seems to work fine one time and then not at all another time. In addition (I'm sure you know) it requires a crossover cable. If you lose or break your network cable, you can usually find a new one at Staples or Wal-Mart. Not sure they carry crossover cables.

[Donnie Frank]

Thanks all! Some great info for multiple remote setups. For a single wired remote I'll go direct > computers for the 1 less thing to carry/plug in factor.

Am I correct that loading an instance of sac-remote on the host would keep SAC tuned in so if the real remote went to sleep it would just be a matter of re-establishing the connection with the host?

Read my latest contribution. I'm sure you're aware you have to configure you IP's statically. If you set up an ad-hoc network, let us know how it works out!

[Brent Evans]

I'll add that I've never been a fan of ad-hoc networking. It's always persnickety. It seems to work fine one time and then not at all another time. In addition (I'm sure you know) it requires a crossover cable. If you lose or break your network cable, you can usually find a new one at Staples or Wal-Mart. Not sure they carry crossover cables.

That is a major benefit to using a router... and if you mount the router in your rack behind the PC (or simply keep it with the PC), it's not that much more to connect.

[Bud Johnson]

I think newer NIC s auto sense the cable.
I have tested the direct connection here at home several times, for 12 hour stretches. Connects each time and hasn't lost the connection. I hadn't thought about if the remote goes to sleep (which it hasn't yet but....) and thus my Q about a "dummy" instance of remote on the host?

[Brent Evans]

Don't let the remotes go to sleep... this is just good practice.

That aside, the remote disconnect issue was supposed to have been fixed in either 2.7 or 2.8.

[Bud Johnson]

Great, Thanks!
As I'll have SS recording on the host too, I didn't want to load an instance of Sac-Remote unless I had to.

Donnie, I'm not setting up an ad-hoc network for this gig. If I required more remotes, I'd use my router. The direct PC>PC connection assigns it's own IP s (at least it does here). I love the wireless, but not in this neighborhood, Wrigleyville. Surrounded by yuppy apartment buildings that each boast 20 - 200 wireless networks, and that's not counting the businesses, all of which boast access points.
I just don't need to tempt fate here.

[Donnie Frank]

I think newer NIC s auto sense the cable.
I have tested the direct connection here at home several times, for 12 hour stretches. Connects each time and hasn't lost the connection. I hadn't thought about if the remote goes to sleep (which it hasn't yet but....) and thus my Q about a "dummy" instance of remote on the host?

I knew that Mac's had "autosensing" for Computer->Computer connections. I was unaware that newer NIC's shared this technology. I will have to try this out on some of my newer Gigabit NIC's. I can't help but wonder, in this computer/computer relationship, who's the "mommie" and who's the "daddy." IOW, how do they know what IP to use, and who determines this? This is a rhetorical question. I will research it.

[Brent Evans]

I knew that Mac's had "autosensing" for Computer->Computer connections. I was unaware that newer NIC's shared this technology. I will have to try this out on some of my newer Gigabit NIC's. I can't help but wonder, in this computer/computer relationship, who's the "mommie" and who's the "daddy." IOW, how do they know what IP to use, and who determines this? This is a rhetorical question. I will research it.

In this situation, they usually go into link-local mode.

[gdougherty]

Thanks all! Some great info for multiple remote setups. For a single wired remote I'll go direct > computers for the 1 less thing to carry/plug in factor.

Am I correct that loading an instance of sac-remote on the host would keep SAC tuned in so if the real remote went to sleep it would just be a matter of re-establishing the connection with the host?

Having a local remote wouldn't impact the behavior I described. To test whether or not it'll be a problem, start the host, connect the network, start SAC, enable network hosting, connect your remote, hibernate the remote and see what the host does. Bring the remote back up and see if it can reconnect or if it even needs to.

[AntonZ]

I can't help but wonder, in this computer/computer relationship, who's the "mommie" and who's the "daddy." IOW, how do they know what IP to use, and who determines this?

Windows machines set to use DHCP will usually default to an automatic private IP range when no DHCP server is on the network. The IP addresses will be in the 169.254.x.x range. I say "usually" because this behaviour can be switched on/off with some registry tweaking. Do a search on "apipa" or "automatic private IP addressing". I wouldn't rely on apipa for my SAC network configuration.


Bud, if you understand basic TCP/IP configuration and this applies to wired connections only, feel free to connect host-to-host. In all other situations I would prefer to install a wireless router anyway and use the 4 network connections that they tend to come with for your wired networking. You have IP configuration covered by DHCP and can connect more remotes as and when needed.

Last but not least: do not do wireless host-to-host. Having to deal with wireless takes Windows focus away from SAC, you don't want that.

[905shmick]

You can always run something like this on the main host to act as a DHCP server to the other connected host.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/dhcp-dns-server/

[sjpaul]

I've actually tried this out with my new SAC PC....

I forgot my router for 1 gig and just plugged the cat 5 that usually goes from host PC to router straight into the netbook. it assigned IP addresses in the 169.254.... range IIRC and connected. It did come up with a windows error message saying 2limited or no connectivity" or some such thing, but everything in SAC and SAC remote worked as it should.

[RBIngraham]

Bud,

For what it's worth, I almost never have routers hooked up to my SAC systems or any production computers. (computers I use to run shows)

All production systems have hard assigned IP addresses so I don't have to mess around with networking based on computer names but rather I use the IP address. I do use Gigabit Ethernet Switches, but that is mostly because I usually have more than 2 computers to hook up to my show networks, especially during technical rehearsals. But if you only have 2 machines a wired plugged between the 2 machines works just fine and the only catch is that some older machines won't auto-switch, so I carry a short crossover cable with me most days and I plug that in with a CAT5 coupler and any CAT5 cable becomes a x-over CAT5 that way. I've found that almost all good systems now days will do an auto x-over, especially anything that has Gigabit ports. I have to go back 3 generations on my Lenovo laptops (to a PIII laptop) before they don't auto-switch. (a laptop which I still use by the way, for a SAC remote for wireless techs backstage)

The only computers that I have set up to use DHCP are my netbook and laptop that I lug around with me. I do that for the obvious reason that I often have to plug them in to networks that are not my personal networks. On these systems I set up the alternative IP configuration settings, so that when it finds DHCP it uses it but when it doesn't it will revert to the hard assigned IP of my choice. The only downside to using that method is that when you boot up or wake up your computer it will take a little longer for the network to negotiate. It will spend a bit of time trying to find DHCP and then give up and just use the hard assigned IP I gave it. Which means you can not use any networking until that process is done. But it's not a huge deal and the wait is very brief.

Hope that helps.

[solarex]

I'm with RBIngraham on this...

I recommend using static IP's for SAC, since it's on its own network; just like a production server, the SAC-Host is a dedicated-purpose-built for the job so why not give it a dedicated IP.

"169.254" IP is a default IP Windows assign to your computer when DHCP isn't working or the NIC was not configure appropiately.
It's consider a 169.254.x.x the same as "it's broken" and move on to resolving the underlying cause. It's like an unlisted phone number, no one knows. Two computer may still communicate if it's directly connected to each other, but if you're connected to a network router or switch, your PC will not able to communicate.