BlackwolfK9 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I know that with 485 you can run wire lengths up to 4000 feet. What is that effective distance of E1.31? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOR Staff Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 No one segment can be more than 100 Meters, same as Ethernet (since that is what carries E1.31) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackwolfK9 Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 So I would need to put my first E1.31 controller within 100' of my show computer, is that correct and then no more than 100' to the next controller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 So I would need to put my first E1.31 controller within 100' of my show computer, is that correct and then no more than 100' to the next controller. 100 meters ... not 100 feet. Works about to about 325 feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k6ccc Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 So I would need to put my first E1.31 controller within 100' of my show computer, is that correct and then no more than 100' to the next controller. As Don already corrected, 100 meters, not feet. If you need to exceed that length, stick in a network switch and the tape measure starts all over. Show PC --> 100M Cat-5 --> switch --> 100M Cat-5 --> switch --> 100M Cat-5 --> switch --> 100M Cat-5 --> controllerThere is almost a quarter mile. That enough for you? OK granted that you need to find a place to put the switch so that it does not get wet, and you have to power it - however Power Over Ethernet can solve that last part (at least for the first couple hops). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackwolfK9 Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 k6ccc, what do you mean by power over ethernet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k6ccc Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Short answer - Google it. I'm trying to type this on a bouncing bus on my phone. If that does not answer well enough in a few hours, I can type it up well enough when I'm at home.. Not trying to be terse, but hard to type this way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viennaxmas Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Keep in mind that each switch adds delays. Especially running MultiCast is depending on low latency. PoE only helps for the first hop (from the first switch to a second switch) provided that the switch can be PoE powered at all. In this case you are looking at a more expensive model: the Cisco SG-200 can be powered PoE . I use this model on the roof to avoid another PSU... Edited February 28, 2015 by viennaxmas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viennaxmas Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 If you need more distance, you could also look at fiber optic network cables.. On monomode fibers you can go many miles between devices... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLD Kevin Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) This was a question I was researching. I knew the max distance for E1.31 is 100M or 328ft and you can extend that by adding a switch, but as Viennaxmas stated, delay may be an issue due to latency with k6ccc example. I have not tested myself so can’t confirm. A client is wanting to set up (3) 40ft pixel trees that are 1000ft apart but need to be in sync . My plan was to run each off a single source (laptop from the center)….or each tree has its own Raspberry PI/FFP and link together. Either way, I need run 1000ft to each tree. I couple of things I wanted to try and see if it will work. At work we use media converters. We use to extend Ethernet or DS3 circuit to long distances and using coax/copper is not an option. It basically converts Ethernet to optical and back to Ethernet….the optical being fiber. You can get several thousands of feet or even up to mile depending on the unit and fiber used. We don’t use these to sync lights together so I honestly don’t know how effective this will be when it comes to latency. The units we use are very costly and not something I would spend for this. But I found a couple less expensive optional just searching using my good friend Google. MM Fiber Converter to 10/100Base. Distance of 2km or 1.2miles. Just need one on each end $43ea or $86 for both.There is a SM or Single Mode model as well, but SM reaches up to 15km or 9.3 miles. Don’t need that.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833156006 1000ft spool MM fiber. This part can get expensive. I have so much of this at work than I pretty much can get it free.http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00408147Q/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687442&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B0083UXRLI&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1H78W1DY11XNNKH02C0V Other option it to use Ethernet Extender but not as good as the first option. 10/100 Ethernet Extender. This extends standard cat5 cable up to 1km or 0.6mi. However, speed deteriorates as the distance increases and likely the latency too. $278 Pair.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833114042 Another Ethernet extender but more extensive. Supposedly better.http://californiapc.com/Networking-Hardware/Veracity-LONGSPAN/VLS-1N-L.html Edited February 28, 2015 by CLD Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k6ccc Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 First let me address the question of latency. Computers and computer networks operate far faster than anything a human can detect. As soon as I read the questions about latency, I opened two command prompts and started a continuous ping on two devices. Just before I send this message I will fill in the ping results. Short answer is that going through three switches is not an issue for our purposes. Here are the details. First device I am pinging is an environmental monitor in my garage. To get from this PC to the monitor takes the following path:PC6 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TSwitch 1A (HP ProCurve 2610-48)3 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TRouter (D-Link DIR-655)3 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TSwitch 1B (HP ProCurve 2610-48)85 ft Cat-5e cable at 1,000Base-TSwitch 2 (HP ProCurve 2610-48)2 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TEnvironmental monitor (Watchdog 100 from IT Watchdogs.com) And the ping results:Packet: Sent = 1316, received = 1316, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 0ms Actually the time is not really zero, but ping results are given in milliseconds rounded to the nearest 1 mSec, Second device I am pinging is an environmental monitor at a nearby radio site. To get from this PC to the monitor takes the following path:PC6 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TSwitch 1A (HP ProCurve 2610-48)3 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TRouter 1 (D-Link DIR-655)3 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TSwitch 1B (HP ProCurve 2610-48)3 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TRouter 2 (D-Link DIR-655)3 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TSwitch 1C (HP ProCurve 2610-48)40 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TMicrowave transceiver (Ubiquity NanoStation M5)4.2 miles of microwave pathMicrowave transceiver (Ubiquity Rocket M5)50 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TSwitch 4 (HP ProCurve 2424M)10 ft Cat-5e cable at 100Base-TEnvironmental monitor (WeatherGoose from IT Watchdogs.com) And the ping results:Packet: Sent = 1458, received = 1458, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 7ms, Average = 2ms Even for the second test which went through two routers, four switches, and over four miles of microwave, the round trip time at maximum was smaller than a single timing element in LOR, and a fraction of anything that the human eye could see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k6ccc Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Kevin, I am going to suggest doing your three tree project with microwave. Best bet is to chat on the phone. Easier to do than you might think and for less than $100 per terminal. Considering the price of the fiber (and the link you had is patch cable and would not survive outside - way too fragile). If you don't have my number, PM me either with yours or request mine.And BlackwolfK9, did you get your Power Over Ethernet answer or do I need to explain it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max-Paul Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Jim makes some good points that I was just about to bring up. Fiber is great if put in place and is not moved around. Most fiber is installed in the ground. I am sure some of you have seen crews installing a orange tubing in the ground via those ground drilling rigs.. Fiber is a simple answer but not the right application. You can go microwave or just simple WiFi 2.4Ghz in bridging mode. With the WiFi you have to worry about home wireless networks interfering. Where as the 5.xGhz systems that Jim is talking about is not as common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLD Kevin Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I want to revisit this topic. Yesterday I tried to get the PC to communicate with the 3 E1.31 controllers....and was unsuccessful. The controllers are about 1700-1800ft away. We are using 5Ghz microwave shots from the PC to about 200ft from the controllers and then cat5 to the end. Last week I was able to set it all up and ping the controllers no problem. Yesterday I could ping the microwave units but not the controllers. After many hours of troubleshoot and replace cat5 cables.....looks like the receiver unit is bad. Fact I couldn't directly login the receiver unit. We have another one on order but wanted a backup incase this happens again....besides spare unit. That will take time to setup and switch out and don't want long down time during the show. So here is my question.... Can I run several 300ft cat5 cables total 1800ft and place a network switch at every 300ft? Will this work? Will there be a problem with latency? If it's just a 1/4sec, I don't mind. It would be a temp fix until I get the primary fix. I just want to me able to switch quickly over to something else. A second microwave shot is another option too. But I want to know if the hardware way is an option? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasmadrive Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Kevin, 1/4 of a sec is a long delay and would be very noticeable. I doubt you would get that kind of latency. Not sure what type of Microwave units you are using but I have been running a Ubiquiti NanoBeam M5 setup this year and they work great! I don't have the same distance you are shooting for, but they seem to be reliable from what little experience I have had with them. I am getting about 93 meg up and 94 meg down. Screamin fast for what we do. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcroc Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 When you guys say "100 meters", is that from the computer or between devices? Once it gets to a controller is the signal boosted to the next in the chain, or does the 100 meters mean total length from the original signal source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLD Kevin Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Kevin, 1/4 of a sec is a long delay and would be very noticeable. I doubt you would get that kind of latency. Not sure what type of Microwave units you are using but I have been running a Ubiquiti NanoBeam M5 setup this year and they work great! I don't have the same distance you are shooting for, but they seem to be reliable from what little experience I have had with them. I am getting about 93 meg up and 94 meg down. Screamin fast for what we do. Craig This is exactly what I'm using. Ubiquiti Nano LOCO M5 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HG1CTDW?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00 More details: Last week I was able to get the Nano. They communicated perfect and I was able to get into the 3 SanDevice controllers. I didn't run a sequence, just login, configure them and set to test mode. Now a couple days ago the 2 Nano's still communicated with good signal but I was not able to ping the controllers. The weird thing is we would power off the receiver Nano and switch, moved stuff around or change ports and it would come back online....but only for a few minutes and then would stop working. Unplug power and it would do it again. Path: From the PC, cat5 is ran 200ft to the transmit unit. The transmit shoots 1200ft to the receiver. From the receiver, cat5 runs 150ft to a switch and then the last 200ft to the 3 controllers. Total distance is 1750ft.Tx power output: 7dBm. Ch Width: 20Mhz. Freq: 160/5800Receiver: Signal Strength: -55dBm I used my laptop and plug into the spare port on the switch and was able to ping all the controllers, but was not able to ping the receiver Nano. So we original thought it was the cat5 cables between the receiver Nano and switch but changing connectors and cables didn't fix it. It's not the switch as I have no problem ping the controllers through the switch via my laptop bypassing the Nano's. We finally we tried replacing the cables between the reviewer nano and the POE. After that I couldn't ping the receiver unit at all through the transmit side as I did before. Went back over to the receiver unit and can't ping directly. I can't get in at all anymore. We replace all cat5 cables again and still could not get in. When I login the transmit unit....on the software main tab shows "Connections: 1" and switches to "0" when we unplug power of the receiver. So it sees it....just won't communicate anymore. Looks like the receiver unit failed? Edited October 31, 2015 by CLD Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackwolfK9 Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 Are the Ubiquiti products being used to create wireless transmission the controllers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasmadrive Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 This is exactly what I'm using. Ubiquiti Nano LOCO M5 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HG1CTDW?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00 More details: Last week I was able to get the Nano. They communicated perfect and I was able to get into the 3 SanDevice controllers. I didn't run a sequence, just login, configure them and set to test mode. Now a couple days ago the 2 Nano's still communicated with good signal but I was not able to ping the controllers. The weird thing is we would power off the receiver Nano and switch, moved stuff around or change ports and it would come back online....but only for a few minutes and then would stop working. Unplug power and it would do it again. Path: From the PC, cat5 is ran 200ft to the transmit unit. The transmit shoots 1200ft to the receiver. From the receiver, cat5 runs 150ft to a switch and then the last 200ft to the 3 controllers. Total distance is 1750ft.Tx power output: 7dBm. Ch Width: 20Mhz. Freq: 160/5800Receiver: Signal Strength: -55dBm I used my laptop and plug into the spare port on the switch and was able to ping all the controllers, but was not able to ping the receiver Nano. So we original thought it was the cat5 cables between the receiver Nano and switch but changing connectors and cables didn't fix it. It's not the switch as I have no problem ping the controllers through the switch via my laptop bypassing the Nano's. We finally we tried replacing the cables between the reviewer nano and the POE. After that I couldn't ping the receiver unit at all through the transmit side as I did before. Went back over to the receiver unit and can't ping directly. I can't get in at all anymore. We replace all cat5 cables again and still could not get in. When I login the transmit unit....on the software main tab shows "Connections: 1" and switches to "0" when we unplug power of the receiver. So it sees it....just won't communicate anymore. Looks like the receiver unit failed? Did you check all the IPs to make sure you are on the same network? I know that sounds like a stupid question.. but..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxon Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Craig Wouldn't the long board you showed me at the Sacramento meeting work for Kevin in this situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now