<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I have read some posts about UDP traffic potentially flooding the<br>
switch if the Homerun is plugged into the switch rather than the<br>
Mythbackend itself. As it's a VM it's not really possible to plug<br>
it into a NIC dedicated to the Mythbackend VM so how are you dealing<br>
with that issue?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Can't say I've ever heard of such issues. Perhaps the person using it was using all 10/100 gear, and thus much closer to the collision limit?<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div>
<br></div><div>There was a discussion recently where a person was having what appeared to be bandwidth related issues so it was suggested that he connect the HDHR direct. It's certainly not necessary, but many folks do choose to dedicate a NIC to their HDHR to remove the traffic from the switch, free up a port, prevent switch failure/reboot from impacting recordings, or to free up bandwidth for frontends and other network services.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If you have a good swtich, your probably better off aggregating your NIC's rather than dedicating on to the HDHR... more overall bandwidth that way.</div><div><br></div><div>I have run them both ways, in fact I am currently running two HDHRs, one direct to server, and one on my GBit switch with a 2x Gbit link aggregation to the server.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div>