# VEpro Gigabit Ethernet Card, Router, Switch, etc



## FriFlo (Mar 7, 2017)

I have again and again been looking for a definitive forum answer on what pieces of gear to choose for VEpro with master-slave systems, but I I have only found part of the answers for me.
There seems to be widespread consensus among experienced people posting, that ...
... 10gbE is not recommendable (yet)
... creating individual networks for every slave (with individual network controllers for each slave on the master and individual subjects for each slave is improving performance
... using onboard Ethernet controllers is not as good as using dedicated NICs on each PC

I have a Mac Pro (upgraded 2009 model) and two PCs. At this point, I use the onboard controllers of each model. Mac and first PC are connected to a router (Fritzbox 7390) with 4 gigabit LAN ports. The other PC is directly connected to the second Ethernet port of the Mac Pro. So, for VEpro network traffic, a subnet is created for the second PCs connection. This greatly improves the performance.
So,what answers am I looking for?
1) Should I use a dedicated switch or is the router sufficient? What specs are important to look for in the switch and are there any particular models to be recommended?
2) For the Mac Pro, it will be hard to get an empty PCIe slot ... will a dedicated NIC improve the performance and which to choose?
3) Both of ththe PCs use the cheap onboard controllers. Again: what are the specs I should be looking for here to add a NIC for each slave? Is there any brand or model that is right?

About the NICs: I have read from someone expirieced, there are advantages of the more expensive NICs, but I don't know what to look for, as there are dual port gigabit LAN adapters for 20€ to 300€ and more! I would be willing to spend that money, but I want to know for sure, this will improve performance and reliability.


----------



## sazema (Mar 7, 2017)

From what I know, it's good to configure your network with static IP and to not use DHCP on your router.
1 router + each individual machine connected to it with static IP's is more than enough. For example:

you Mac master: 192.168.1.1
slave 1 (Win): 192.168.1.101
slave 2 (Win): 192.168.1.102
That way, your network requests will not go to DHCP server of your router and checks for ethernet card mac address and IP address, because you have dedicated (straight) addresses, so is faster.
And no separate networks, or bridged connections etc...
If you can afford Gigabit network that's good and enough. People still using 100Mb networking with VEPro without any difficulties.


----------



## stonzthro (Mar 7, 2017)

100Mb network? That must be a typo - you'd have to buy stuff from 5 years ago to even find that. I suppose you can still buy 10/100 but why on earth would you? 

I have several VEP slaves, and all use the onboard ethernet (1Gb) without issue, going into a 1Gb switch. I've not heard of having separate networks and if you have more than 2 slaves, how would you even accomplish this? It sounds like you already have enough to get up and running - are you having issues with your VE Pro system and are just trying to troubleshoot? If so, what are your symptoms?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 7, 2017)

My 2 cents...

You might be making this too complicated.

Onboard ethernet adapters are fine for VEPro - as long as they are Gigabit.
Your ethernet cables also need to support Gigabit speeds - this has tripped me up before
Having a separate network for your VEPro traffic is important, but this happens by design when you configure your network cards with static IP addresses.
You do not need a router - you can just use an ethernet switch if you like. Again, since you are using fixed IP addresses, there is really no routing to speak of, so no need for complex requirements on a router.
To put things into perspective, I bought an i7 PC at Best Buy to use as a slave. I am using the onboard network port on that PC, plugged into a Cisco Gigabit switch that I bought at Office Depot. My master machine is an i7 iMac and I am using the onboard network port for my VEPro traffic. I have a second iMac that can be used for additional sample hosting if needed - also using the onboard network card and a fixed IP address.

I have had this setup since 2014 and am running a template with 500-600 MIDI tracks in Logic X.

If I were building the infrastructure for RCP (or any high-end studio), I would consider high-end network cards + high-end routers + rack mount stuff... but if you just need a computer to host some samples, it really doesn't need to be that complicated.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 7, 2017)

I agree with the esteemed Marc: separate networks for each machine seems like the ideal setup for people who enjoy phaffing with networks, not for people who want to make music. 

The setup I use is modem -> Wi-Fi router (for other devices in the house) -> copper ethernet cable to highest-numbered port in switcher -> Mac and other computers.

I used to use fixed IP numbers, but VE Pro now seems to have no problem finding DHCP addresses, and that makes it even simpler.


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 7, 2017)

Thanks guys, but nobody answered my real question! 
What ethernet card is good to buy? I am already using two separate networks (subnets). I know, onboard ethernet cards work, I use them and get decent results. But I have read other information on the subject by "cm" on the VSL forum, who is the tech expert at VSL (can't recall his name right now ...). He wrote in several posts ...
... it is good to use dedicated PCIe cards for Ethernet using VEpro.
... more expensive models are better, as those are doing some of the calculations themselves instead of letting the CPU work.
I am just not sure, which kind of cards he does mean, what features to look for.
If anyone "really" knows something about this topic (networking and optimization for VEpro) I would be happy for some tips!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 7, 2017)

His name is Christian Marin.

If he says to use a card, he'd know. I've never done that and never had an issue.


----------



## urz (Mar 7, 2017)

For me, this works flawlessly under heavy load:

Separate network for VEP via a switch (I use Deltaco LAN 1005, it’s basic/stupid in the right way)
Mac Pro - Built In Ethernet
All Win Slaves - Intel Gigabit PRO/1000 CT 1 Gbit/s PCIe (I found this card recommended in the VSL forum some years back)


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 7, 2017)

urz said:


> For me, this works flawlessly under heavy load:
> 
> Separate network for VEP via a switch (I use Deltaco LAN 1005, it’s basic/stupid in the right way)
> Mac Pro - Built In Ethernet
> All Win Slaves - Intel Gigabit PRO/1000 CT 1 Gbit/s PCIe (I found this card recommended in the VSL forum some years back)



I am not up to speed on the latest gear, but Intel NICs have been around for years and are industry-standard for servers. 

So, good recommendation... you can't go wrong there. The card that urz mentioned is cheap too!


----------



## stonzthro (Mar 7, 2017)

So you are having problems with your current setup?


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 7, 2017)

urz said:


> For me, this works flawlessly under heavy load:
> 
> Separate network for VEP via a switch (I use Deltaco LAN 1005, it’s basic/stupid in the right way)
> Mac Pro - Built In Ethernet
> All Win Slaves - Intel Gigabit PRO/1000 CT 1 Gbit/s PCIe (I found this card recommended in the VSL forum some years back)


Great! That's what I wanted to hear.  I was really hoping, I would not need a really expensive card! Are you using a subnet for each PC or are the Mac Pro and the PCs just connected to the switch?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 7, 2017)

You want all the VEPro computers on the same subnet... I'm not sure why you'd have each computer on a different subnet... that makes no sense.


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 7, 2017)

marclawsonmusic said:


> You want all the VEPro computers on the same subnet... I'm not sure why you'd have each computer on a different subnet... that makes no sense.


Yes, it does! You use one Ethernet controller per slave PC and create a subnet for each one. I have tested this and I could connect the from each PC two instances with 16 stereo channels each. Do you reach that number of audio channels with only one network?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 7, 2017)

Maybe we are talking about two different things, but I was referring to subnet in classic IP routing terms...

You mentioned having two instances of VEPro on one computer, and I don't know how to do that. I can only create one instance of VEPro. Maybe it is an advanced feature if you have more than 1 network adapter?

In terms of stereo pairs, I have about 30 per computer (so 60 total). 

Maybe something is getting lost in translation, but you seem happy with your approach. And you seem to have more knowledge than me, so I wish you good luck!


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 8, 2017)

Marc, I don't think, I have more knowledge than you do, as these are just tips I got from people with more knowledge (than both of us). This one was from Cristian Marin again, so I suppose it should be legit! I cannot find it ATM, but it was here on VI Control, where he proposed the idea of using a dedicated ethernet port (and controller) on the master PC for each slave PC, using a seperate subnet for each slave. I hope I did get that right. cm is here on the forum from time to time, if I remember correctly, so maybe he could chime in? I tried to write a PM to him on VSL, but - guess what! His mailbox is full and he does not receive mail. I can hardly imagine, why this would be the case ...


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 8, 2017)

stonzthro said:


> So you are having problems with your current setup?


No, except for one of the slave PCs that does not get Internet connection reliably using the subnet for internet on the second ethernet port (onboard). So, this could be related to the onboard controller ... other than that, I just want to see, how far the performance can be boosted. And right now, I have problems to set up the network up, as it was before I did a new installation of Mac OS on the master! Damn, I should have written down the exact configuration!  it worked on the older OS, though!


----------



## stonzthro (Mar 8, 2017)

FriFlo said:


> No, except for one of the slave PCs that does not get Internet connection reliably using the subnet for internet on the second ethernet port (onboard). So, this could be related to the onboard controller ... other than that, I just want to see, how far the performance can be boosted. And right now, I have problems to set up the network up, as it was before I did a new installation of Mac OS on the master! Damn, I should have written down the exact configuration!  it worked on the older OS, though!


Got it - please report back if these changes improve your performance - I am certainly interested in hearing how it goes!


----------



## urz (Mar 8, 2017)

Sorry, I just realized that I gave you my old specs...

I actually had some problem with the switch setup. (Some confusion with the ad hoc network – sometimes losing connection, etc.) The solution was to use a dedicated router. I bought a Cisco RV130. This router just handles VEP (no internet, etc.) for all computers. On one subnet.

So this is my actual Mac/Win VEP setup:

A separate network for VEP via a router (I use Cisco RV130)
Mac Pro - Built In Ethernet
All Win Slaves - Intel Gigabit PRO/1000 CT 1 Gbit/s PCIe (I found this card recommended in the VSL forum some years back)


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 8, 2017)

FriFlo said:


> I cannot find it ATM, but it was here on VI Control, where he proposed the idea of using a dedicated ethernet port (and controller) on the master PC for each slave PC, using a seperate subnet for each slave.



Wow, that is an intense setup. Yes, running a separate NIC for each connection to a slave is indeed setting up 4 separate subnets - so now I understand what you are saying. This would provide the maximum possible throughput, but would also require the most configuration.

I imagine this setup could meet some very high-end requirements - like 96K in full surround at low latency. For my needs it is definitely overkill.

But, how cool is it that VEPro can scale to that level? It's still one of the coolest pieces of software I've ever seen / used.


----------



## wcreed51 (Mar 8, 2017)

You don't need a router for the VEP network if you use fixed IPs. Maybe you mean switch?


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 8, 2017)

urz said:


> Sorry, I just realized that I gave you my old specs...
> 
> I actually had some problem with the switch setup. (Some confusion with the ad hoc network – sometimes losing connection, etc.) The solution was to use a dedicated router. I bought a Cisco RV130. This router just handles VEP (no internet, etc.) for all computers. On one subnet.
> 
> ...





wcreed51 said:


> You don't need a router for the VEP network if you use fixed IPs. Maybe you mean switch?


Yes, that was my thinking as well ... I don't know why you would use a router for the VEpro network?
What configuration are you using, Urz? What is connected to what? And what is your exact IP configuration?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 8, 2017)

FriFlo said:


> Yes, that was my thinking as well ... I don't know why you would use a router for the VEpro network?



If you want to use DHCP to auto-assign IP addresses or if the router is connected to another network (e.g. your main internet link).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 8, 2017)

I use the router because it routes internet to all my machines (not that I use more than one slave these days).


----------



## urz (Mar 8, 2017)

FriFlo said:


> Yes, that was my thinking as well ... I don't know why you would use a router for the VEpro network?
> What configuration are you using, Urz? What is connected to what? And what is your exact IP configuration?



In my setup all computers have two networks. One for only VEP (with fixed IP’s), and one for internet, etc. (also with fixed IP’s).

When you connect two computers directly (or two or more via a switch) there is nothing that oversees the communication. It’s an ad hoc network. In most cases this is not a big problem. But there is a lot of information floating around over the network that can disturb, slow down or suddenly end the communication (like negotiation, sensing, file sharing, bonjour services, etc.). MacOS and Windows also handle things a little differently, and they don’t always agree.

After a lot of troubleshooting (how these things are managed by the computers can suddenly change with OS updates, and with program installations and updates) I got tired of this. So I got a proper router for the VEP network. And after that my experience is that the VEP networking now is faster and very stable. No more problems. The router keeps the ducks in a row.

The Cisco router is set up to be as efficient as possible at IP 192.168.1.1. And the computers have fixed IP’s: 192.168.1.101, 192.168.1.102, 192.168.1.103, etc.

I’ve been using VEP between Mac and Win since 2010. I always used to be a little nervous about the stability of the VEP networking when I got closer to a deadline. Sometimes you just don’t have the time to restart the computers... But after I got the router this feeling is gone. Almost  That’s probably why I, in my first reply, forgot that I don’t use a switch anymore...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 8, 2017)

How many computers are you guys using? I used to use a bunch of Pentium 4s, but I haven't turned those on in years. These days I only use one slave machine, and the only reason I even have that one is that a forum member was downsizing and it was a good opportunity to pick up a more modern Windows machine. Only nine years old.


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 8, 2017)

@urz: thanks for the update. I can relate to that, as I keep thinking about switching to hardware (Made cards) and midi over lan ... but at the moment, VEpro seems to get improved only for the network version. The standalone version doesn't have the tabs, which are a real bonus, as this makes template work way easier! If this would work for standalone and if there would be a virtual midi solution without compromises (all of the ones that exists sadly do), I would probably go that route, as the 3x64 mono channels to the master (RME Made FX) would be sufficient for me! 

@everyone interested: I made it work! And here is how ...
I have a router with an integrated 4-port switch (fritzBox 7390), a Mac Pro (Master) and two PCs (Slave 1 and 2).
There are three separate networks, two for audio (one for each slave, so they do not need to share bandwidth) and one for data, internet and whatever else you need.

*Audio-network 1 (Slave 1)*
Slave 1 connected via ethernet port 1 to Master ethernet port 1.
Config:
Master:
IP: 10.0.1.1
Subnet: 255.255.255.0
Slave 1:
IP: 10.0.1.2
Subnet: 255.255.255.0

*Audio-network 2 (Slave 2)*
Slave 2 connected via ethernet port 1 to Master ethernet port 2.
Config:
Master:
IP: 10.0.2.1
Subnet: 255.255.255.0
Slave 1:
IP: 10.0.2.2
Subnet: 255.255.255.0

*Data-network:*
Master (in my case via wifi, if you have enough ethernet controllers on your master, you could of course use ethernet here as well), Slaves (via ethernet port 2) and phone, tablets, etc ... connected to router.
Config:
Router (fritzBox):
IP: 182.150.178.1
Subnet: 255.255.255.0
DNS: 182.150.178.1
182.150.178.100 - 182.150.178.200 is reserved for DHCP on the router.

Both Slaves are connected to the router and have a fixed IP of 182.150.178.3 and 182.150.178.4, the Master is connected via wifi with the fixed IP of 182.150.178.2. All other settings identical to the routers settings!!! All other wifi devices use DHCP or static IP as the PCs, this can be done as you like it ...

Now, what I overlooked before to make it work, finally, is written in the very beginning of the VEpro manual, so don't forget that part: *You have to manually open 2 TCP and 4 UDP ports in the Windows firewall settings.* Just look it up in the manual! After that it will work! Even without file sharing properly working. For testing, you just need to send a "ping" from the Master to the slaves IP. If that responds, the VEpro connection WILL work.

I hope this may be of some use to others.


----------



## urz (Mar 8, 2017)

Even though I now mainly use VEP over LAN, I still have a VEP standalone setup via Lightpipe in place (64 channels). The VEP standalone setup has been super stable for many years. And I have not noticed any problems/compromises with my virtual midi solution. I use MolCp.

The biggest reason for me to use VEP over LAN is to avoid real time bounces.
The biggest reasons for me to not use VEP over LAN are stability and latency/processor issues.

Nice that you got your network setup working. But is it a good idea to have the same IP for both slaves? It could lead to some network confusion.

BTW: I usually turn the non VEP network off on the slaves when I don’t need internet access, etc. But when it’s on I’ve noticed that VEP advertises all instances over both networks. (Two entries of the same instance show up in the VEP plug-in window in my DAW, but with different IP’s.) So I guess I have what you have, sort of. But I don’t remember opening any extra TCP/UDP ports.


----------



## urz (Mar 8, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> How many computers are you guys using? I used to use a bunch of Pentium 4s, but I haven't turned those on in years. These days I only use one slave machine, and the only reason I even have that one is that a forum member was downsizing and it was a good opportunity to pick up a more modern Windows machine. Only nine years old.



My standard setup is two Win7 slaves. But I often use/need more. I like to distribute the workload, so I don’t really understand the concept behind downsizing


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 8, 2017)

urz said:


> Nice that you got your network setup working. But is it a good idea to have the same IP for both slaves? It could lead to some network confusion.


Silly me! I just forgot to edit that! No, it is two different IPs, of course. I corrected that now.



> I usually turn the non VEP network off on the slaves when I don’t need internet access, etc. But when it’s on I’ve noticed that VEP advertises all instances over both networks. (Two entries of the same instance show up in the VEP plug-in window in my DAW, but with different IP’s.) So I guess I have what you have, sort of. But I don’t remember opening any extra TCP/UDP ports.


I suppose, it is because you use the router, that is forwarding the IPs of you VEpro network. With those firewall settings from the manual you probably won't even need the router. If there are more than 2 slaves, a switch will do it. I was also quite happy, that with this new setup, only the IPs of the VEpro network(s) show up in Cubase. But after I spend some time in those windows firewall settings, I am pretty sure you can achieve the same thing with excluding this IP there for VEpro ... can't check that, as my data-network IP is connected via wifi and does not show up in the VEpro plugin. Maybe this could make your life easier?!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 8, 2017)

urz, with 64GB of RAM and 12 cores in one machine - and now SSDs - I don't really have a lot of overflow. The guy who downsized the PC (quad core i7, 28GB) I bought from him was in a similar position.

When this started, one machine could load 1.5GB if you pushed it!

I know you know that, but it's worth emphasizing how far this has come since the Giga days.


----------



## urz (Mar 8, 2017)

FriFlo said:


> I suppose, it is because you use the router, that is forwarding the IPs of you VEpro network. With those firewall settings from the manual you probably won't even need the router. If there are more than 2 slaves, a switch will do it. I was also quite happy, that with this new setup, only the IPs of the VEpro network(s) show up in Cubase. But after I spend some time in those windows firewall settings, I am pretty sure you can achieve the same thing with excluding this IP there for VEpro ... can't check that, as my data-network IP is connected via wifi and does not show up in the VEpro plugin. Maybe this could make your life easier?!



I don’t really understand... I didn’t mean that this was a problem. I just meant to say that I ”by accident” have two parallel VEP networks running when my ”non VEP network” is enabled. So I could right now distribute my VEP slaves over two parallel networks. Like you described.

But my intention is not to do that. It’s to use one network/router dedicated for only VEP networking, and one network/router for internet, etc. So if I forget to disable the ”non VEP network” on a slave and I then see VEP instances from this network in the VEP plugin in my DAW, I just ignore them. (I don’t want the slaves exposed to the internet so I rarely have the ”non VEP network” enabled.)

The need for a router with VEP is not related to this. I could do the above with a switch. The purpose of using a router with VEP is to avoid the network problems that can occur with a direct connection or a switch, and make the network itself (and therefore VEP) more efficient and more stable.

I’ve probably tried every suggestion of different network settings I found at the VSL forum over the years. And with many different VEP-versions, OS’s and computers. The thing that finally made me trust VEP over LAN was when I started using a dedicated router. Ducks in a row...


----------



## urz (Mar 8, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> urz, with 64GB of RAM and 12 cores in one machine - and now SSDs - I don't really have a lot of overflow. The guy who downsized the PC (quad core i7, 28GB) I bought from him was in a similar position.
> 
> When this started, one machine could load 1.5GB if you pushed it!
> 
> I know you know that, but it's worth emphasizing how far this has come since the Giga days.



Yes. And I’m still mad at Tascam for dropping the ball 

But we’re spoiled. The first week after you installed a PCIe SSD you’re amazed by the speed. The second week you think it’s normal. The third week...


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 8, 2017)

urz said:


> I’ve probably tried every suggestion of different network settings I found at the VSL forum over the years. And with many different VEP-versions, OS’s and computers. The thing that finally made me trust VEP over LAN was when I started using a dedicated router. Ducks in a row...



One of the things a router does is name resolution on the local network. I imagine a lot of the strange behavior you saw (with a switch) was due to name resolution problems (timeouts), which go away when there is a 'traffic cop' to respond to those requests.

I forgot that I had similar issues with my setup, but I resolved those with the HOSTS file on the Windows (slave) box. I was experiencing some timeouts and other strange things... and yes I did notice this more after OS updates. I'm sure it was some security tweak that prevented my computer from advertising on the network... or something like that.

Anyway, I am basically agreeing that a router is a good idea instead of a switch. It does take care of a lot of the low-level network plumbing and you can also skip the fixed IP address nonsense too.

Good thread.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 9, 2017)

Marc fixed my simple VEP setup in the course of a long phone call, and I'm never changing anything ever ever ever


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 9, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> Marc fixed my simple VEP setup in the course of a long phone call, and I'm never changing anything ever ever ever



I remember seeing that your rig had been down for several days. I felt bad for you, man!

Glad to have made a friend during the struggle.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 9, 2017)

That you did, mah man.


----------



## audiophobic (Mar 11, 2017)

Hey All, great thread - as well as being a long time VEPro user , for my day job I run and build networks and servers for an education foundation in the UK. Hopefully I can make a useful contribution to some of the issues raised here, without having to delve too deeply into TCP/IP black arts.... (and apologies for repeating some of the excellent recommendations already made)

Andy's top tips....
* Have any VEPro connected machines on their own physical network if at all possible
* Ideally completely separate from any internet facing wifi networks that may also be running on those machines
* Avoid DHCP with VEPro network connections -not only avoids the random re-assignment of addresses, but cuts down on unnecessary network chatter
* Always keep your fixed IPs on the *same subnet*
* When configuring the network connections for VEPro traffic leave the* default gateway and DNS* boxes *blank* - this will ensure that all traffic on the VEPro network never gets routed to the outside world (which is being dealt with by your home wifi/internet connection). And as you're only dealing in a small number of fixed IP addresses and no traffic on that network needs to resolve any host names, you don't need DNS.
* In addition I'd always recommend a good quality small gigabit switch over a router -especially if that router is also dealing with your internet connection. Remember the aim is to keep all VEPro traffic within the same subnet - a router (by definition) will be designed to route traffic from one network to another. An earlier poster commented that their Cisco router handled VEPro traffic better than their switch -in all likelihood this will be because the embedded switch in the Cisco router would have been of much higher quality than a cheap, "domestic" switch and would have dealt with framerates, ARP tables etc etc far more efficiently than a £30 entry level switch
* If possible purchase a switch that allows some degree of configuration - not necessarily a full-on ProCurve style managed device, but something with a basic web management that allows you to enable "Jumbo" frame-size of your network traffic
* Finally, the OP was concerned about built-in network interfaces vs "proper" server NiCs (network interface cards): to be honest I've never really worried about this since all my music PCs motherboards had intel NiCs built-in, but I have seen evidence that some network chipsets can add to latency and cause drop-outs. You can certainly pay £00s for the intel Pro dual and multi-port cards (and I use these a lot in storage arrays), and these cards are designed to take a chunk of the network processing off the CPU onto themselves -but this assumes the application and OS can see and use this capacity. Maybe I need to run some trials to see if server-grade NiCs do make a difference here...

Anyway, hope this has been of some use!
Cheers
Andy


----------



## urz (Mar 11, 2017)

audiophobic said:


> Hey All, great thread - as well as being a long time VEPro user , for my day job I run and build networks and servers for an education foundation in the UK. Hopefully I can make a useful contribution to some of the issues raised here, without having to delve too deeply into TCP/IP black arts.... (and apologies for repeating some of the excellent recommendations already made)
> 
> Andy's top tips....
> * Have any VEPro connected machines on their own physical network if at all possible
> ...



Thanks for the info.

But what is your basis for recommending a switch over a router?

My experience is that when you use a router as a switch, the extra functionality of the router makes the networking more efficient and more stable. Especially in a mixed Mac/Win environment. The "traffic cop" functions, as Marc put it.

Even if one tries to keep the VEP network as clean and dedicated to VEP as it can be, there are still a lot of other things going on. One example is when you enable file sharing in MacOS. There is no way (that I know of) where this doesn't automatically apply to all active networks on the Mac. So the computers in the VEP network get unintentionally dragged in to a debate. And without a router this can lead to some confusion and performance issues with VEP.


----------



## audiophobic (Mar 13, 2017)

The key thing is that if it works for you and is stable, then go with it. But my here's my basis for recommending a switch over a router:

A router in it's purest form just routes traffic from one subnet to another and possibly applying firewalling or traffic shaping control (normally only be the case for higher end devices)
Since all VEPro traffic remains inside the one subnet, at no stage will it ever require routing elsewhere, thus a router in it's purest form is not necessary
The "traffic cop" functionality mentioned really depends on what additional features the router offers (such as traffic shaping) but most will, indeed offer DHCP and some form of local DNS (often referred to as WINS) which is normally a very basic way of associating IP addresses with the host-name of the machines on the network. Marc also mentions using the HOSTS file on a windows machine to accomplish much the same thing
However, regardless of whether you're using a router, switch or direct ethernet connection, if you've got your network interfaces set up correctly then you really shouldn't need to worry about matching host-names to IP addresses. Neither should this lack of functionality have an adverse effect on your VEPro traffic - which tells me that if you're suffering performance issues without it, something else may be going on here
Filesharing - there's no reason why you shouldn't use filesharing across the same subnet you've set up for VEPro. Enabling filesharing protocols (such as "File Sharing and Printer Management for Microsoft Networks" in Windows) shouldn't add much additional overhead to network performance and as long as you're not doing any file copying during VEPro use there won't be a problem
However, as you mention, the way in which OS-X works with filesharing, hostnames and local firewalls may well require somecareful thought - let me try and set up a quick mac-PC VEPro and filesharing test network and give it a deeper look
And finally, if you're only dealing with on "master" and one "slave" then a direct ethernet connection between the two machines, with no switch or router is all that's going to be needed
Andy


----------



## urz (Mar 14, 2017)

audiophobic said:


> The key thing is that if it works for you and is stable, then go with it. But my here's my basis for recommending a switch over a router:
> 
> A router in it's purest form just routes traffic from one subnet to another and possibly applying firewalling or traffic shaping control (normally only be the case for higher end devices)
> Since all VEPro traffic remains inside the one subnet, at no stage will it ever require routing elsewhere, thus a router in it's purest form is not necessary
> ...



Thanks.

No big deal, but I guess we have to agree to disagree 

There’re lots of moving parts in a modern DAW setup. And shit happens. Theory is one thing, but programming isn't always perfect, and network communication doesn't always behave as intended.

I think that anyone who uses VEP over LAN could find themselves in a situation where they would benefit from using a router, instead of a switch or a direct connection. A router like the Cisco RV130 is cheap, but a missed deadline due to networking issues could be very costly.

If there were any disadvantages to using a router as a switch per se, instead of a switch or a direct connection, I would think differently. But I haven't found anything other than it adds helpful functionality.


----------



## audiophobic (Mar 15, 2017)

urz said:


> Thanks.
> 
> No big deal, but I guess we have to agree to disagree
> 
> There’re lots of moving parts in a modern DAW setup. And shit happens. Theory is one thing, but programming isn't always perfect, and network communication doesn't always behave as intended.



Indeed. There're any number of things that can get in the way, from drivers to chipsets, to latency issues etc. If you've got a setup that helps you to make great music, then that's all that really matters.


----------



## JaikumarS (Jun 26, 2017)

marclawsonmusic said:


> One of the things a router does is name resolution on the local network. I imagine a lot of the strange behavior you saw (with a switch) was due to name resolution problems (timeouts), which go away when there is a 'traffic cop' to respond to those requests.
> 
> I forgot that I had similar issues with my setup, but I resolved those with the HOSTS file on the Windows (slave) box. I was experiencing some timeouts and other strange things... and yes I did notice this more after OS updates. I'm sure it was some security tweak that prevented my computer from advertising on the network... or something like that.
> 
> ...


Hello Marc, could you recommend a good Gigabit router? Thanks


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jun 26, 2017)

JaikumarS said:


> Hello Marc, could you recommend a good Gigabit router? Thanks



In my opinion, Cisco / Linksys is a reliable name brand. I don't know the latest models, but you don't need professional grade. I have been able to run VEPro with consumer grade hardware purchased from Best Buy and WalMart here in US.

All the best,
Marc


----------



## JaikumarS (Jun 26, 2017)

marclawsonmusic said:


> In my opinion, Cisco / Linksys is a reliable name brand. I don't know the latest models, but you don't need professional grade. I have been able to run VEPro with consumer grade hardware purchased from Best Buy and WalMart here in US.
> 
> All the best,
> Marc



That's great. Thank you Marc for writing back


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Jun 27, 2017)

urz said:


> For me, this works flawlessly under heavy load:
> 
> Separate network for VEP via a switch (I use Deltaco LAN 1005, it’s basic/stupid in the right way)
> Mac Pro - Built In Ethernet
> All Win Slaves - Intel Gigabit PRO/1000 CT 1 Gbit/s PCIe (I found this card recommended in the VSL forum some years back)


Also, using the Intel CT Desktop Card...works fine


----------



## larry777 (Sep 11, 2017)

urz said:


> Thanks.
> 
> No big deal, but I guess we have to agree to disagree
> 
> ...




Hi Urz , i have been through a lot of threads in the vienna forum and after a lot of research i am left with this last solution of yours. I am using only a slaved mac pro 5.1 on os10.8.5 to a pc windows 10. Firewall off, windows defender disabled at root, static ips on both machines , ethernet cable cat 6, 9000 jumbo data on both machines, same subnet etc.. Sometimes, when i start the session from scratch I am able to to have a very stable connection ,sometimes not. When i reopen a saved session the following day i go back to my continuous problem : the audio playing from instruments on vep goes off for 1 second and plays again for no regular time and off again ( it's like a drop off audio, this has happened since i connected the 2 computers slave-master 3 weeks ago. I was never able to get it steady for more than a day and as you say it's pretty stressfull in a work situation. Would buying this router be my last hope or solution ?


----------



## urz (Sep 15, 2017)

larry777 said:


> Hi Urz , i have been through a lot of threads in the vienna forum and after a lot of research i am left with this last solution of yours. I am using only a slaved mac pro 5.1 on os10.8.5 to a pc windows 10. Firewall off, windows defender disabled at root, static ips on both machines , ethernet cable cat 6, 9000 jumbo data on both machines, same subnet etc.. Sometimes, when i start the session from scratch I am able to to have a very stable connection ,sometimes not. When i reopen a saved session the following day i go back to my continuous problem : the audio playing from instruments on vep goes off for 1 second and plays again for no regular time and off again ( it's like a drop off audio, this has happened since i connected the 2 computers slave-master 3 weeks ago. I was never able to get it steady for more than a day and as you say it's pretty stressfull in a work situation. Would buying this router be my last hope or solution ?



Hello Larry,

Hard to say what causes your problem, and if a router would help you. But you could always try and see if it makes any difference. Besides the router thing, I remember changing a lot of other settings in Windows. I don’t remember exactly what I did, but can try to find a list of all the changes I made. I think however that the source for the most of them was the VSL forum…


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 15, 2017)

larry777 said:


> I am using only a slaved mac pro 5.1 on os10.8.5



Without reading the thread, that right there is a red flag. I'd suggest trying a startup drive with the latest macOS on it.

VSL isn't likely to test VE Pro with OSes that old.


----------



## larry777 (Sep 15, 2017)

Thank you Nick for the reply, I actually have done that on a partition 10.12 sierra and didn't change the problem.
In my case the culprit seems to be the internet connection messing with the vep network so i completely disabled the 2nd ethernet connection( internet ) and i can work on music , already very good .


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 15, 2017)

Ah, okay. Sorry, sounds like you're well ahead of me.


----------

