# Slow TiVo - TiVo transfers



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

We recently added a Premiere to our network of two existing Series 2 TiVos. The Permiere updated the TiVo software when I did the initial setup, so I suspect it has the latest version, although I didn't check to see what the version was.

Transferring programs from the Series 2 TiVos is extremely slow... 6+ hours to transfer a 2 hour movie.

All three systems are hard wired to a 1Gb/Sec switch. Transfers between the two Series 2 systems are normal, and typically transfer at about 2x (i.e., a 1 hour program will transfer in 30-ish minutes).

When the Premiere connects to the TiVo service for updates, it seems like those sessions complete in a reasonable amount of time.

Any ideas what could be causing the slow transfer speeds? Does the Premiere perhaps transcode programs from one format to another?


----------



## ThAbtO (Apr 6, 2000)

Try rebooting your router. It may be the Series 2 that is slowing down the transfers. I get about 2mbs on my S2, and 5-7mbs on the T-HD. Both are on Wireless G.


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

ThAbtO said:


> Try rebooting your router. It may be the Series 2 that is slowing down the transfers. I get about 2mbs on my S2, and 5-7mbs on the T-HD. Both are on Wireless G.


None of my TiVos are on wireless... they're all hard wired. They don't hit the router either, they're connected to a 1Gb/sec switch.

Transfers between the S2 units continue to proceed at a normal pace.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

d-dub said:


> Does the Premiere perhaps transcode programs from one format to another?


I wonder.

We know that the Premiere makes files available in TS (transport stream) and PS (program stream) formats.
TivoHD (Series 3) and earlier Tivos only have the PS format.

Access your Premiere via the built in web server and find a show transferred from the S2. Does it show a TS file available for download?

If so, I wonder if the Premiere adding the TS file is causing the slowdown?

Just speculation on my part.


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

steve614 said:


> I wonder.
> 
> We know that the Premiere makes files available in TS (transport stream) and PS (program stream) formats.
> TivoHD (Series 3) and earlier Tivos only have the PS format.
> ...


Each program has a PS and a TS file, apparently it is transcoding the files. I wonder if that feature can be turned off? It takes a danged long time to transfer programs!


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

d-dub said:


> Each program has a PS and a TS file, apparently it is transcoding the files. I wonder if that feature can be turned off? It takes a danged long time to transfer programs!


TiVo to TiVo transfers would not be transcoding, or even TiVo to PC, for that matter. The difference between PS and TS is the _container_ the audio and video are carried in. From what I understand (read it here somewhere on the forums), the audio and video are _not_ wrapped in a container when doing TiVo to TiVo transfers. It is also my understanding that all Series of TiVo DVRs use mpeg-2 video with AC3 audio; it's just the resolution that excludes (some) transfers between the different models (you can't transfer an HD video from a Series 3 to a Series 2, for example).


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

orangeboy said:


> TiVo to TiVo transfers would not be transcoding, or even TiVo to PC, for that matter. The difference between PS and TS is the _container_ the audio and video are carried in. From what I understand (read it here somewhere on the forums), the audio and video are _not_ wrapped in a container when doing TiVo to TiVo transfers. It is also my understanding that all Series of TiVo DVRs use mpeg-2 video with AC3 audio; it's just the resolution that excludes (some) transfers between the different models (you can't transfer an HD video from a Series 3 to a Series 2, for example).


All I know is that it takes more than an hour to transfer a 30 minute program from s2-->premiere, and about 15 minutes to transfer the same program from s2-->s2.


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

Ugh.... I emailed TiVo support about this problem. The first response suggested I turn off HD menus. HD menus have never been enabled.

I absolutely can't believe that the second response included the following:



> To start out with. We do not support Ethernet switches, hubs, electrical outlet relay Ethernet systems, or any networking devices other than 'Routers'. They create too many variables, and can give you different results.


I can't believe that the support person would blame the switch :down:

They wanted me to disconnect the switch and hook the TiVos up directly to the router 

My response included the fact that my router has only a single port, and if it had more than one, that would mean that it had an Ethernet switch inside. Sheesh! I also reminded them that switches have been standard in the network industry for decades.

It almost felt like I was talking to AT&T tech support 

I hope my response wasn't too snarky, but it's just silly to say that they don't support Ethernet switches.


----------



## ThAbtO (Apr 6, 2000)

d-dub said:


> My response included the fact that my router has only a single port, and if it had more than one, that would mean that it had an Ethernet switch inside.


Guess its time to upgrade to a 4-port router.


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

Some additional information from some testing I did tonight:

The two S2 units are a Humax DRT800 and a TCD649080 (dual tuner S2)... and of course the Premier. Here are transfer times for a 30 minute program between the units:

TCD ==> Premier: 11 minutes
TCD ==> DRT: 12 minutes
DRT ==> TCD: 28 minutes
DRT ==> Premier: > 60 minutes

So this confirms that it's probably not a network issue, since the TCD ==> DRT transfer took only 11 minutes. It's roughly twice that time to transfer the other way, and more than 4 times longer to transfer from the DRT to the Premiere. The DRT unit is the oldest of the three, and easily the slowest. It's also a DVD burner model, which means it records in a different format than the other S2. I'm guessing that's the root of this issue.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

what about going from the Premiere to the older models. Are those transfers also slow?

have you changed out the ethernet cable? changed ports on the switch?

A bad wire pair or pins, can make the ethernet connection drop down to 10mb/s instead of the normal 100mb/s connection.


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> what about going from the Premiere to the older models. Are those transfers also slow?
> 
> have you changed out the ethernet cable? changed ports on the switch?
> 
> A bad wire pair or pins, can make the ethernet connection drop down to 10mb/s instead of the normal 100mb/s connection.


I didn't test transfers from the Premiere because I don't really plan on doing that. The Premiere is on our main TV, the other TiVos are uses as additional tuners to record shows when scheduling conflicts occur.

I don't think it's a network issue, since I can transfer programs *to* the DTR800 at reasonable speeds, and from the DTR800 to the other S2 Tivo in less than real time. The only real issue is from the DTR800 to the Premiere, which is worse than twice real time.


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

So the latest message from TiVo support is suggesting that the reason for the slow transfers is that my TiVos are too far apart. Sigh.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

So you have verified that the cable and ports are fine? Those are two common things that can screw with networks speeds.
Speed problems we have at work are usually related to those two things.


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> So you have verified that the cable and ports are fine? Those are two common things that can screw with networks speeds.
> Speed problems we have at work are usually related to those two things.


Check post #10 above. I can transfer programs into the DRT at about 1/2 real time (< 15 minutes for a 30 minute program), so I know that the network is functioning properly. The only real problem is from the DRT800 to the Premier. The Premier is plugged into the same network port that another TiVo used for years with no issues.

It sure would be nice to be able to log into the TiVo and check the error logs and network interface statistics!

But whatever the issue is, I can guarantee you that it's not because the TiVos are too far apart


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

What does Premiere report the transfer speed as?


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

curiousgeorge said:


> What does Premiere report the transfer speed as?


If Premiere has the ability to report transfer speed, I don't know how to get to that information. Is that available via the menus?


----------



## ThAbtO (Apr 6, 2000)

Go to the settings menu where you would find "tivo connection" as one of the items, it should be the 1 at the bottom.


----------



## mbklein (Oct 24, 2000)

Have you tried swapping the Premiere with one of the S2s at the router? You might have a bad port. If it persists, try swapping out the Premiere's Ethernet cable.

Never mind. I was apparently behind by a few posts when I replied.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

d-dub said:


> If Premiere has the ability to report transfer speed, I don't know how to get to that information. Is that available via the menus?


Settings -> Network and Phone -> View Network Diagnostics -> Transfer History

I'd reboot to clear the history so you can isolate JUST the instance you want to test without the others you've already done being averaged in.


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

Transfers from the TCD TiVo to the premiere run at just over 10 Mb/sec. Transfers from the DTR to the Premiere run at about 2.5 Mb.sec. Which isn't a surprise given the relative time it takes to transfer a 30 minute program.

I tried swapping out the USB Ethernet adapter on the DTR, but that had no effect on the transfer rate.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

d-dub said:


> Transfers from the TCD TiVo to the premiere run at just over 10 Mb/sec. Transfers from the DTR to the Premiere run at about 2.5 Mb.sec. Which isn't a surprise given the relative time it takes to transfer a 30 minute program.
> 
> I tried swapping out the USB Ethernet adapter on the DTR, but that had no effect on the transfer rate.


Static IPs? Dynamic?


----------



## stlarenas (Sep 17, 2005)

curiousgeorge said:


> Static IPs? Dynamic?


Would that make a difference? I have two tivos Ethernet connected to my router that transfer from the PC incredibly slow...

read my thread here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=463946

I even swapped out a different router and have the same issue.

I actually have given up and am regretting upgrading to the Premiere last month because I really expected that to solve my issue. I have all of my movie collection sitting on my PC, and no practical way to get it to my tivo.

Though unlike the OP I don't have any issue transferring from my Series2 tivo to my Premiere...or visa versa.


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

curiousgeorge said:


> Static IPs? Dynamic?


Static.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

stlarenas said:


> Would that make a difference? I have two tivos Ethernet connected to my router that transfer from the PC incredibly slow...
> 
> read my thread here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=463946
> 
> ...


I recommend Static IPs wherever possible because with DHCP you can get unintended conflicts. If you've assigned the IP addresses manually and keep track of them (I have a spreadsheet I update when a new device is added or removed, and I assign the numbers within blocks of 20 assigned to types of devices) it's much harder to get an IP conflict to happen. There's also other weirdness than can happen within DHCP, so I just avoid it entirely.

Why not get a Patriot Box office for your movie streaming? It can be had as low as $40 AR and really rocks. We've had about 8 different streaming boxes, and it's my favorite thus far, beating out the 6x more expensive Popcorn Hour.


----------



## mbklein (Oct 24, 2000)

I'm surprised to hear reports of DHCP conflicts on a home network. I've configured and used DHCP in a wide variety of settings from home to enterprise, and the only conflicts I've ever had were with devices that were wrongly configured with static IPs. Static IP assignment has its uses, of course, but I would find the system you described unbearably tedious, especially when I allow guests onto my network.

I'm also not sure what "other weirdness" means. DHCP a solid protocol that takes a lot of pain and hassle out of manual network configuration.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

With 30-odd devices that need IP addresses and a fair number that need port forwarding and other stuff, it was just easiest for me to absolutely know what is where. I have DHCP available in a small 20 IP range for guests, but the network enabled devices all get static IPs.



mbklein said:


> I'm surprised to hear reports of DHCP conflicts on a home network. I've configured and used DHCP in a wide variety of settings from home to enterprise, and the only conflicts I've ever had were with devices that were wrongly configured with static IPs. Static IP assignment has its uses, of course, but I would find the system you described unbearably tedious, especially when I allow guests onto my network.
> 
> I'm also not sure what "other weirdness" means. DHCP a solid protocol that takes a lot of pain and hassle out of manual network configuration.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

curiousgeorge said:


> With 30-odd devices that need IP addresses...


----------



## stlarenas (Sep 17, 2005)

I think I need a networking for dummies book.

Whenever I try to set up static dns numbers on my router configuration page I lose access to the internet on my pc all together


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

stlarenas said:


> I think I need a networking for dummies book.
> 
> Whenever I try to set up static dns numbers on my router configuration page I lose access to the internet on my pc all together


DNS and Static IP are different. Static IP is the "address" of that network device on your network or the internet. DNS is the address of the server that will "translate" names (google.com, yahoo.com, whatever) of websites into IP numbers so your computer can connect. For example, there are many possible IP addresses for GOOGLE, but if you type http://74.125.127.93/ you'll end up at google, too, just like you types google.com because in the background, your computer is looking up an IP address on a DNS server to connect to the google computer. You make connections by number, not name, and DNS provides the number.

For DNS, I use 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 and leave the third one whatever the ISP default is.

Is your PC set to use the routers DNS settings, or does it have its own DNS settings?


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

steve614 said:


>


With multiple kids with XBOX, Playstation, etc, Slingboxes, Premieres, computers, media streaming boxes, ipads, etc those IPs add up *quick*.


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

It's easy to have IP conflicts if you manually configure static IP addresses on some devices, and incorrectly configure dynamic DHCP for other hosts.

Rather then manually configure IP addresses, I configure all devices to use DHCP, and then statically assign IP address via my DHCP server. That way, I have all of the IP addresses configured in one place (less chance for errors), I can change options like DNS server addresses from that central location, and every device gets updated with the new configuration when they renew their DHCP lease.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

d-dub said:


> It's easy to have IP conflicts if you manually configure static IP addresses on some devices, and incorrectly configure dynamic DHCP for other hosts.
> 
> Rather then manually configure IP addresses, I configure all devices to use DHCP, and then statically assign IP address via my DHCP server. That way, I have all of the IP addresses configured in one place (less chance for errors), I can change options like DNS server addresses from that central location, and every device gets updated with the new configuration when they renew their DHCP lease.


How do you assign specific IPs to specific machines via your DHCP server? MAC addresses?


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

curiousgeorge said:


> How do you assign specific IPs to specific machines via your DHCP server? MAC addresses?


For ISC dhcpd (other DHCP software may differ):

```
host palpatine {
        hardware ethernet 00:40:ca:31:7e:d2;
        fixed-address 192.168.1.50;
}
```


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

d-dub said:


> For ISC dhcpd (other DHCP software may differ):
> 
> ```
> host palpatine {
> ...


Right, so you're using mac addresses to consistently assign the IPs. Got it. I'll have to look into it. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## mbklein (Oct 24, 2000)

curiousgeorge said:


> Right, so you're using mac addresses to consistently assign the IPs. Got it. I'll have to look into it. Thanks for the tip.


Yeah, that's how I do it on my network, too. All assignments are through DHCP, with dynamic IPs for most machines, and static leases for machines that require consistent addresses.

My system actually let's me configure the range in one place and assign static offsets. So if I change the range (which I had to do because of a conflict with a work VPN address range) everything automatically just shifts itself to the same relative position within the new range on lease renewal, and all the port forwarding directives shift themselves, too.


----------



## mbklein (Oct 24, 2000)

curiousgeorge said:


> For DNS, I use 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 and leave the third one whatever the ISP default is.


Do you realize that by doing this, you may be harming your download and streaming speeds for content hosted on edge delivery networks? (I used to use OpenDNS, until I figured this out while troubleshooting a Netflix streaming issue.) YouTube, Netflix, and just about every other high-bandwidth content provider on the Internet replicates its content to sites around the world, and uses DNS resolution _based on the address of the requesting name server_ to point you to the closest one.

For example, I just played a video on YouTube. Using Chrome's Developer Tools, I discovered that the content was streaming from a server called v12.lscache1.c.youtube.com.

Let's find out its IP address according to my ISP's default DNS server, and the public server you mentioned:


```
acomp-mbklein-01-mbp:~ mbklein$ nslookup v12.lscache1.c.youtube.com
Server:		68.87.76.182
Address:	68.87.76.182#53

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:	v12.lscache1.c.youtube.com
Address: 208.117.232.26

acomp-mbklein-01-mbp:~ mbklein$ nslookup v12.lscache1.c.youtube.com 4.2.2.2
Server:		4.2.2.2
Address:	4.2.2.2#53

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:	v12.lscache1.c.youtube.com
Address: 173.194.29.12
```
Two different IP addresses for the same content, returned by two different name servers. Both are correct, and a reverse lookup shows that both IPs are owned by Google, but the one resolved by my ISP's DNS is almost definitely topologically closer to me, and will stream faster than the one resolved by 4.2.2.2. (One of them is ping-blocked, so I can't use ping or traceroute to get a reliable metric.)

But here's another example, using Adobe's trial software download site:


```
acomp-mbklein-01-mbp:~ mbklein$ nslookup trials.adobe.com
Server:		68.87.76.182
Address:	68.87.76.182#53

Non-authoritative answer:
trials.adobe.com	canonical name = trials.adobe.com.edgesuite.net.
trials.adobe.com.edgesuite.net	canonical name = a1326.g.akamai.net.
Name:	a1326.g.akamai.net
Address: 184.84.222.25
Name:	a1326.g.akamai.net
Address: 184.84.222.57

acomp-mbklein-01-mbp:~ mbklein$ nslookup trials.adobe.com 4.2.2.2
Server:		4.2.2.2
Address:	4.2.2.2#53

Non-authoritative answer:
trials.adobe.com	canonical name = trials.adobe.com.edgesuite.net.
trials.adobe.com.edgesuite.net	canonical name = a1326.g.akamai.net.
Name:	a1326.g.akamai.net
Address: 63.233.60.32
Name:	a1326.g.akamai.net
Address: 63.233.60.72
```
In this case, using traceroute, I can tell that the first result (resolved by my ISP's name server) is 8 hops away -- 7 Comcast routers and 1 Akamai node located at 529 Bryant St. in Palo Alto, just a few miles from me. (Say what you want about Comcast -- their edge router names make it _very_ easy to tell where they are geographically.) Very important to note is that the final Comcast router and the Akamai server are in the same data center -- I get my content without ever leaving my ISP's network.

The second result (resolved by 4.2.2.2) is 12 hops away, and crosses two other non-Comcast backbone routers before terminating at an Akamai server with a Qwest IP address that appears to be in Denver. Ping times to the Qwest address are about 20% slower than ping times to the IP in Palo Alto.

Pretty easy to see which is going to deliver content more efficiently.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

This thread has unexpectedly turned into a goldmine of great information for me, thanks.

I initially made the change to 4.2.2.1 years ago because charters DNS were flaky and had resolution issues that I was fed up with. I tried google's DNS but they were horribly slow, so I went back to 4.2.2.1. We don't stream a lot of video outside our own home network (media servers), but this is definitely something to think about for the future. Maybe I'll give charter's DNS a shot again and see if they've cleaned up their act.

Thanks again.



mbklein said:


> Do you realize that by doing this, you may be harming your download and streaming speeds for content hosted on edge delivery networks? (I used to use OpenDNS, until I figured this out while troubleshooting a Netflix streaming issue.) YouTube, Netflix, and just about every other high-bandwidth content provider on the Internet replicates its content to sites around the world, and uses DNS resolution _based on the address of the requesting name server_ to point you to the closest one.
> 
> For example, I just played a video on YouTube. Using Chrome's Developer Tools, I discovered that the content was streaming from a server called v12.lscache1.c.youtube.com.
> 
> ...


----------



## stlarenas (Sep 17, 2005)

curiousgeorge said:


> DNS and Static IP are different. Static IP is the "address" of that network device on your network or the internet. DNS is the address of the server that will "translate" names (google.com, yahoo.com, whatever) of websites into IP numbers so your computer can connect. For example, there are many possible IP addresses for GOOGLE, but if you type http://74.125.127.93/ you'll end up at google, too, just like you types google.com because in the background, your computer is looking up an IP address on a DNS server to connect to the google computer. You make connections by number, not name, and DNS provides the number.
> 
> For DNS, I use 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 and leave the third one whatever the ISP default is.
> 
> Is your PC set to use the routers DNS settings, or does it have its own DNS settings?


Thanks for that...I think I got it now.

I was able to assign static IP's to the tivos in the routers settings using their MAC addresses.

I didn't mess with the DNS settings...so I guess they are just set with the default?

Still didn't solve my slow transfer problem...but at least I'm learning something.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

For what it's worth, the router (BEFSR41) my cable modem plugs into is set to 192.168.1.1

I've got a wireless router (WRT54G) set to 192.168.1.2

I've got a piece of CAT5 running from hole #4 on one to hole #4 on the other.

I've got an S1 with a Turbo card, one S2 DT, and the computer running Tivo Desktop plugged into the other three holes on the wireless, another S2 DT in another room connecting to it via the TiVo "G" wireless adapter, and two other Windows computers connnected to the '41.

All have static IP.

I tell all 3 computers and both S2s that DNS is 192.168.1.1 and everything works fine.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

mbklein said:


> I'm surprised to hear reports of DHCP conflicts on a home network. I've configured and used DHCP in a wide variety of settings from home to enterprise, and the only conflicts I've ever had were with devices that were wrongly configured with static IPs. Static IP assignment has its uses, of course, but I would find the system you described unbearably tedious, especially when I allow guests onto my network.
> 
> I'm also not sure what "other weirdness" means. DHCP a solid protocol that takes a lot of pain and hassle out of manual network configuration.


I have around seventy devices on my home network. 24 devices get their IP by DHCP reservation and the rest get assigned automatically. My Dlink routers have never had any issues.


----------

