Vero 4k Asus gigabit ethernet adapter

[Swayde]

Hi
I just wanted to confirm that the gigabit adapter you get with some Asus zenbooks works with the vero 4k out of the box.
The below tests are run from the vero 4k to a server. There are several gigabit switches in the signal path.
The first run is from server to client, which is the importatnt one. There is no signigificant cpu usage, iperf3 uses 10% or so. The kernel overhead is ~2.5% cpu (if im reading the output of top correctly sy goes from .5 to ~3).
Note that the fast transfer is from the server to the vero 4k, which is what i’m worried about- and it’s well above the max for 4k bd, which is 128mbit.

osmc@osmc-Vivian:~$ iperf3 -c 192.168.0.3 -R
Connecting to host 192.168.0.3, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 192.168.0.3 is sending
[  4] local 192.168.0.136 port 42925 connected to 192.168.0.3 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  38.6 MBytes   324 Mbits/sec
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  38.6 MBytes   324 Mbits/sec
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  38.6 MBytes   324 Mbits/sec
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  38.7 MBytes   324 Mbits/sec
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  38.6 MBytes   324 Mbits/sec
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  38.4 MBytes   322 Mbits/sec
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  38.8 MBytes   326 Mbits/sec
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  38.6 MBytes   324 Mbits/sec
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  38.6 MBytes   324 Mbits/sec
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  38.6 MBytes   324 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   387 MBytes   324 Mbits/sec   42             sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   386 MBytes   324 Mbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.
osmc@osmc-Vivian:~$ iperf3 -c 192.168.0.3
Connecting to host 192.168.0.3, port 5201
[  4] local 192.168.0.136 port 42929 connected to 192.168.0.3 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr  Cwnd
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  22.8 MBytes   191 Mbits/sec    0    259 KBytes
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  22.2 MBytes   187 Mbits/sec    0    264 KBytes
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  22.2 MBytes   186 Mbits/sec    0    277 KBytes
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  22.1 MBytes   185 Mbits/sec    0    298 KBytes
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  22.0 MBytes   185 Mbits/sec    0    308 KBytes
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  22.0 MBytes   184 Mbits/sec    0    308 KBytes
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  22.2 MBytes   186 Mbits/sec    0    318 KBytes
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  22.3 MBytes   187 Mbits/sec    0    318 KBytes
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  22.1 MBytes   185 Mbits/sec    0    318 KBytes
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  22.7 MBytes   190 Mbits/sec    0    484 KBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   222 MBytes   187 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   221 MBytes   185 Mbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.
osmc@osmc-Vivian:~$


This is the output from dmesg when it's plugged in:
[  983.147973] usb 1-2: new high-speed USB device number 4 using xhci-hcd
[  983.288447] usb 1-2: New USB device found, idVendor=0bda, idProduct=8153
[  983.288460] usb 1-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=6
[  983.288465] usb 1-2: Product: USB 10/100/1000 LAN
[  983.288471] usb 1-2: Manufacturer: Realtek
[  983.288476] usb 1-2: SerialNumber: 000001000000
[  983.457776] usb 1-2: reset high-speed USB device number 4 using xhci-hcd
[  983.457809] xhci-hcd xhci-hcd.0.auto: Setup ERROR: setup context command for slot 2.
[  983.628020] usb 1-2: reset high-speed USB device number 4 using xhci-hcd
[  983.628052] xhci-hcd xhci-hcd.0.auto: Setup ERROR: setup context command for slot 2.
[  983.748014] usb 1-2: reset high-speed USB device number 4 using xhci-hcd
[  983.768291] xhci-hcd xhci-hcd.0.auto: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep ffffffc0600dfe40
[  983.768305] xhci-hcd xhci-hcd.0.auto: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep ffffffc0600dfe80
[  983.768312] xhci-hcd xhci-hcd.0.auto: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep ffffffc0600dfec0
[  983.788390] r8152 1-2:1.0 eth1: v1.04.0 (2014/01/15)
[  983.789977] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth1: link is not ready
[  986.594633] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth1: link becomes ready

[Swayde]

The fastest bitrate file i can play with plex is the 120mbit jellyfish demo:
http://jell.yfish.us/
plex/kodi seems to max out at around 150mbit, which including overhead is just a bit too slow for the 140mbit files.

cache settings:

<advancedsettings>
<cache>
<buffermode>1</buffermode>
<memorysize>524880000</memorysize>
<readfactor>5.0</readfactor>
</cache>
</advancedsettings>

[TwentyWasHere]

@Swayde

plex/kodi seems to max out at around 150mbit, which including overhead is just a bit too slow for the 140mbit files.

As you mentioned, you are already exceeding the maximimum bluray specs, which ends at 109 Mbps for LTR zones (127.9MBps in HTR zones),for an MPEG-2 transport stream in general (meaning all overhead included). Video bitrate vor HEVC capped at 100Mbps (40Mbps for AVC).

For those you are interested in mode details: http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/Downloadablefile/BD-ROM_Part3_V3.0_WhitePaper_150724.pdf

[Swayde]

@TwentyWasHere

which ends at 109 Mbps for LTR zones (127.9MBps in HTR zones),for an MPEG-2 transport stream in general

It was mostly for fun. I’ll happly agree it’s academic at this point.
jell.yfish seems to have other specs:

@http://jell.yfish.us/

For Ultra HD (4K) Videos, it looks like the new BD spec calls for 10-Bit H.265 encoding and allows for a maximum bitrate of 128 Mbps. I’m not entirely sure whether this is just for video, audio and video combined, or the total allowable data transfer rate (audio, video, java, etc). It’s probably a safe bet that, if your media player can play the 140 Mbps Jellyfish File, you should be good to go for UHD rips.

Wikipedia lists 128 as max, but i’m seeing 144 as max in the document: (144 Mbps*1 Table 1.4.3.1)

Ultra HD Blu-ray

http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Assets/Downloadablefile/White_Paper_General_4th_20150817_clean.pdf

[TwentyWasHere]

@Swayde

Wikipedia lists 128 as max, but i’m seeing 144 as max in the document: (144 Mbps*1 Table 1.4.3.1)

That 144Mbit is the physical read speed players should at least have as a minimum. The document you linked is about BD Discs in General and and therefore what player need to do, not about the content in the transport stream that is supported.

Physical read speed in general needs to be higher of course as there is general file system IO, read errors and other stuff involved when accessing the media based on the available hardware. There’s always some 10%ish headroom usually.

See table 2-1 and onwards of: http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Assets/Downloadablefile/BD-ROM_Part3_V3.1_WhitePaper_160729_clean.pdf (linked an older version before, but same tables).

That document is the “Audio Visual Application Format Specifications” and usually the most interesting for us consumers to check some details if we are unsure.

When you stream a 100Mbit video stream with LPCM multi channel (or some DTS-HD) audio muxed into an MKV over your NAS and that works fine, you will never run into any issues with content as long as the stuff is properly mastered - and of course proper implementation in our hard and software.

If using images with MPEG2 transport streams inside, naturally you might need a bit more head room.

Network file system if properly setup (kernel mounts, though you can go without 'em) is of no real concern in the end. Anyone who as issues here has a general network problem. The overhead is just too small to play any role that Kodi with it’s subpar buffering cannot mitigate (you need to buffer anyway). But it only goes so far unless Team Kodi revisits the 1990s buffering they have in code.

if you add any additional transport layer like DLNA (never saw the reason why at all) - you might create an additional bottleneck though.

A decent 5GHz wireless (preferable AC) is all you need these days to be happy. 2.4GHz never cut it for me, even not with 1080p content. Though naturally a cable is more reliable if possible but not required. And with the Vero 4K even though it “only” supports 100Mbits you can always plug in an USB dongle if you feel the need to. But even on UHD BD content way above 60Mbps seems rare (triple layer discs are more expensive to make). Still a Gigabit port (well would interfere with USB I guess) would make more sense from a pure marketing point of view (saves a lot of explaining) - I personally do not care, my AC network with an old router is doing a great job.

I personally use a dedicated AC WIFI for Kodi to access my NAS . On that Wifi only video streaming takes place, though usually 1 or 2 Kodi clients ran max here at home (well, and the 2nd can be theoretically wired, but too lazy) - never tried if that network could support more.

[Nickelig]

can you tell me the chipset of that specific usb gigabit adapter? Realtek 8153 maybe?

edit: looking at the log in the first post, it indeed uses a RLT8153

[sam_nazarko]

@TwentyWasHere

Still a Gigabit port (well would interfere with USB I guess) would make more sense from a pure marketing point of view (saves a lot of explaining) - I personally do not care, my AC network with an old router is doing a great job.

This is unfortunately the only real issue. I get emails daily asking what Fast Ethernet is, and we lose a lot of sales from potential customers insisting that Gigabit Ethernet is absolutely necessary, even to watch 1080p content.

It still makes sense for us to stay at 100Mbps for the next couple of years; and 1000Mbps can cause problems with Flow Control.

Sam

[Smurphy]

@sam_nazarko

This is unfortunately the only real issue. I get emails daily asking what Fast Ethernet is, and we lose a lot of sales from potential customers insisting that Gigabit Ethernet is absolutely necessary, even to watch 1080p content.

It still makes sense for us to stay at 100Mbps for the next couple of years; and 1000Mbps can cause problems with Flow Control.

I do agree on that. While testing the Vero 1 myself,. I noticed that we had many flow-control issues there.
The Vero 2 and Vero4k handle it way better.

[Nickelig]

The main reason why I desire a gigabit adaptor is that I am hoping for improved performance while jumping chapters. I am very pleased with the Vero 4k but jumping chapters or generally jumping forward feels a bit sluggish. This is the only criteria where my old shield tv absolutely annihilates the Vero 4k (otherwise the shield tv is garbage compared to the Vero 4k). I think I will spend 10 bucks on amazon for a gigabit adaptor and give it a try. Not really a huge investment and since it is amazon, I even can return it without problems.

[anon57054866]

@Nickelig

I think I will spend 10 bucks on amazon for a gigabit adaptor and give it a try

Hi, could you provide a link to this adapter?
Thanks.

[Nickelig]

I have not decided or bought one yet…

[Nickelig]

I ordered this adapter from Amazon (Germany) because it has the desired chipset (RLT8153) and also comes highly recommended:

CSL - Netzwerkadapter Gigabit USB 3.2 Gen.1 LAN Adapter – USB TYP A Stecker auf...

I will test it as soon as it arrives. Main focus will be the behavior on jumping chapters and jumping forward on high bitrate files.

[anon57054866]

@Nickelig

Main focus will be the behavior on jumping chapters and jumping forward on high bitrate files.

Looking forward to the results.

[Smurphy]

Well, the Veo4K has USB 2.0 ports. Hence the adapter will only be able to get around 480Mbps in the best case scenario.
Let us know how it goes. Use iperf to test it

[Nickelig]

Ok here are my first few thoughts after a quick test with the adapter posted above.

1. Installation is no problem at all, just plug it in, plug the lan cable in = ready to go

2. Tested playback and skipping forward on a 63gb 4k Movie (90mbit/s)… a huge difference compared to the internal ethernet port!! It skips almost immediately, tested 10 second jumps, 10 minutes jumps and chapter jumps… the waiting wheel is almost not visible anymore. With the internal adapter, I had the wheel go from 0% to 1% to 2% to 9% to continue playing, which was roughly 1.5 seconds… now I only see a very brief flash of the wheel and playback continues… It finally feels like it felt with the shield tv with its gigabit port.

3. Had trouble getting iperf to work but since the adapter has the exact same chipset as the mentioned asus adapter in the first post, it probably has the same speed, which is maxing out the usb 2.0 speed

4. no fstab being used, just normal samba shares with my NAS (Synology DS216+II)

So summary, the adapter improved my Vero 4k experience just the way I had hoped. I will continue to use it and monitor the performance. Long term stability of course is a huge issue, this quick test obviously does not cover that. But the first impressions are great. I put great value at the responsiveness of my devices, everything has to feel immediate and snappy.

edit: the network settings I use are buffer = 1073741824 with readfactor = 5

[Nickelig]

Sam, why don´t you just add a proven usb adapter to the osmc store? That would surely appeal to many potential customers. Especially if you sell it for a modest price. Nobody is forced to buy it, but those who feel that 100mbit/s is too narrow get a cheap option to triple the speed. And from what I remembered, the shield tv and its gigabit lan maxed out around 300 mbit/s as well…

[Rito_Bear]

selling an usb2ethernet adapter in the osmc shop is surely a great idea. In the meantime I used an Anker adapter and measured the connection from a Synology NAS to the Vero4k with iperf3

Connecting to host 192.168.1.22, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 192.168.1.22 is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.166 port 51526 connected to 192.168.1.22 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 38.6 MBytes 324 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 38.7 MBytes 324 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 38.7 MBytes 324 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 38.6 MBytes 324 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 38.6 MBytes 324 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 38.6 MBytes 324 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 38.6 MBytes 324 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 38.6 MBytes 324 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 38.5 MBytes 323 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 38.5 MBytes 323 Mbits/sec
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 391 MBytes 328 Mbits/sec 10 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 386 MBytes 324 Mbits/sec receiver
iperf Done.

Looks quite good. Beside some problems (a few dropped frames and one case of buffering) with our old troubled friend John Wick every 4k HDR file played without any troubles so far. But looking at the network speed, the cause for the problems can hardly be the network speed.

So, if you are afraid, that Fast Ethernet is not fast enough for you, buy an adapter for 11 or 12 Euros. No installation required. I just plugged it in and it worked.

If you want to know what the upload from the Vero4k to the NAS looks like (slower but not important IMHO):

Connecting to host 192.168.1.22, port 5201
[ 4] local 192.168.1.166 port 51598 connected to 192.168.1.22 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 22.8 MBytes 191 Mbits/sec 0 313 KBytes
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 22.4 MBytes 188 Mbits/sec 0 344 KBytes
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 21.8 MBytes 183 Mbits/sec 0 344 KBytes
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 22.2 MBytes 186 Mbits/sec 0 345 KBytes
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 22.5 MBytes 188 Mbits/sec 0 426 KBytes
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 22.0 MBytes 185 Mbits/sec 0 436 KBytes
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 22.4 MBytes 188 Mbits/sec 0 436 KBytes
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 22.2 MBytes 186 Mbits/sec 0 436 KBytes
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 21.7 MBytes 183 Mbits/sec 0 436 KBytes
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 22.0 MBytes 185 Mbits/sec 0 436 KBytes
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 222 MBytes 186 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 221 MBytes 185 Mbits/sec receiver
iperf Done.

[Nickelig]

The Anker one is also with the RLT8153. Probably using the driver for the RLT8152 that is natively supported by OSMC.

People interested should check daily Amazon (Lightning) Deals, those adapters are often available there.

[Swayde]

+1 for having an official adapter. Not that i need one now

[Nickelig]

The smartest way would be offering a combined usb hub / gigabit adapter. Costs only a buck or two extra. That would also counter argument, that all usb ports would be used (considering the bluetooth dongle also uses one usb port).