Posts: 497
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
5
I guess one thing to discuss is why the main switch and aggregated link is necessary. I suppose the alternative would be direct links from the NAS (which has 4 ports I think) to each of the switches on the decks. This would be simpler, though a little less scalable for future growth.
Posts: 42
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation:
0
The network load generated from each switch located on each of the decks is not enough to warrent an aggregated link. The total load generated by all of the switches on each of the decks doesn't require aggregation, but its close. total load at 25 clients using the highest blu-ray bitrate would be around 115.625MB/s. A single gigabit connection has a cap at 125MB/s (in theory) The reason I wanted to aggregate was to ensure a significant overhead and expandabilty. Good point though about three cables directly from the NAS. That would probably work pretty well but i guess the drawback would be three different IP addresses to the server and the inability to load each XBMC client with a single build disk. I would also have to do some network bridging on the naz to facilitate remote maintenance
Any other thoughts. Would this type of network have any ill effects to the operation of XBMC?
Posts: 1,136
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation:
23
If you are in the US and your idea is that you will be ripping movies to storage there is no way in hell that any organization connected to the federal government (i.e. military) is going to sign off on this.
The simple act of ripping a disk (even for your own use) is considered illegal in the US... for reference see "digital millennium copyright act" or "DMCA".
I wouldn't waste much time on this as even if someone uninformed gives you the 'green light' you will have the rug pulled out from under you in short order.