Topics

USB (or Serial) vs Ethernet: Which is better or more reliable?


topboxman
 

Hello,

Now that Ray Gralak has created a Beta version of A-P V2 ASCOM driver to include Ethernet connection, I am wondering whether it's more worthwhile to switch from USB2 to Ethernet?

Currently, I have a powered USB2 hub velcroed to CP4 and use 35 feet USB active extension cable between laptop and USB2 hub and the outputs of USB hub connect to the following:

1) CP4 (1 foot cable)
2) Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub (1 foot cable)
3) QSI 660wsg CCD camera (6 feet cable)
4) Ultrastar auto guider (6 foot cable)

This current setup has worked great and so far no issues or disconnection of any kind.

If I use Ethernet to control CP4 and Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub, I will have to velcro a 5 port Ethernet switch to USB hub and use another 35 feet Ethernet cable in between laptop and Ethernet switch. I have personally tested latest A-P V2 ASCOM driver with Ethernet and Ethernet switch and works very well.

My question is, do you trust Ethernet more than USB2 for controlling CP4 as well as Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub? I am not interested in high speed transmission because the bandwidth is very low. I have read that more people prefer or trust Ethernet than USB2? Does Ethernet have less overhead in protocol than USB2? Do you think Ethernet is more reliable than USB2? I know one advantage of Ethernet is very long cable can be used like at least a 100 feet but that will never happen to me.


Thanks,

Peter


Bill Long
 

I use Ethernet. I trust a network interface more than USB root hubs and all the OS level trickery.
From: ap-gto@... on behalf of pnagy@... [ap-gto] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 11:47:04 AM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] USB (or Serial) vs Ethernet: Which is better or more reliable?
 
 

Hello,

Now that Ray Gralak has created a Beta version of A-P V2 ASCOM driver to include Ethernet connection, I am wondering whether it's more worthwhile to switch from USB2 to Ethernet?

Currently, I have a powered USB2 hub velcroed to CP4 and use 35 feet USB active extension cable between laptop and USB2 hub and the outputs of USB hub connect to the following:

1) CP4 (1 foot cable)
2) Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub (1 foot cable)
3) QSI 660wsg CCD camera (6 feet cable)
4) Ultrastar auto guider (6 foot cable)

This current setup has worked great and so far no issues or disconnection of any kind.

If I use Ethernet to control CP4 and Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub, I will have to velcro a 5 port Ethernet switch to USB hub and use another 35 feet Ethernet cable in between laptop and Ethernet switch. I have personally tested latest A-P V2 ASCOM driver with Ethernet and Ethernet switch and works very well.

My question is, do you trust Ethernet more than USB2 for controlling CP4 as well as Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub? I am not interested in high speed transmission because the bandwidth is very low. I have read that more people prefer or trust Ethernet than USB2? Does Ethernet have less overhead in protocol than USB2? Do you think Ethernet is more reliable than USB2? I know one advantage of Ethernet is very long cable can be used like at least a 100 feet but that will never happen to me.


Thanks,

Peter


Dale Ghent
 

Hi, Peter

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "trust" here. The protocol spoken to and by your mount is comprised of very short ASCII character sequences - nothing like bulk binary data like which you'd see from your two cameras (main and guider). If you're already running USB to your pier for your other accessories, the mount isn't going to amount to much else in terms of perceived instability. It, like a focuser or filter wheel, has a very simple protocol with exceedingly low bandwidth requirements. USB will handle it fine.

It will note, however, that 35 feet for a USB run is *double* the maximum length specified by the USB 2.0 spec, as the maximum length in order to maintain USB 2.0 Hi-speed (480Mbits/s) is 5 meters, or a smidge over 16 feet. In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if the run between your computer and the hub you have on your pier has fallen back to USB 1.1 Full-Speed speeds of 12Mbits/s. Obviously, since you're imaging, that would be or is sub-optimal. You low-bandwith devices such as mount and focuser will still be fine, but downloading images off your cameras will be slower than it should.

You have 2 options in that case:

1. Get an Active USB 2.0 extension cable, also known as repeater cables. The throw distance on these are far greater than the 5 meter limit of USB 2.0. Examples can be seen here: http://www.yourcablestore.com/Active-Repeater-Cables_c_166.html

2. Move your PC physically closer to your pier in order to cut down cable length. I reckon that you would have done this already if you were able to, but it bears mentioning that small x86/x64 computer systems in industrial chassis are pretty ubiquitous now and are small enough that that can live *on* the pier itself. Running windows and file share services on it, you can remote desktop into it and use SMB file shares to offload photo data over an existing 802.11 or hardwire ethernet network.

/dale

On Sep 15, 2018, at 2:47 PM, pnagy@sbcglobal.net [ap-gto] <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



Hello,

Now that Ray Gralak has created a Beta version of A-P V2 ASCOM driver to include Ethernet connection, I am wondering whether it's more worthwhile to switch from USB2 to Ethernet?

Currently, I have a powered USB2 hub velcroed to CP4 and use 35 feet USB active extension cable between laptop and USB2 hub and the outputs of USB hub connect to the following:

1) CP4 (1 foot cable)
2) Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub (1 foot cable)
3) QSI 660wsg CCD camera (6 feet cable)
4) Ultrastar auto guider (6 foot cable)

This current setup has worked great and so far no issues or disconnection of any kind.

If I use Ethernet to control CP4 and Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub, I will have to velcro a 5 port Ethernet switch to USB hub and use another 35 feet Ethernet cable in between laptop and Ethernet switch. I have personally tested latest A-P V2 ASCOM driver with Ethernet and Ethernet switch and works very well.

My question is, do you trust Ethernet more than USB2 for controlling CP4 as well as Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub? I am not interested in high speed transmission because the bandwidth is very low. I have read that more people prefer or trust Ethernet than USB2? Does Ethernet have less overhead in protocol than USB2? Do you think Ethernet is more reliable than USB2? I know one advantage of Ethernet is very long cable can be used like at least a 100 feet but that will never happen to me.


Thanks,

Peter




Ray Gralak
 

Hi Peter,

My question is, do you trust Ethernet more than USB2 for controlling CP4 as well as Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser
hub? I am not interested in high speed transmission because the bandwidth is very low. I have read that more people
prefer or trust Ethernet than USB2? Does Ethernet have less overhead in protocol than USB2? Do you think Ethernet
is more reliable than USB2? I know one advantage of Ethernet is very long cable can be used like at least a 100 feet
but that will never happen to me.
I recommend Ethernet over USB because Ethernet will have lower response latency and Ethernet drivers are generally
more robust than USB. You could also connect and obtain status on a second or multiple computers with Ethernet.

Best regards,

-Ray Gralak
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc
Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

-----Original Message-----
From: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 11:47 AM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ap-gto] USB (or Serial) vs Ethernet: Which is better or more reliable?



Hello,

Now that Ray Gralak has created a Beta version of A-P V2 ASCOM driver to include Ethernet connection, I am
wondering whether it's more worthwhile to switch from USB2 to Ethernet?

Currently, I have a powered USB2 hub velcroed to CP4 and use 35 feet USB active extension cable between laptop
and USB2 hub and the outputs of USB hub connect to the following:

1) CP4 (1 foot cable)
2) Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub (1 foot cable)
3) QSI 660wsg CCD camera (6 feet cable)
4) Ultrastar auto guider (6 foot cable)

This current setup has worked great and so far no issues or disconnection of any kind.


If I use Ethernet to control CP4 and Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub, I will have to velcro a 5 port Ethernet switch
to USB hub and use another 35 feet Ethernet cable in between laptop and Ethernet switch. I have personally tested
latest A-P V2 ASCOM driver with Ethernet and Ethernet switch and works very well.


My question is, do you trust Ethernet more than USB2 for controlling CP4 as well as Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser
hub? I am not interested in high speed transmission because the bandwidth is very low. I have read that more people
prefer or trust Ethernet than USB2? Does Ethernet have less overhead in protocol than USB2? Do you think Ethernet
is more reliable than USB2? I know one advantage of Ethernet is very long cable can be used like at least a 100 feet
but that will never happen to me.





Thanks,

Peter



topboxman
 

Hi Dale,

1) My original post did mentioned 35 feet "Active" USB2 cable which is also a repeater. I am sure it's running at USB2 speed because the download speed for my QSI660wsg camera meets the QSI spec. So far, my 35 feet active USB2 cable has been working quite flawlessly.

Maybe "trust" is not the right word. I was referring to reliability between USB2 and Ethernet (hardware and driver level) like which one of the two would have better chance of disconnects.

My setup is always portable. I prefer not to leave the laptop close to the telescope equipment because the weather can get quite cold in the winter and may harm the laptop. I route the 35 feet active USB2 cable through the dog door and my laptop is always indoors in the kitchen nook area so I can monitor the imaging session progress from indoors.

Peter


---In ap-gto@..., <daleg@...> wrote :

Hi, Peter

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "trust" here. The protocol spoken to and by your mount is comprised of very short ASCII character sequences - nothing like bulk binary data like which you'd see from your two cameras (main and guider). If you're already running USB to your pier for your other accessories, the mount isn't going to amount to much else in terms of perceived instability. It, like a focuser or filter wheel, has a very simple protocol with exceedingly low bandwidth requirements. USB will handle it fine.

It will note, however, that 35 feet for a USB run is *double* the maximum length specified by the USB 2.0 spec, as the maximum length in order to maintain USB 2.0 Hi-speed (480Mbits/s) is 5 meters, or a smidge over 16 feet. In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if the run between your computer and the hub you have on your pier has fallen back to USB 1.1 Full-Speed speeds of 12Mbits/s. Obviously, since you're imaging, that would be or is sub-optimal. You low-bandwith devices such as mount and focuser will still be fine, but downloading images off your cameras will be slower than it should.

You have 2 options in that case:

1. Get an Active USB 2.0 extension cable, also known as repeater cables. The throw distance on these are far greater than the 5 meter limit of USB 2.0. Examples can be seen here: http://www.yourcablestore.com/Active-Repeater-Cables_c_166.html

2. Move your PC physically closer to your pier in order to cut down cable length. I reckon that you would have done this already if you were able to, but it bears mentioning that small x86/x64 computer systems in industrial chassis are pretty ubiquitous now and are small enough that that can live *on* the pier itself. Running windows and file share services on it, you can remote desktop into it and use SMB file shares to offload photo data over an existing 802.11 or hardwire ethernet network.

/dale

> On Sep 15, 2018, at 2:47 PM, pnagy@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Now that Ray Gralak has created a Beta version of A-P V2 ASCOM driver to include Ethernet connection, I am wondering whether it's more worthwhile to switch from USB2 to Ethernet?
>
> Currently, I have a powered USB2 hub velcroed to CP4 and use 35 feet USB active extension cable between laptop and USB2 hub and the outputs of USB hub connect to the following:
>
> 1) CP4 (1 foot cable)
> 2) Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub (1 foot cable)
> 3) QSI 660wsg CCD camera (6 feet cable)
> 4) Ultrastar auto guider (6 foot cable)
>
> This current setup has worked great and so far no issues or disconnection of any kind.
>
> If I use Ethernet to control CP4 and Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub, I will have to velcro a 5 port Ethernet switch to USB hub and use another 35 feet Ethernet cable in between laptop and Ethernet switch. I have personally tested latest A-P V2 ASCOM driver with Ethernet and Ethernet switch and works very well.
>
> My question is, do you trust Ethernet more than USB2 for controlling CP4 as well as Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub? I am not interested in high speed transmission because the bandwidth is very low. I have read that more people prefer or trust Ethernet than USB2? Does Ethernet have less overhead in protocol than USB2? Do you think Ethernet is more reliable than USB2? I know one advantage of Ethernet is very long cable can be used like at least a 100 feet but that will never happen to me.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>


topboxman
 

Thanks Ray and Bill.

I will try out Ethernet cables with CP4 and Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser on next moonless nights.

Peter


---In ap-gto@..., <groups3@...> wrote :

Hi Peter,

> My question is, do you trust Ethernet more than USB2 for controlling CP4 as well as Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser
> hub? I am not interested in high speed transmission because the bandwidth is very low. I have read that more people
> prefer or trust Ethernet than USB2? Does Ethernet have less overhead in protocol than USB2? Do you think Ethernet
> is more reliable than USB2? I know one advantage of Ethernet is very long cable can be used like at least a 100 feet
> but that will never happen to me.

I recommend Ethernet over USB because Ethernet will have lower response latency and Ethernet drivers are generally
more robust than USB. You could also connect and obtain status on a second or multiple computers with Ethernet.

Best regards,

-Ray Gralak
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc
Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 11:47 AM
> To: ap-gto@...
> Subject: [ap-gto] USB (or Serial) vs Ethernet: Which is better or more reliable?
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Now that Ray Gralak has created a Beta version of A-P V2 ASCOM driver to include Ethernet connection, I am
> wondering whether it's more worthwhile to switch from USB2 to Ethernet?
>
> Currently, I have a powered USB2 hub velcroed to CP4 and use 35 feet USB active extension cable between laptop
> and USB2 hub and the outputs of USB hub connect to the following:
>
> 1) CP4 (1 foot cable)
> 2) Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub (1 foot cable)
> 3) QSI 660wsg CCD camera (6 feet cable)
> 4) Ultrastar auto guider (6 foot cable)
>
> This current setup has worked great and so far no issues or disconnection of any kind.
>
>
> If I use Ethernet to control CP4 and Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub, I will have to velcro a 5 port Ethernet switch
> to USB hub and use another 35 feet Ethernet cable in between laptop and Ethernet switch. I have personally tested
> latest A-P V2 ASCOM driver with Ethernet and Ethernet switch and works very well.
>
>
> My question is, do you trust Ethernet more than USB2 for controlling CP4 as well as Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser
> hub? I am not interested in high speed transmission because the bandwidth is very low. I have read that more people
> prefer or trust Ethernet than USB2? Does Ethernet have less overhead in protocol than USB2? Do you think Ethernet
> is more reliable than USB2? I know one advantage of Ethernet is very long cable can be used like at least a 100 feet
> but that will never happen to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
>
>


Robert Berta
 

I too run a USB active cable that is 62' long and haven't had any problems in about 12 years of use. I have the mount  here in Michigan which as you know gets very cold in the Winter and up to around 100 degrees in the Summer. The laptop is in my house. The USB is used for the imaging camera and slave autoguider camera (both SBIG) 
Connection to the focuser is wireless and the planetarium program is Sky Safari 6 PRO run wireless via a SKY FI unit.
I have a CP4 on my GTO 1100 mount but I prefer the SKY FI wireless as the AP has a problem dropping connections. AP evidently knows about the issue and hopefully working on making it more robust.  The SKY FI is bullet proof though. 


Joe Zeglinski
 

Peter,
 
(Pictures available on request).
    If I may suggest an alternative for you – I keep my “telescope control” laptop permanently inside a “LAPDOME” cover. This is a backyard open field setup. The heat generated by the laptop fans, even when it is far below zero, winter freezing temperatures is never a problem. Nice and cozy place to keep eyepieces, etc. warmed up inside by the laptop. Never saw any frost, or even a flake of blown snow off the backyard field.  It is two-layered heavy nylon, completely sealed top and bottom,  with four steel stays to keep its shape, when not folded down like a tennis racquet cover, for travel. If there are even VERY strong winds, the Lapdome being flexible, handles the buffeting with ease, so long as you have its corners tied down to the table. The Lapdome even zippers up completely, like a full-sized camping tent – so you do everything from the client PC in-house, if you don’t want to ALSO do that simultaneously,  right at the scope laptop. There is a Velcro’d slot cut in the nylon fully sealed floor to route incoming PC cables, and it is double lined with a pitch black inner nylon lining to keep the LCD brightness limited to the inside while imaging. You can even keep a reading lamp lit inside, to read maps if you stick your head inside.
 
    Very portable – I tied its corner D-Rings to  the wood slats of a beverage table top, and carry the whole thing out from the kitchen to the scope, completely powered (Battery), before plugging it into the scope power cable. Nothing would fall out or over even if I stumled and drop the table during the carry. Easy to carry in and out, keep it fully set up at all times ready to carry as a complete table/laptop unit, no disassembly needed, and use TEAMVIEWER from the kitchen laptop to view everything on its screen and run the scope apps. The carry out and setup takes about 30 seconds – just plug in the AC power to the laptop battery and one USB cable to the scope’s outdoor resident 7-port hub. I usually start the two laptops interlink in the kitchen even before taking it outside – then just “two plug-ins” ... and it the scope is imaging.
 
    So, no need for a cold and drafty “doggie-door” with mosquitoes getting indoors, no long cables across the lawn, and the wireless WIFI  link (between laptops), using an ASUS-56 USB dual band antenna stick inside the Lapdome beside the laptop,  transmits right through the house back wall to the scope -  has never been a problem (CP3 or CP4). I use an old DIGIPORT  USB-Serial 8-port hub (inside the scope power & accessories box) to communicate with the “old reliable” CP3/4 serial RS-232  I/O port, so even more reliable than using CP4’s  WIFI antenna, or Ethernet, or USB.
 
    The self-heated Lapdome’s carry-out portability makes astronomy so much easier, and inviting, when you are too tired to go through the motions of setting up everything,  or shutting down for the night. The LAPDOME is perfect for the lazy man’s astronomy.
 
Joe


Christopher Erickson
 

Any chain is only as good as it's weakest link.
 
The best and most solid connection would be RS-232 from the servo controller to a real serial port on a PC.
 
Second best would probably be Ethernet.
 
Third would be USB.
 
Fourth would be WiFi.
 
 
-Christopher Erickson
Observatory engineer
Summit Kinetics
Waikoloa, HI 96738
www.summitkinetics.com
 



From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 8:47 AM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] USB (or Serial) vs Ethernet: Which is better or more reliable?

Hello,

Now that Ray Gralak has created a Beta version of A-P V2 ASCOM driver to include Ethernet connection, I am wondering whether it's more worthwhile to switch from USB2 to Ethernet?

Currently, I have a powered USB2 hub velcroed to CP4 and use 35 feet USB active extension cable between laptop and USB2 hub and the outputs of USB hub connect to the following:

1) CP4 (1 foot cable)
2) Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub (1 foot cable)
3) QSI 660wsg CCD camera (6 feet cable)
4) Ultrastar auto guider (6 foot cable)

This current setup has worked great and so far no issues or disconnection of any kind.

If I use Ethernet to control CP4 and Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub, I will have to velcro a 5 port Ethernet switch to USB hub and use another 35 feet Ethernet cable in between laptop and Ethernet switch. I have personally tested latest A-P V2 ASCOM driver with Ethernet and Ethernet switch and works very well.

My question is, do you trust Ethernet more than USB2 for controlling CP4 as well as Optec Focus Boss II auto focuser hub? I am not interested in high speed transmission because the bandwidth is very low. I have read that more people prefer or trust Ethernet than USB2? Does Ethernet have less overhead in protocol than USB2? Do you think Ethernet is more reliable than USB2? I know one advantage of Ethernet is very long cable can be used like at least a 100 feet but that will never happen to me.


Thanks,

Peter


Virus-free. www.avg.com


Dale Ghent
 

On Sep 16, 2018, at 2:15 PM, pnagy@sbcglobal.net [ap-gto] <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



Hi Dale,

1) My original post did mentioned 35 feet "Active" USB2 cable which is also a repeater. I am sure it's running at USB2 speed because the download speed for my QSI660wsg camera meets the QSI spec. So far, my 35 feet active USB2 cable has been working quite flawlessly.
Ah, I might have missed the "active" part of your description. Good to know you're using one and that it's working for you.

Maybe "trust" is not the right word. I was referring to reliability between USB2 and Ethernet (hardware and driver level) like which one of the two would have better chance of disconnects.

My setup is always portable. I prefer not to leave the laptop close to the telescope equipment because the weather can get quite cold in the winter and may harm the laptop. I route the 35 feet active USB2 cable through the dog door and my laptop is always indoors in the kitchen nook area so I can monitor the imaging session progress from indoors.
Part of my day job sees me working on ethernet drivers, and with that work comes experience with how they interact with the higher stacks in the OS, such the IP layers and whatnot. Ergo, I get to see how the sausage is made, and have some hand in making it. So, I'm not anti-ethernet or anti-IP by far. I'm just for using the right tool for the situation, and if there's no technical or reliability-based need to change what you're doing now, then why introduce new or additional cabling, protocols, and such into the mix. Maintaining a single data cable to your mount from inside your house sounds like what anyone would want.

From a POV based on simplicity, USB-Serial is always going to have fewer variables and moving parts to contend with compared to ethernet+TCP/IP, and certainly if wifi/802.11 is thrown into the mix. I think USB gets a bad rap sometimes because people are unaware of particulars governing cable length and/or bus power budgets, where things are pushed too far and ends up giving one the impression that USB itself is unreliable. I think there's also a propensity to grab the cheapest gear one finds, which leads to additional problems[1]. I believe that there's additional suspicion about USB-Serial in particular due to the issue of counterfeit versions of USB-Serial chips from FTDI and Prolific finding their way into the market[2]. But, as the saying goes, you tend to get what you pay for, and putting just a little time into researching powered hubs and convertors pays off with better reliability in the end.

But look at it this way: On that USB bus, you have two high-bandwidth devices in the form of a main and guide camera, plus a gaggle of low-bandwidth devices, such as your mount, focuser, and any filter wheel or communications-enabled dew heater, switches, or the like. Because of their nature, the cameras are going to always be the most sensitive to USB issues which is why some camera manufacturers let you adjust the speeds which they initiate their sessions with on the bus. With the mount, I'm assuming that you're using PDH or the like with your guidecam and are thus sending the periodic pulseguide data to the mount over its USB connection, and the A-P ASCOM driver is always talking to the mount. If all of this is already reliable for you - even in the face of data coming off your cameras in bulk every so often - then chances are it'll remain so.

Yes, you could always run an ethernet cable to the mount and talk to it over TCP or UDP, but it's another cable to run for what is probably no measurable advantage over what's working for you now, and front the looks of it, the mount would be the only user of that cable. Additionally, ethernet interfaces on consumer hardware are sometimes fraught with as much gremlins as poorly-sourced USB devices (such as no-name USB-ethernet dongles), and on top of that, you have the added complexity of a IP stack which, while largely reliable, isn't immune to configuration snafus if you're running multiple interfaces (say, wifi as your main interface and a hardwire ethernet line directly to the mount). There are also Windows' firewall and any firewalls your anti-virus software plops onto your box to contend with. You just need to be aware that there are more moving parts in that scenario and be prepared to debug them.

/dale

[1] A friend at a star party once forgot a USB A-to-micro cable that he needed for a piece of gear, so he went to the local 7-11 and got one those 99 cent USB cables that you often see up next to the cash register. Spoiler alert: it didn't work.

[2] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/10/ftdi_says_knockoff_chips_part_of_criminal_operation/


r1300rs
 

If one is using a laptop can the mount connect to the laptop's ethernet port and a 2nd network for internet access be used with a USB-ethernet adapter?
Of course the mount ethernet would have no gateway assigned.


Christopher Erickson
 

Here is my reliability list, FWIW. Starting with the most reliable and going down to the least reliable. 

1. Real RS-232 cable between two real RS-232 ports. No USB involved. Greatest weakness of this connection is big connectors getting hit and damaged or broken.

2. Ethernet cable directly between CP4/CP5 and PC or a LAN with PC connected. Greatest weakness of this connection is misconfigurations.

3. USB between CP4/CP5 and PC. Greatest weakness of this connection is USB connectors.

4. Serial from CP4/CP5 to a Serial-USB dongle then USB into a PC.  Greatest weakness of this connection is USB connectors and additional external complexity.

5. WiFi between CP4/CP5 and PC/tablet/Smartphone. Greatest weakness of this connection is wireless itself, followed by misconfigurations.


On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 8:07 AM r1300rs via Groups.Io <cardiofuse=mac.com@groups.io> wrote:
If one is using a laptop can the mount connect to the laptop's ethernet port and a 2nd network for internet access be used with a USB-ethernet adapter?
Of course the mount ethernet would have no gateway assigned.