WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

kiwi · Post by **kiwi** » Wed May 16, 2012 14:11

There seem to be several people that have posted the problem that I have, but can it be solved?

I have just purchased a second Wiz. LoungeWiz cannot see FamilyWiz but FamilyWiz can see LoungeWiz how do I fix this?

I have two DP-2P 2TB boxes called LoungeWiz and FamilyWiz they have near identical settings which I will give below:

DHCP Disable
IP Address 192.168.000.002 for Family Wiz and 192.168.000.003 for LoungeWiz
WizPNP Client Enable
WizPNP Server Enable
Name(s) FamilyWiz and LoungeWiz
Port 49152
Firmware DPP2-01.07.350

They are wired to physical ports 2 and 3 of a Netgear DGND3700 adsl modem / gigabit router and wireless access point. The router also has a usb HDD attached. The only wireless device currently connected is my laptop.

All other features work perfectly including program guide, ICE TV etc. on both machines. Play on FamilyWiz from LoungeWiz (even while LoungeWiz is busy doing other stuff) works fine,

raymondjpg · Post by **raymondjpg** » Wed May 16, 2012 17:09

kiwi wrote:There seem to be several people that have posted the problem that I have, but can it be solved?

I have just purchased a second Wiz. LoungeWiz cannot see FamilyWiz but FamilyWiz can see LoungeWiz how do I fix this?

I have two DP-2P 2TB boxes called LoungeWiz and FamilyWiz they have near identical settings which I will give below:

DHCP Disable
IP Address 192.168.000.002 for Family Wiz and 192.168.000.003 for LoungeWiz
WizPNP Client Enable
WizPNP Server Enable
Name(s) FamilyWiz and LoungeWiz
Port 49152
Firmware DPP2-01.07.350

They are wired to physical ports 2 and 3 of a Netgear DGND3700 adsl modem / gigabit router and wireless access point. The router also has a usb HDD attached. The only wireless device currently connected is my laptop.

All other features work perfectly including program guide, ICE TV etc. on both machines. Play on FamilyWiz from LoungeWiz (even while LoungeWiz is busy doing other stuff) works fine,

Some thoughts:

1. If the two BWs are assigned static IP addresses, be wary if you have reserved those addresses in the DGND3700. A reservation will ensure that a particular device will only connect with that IP, but does not prevent the DGND3700 from handing out a lease with that IP to another device if the reserved device is not connected.

2. If you are running the DGND3700 as a DHCP server, ensure that the limits of the lease pool are outside the range of whatever static IP devices you wish to connect.

3. Try port forwarding 49152, and possibly RIP for multicasting, in the DGND3700.

I don't have two BWs so haven't tried any of this. Neither do I know if port forwarding or RIP for multicasting are necessary, though I would try it.

Not knowing the ins and outs of BW walky talky I have no idea why one BW can see the other, but not vice versa.

prl · Post by **prl** » Wed May 16, 2012 17:34

raymondjpg wrote:...
3. Try port forwarding 49152, and possibly RIP for multicasting, in the DGND3700.

I don't have two BWs so haven't tried any of this. Neither do I know if port forwarding or RIP for multicasting are necessary, though I would try it.

Not knowing the ins and outs of BW walky talky I have no idea why one BW can see the other, but not vice versa.

Beyonwizes use SSDP (Simple Service Discovery Protocol) in the part of WizPnP that does discovery. Clients send multicast discovery requests to the SSDP port number, and servers send their details back to the SSDP port number to the IP address of the requesting client.

I'm puzzled about why one can see the other but not vice versa in the network configuration as described. It's certainly worth checking, as raymondjpg suggests, that the static IP addresses used for the Beyonwiz haven't been assigned to some other device (like a PC) on the network. IMO, it's better to manage static IP address assignments inside DHCP via fixed MAC address/IP address assignments in the DHCP server (in the router), if the DHCP server supports them. This ensures that IP addresses aren't duplicated in the network.

raymondjpg · Post by **raymondjpg** » Wed May 16, 2012 18:27

prl wrote: Beyonwizes use SSDP (Simple Service Discovery Protocol) in the part of WizPnP that does discovery. Clients send multicast discovery requests to the SSDP port number, and servers send their details back to the SSDP port number to the IP address of the requesting client.

Do the Wiz clients broadcast a request on startup, and if they cannot find a server, will they repeat that broadcast without prompting? Is there a way to prompt a client request after the client has started?

prl wrote:IMO, it's better to manage static IP address assignments inside DHCP via fixed MAC address/IP address assignments in the DHCP server (in the router), if the DHCP server supports them. This ensures that IP addresses aren't duplicated in the network.

I have a DGND3700 and know from experience that reserving an IP for a device (based on MAC address) in this router is no guarantee that the router will not assign that IP for another device in the DHCP pool if the device for which that IP has been reserved is not connected.

The only way, in my experience, to ensure that this does not happen is to set the DHCP pool outside the range of the devices with static addresses.

kiwi · Post by **kiwi** » Wed May 16, 2012 18:27

My router has the following settings:

Use Router as DHCP Server CHECKED
Starting IP Address 192.168.0.10
Address reservation - one line for each wiz with a reference to the MAC address.

Looking through historic posts this seems like a common problem. As far as I can tell the problem is not resolved by the old posters

What is RIP for multicasting? How do I do that?

Cheers

Dave.

raymondjpg · Post by **raymondjpg** » Wed May 16, 2012 18:36

kiwi wrote:My router has the following settings:

Use Router as DHCP Server CHECKED
Starting IP Address 192.168.0.10
Address reservation - one line for each wiz with a reference to the MAC address.

That should be OK, but address reservation in the DGND3700 for the Wizs should not then be necessary. I would try removing the reservations from the router. It will make no difference to their IP assignments and place in the subnet, and may resolve the issue. Why this might work (if it does) I do not know, but I would try it just the same.

Edit: I don't have the DGND3700 hooked up at the moment, but if you look under LAN Setup you should find settings for RIP. Try enabling both directions and setting RIP version to 2M (supports multicasting). It can do no harm.

prl · Post by **prl** » Wed May 16, 2012 23:03

raymondjpg wrote: Do the Wiz clients broadcast a request on startup, and if they cannot find a server, will they repeat that broadcast without prompting? Is there a way to prompt a client request after the client has started?

It's been a while since I looked at a packet trace for this. Normally, a client will find a server is the server is off when the client starts and is subsequently turned on. Servers also regularly multicast their presence (an SSDP NOTIFY). I suspect, but I'm no longer sure, that when a client starts up it sends a request (M-REQUEST), and proceses any responses, but also listens for NOTIFYs to find new servers.

raymondjpg wrote:
prl wrote:IMO, it's better to manage static IP address assignments inside DHCP via fixed MAC address/IP address assignments in the DHCP server (in the router), if the DHCP server supports them. This ensures that IP addresses aren't duplicated in the network.
I have a DGND3700 and know from experience that reserving an IP for a device (based on MAC address) in this router is no guarantee that the router will not assign that IP for another device in the DHCP pool if the device for which that IP has been reserved is not connected.

The only way, in my experience, to ensure that this does not happen is to set the DHCP pool outside the range of the devices with static addresses.

Ah. Then that won't really work.

kiwi · Post by **kiwi** » Tue May 22, 2012 14:24

I have just placed the two Wiz side by side and connected them together using a brand new 1m long ethernet crossover cable. i.e. the router is completely gone.

I then tried all four possible permutations of firmware DPP2-01.07.350 and
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5403626/Beyonwi ... wizpnp.wrp.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED not for any firmware combination.

FamilyWiz can still see LoungeWiz
LoungeWiz can't see FamilyWiz

Any more ideas? LoungeWiz is brand new, should I be returning it?

raymondjpg · Post by **raymondjpg** » Tue May 22, 2012 15:31

kiwi wrote:Any more ideas?

The only thing might be to double double check the IP addresses and subnet mask on the two P2s, but my guess is that they are OK.

Not having played with two BWs, it looks like the LoungeWiz client is not working as it should.

Have you tried a factory reset on the LoungeWiz?

Edit: or could it be the FamilyWiz server? I would try a factory reset and set up from scratch on both P2s before thinking about returning the LoungeWiz.

kiwi · Post by **kiwi** » Tue May 22, 2012 16:32

I don't know what a subnet mask is! But both P2's are set to:

255.255.255.000

and the IP Addresses are correct / unique.

prl · Post by **prl** » Tue May 22, 2012 17:01

kiwi wrote:I don't know what a subnet mask is!

An IP address is made up of two parts, the network address and the host address on that network. In simple network setups, you can usually equate your "network" address with "the network on the local side of your modem/router". The host address is then used to identify the devices on a particular network. Where the network mask is set to '1' bits, the corresponding IP address bits are the network address, and where it's set to '0' bits the IP address bits are the host address (255 = 11111111 binary). All the '1's and all the '0's must be contiguous (so 255.255.255.0 is OK, but 255.0.255.0 is not).

The real situation is a good bit more complicated than this, but those details aren't relevant to this discussion.

kiwi wrote:But both P2's are set to:

[netmask=] 255.255.255.000 ...

That's a completely sensible value.

Your two Beyonwizes are at IP Addresses 192.168.000.002 and 192.168.000.003, so the network address is 192.168.0.0 and the host addresses are 2 and 3 respectively.

raymondjpg · Post by **raymondjpg** » Tue May 22, 2012 18:37

kiwi wrote:I don't know what a subnet mask is! But both P2's are set to:

255.255.255.000

and the IP Addresses are correct / unique.

Last shot in my locker is to check the gateway address in both P2s. When connected to the router it would probably have been the router's IP address.

If the gateway address is different in the P2s, it could be that either WizPNP Client is fishing around in the wrong pool.

I also noted earlier that the IP addresses for the 2 P2s are on a slightly different subnet from the default IP address for the Netgear DGND3700 router which is (I think I recall correctly) 192.168.1.1. If that is the case, and the gateway IP address for the 2 P2s is 192.168.1.1, then I would be trying 192.168.001.002 for Family Wiz and 192.168.001.003 for LoungeWiz. If and how this might be affecting the WizPNP protocol on one but not the other P2 I have no idea, but I would still try to get all Ip addresses and gateways on the same subnet and address range.

prl · Post by **prl** » Tue May 22, 2012 19:00

raymondjpg wrote:
kiwi wrote:I don't know what a subnet mask is! But both P2's are set to:

255.255.255.000

and the IP Addresses are correct / unique.
Last shot in my locker is to check the gateway address in both P2s. When connected to the router it would probably have been the router's IP address.

If the gateway address is different in the P2s, it could be that either WizPNP Client is fishing around in the wrong pool.

The router's IP address is only used if the destination's network address is different from the source's network address. Which isn't the case between the two Beyonwizes.

If the destination's network address is different from the source's network address, then the packet is sent to the router's Ethernet address, with its ultimate destination IP address, with an implied "well, you'll know what to do with this"

The router must have the same network address as the source.

The router's IP address is not involved in the multicast used by SSDP.

raymondjpg wrote:I also noted earlier that the IP addresses for the 2 P2s are on a slightly different subnet from the default IP address for the Netgear DGND3700 router which is (I think I recall correctly) 192.168.1.1. If that is the case, and the gateway IP address for the 2 P2s is 192.168.1.1, then I would be trying 192.168.001.002 for Family Wiz and 192.168.001.003 for LoungeWiz. If and how this might be affecting the WizPNP protocol on one but not the other P2 I have no idea, but I would still try to get all Ip addresses and gateways on the same subnet and address range.

192.168.0.0 is a perfectly respectable IP private network address. If the router can't handle it, it's badly broken.

raymondjpg · Post by **raymondjpg** » Tue May 22, 2012 19:12

prl wrote:If the router can't handle it, it's badly broken.

Yes, yes and yes. I don't think it is the router that is at fault here. Indeed the router has just been eliminated from the equation. Yet I would still try to have the IP addresses for the P2s on the same network address as the gateway i.e. either 192.168.0.0 or 192.168.1.0. Even if it makes no difference to the ability of the P2s to talk to one another, it is another, however remote, possibility to eliminate before RMAing the LoungeWiz.

kiwi · Post by **kiwi** » Tue May 22, 2012 19:20

Thankyou, both for your suggestions.

Remember that I get exactly the same results using an ethernet crossover cable. To me this points firmly towards a Wiz.

When I put my network back together both units are visible in WizFX which convinces me that both units servers are operating. So most likely the client in LoungeWiz is not functioning correctly?

I checked that disabling the server in LoungeWiz does make it inaccessible to WizFX.

I think that a few days ago, when I was watching the file player screen on LoungeWiz while Family Wiz was booting up, Lounge Wiz momentarily listed Family Wiz. But I cannot explain why that would be.

raymondjpg · Post by **raymondjpg** » Tue May 22, 2012 20:38

kiwi wrote:When I put my network back together both units are visible in WizFX which convinces me that both units servers are operating. So most likely the client in LoungeWiz is not functioning correctly?

That is the conclusion I would come to. Without any input from anyone here who may have two P2s networking as they should, I would be inclined to RMA the LoungeWiz if I had a retailer who would replace it without question, and see if the replacement works.

kiwi · Post by **kiwi** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 08:45

Has ANYONE successfully networked two DP-2Ps such that you can play in either direction?

CameronS · Post by **CameronS** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:30

I have two P2's networked in this way and they communicate fine in both directions.
The trick is in the network architecture, not the Wiz's, the cabling or the addressing.

I had the same problem as you when they were both directly connected to my DSL router, but when I connected them both to an ethernet switch first, the problem went away.

I'm not enough of an expert in Ethernet technology to know exactly why this works, but it does.

Cameron

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 13:01

Hi,

In many cases the problem when two (or more) Beyonwiz units don't see each other can be traced to a router or networking infrastructure that does not pass broadcast packets between different parts of the network. This is often fixed when the user uses a plain switch as switches rarely filter the traffic that flows between its ports.

Regards,
Ian.

raymondjpg · Post by **raymondjpg** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 15:16

If it works with a switch, fine. But why then doesn't it work with a direct connection between the two BWs?

I have looked briefly at SSDP and as far as I can make out it doesn't rely on netbios. If it does, then the problem with direct connection to the router might possibly relate to to the perennial problem of netbios through NAT. I haven't explored possible problems of SSDP through NAT.

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 16:34

Hi Raymondjpg,

Without information about the cable, firmware and settings it is impossible to explain what may be going on.

I have networked a number of Beyonwiz units without issue but it has always been via a switch.

Regards,
Ian.

grampus · Post by **grampus** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 18:33

raymondjpg wrote:If it works with a switch, fine. But why then doesn't it work with a direct connection between the two BWs?

I have looked briefly at SSDP and as far as I can make out it doesn't rely on netbios. If it does, then the problem with direct connection to the router might possibly relate to to the perennial problem of netbios through NAT. I haven't explored possible problems of SSDP through NAT.

Direct connected, there should be no NAT involved.
Just the addreeses have to be in the same subnet.

kiwi · Post by **kiwi** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 20:44

OK it looks like I need to go and buy a simple switch and try that.

Can someone give me details of switch(es) that are known to work? Anyone using this one? Netgear GS605 5 Port Gigabit Switch

Thanks in advance

Dave.

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 21:55

Hi Dave,

The little Netgear or D-Link switches should be fine and can be had for a reasonable price.

Regards,
Ian.

kiwi · Post by **kiwi** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 13:06

I have a new switch.

The two Wiz are connected together via the switch.

Unfortunately everything functions exactly as before.

Paul55 · Post by **Paul55** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 13:35

I have 3 BWs - H1, P1 and P2, all on .350 firmware connected by wireless bridges. H1 is in a different room.
Tested yesterday and they can all see each other.

Gully · Post by **Gully** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 14:31

kiwi wrote:I have a new switch.

The two Wiz are connected together via the switch.

Unfortunately everything functions exactly as before.

So back to basics. What are the network settings on each Wiz?

kiwi · Post by **kiwi** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 18:47

LoungeWiz:
DHCP: Disable
IP Address 192.168.000.003
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.000
Gateway: 192.168.000.001
Primary DNS Server IP: 192.168.000.001
Secondary DNS Server IP: 000.000.000.000
MAC Address: 00:19:1E:00:DB:5A

Client: Enable
Server: Enable
Name: Lounge Wiz
Port: 49152

FamilyWiz:
DHCP: Disable
IP Address 192.168.000.002
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.000
Gateway: 192.168.000.001
Primary DNS Server IP: 192.168.000.001
Secondary DNS Server IP: 000.000.000.000
MAC Address: 00:19:1E:00:CE:08

Client: Enable
Server: Enable
Name: Family Wiz
Port: 49152

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 19:29

Hi Kiwi,

Try getting rid of the space in the Beyonwiz WizPNP names.

Regards,
Ian.

Pedsy · Post by **Pedsy** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 21:28

Just putting my 2 cents in here.
I still have the same issue as Kiwi. I posted on here about it quite a while ago.
My guess is we must have faulty units mate.
Unfortunately for me it is probably too late to do anything about it. It seems to be the client in my 3 year old unit that is stuffed as opposed to my 9 month old one

dhphoto · Post by **dhphoto** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 16:34

We have multiple Beyonwiz boxes and all see and play off each other.

Within the Router (modem/router) we use fixed IP addresses for all devices on the LAN. I seem to suffer from some sort of madness and insist in assigning addresses that have a meaning, to me at least. This also allows us to see a listing, even when devices are offline. Due to my method, all the Beyonwiz boxes are assigned higher in the IP range:

S1 = 051, H1 = 041 (when we had it), the P1/2 08x etc.

I've never had an issue with with any of the devices seeing each other. As per many responses, these are all hanging off unmanaged switches and some off switches uplinked from others.

All ours have 'spaces' in the name with the wherever indicating where they reside:

Beyonwiz - wherever

The definitions that Kiwi has, appear fine ... how frustrating. The DNS he points to is his router/gateway address, we actually point to an external one.

I am unable to provide any input on a fix, only to confirm that all our boxes play nicely with similar settings.

Paul55 · Post by **Paul55** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 17:24

dhphoto wrote:The DNS he points to is his router/gateway address, we actually point to an external one.

I have had problems with some wireless devices pointing to my router address and not getting a solid internet connection. My router is a Belkin N+
When this happens, I just set the DNS to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 - these are google DNS sites. i'm sure there are better settings, but these work for me.

12x7 · Post by **12x7** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 15:34

I have three wiz's, p1, p2 and lite. All are server and clients. p2 and the lite can see each other and share and can see the p1 but the p1 cannot see them. the p1 can see the window file shares on the network. the p1 and lite are connected to the backbone by netcomm np204 powerline adaptors to a single np204 to a linksys switch. All are on 350 firmware.

After changing firmware, switches, routers etc like so many others on this forum here's what fixed my problem.

I connected another np204 to the switch, set up the np204 network passwords so that the np204's connected to the p1 and lite where dedicated to one specific np204 hanging off the switch, ie they had one (bridge) each.

After this the three wiz's could see each other, stream etc, wizFX could see all the wiz's too.

So if you are using powerline/power ethernet I found that you need a dedicated bridge to connect to each wiz so they can see each other when they hang off a switch.

By the way in all configurations the wiz's had no problems seeing the window shares and having dedicated bridges/lines for each wiz made network access go a lot faster which made a difference to my stuffering problem watching hd shows being streamed.

prl · Post by **prl** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 16:56

I think that the underlying problem with WizPnP for more complicated network setups is that the discovery protocol used by the clients to find WizPnP servers uses IP multicast. The multicast packets are set up for a single hop. This means that they should pass through switches and bridges, and be passed through to all the local-side ports of a router, but they shouldn't pass from the local side to the far side of a router. But sometimes devices don't implement this properly (especially the should bit).

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 19:58

I also have the issue of one S1 (#1) seeing all in another S1 (#2) while #2 cannot see #1. My issue is that for 5 years they have both talked to each other. Nothing has changed recently in the setup and suddenly #2 cannot see #1. Everything else is fine - ie the PC can see both through Wizfx. #1 can still play files from #2. Both #1 and #2 can play files from PC.

I have changed the wiring, checked all settings, made sure no conflicts in IP addresses, but to no avail. It is frustrating as it had worked perfectly for many years.

sub3R · Post by **sub3R** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 20:56

Crow wrote:I also have the issue of one S1 (#1) seeing all in another S1 (#2) while #2 cannot see #1. My issue is that for 5 years they have both talked to each other. Nothing has changed recently in the setup and suddenly #2 cannot see #1. Everything else is fine - ie the PC can see both through Wizfx. #1 can still play files from #2. Both #1 and #2 can play files from PC.
...

I had the exact same problem, also after years of working correctly. I also tried quite a few things without success, including trying another S1 in place of the one that couldn’t see the 2nd S1.

I can’t remember the exact sequence I used to fix it, but I remember getting rid of the user account I created for the wizzes on the PCs (XP Desktop, Vista Notebook & Win7 Notebook) & both S1s & went back to using my normal user account. I also cleared all PCs on both S1s, shut both S1s down to standby, rebooted the router, switched the router OFF for a few minutes, switched the router back ON, switched both S1s back ON, cleared all PCs again & then scanned for all PCs. After this it worked. This was some months ago & it hasn’t played up since.
I have always used fixed IP addresses on both S1s above the normal DHCP range & the S1s are connected to the router via Ethernet.

prl · Post by **prl** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 07:35

While I wouldn't completely exclude it, I really can't see how making changes to Windows sharing (Beyonwizes seeing Windows Shares) would change the behaviour of WizPnP (Beyonwizes seeing each other).

sub3R · Post by **sub3R** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 17:41

prl wrote:While I wouldn't completely exclude it, I really can't see how making changes to Windows sharing (Beyonwizes seeing Windows Shares) would change the behaviour of WizPnP (Beyonwizes seeing each other).

Going by what I have read, I would have to agree – but something in the sequence I tried worked. Prior to this, over about a 3 week period, I tried everything I could think of without success. Except for changing the user account & re-booting/switching off the router with both S1s in the condition I mentioned previously, I had already tried the normal steps mentioned in that sequence numerous times (including rebooting the router). I was about to swap the S1s around to see if the condition became reversed when I decided to try the sequence in my previous post.

Both S1s are normally switched to standby & the PC & router get switched off every night. WizFX & YARDWiz always downloaded from both S1s during the period when one S1 couldn’t see the other, & both S1s could stream from the PC.

Trekhead · Post by **Trekhead** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 06:50

I have recently experienced almost identical symptoms to the ones posted here.

One DP-P2 in one room networked to another DP-P2-2TB in another room via Netcomm NP204 Network Power plugs.

For almost a year both Beyonwiz would happy detect each other and I could readily watch programs recorded from either device. Then around a month ago the old DP-P2 (320TB Model) refused to recognise the DP-P2-2TB but the DP-P2-2TB would happily recognise the DP-P2 (320TB Model).

As per the recommendations in the forum I checked all my network settings, cables, routers, bridges and Network Power plugs all to no avail. Even updated the firmware on both units to 350 but this made little difference either.

Having convinced myself that the fault was most likely with the DP-P2-2TB I removed the drive and checked it for any disk corruptions on my computer running Linux (Knoppix). No apparent issues with the drive but I decided to buy a new one anyway. Exact same model too, WD20EURS, which have now been superseded by the WD20EURX.

I replaced the original HDD with a new one, formatted it, any hey presto the DP-P2 (320TB Model) could now see the DP-P2-2TB once more. I then proceded to duplicate the original drive on my computer running Linux (Knoppix) and then tested the new "essentially cloned" HDD. Same deal as before, back to square one.

I then happened to stumble across the log file "shttpd.log" and observed that my problem began around about the time the "index.txt" file exceeded 64kB.

Presently my DP-P2-2TB has 963.7TB used out of a total of 1863.0GB, a total of 481 recordings and an index.txt files size of 86KB. So I followed my "gut feel" and proceded to delete some 95 files from the DP-P2-2TB which reduced total HDD usage down to 795.4GB which reduced the "index.txt" file down to just under 64kB, 65,400 bytes to be exact. Guess what, as soon as I broke below the 65,536 byte barrier the DP-P2 (320TB Model) could once again see the DP-P2-2TB. As soon as I restored but a single additional recording, any recording, and pushed the "index.txt" back over the 65,536 byte barrier the DP-P2-2TB disappeared from view. As soon as I deleted a single recording, any recording, the DP-P2-2TB re-appeared.

So my hypothesis is that version 1.05.350 of the firmare running on my old DP-P2 (320TB Model) cannot cope with reading in an "index.txt" file from another Beyonwiz which exceeds 64kB. Not sure if the same applies to the 1.07.350 version running on the DP-P2-2TB but suspect that is somewhat academic since it takes approx 800GB worth of recording to break this apparent barrier.

Anyway so much for my theory. Be interested if anyone could else could replicate my findings to confirm. Unfortunately, if my hypothesis is correct, short of future firmware fix there does not appear to be any obvious solution to this problem.

prl · Post by **prl** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 09:49

You didn't need to post exactly the same stuff three times. Two could have been shor messages linking back to the original article. Multiposting tends to scatter responses to the post between the posts. I have replied to this post here.

NaturalSelector · Post by **NaturalSelector** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 13:27

That's awesome Trekhead!

In the last coupe of weeks I have purchased a 2nd Beyonwiz (DP-H1). and after some other issues with this new one(updated firmware fixed those) I am in the same situation as A LOT of others here..

To check this out in my situation, I browsed to the index file on our old DP-P2 from my laptop and found that it is 68k!
So if your theory is correct (Which it certainly seems to be), if I reduce the number of files on the P2, it should become visible on our H1! (Yay some hope!)

The sharing of files from one machine to the other was one of the primary reasons we purchased a second Wiz!
And I've been starting to wish I didn't waste the money... (Currently it's not doing what it says on the can..)

It will take some time for me to go through the recordings on our old P2. the wife has a lot of stuff on it, and we keep a huge collection of ABC4kids shows on it..

Just to clarify, from my understanding (inc a week of late nights reading through this forum) the index file is bloated by the amount of titles? and not the length of the title's names? - Or do I have this wrong..

Thanks

peteru · Post by **peteru** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 14:08

Shorter names will save some space. In your case, it may just be good enough to take you from 68k to 64k, but you will need to rename a lot of files.

prl · Post by **prl** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 16:50

To give you some insight, here's an untouched index.txt entry:
Doctor Who Nov.24.2013_20.50|idehdd/Recordings/ABC1_Nov.24.2013_20.50+56620.75000.tvwiz/Doctor Who.tvwizts

Here's the same entry after it was renamed to the "same name":
Doctor Who Nov.24.2013_20.50|idehdd/Recordings/Doctor Who_Nov.24.2013_20.50+56620.75000.tvwiz/Doctor Who.tvwizts

It's actually got a bit longer, because the original .tvwiz folder name's "ABC1" has been replaced by "Doctor Who", and the rest stayed the same.

If I shorten it slightly differently, I get:
Dr Who Nov.24.2013_20.50|idehdd/Recordings/Dr Who_Nov.24.2013_20.50+56620.75000.tvwiz/Dr Who.tvwizts

Which does save some space, but not a huge amount.

As far as I can tell the last section of each entry (the .tvwizts part) is unused in WizPnP, but consumes valuable space.

Of course, some titles cry out for shortening:
Henry VIII's Enforcer_ The Rise And Fall Of Thomas Cromwell Mar.14.2014_20.35|idehdd/Recordings/SBS_ONE_Mar.14.2014_20.35+56730.74100.tvwiz/Henry VIII's Enforcer_ The Rise And Fall Of Thomas Cromwell.tvwizts

If you have some folder structure, you may get more leverage for smaller effort by shortening the names of folders. For example, a recording in my Movies folder looks like this:
Movies/Movie_ The Pianist|idehdd/Recordings/Movies/Movie_ The Pianist_Aug.28.2010_22.28.tvwiz/Movie_ The Pianist.tvwizts

If I shortened the folder name to "M", say, from "Movies" then I get paid for the shortening many times over, twice the difference in the folder name lengths, and applied to every recording under the renamed folder (including in subfolders). The entry with a renamed folder would be:
M/Movie_ The Pianist|idehdd/Recordings/M/Movie_ The Pianist_Aug.28.2010_22.28.tvwiz/Movie_ The Pianist.tvwizts

You can also achieve similar name length reductions by moving everything back into Recordings from subfolders, but that's probably a step too far.

On the bright side, you only need to reduce the average index file entry length by about 6%.

After you make a change in the naming of recordings, it takes a couple of minutes fro them to be propagated into index.txt. So if you make some changes and nothing seems to have changed in the index, wait a couple of minutes, or force an index rebuild (press SOUNDTRACK while in the HDD part of the File Browser).

NaturalSelector · Post by **NaturalSelector** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 22:13

Thanks for that detailed description PRL. I ended up working some of that structure out in my quest.

I ended up copying off a bunch of files, and am now 10k below the 64k size.

And...
{Drum roll please}

IT'S NETWORKING LIKE A CHARM!!
The DP-P2 is seeing the DP-H1 AND Vice Versa!

Thank's so much for working that out @Trekhead and for @PRL's supporting documentation in the other Threads on this same topic

Cheers!

P.S. I would like to post this in the other Threads of a similar theme (Also Incase new Beyonwiz users do not stumble across the fact that the 64k thing is causing their troubles) - BUT I know how this sort of thing infuriates the long standing(&Very helpful) members of this forum.
Perhaps a sticky could be made with your findings & resolution of this issue

prl · Post by **prl** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 23:18

NaturalSelector wrote:Thanks for that detailed description PRL. I ended up working some of that structure out in my quest.
...

Glad to hear you got it sorted.

WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

Re: WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

Re: WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

Re: WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

Re: WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

Experiments

Re: Experiments

ROOT CAUSE DETERMINED - BUT ALAS NO SOLUTION FOUND!

Re: WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

Re: WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

Re: WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

Re: WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

Re: WizPNP and two Beyonwiz DP-2P 2TB

About the Forum

About the Forum

Join us