Menu
Reply
  • 161
  • 3
  • 23
studio_54
Up to speed
306 Views
Message 11 of 51
Flag for a moderator

Re: Hub 3.0 ethernet switch problem

Hello @johnready

Did you ever get to the bottom of this and get it fixed?  Having any similar issues, with another engineer due out Saturday afternoon - but nobody at VM seems to be able to identify the cause, so not sure what the next engineer will be able to achieve.

Hoping you'll reply with a really obvious solution...

Cheers

 

D

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 68
  • 5
  • 19
mr_ian
Dialled in
290 Views
Message 12 of 51
Flag for a moderator

Re: Hub 3.0 ethernet switch problem

Hello 5 year old Johnny Smiley Wink

The network drive is connected to the network - we know that from you access via iPad.  So it sounds like a name resolution issue between Windows and router/network drive.  Windows is notoriously bad and fiddly in this respect from my experience.

I would try the following:
1. Find the IP address of the drive (either from the superhub or via the iPad)
2. On your PC, from File Explorer "Map a network drive" and use the address "\\192.168.0.xxx\sharename" where the xxx is the IP address and the share is however you name it for your drive (should be in the user manual)

I run Win 7/8/10 on various PCs and have to do this for some versions.  BTW swapping out old routers for simple switches is a good idea - you'll probably save the cost on energy usage in a year.

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 161
  • 3
  • 23
studio_54
Up to speed
285 Views
Message 13 of 51
Flag for a moderator

Re: Hub 3.0 ethernet switch problem

Johnready - out of interest, what happens when you plug your network drive directly into your PC?  Can you connect then (without any re-configuration)?  If you can connect directly, that suggests a hub issue.  If you still can't connect but can see it, that suggests a Win10 issue...

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 68
  • 5
  • 19
mr_ian
Dialled in
281 Views
Message 14 of 51
Flag for a moderator

Re: Hub 3.0 ethernet switch problem

It's likely to be a NETBIOS/name resolution issue.  Let's face it the standard was created in 1987 and was rubbish then....  In between MSFT created something else, and nothing plays along nicely with them.

Further to my earlier advice, I'd suggest:
1. Reserve a DHCP address for your drive via the SH config.
2. If you really want create an "lmhosts" entry for the drive name (google it) - helpful if you have many drive maps.

IMHO your network is working perfectly.  It's just that the local naming isn't up to the job and probably your drive/Windows/SH makes a complete mess of it.  

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 161
  • 3
  • 23
studio_54
Up to speed
278 Views
Message 15 of 51
Flag for a moderator

Re: Hub 3.0 ethernet switch problem

Hello @ mr_ian

I think it would be helpful to everyone reading these discussion comments to wait for an answer to the question regarding direct connectivity.  Given the number of potential points of failure, let's not make assumptions or sweeping statements - no matter how much we may all agree their causal likelihood.

There's another point to remember here.  Yes, we all want to find a solution to our issues.  But surely as end-user customers, we shouldn't be expected to have to reconfigure our kit in order for it to work and provide the service we're paying for...   If this is a fair expectation of VM as a service provider, then I look forward to hearing their advice and seeing their revised terms and reduced costs...

 

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 20.43K
  • 534
  • 3.14K
Sephiroth
Alessandro Volta
267 Views
Message 16 of 51
Flag for a moderator

Re: Hub 3.0 ethernet switch problem


studio_54 wrote:

Hello @ mr_ian

I think it would be helpful to everyone reading these discussion comments to wait for an answer to the question regarding direct connectivity.  Given the number of potential points of failure, let's not make assumptions or sweeping statements - no matter how much we may all agree their causal likelihood.

There's another point to remember here.  Yes, we all want to find a solution to our issues.  But surely as end-user customers, we shouldn't be expected to have to reconfigure our kit in order for it to work and provide the service we're paying for...   If this is a fair expectation of VM as a service provider, then I look forward to hearing their advice and seeing their revised terms and reduced costs...

 


Your last paragraph is rather fanciful. I’m no apologist for VM; just a realist.  Their job, and what you actually pay for is a Broadband service plus the means of accessing that service.  For this they provide you with a get-you-going device, the hub.  VM have no say in what end users hang on to the hub’s Ethernet or WiFi ports nor on how they will behave in relation to the variables involved - or ‘potential points of failure’ as you put it.  

 

Seph - ( DEFROCKED - My advice is at your risk)

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 161
  • 3
  • 23
studio_54
Up to speed
247 Views
Message 17 of 51
Flag for a moderator

Re: Hub 3.0 ethernet switch problem

@ Sephiroth

I disagree  - I certainly don't believe I was being fanciful:


Sephiroth wrote:

studio_54 wrote:

Hello @ mr_ian

I think it would be helpful to everyone reading these discussion comments to wait for an answer to the question regarding direct connectivity.  Given the number of potential points of failure, let's not make assumptions or sweeping statements - no matter how much we may all agree their causal likelihood.

There's another point to remember here.  Yes, we all want to find a solution to our issues.  But surely as end-user customers, we shouldn't be expected to have to reconfigure our kit in order for it to work and provide the service we're paying for...   If this is a fair expectation of VM as a service provider, then I look forward to hearing their advice and seeing their revised terms and reduced costs...

 


Your last paragraph is rather fanciful. I’m no apologist for VM; just a realist.  Their job, and what you actually pay for is a Broadband service plus the means of accessing that service.  For this they provide you with a get-you-going device, the hub.  VM have no say in what end users hang on to the hub’s Ethernet or WiFi ports nor on how they will behave in relation to the variables involved - or ‘potential points of failure’ as you put it.  

 


I don't disagree with your comment that their job is to provide a broadband service plus the means of accessing that service.  As you say, they provide the hub to do so.

However,I don't think it is unrealistic to expect that hub to be reliable.  I don't think it's imaginative to expect the hub to provide consistent connectivity across standard OS platforms.  And  I don't think it's acceptable for any service provider to ignore so many similar issues raised by such a high number of users.

Therefore, as so many customers have issues accessing the service which we've agreed is VM's job to provide via the means we've agreed should be used, what have I missed!?!

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 20.43K
  • 534
  • 3.14K
Sephiroth
Alessandro Volta
229 Views
Message 18 of 51
Flag for a moderator

Re: Hub 3.0 ethernet switch problem


studio_54 wrote:

@ Sephiroth

I disagree  - I certainly don't believe I was being fanciful:


Sephiroth wrote:

studio_54 wrote:

Hello @ mr_ian

I think it would be helpful to everyone reading these discussion comments to wait for an answer to the question regarding direct connectivity.  Given the number of potential points of failure, let's not make assumptions or sweeping statements - no matter how much we may all agree their causal likelihood.

There's another point to remember here.  Yes, we all want to find a solution to our issues.  But surely as end-user customers, we shouldn't be expected to have to reconfigure our kit in order for it to work and provide the service we're paying for...   If this is a fair expectation of VM as a service provider, then I look forward to hearing their advice and seeing their revised terms and reduced costs...

 


Your last paragraph is rather fanciful. I’m no apologist for VM; just a realist.  Their job, and what you actually pay for is a Broadband service plus the means of accessing that service.  For this they provide you with a get-you-going device, the hub.  VM have no say in what end users hang on to the hub’s Ethernet or WiFi ports nor on how they will behave in relation to the variables involved - or ‘potential points of failure’ as you put it.  

 


I don't disagree with your comment that their job is to provide a broadband service plus the means of accessing that service.  As you say, they provide the hub to do so.

However,I don't think it is unrealistic to expect that hub to be reliable.  I don't think it's imaginative to expect the hub to provide consistent connectivity across standard OS platforms.  And  I don't think it's acceptable for any service provider to ignore so many similar issues raised by such a high number of users. [Seph]: We all agree that the Hub has to be reliable in the manner you’ve stated.  But you’re arguing against yourself here. You have said “Given the number of potential points of failure, let’s not make assumptions or sweeping statements ...”.  Yet you’ve made the very sweeping statement against which you preach.  When you multiply those variables by the (not high) number of users who report problems here with similar symptoms, you might only conclude in a handful of cases that their hub is faulty.  If it was a common cause fault, everyone would be complaining.

Therefore, as so many customers have issues accessing the service which we've agreed is VM's job to provide via the means we've agreed should be used, what have I missed!?!  [Seph]: How many as a proportion of total? Why does my hub connect by all means across many platforms, OS, medium? And when it doesn’t, the usual disable/enable resolves the matter.  Now, with Ethernet connection it’s different.  A non-faulty hub is the reference point; the variables are in the client device driver, NIC, cable and perhaps but far less likely, the OS.  When those have been eliminated by triage etc, a faulty hub is indicated.  That is a mile away from VM not providing “consistent connectivity across standard OS platforms”  

Seph - ( DEFROCKED - My advice is at your risk)

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 61
  • 3
  • 7
whitehoose
Tuning in
220 Views
Message 19 of 51
Flag for a moderator

Re: Hub 3.0 ethernet switch problem

Oh well, in for a penny.

My setup is about as complicated as home networking gets various devices (PC, NAS, TV, printer etc) connecting either to the VMHub or an old BT hub that extends my WiFi over the upstairs front of the house.  The whole house is wired with ethernet and I've used 2 TP Link managed hubs to expand the number of ports. 

Wherever possible, wire is my first choice, obviously it's not an option with tablet or phone. I've flirted with both windows and Linux servers - but at the moment settled on a couple of synology NAS boxes.  It's all developed over 25 years or so.

If you are going to save a penny by re-using old kit, or re-purposing routers as switches etc - my hat is off to you - that's my sort of work ethic - but the onus is then on YOU and you alone to make it work.  In these days of script driven support - you can't expect any organisation to help you.

Whatever the enthusiasts and pedants would have you believe - it's all a bit of a dark art - some stuff plays together - some just doesn't, whatever you do.

There are however a few (very few) simple guidelines that cover most things most of the time.  These are mine;

PCs and tablets - DHCP is fine unless you do file sharing between workstations.

Fixed devices like TV, streamers and NAS should have fixed IPs.

When mapping to these devices - don't use the name //mynas/myshare - ALWAYS use the ip address  //192.168.yyy.xxx/myshare.  The master browser - SHOULDN't change ... but sometimes it just does.

Finally - if you change routers expect to have to accept certain differences - just like knowing a new car will have the ashtray in a different spot.

  • 68
  • 5
  • 19
mr_ian
Dialled in
215 Views
Message 20 of 51
Flag for a moderator

Re: Hub 3.0 ethernet switch problem

My reply was based on my own experience as an experienced IT/networking professional..  It is highly likely that name resolution/NETBIOS/WINS/SMB is working for some devices and not others - and trying to troubleshoot that via a forum is near impossible.  You  can look on far more technical forums than this to find a whole host of solutions - and failure to find the right one - YMMV.

Given that we know that the drive is visible on the network and the PC is connected to the network then I can pretty much guarantee that the IP address solution will work.  I would agree with @whitehoose .  I have a QNAP NAS and for the life of me have never been able to get some PCs to recognise it by name.  It's not something you can be blaming Virgin for, and I am sure the SH complies with the relevant networking standards.

Complain to Virgin if you wish but, as my teacher used to say, "It's your own time you're wasting" Smiley Wink IMHO of course.

0 Kudos
Reply