My ethernet runs directly to my iMac and Speedtest shows 930mbps down. Can I split that signal to my Dish network receiver and maintain download speed? If so, what equipment would I need?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Splitting ethernet
- Thread starter omeletpants
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes. An Ethernet switch is designed to "split" the ethernet signal, yet maintain full bandwidth on all connections.
You can find those for less than $20 -- unless you need more than 4 or 5 ports.
example through Amazon - https://smile.amazon.com/NETGEAR-5-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07S98YLHM/
You can find those for less than $20 -- unless you need more than 4 or 5 ports.
example through Amazon - https://smile.amazon.com/NETGEAR-5-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07S98YLHM/
Umm...yeah a switch is definitely what you want, but please tell me a bit more about your setup. When you say your ethernet runs directly to your iMac, I assume that you mean your iMac is connected to a LAN port on your router (i.e., behind a firewall); is this correct? Most ISP routers incorporate a small (5 ports or so) switch, so could you not connect your Dish receiver to that?
I have a 2 node mesh router. I have ethernet from the main node to my iMac. I want to split that off and send one ethernet leg to another room without losing any download performance. No firewall.
Got it. Well, you do have a firewall (hopefully)--should be included in the mesh router. Very important to keep the bad guys out of your network. 
There are some really awesome small port count switches. Cisco sells some good ones, some provide POE, for the future.
Those ARE cool! And quite affordable, too. Amazing that they provide QoS and other advanced features in an unmanaged switch at a sub-$50 price point. OTOH, a <$20 Netgear switch would be sufficient for the OP's use case.
Yep. Smarter switches cost more. Although the cheap Linksys 'business' switches that claim to have firewall like functions is largely a farce. But it looks good on the box. *shrug* What you get, when you pay more, is less latency, potentially (depending on brand). A bigger/faster internal pipe, faster switching. Someone I knew bought a hideously expensive gigabit managed switch for their home, and complained about the cost the whole time. They 'didn't want any slowdowns, and yet had 'slow' internet. Their internal network was capable of speeds their internet connection would never ever ever meet. And paying for 'management'? They would have been better served with a cheap switch and a firewall appliance. Well, and you can even skip the switch as most firewalls have more than one 'inside' LAN port. I've got a firewall, it was expensive, that can crunch 250 gigabits of traffic. I disconnected it and did some speed tests with and without load, and there wasn't much of a difference. Looking at the logs, I'm getting hacked scanned and probed almost constantly. People not using a good firewall, or a firewall at all are standing in the public square with their pants down. Hackers will spend days picking over the data they liberate from unprotected local nodes. *shrug*
Cheap switches are popular. Some clients used them. Some had issues with them too. You get what you play for.
Practice safe computing...
How many Ethernet ports are on your router? If two, just connect the iMac to one and the Dish Receiver to the other.
Adding hardware will not be effective. The capacity of your internet connection is ultimately shared by all devices in your network. Neither the iMac nor the receiver will saturate your connection.
A switch is not 'shared' exactly, but the throughput depends on the amount of traffic. I have been able to saturate my internet connection several times. Adding a switch makes so much sense, even if the gateway/router has multiple ports. Even for just flexibility.
Absolutely. This is why I was asking the OP about his/her setup...it wasn't clear whether a firewall was in the mix. I'm still not 100% sure, but I assume their mesh router must have some sort of firewall.
I remember in the early days of broadband, before I knew any better, I used to connect my PC directly to the cable modem. Imagine sitting on the internet with a public IP address and no firewall whatsoever! I used to watch the WAN activity light blinking away and think "I wonder what's going on?" LOL.
Of course, this was in the mid-late '90s, so I don't think the threat level was as high as it is today. Luckily, I was never hacked (at least that I know of).
Absolutely. This is why I was asking the OP about his/her setup...it wasn't clear whether a firewall was in the mix. I'm still not 100% sure, but I assume their mesh router must have some sort of firewall.
I remember in the early days of broadband, before I knew any better, I used to connect my PC directly to the cable modem. Imagine sitting on the internet with a public IP address and no firewall whatsoever! I used to watch the WAN activity light blinking away and think "I wonder what's going on?" LOL.
But sitting behind a private address isn't that much protection, and some cheap firewalls are almost worse than no protection at all. Watching my firewall being attacked in real time was weird...
Mmmm...not sure I follow your concern about "cheap" firewalls. As long as the thing blocks unsolicited inbound traffic on the WAN, that's most of the battle. I suppose a really screwed design might do NAT poorly and leave arbitrary ports open for too long, which would open up possible attack vectors. I think a much greater concern is certain insecure router "features" that are enabled by default. One of the chief culprits is UPnP, which is almost always enabled on consumer routers. The idea that any random application on my network can set up port forwards just freaks me out--one of the first things I do when setting up a router is to make sure it's turned off. Another bad idea is enabling WAN administration, which I've seen on some ISP routers. I suppose they do it for remote support, but if you leave this on and leave the default router password unchanged, you've just bought a one-way ticket to Misery City!!
But we digress....
Mmmm...not sure I follow your concern about "cheap" firewalls. As long as the thing blocks unsolicited inbound traffic on the WAN, that's most of the battle. I suppose a really screwed design might do NAT poorly and leave arbitrary ports open for too long, which would open up possible attack vectors. I think a much greater concern is certain insecure router "features" that are enabled by default. One of the chief culprits is UPnP, which is almost always enabled on consumer routers. The idea that any random application on my network can set up port forwards just freaks me out--one of the first things I do when setting up a router is to make sure it's turned off. Another bad idea is enabling WAN administration, which I've seen on some ISP routers. I suppose they do it for remote support, but if you leave this on and leave the default router password unchanged, you've just bought a one-way ticket to Misery City!!
But we digress....
I like Sonicwall. They come out of the box locked down. They aren't as expensive as some other brands. People can pretty much plug-and-play them. *shrug*
People, we all need to check our networks on Shields Up, by Gibson Research. It's free, and pretty through...