Originally Posted by knack (Post 35820131)

Upgraded to 200Mb and received superhub.

Was wondering whether I'd get SH 3 or SH 2ac but have actually received SH 2. I'd have thought that they would be issuing 2ac or 3 only now.

I have ac devices which is why I'm posting about this. Anyone know if they'll swap if I contact them? Alternative is a new ac router which I had been considering.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35820090)

There's absolutely no need to go killing yourself to get a SH3 if you have a SH2 right now. Even bonding extra channels isn't going to make a difference on your 200mbit connection,

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35820090)

you'll either get your 200mbit or your area will be congested and you won't.

Originally Posted by MUD_Wizard (Post 35820323)

Naturally, but that argument can't be used to negate the usefulness of channel bonding.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35820345)

Correct, but it can be used to negate the usefulness of the SH3 in it's present state.

Originally Posted by MUD_Wizard (Post 35820323)

Originally Posted by toady (Post 35820475)

So nice to see them looking after their loyal customers on the top tier by giving them the oldest model

Originally Posted by toady (Post 35820475)

So nice to see them looking after their loyal customers on the top tier by giving them the oldest model

Originally Posted by MUD_Wizard (Post 35820477)

I believe it's a temporary situation.

Originally Posted by Synthetic (Post 35820592)

Wondering when they're gonna roll out a decent firmware to us who aren't trialists, but stuck on this buggy version

Originally Posted by Synthetic (Post 35820592)

Wondering when they're gonna roll out a decent firmware to us who aren't trialists, but stuck on this buggy version

Originally Posted by SnoopZ (Post 35820597)

And i wonder when they will rollout a decent firmware to the trialists! Well atleast another improved one anyway!

Originally Posted by Synthetic (Post 35820611)

Ah, that doesn't sound good.

Still can't believe they're sending out this half finished product to actual customers

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35820618)

The image posted earlier implies HUB3.0 is now std equipment for new customer installs. *If* your CMTS has been upgraded to make it compatible, would a HUB3.0 (in modem mode) improve the peak-time speeds on an over utilised segment? If so, any idea on by how much?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35820618)

*If* your CMTS has been upgraded to make it compatible, would a HUB3.0 (in modem mode) improve the peak-time speeds on an over utilised segment? If so, any idea on by how much?

Originally Posted by toady (Post 35820475)

So nice to see them looking after their loyal customers on the top tier by giving them the oldest model

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35820636)

Yes and piece of string respectively

Originally Posted by SnoopZ (Post 35820619)

i suffered from congestion (20-50mbit in evenings) when on 8-10 channels and an old CMTS, when they upgraded my CMTS to Arris i went to 16 channels and i now hit 150mbit 24/7.

I am not sure when they change the CMTS whether capacity is automatically upgraded though?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35820642)

So you don't know, no problem.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35820618)

The image posted earlier implies HUB3.0 is now std equipment for new customer installs. *If* your CMTS has been upgraded to make it compatible, would a HUB3.0 (in modem mode) improve the peak-time speeds on an over utilised segment? If so, any idea on by how much?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35820654)

I take Igni on at my peril - so I won't, this time.

You presumably mean that the CMTS has been upgraded to support 16 or more downstream channels and 8 or more upstream channels. You then ask how much increase in speed would you see in an over utilised segment.

Igni's answer is correct. To answer that question the way you would have liked needs more assumptions which can't really be provided. This notional "over utilised segment" concept needs to be bounded by the number of connected homes, their concurrency, segment and node details before/after any re-segmentation (if any).

You can say that if, without re-segmentation, they add downstream capacity such that the additional downstream channels are not pinched from an existing set, then at the instant of cut over to the new system, downstream congestion would be halved.

HTH and I await some scathing point of disagreement from Igni.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35820654)

You can say that if, without re-segmentation, they add downstream capacity such that the additional downstream channels are not pinched from an existing set, then at the instant of cut over to the new system, downstream congestion would be halved.

Originally Posted by MUD_Wizard (Post 35820725)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35820924)

But if they pinched it from another set, the misery continues. I'd say they were more likely to upgrade their optical systems to uniformly use WDM so that at least 16 channels could go down one fibre. (This is just the downstream we're talking about - corresponding upgrades for the upstream would be necessary, a different topic). Or they would lay more fibres.

Igni may well get stuck in to us both!

Originally Posted by vm_tech (Post 35820942)

I both agree and disagree with you. The bottle neck is the CMTS port, but you are correct in saying that the number of homes connected to the node affects this. The network I work on has a few different designs, the earlier stuff was 2100 home build, which a few years back had new fibres to break it down to 525 build. The rest of the stuff was 525 build originally. DWM has recently been used to push the node deeper into the network in my area (replacing an RF amp). So effectively the main node has another node running off of it, which has its own CMTS port

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35820946)

So we are in agreement actually. What you say makes perfect sense to me. You're not on Reading by any chance? Is that 2100/525 homes passed per node or connected? If my RG41 5 postcode is anything to go by, that would be homes passed where I've calculated by survey between 500 & 600 homes passed.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35820947)

The fibre isn't a problem. The issues preventing additional downstream channels are either side. The capacity of line cards / Edge QAMs at the VM side and the RF capacity of node and amplifiers towards the customer.

WDM allows splitting of nodes without additional fibre, multiplexing nodes onto the same fibre pair, not delivery of more bandwidth to each node.

---------- Post added at 14:37 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------



So this is resegmentation, however rather than running new fibre all the way from hubsite or headend to each new node the existing fibre goes to a WDM mux colocated with the previous node, and new fibre is run from the original node only.

Removes the need for new long fibre runs; new fibre is only installed on that last few hundred feet in the field and however long in the hubsite/headend between the WDM mux and the Edge QAMs / digital return modulators / media converters / whatever.

Doesn't change how many channels each node can use unless the node's capabilities were the only bottleneck, but reduces homes passed per node.

Originally Posted by vm_tech (Post 35820950)

The first part of what you said was the point I was trying to get across. And yes you're correct In what you said in the second part. So the original node no has 2 CMTS ports rather than one, although this doesn't double the capacity as the ports aren't evenly split as such, but it does mean the amp feeding the most customers will have the extra capacity. And obviously going forward more wavelengths can be used to reseg that node even further

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35820964)

Yeah I hadn't read your post when I wrote the first one.

https://youtu.be/bOAjzKY51-I?t=1143 is interesting.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35821162)

That is not my reading of the trial forums. ButVM play their cards close to their chests, so who knows what is really going on.

Originally Posted by Synthetic (Post 35821169)

Kush - I'd happily have a 2AC over the 3, don't appear to have any congestion in my area and never have experienced any.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35821173)

I think a lot of people just want something new and shiny.

Originally Posted by Synthetic (Post 35821174)

Also the white stands out like a sore thumb against the rest of our TV / other equipment!

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35821175)

Silver / brushed aluminium or black would have fitted in better.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35821543)

No wonder some people have WiFi issues!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35821543)

No wonder some people have WiFi issues!

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35821571)

I like the flashing lights.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35820548)

Where does it say top tier uses will get the SH1? That is after all their oldest model.

Originally Posted by richard s (Post 35821578)

Some people are so lucky I am on two tin cans with a bit of string tied between them.

Originally Posted by Ken W (Post 35821559)

I have told a friend in my road that the cause of his poor Wi-Fi is due to it being hidden behind his TV but he just won't move the Hub.

His loss.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35821636)

Well you do realise that the optimal position for WiFi is hung from the lampshade in the most central room of the house**.:D

Originally Posted by Stop It (Post 35821641)

*Sticky back plastic and an extension lead required.

On a serious note though, I've lost count of times I've seen complaints about Wi-Fi where the Router in question is either in the corner of a house, in a closed cupboard, or near obvious sources of potential interference (Subwoofers are great, just not for placing a router on top of). Of course, the laws of physics never apply when going on a rant however!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35821647)

Whilst I agree with you wholeheartedly, for Enterprise WiFi that I install, cupboards are often the only place allowed in listed buildings! We do, however, pre-check the signal level we'll obtain in the desired areas and set the users' expectations.

The main issue with cupboards is unlikely propagation to a different level of the property. For Enterprise WiFi we just stick another AP in upstairs and ensure that we don't have more than 3 APs within 80 dBm of each other.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35821647)

Whilst I agree with you wholeheartedly, for Enterprise WiFi that I install, cupboards are often the only place allowed in listed buildings! We do, however, pre-check the signal level we'll obtain in the desired areas and set the users' expectations.

The main issue with cupboards is unlikely propagation to a different level of the property. For Enterprise WiFi we just stick another AP in upstairs and ensure that we don't have more than 3 APs within 80 dBm of each other.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35822437)

Privacy error on your link, Horsey.

Originally Posted by horseman (Post 35822428)

Sometimes we don't practise what we preach! :dunce:

No idea whether >this < will make it past my firewall let alone the Mods here! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35822446)

Certificate is from the NAS those files are on and is in turn signed by Synology, not a 'proper' Certificate Authority.

No biggie.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35822448)

However, you can replace them yourself with a Valid SSL cert. You can get a free one from StartSSL, though of course you'll have to have your own domain. Everyone should own a domain though.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35822446)

......
No biggie.

---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:14 ----------



Bad equine. You could do with some tidying up there.

Originally Posted by horseman (Post 35822525)

Mea maxima culpa - but still w.i.p as they say... many thanks to Dave,Carl and yourself. Yes "ggrider.co.uk" (and others) has been around for over a decade, unfortunately SSL certs have proved somewhat problematic on old DS411J box and current testing & migration to new DS415+ is still ongoing.

However as Dennis Norden used to say: "It'll be alright on the night" ....except of course I'm apparently on a different planet to everyone else so here on Venus, night takes approx 243 Days to arrive..... :dunce:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35822534)

What you on, Horse?

Originally Posted by horseman (Post 35822622)

@Kush dunno about hooks as I'm neither a boxer nor a fisherman but the proliferation of Syno and MBP/Webroot AES 128/256 encryption packages mean's it's doddle to encrypt mail/docs/files anyway! Getting hold of 2048 AES Encryption (free/cheap) is slightly more problematic though.... :erm:

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35822685)

Typo? There's no such thing ;)

Originally Posted by horseman (Post 35822704)

Whilst that's very re-assuring you haven't found it either ( I think you missed the point? :rolleyes: )

Originally Posted by jb66 (Post 35823311)

How do you make the 2G and the 5G different names?

How do you find the power levels?

Originally Posted by SnoopZ (Post 35823314)

A tech is asking how to find the power levels and change the wireless names or have i jumped in the thread and miss read?

Originally Posted by jb66 (Post 35823322)

Can you help?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35823337)

... and nobody's been told what's new in the firmware. Or have I missed something?

Originally Posted by SnoopZ (Post 35823339)

Was unexpected and we don't know what is in it, did you miss the drop again?

Originally Posted by jb66 (Post 35823349)

Is there not a changelog so we can see what each update brings?

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35823356)

Change log is that they went from DEC083 to DEC084

:rofl:

Originally Posted by jb66 (Post 35823349)

Is there not a changelog so we can see what each update brings?

Originally Posted by horseman (Post 35823389)

That's way before "Tea-time".... :dunce:

---------- Post added at 09:30 ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 ----------



Don't be silly - even CPE Firmware Team don't have a publishable fix list.
However as you're VM staff you can easily ring Richard and find out for us? :rolleyes:

Question for you: If you're on 16channel D/S have you noticed about 15-20% decrease in ICMP max latency?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35823395)

Also, how can you tell if your line card is Hub 3.0 compatible i.e. has the 16 D/S channels?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35823395)

This is interesting. Is the HUB 3.0 now a standard option on Vivid 200? If it is and you are on the upgraded CMTS kit, can you ring in and buy/haggle for one? I ask because my son is an avid PS4 gamer and if this helps with gaming then it may be worth asking for one.

Also, how can you tell if your line card is Hub 3.0 compatible i.e. has the 16 D/S channels?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35823345)

No - I got it this time. Before my very eyes.

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35823397)

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...-channels.html

You want post #3 onwards, though 12 channel and less will do 200Mbps OK... Not sure though that the new hub with it's NAT/Firewall issues will do what you want any better than the other superhubs

Originally Posted by Travelstar (Post 35823415)

Recently have moved across to VM from BT and purchased the Vivid 200 service.

Whilst the overall service seems pretty decent and in fact I have even received over 300 Mbit/sec on some days. Unfortunately last night my speed (wired) seemed to drop to around 13-15 Mbits/sec which is a significant and unexpected decrease). In addition to this my experience with the SuperHub 3 has been pretty poor.

Port 4 which happens to also be the only port which works when the unit is in modem mode seems flaky. Sometimes it decides it just wants to be a 100 Mbit/sec port rather than gigabit. I've tried other cables just to check and i've been able to replicate the issue but it can run a day without dropping down to a slower speed.

In addition to the above, the Virgin Hub UI must be the slowest I have ever used. Pages take literally 30 seconds+ to load which seems more than a little extreme. I really can't see how this got out of UAT with that performance. Wifi range also seems fairly poor and my Home Hub was significantly better so I am taking the plunge and getting an R8000 to take over those duties. That said, I need to get the SuperHub fixed so that port 4 does not decide to drop to the lower speed.

Questions:

1. Have other people found the UI of the SuperHub 3 to be as poor as me where pages literally take 30 seconds (sometimes more) to load? I've read on this forum that the hub is slow, but I was not expecting it to be as bad as this.
[SEPH]: Which firmware are you on? It's shown in the Info subsection of the ADMIN section. Until yesterday I was on the 85J firmware and it wasn't as slow as you describe.

2. Have others noticed that the propagation performance of the SH3 wifi is poor? Two walls seems enough to pretty much kill the signal.
[SEPH]: Two walls can kill any WiFi signal. I've found it to be OK - as good as the SH2ac (which is acknowledged as fine). That said, on principle I am in modem mode with an external router that has external antennae and many more router functions that the hubs have got.

3. Anyone else noticed port 4 (i.e. the master port) so be flaky? Or has I just ended up with a dodgy router?
[SEPH]: Dodgy router perhaps. Go onto the VM forum and tell your story about Port 4. Within two or three days the VM Forum Team will arrange a technician to come and sort that out.
4. Does the performance of VM really vary as much as 13-320 Mbits/sec? The dramatic slow down last night (admittedly during 'peak time') was unexpected - personally I would have expected I would have obtained at least 50 Mbit/sec.
[SEPH]: Depends on what him next door's six children are doing with their streaming and mega-downloading, etc. It could also have been some temporary blip and you may care to post your downstream and upstream router stats for an opinion.

As a side note I find the overall 'advanced options' within the SH3 pretty poor. It might be good enough for basic users, but for anyone who has even slightly more requirements, you really are hamstrung by what the SH3 offers.
[SEPH]: Yep - as with all the broadband suppliers' gateway devices. Hence modem mode.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35823395)

This is interesting. Is the HUB 3.0 now a standard option on Vivid 200? If it is and you are on the upgraded CMTS kit, can you ring in and buy/haggle for one? I ask because my son is an avid PS4 gamer and if this helps with gaming then it may be worth asking for one.

....

Originally Posted by Travelstar (Post 35823437)

Thanks for coming back to me Seph!

1. I've just remoted into my modem (thanks to a VPN I have setup) and things this afternoon seem a little faster so I have a feeling I have just been upgraded in respect to firmware.

New firmware is 9.1.88J5


--snip--

Originally Posted by Travelstar (Post 35823437)

Thanks for coming back to me Seph!

1. I've just remoted into my modem (thanks to a VPN I have setup) and things this afternoon seem a little faster so I have a feeling I have just been upgraded in respect to firmware.

New firmware is 9.1.88J5
[SEPH]: That is the non-triallist firmware. A few things don't work but as ever, modem mode comes to the rescue.

2. That is what I am hoping the R8000 will fix. I can't see the use case yet for the 8500 until devices get updated so I feel the R8000 should at least help me solve the problem.

3. VM have already agreed to send out a tech thankfully.

4. My levels are shown below:

Downstream:

1 323000000 -6.7 35.7 256qam 116
2 315000000 -6.5 35.7 256qam 115
3 307000000 -6.4 36.3 256qam 114
4 299000000 -7.0 36.3 256qam 113
5 291000000 -7.0 36.3 256qam 112
6 283000000 -7.0 36.3 256qam 111
7 275000000 -7.0 27.3 256qam 110
8 267000000 -6.7 37.3 256qam 109
[SEPH]: Noise on this channel is unacceptable high (SNR=27.3). This is because your power levels are outside of the acceptable threshold (-6dBmv to +10dBmv). The tech will fix that.

Upstream:

5 46200000 ATDMA 51 32qam 6400000 5120
7 32600000 ATDMA 51 16qam 6400000 5120
[SEPH]: A noisy upstream too. All this wrecks speed. If it were working perfectly you'd be o 64QAM modulation. I suspect that the same impairment that is dropping your downstream power is causing your modem to push power harder and on inspection you might see it maxing out at 54dBmv.

Cheers!

Originally Posted by horseman (Post 35823443)

Currently Hub 3.0 still on pilot release to new V200 customers only although this can vary by area/inventory levels and also unpredictably variable as VM's processes can be quite dynamically changeable - (diplomatic phrase for totally inconsistent). :rolleyes:
If you're naively placing your optimism in a half developed Hub with 16 (D/S) channels and just ICMP results from TBB hosted server (without checking UDP/TCP latency to your specific game servers) then be prepared for potentially disappointment/disillusionment or conversely staggering delightenment!
(I think that's wat I "ment"? )

Originally Posted by Horseman

Question for you: If you're on 16channel D/S have you noticed about 15-20% decrease in ICMP max latency?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35823395)

This is interesting.

Originally Posted by MUD_Wizard (Post 35823551)

It was wishful thinking, nothing more.

......

Originally Posted by horseman (Post 35823389)

.....

Question for you: If you're on 16channel D/S have you noticed about 15-20% decrease in ICMP max latency?
Nope - forget that insufficient samples - looks the same for me now... :(

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35823584)

... or they'e got diagnostic code running.