Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Resurrecting this thread I've just seen today some modem stats from a guy running on 5 downstreams, the additional one added 8MHz below the previous lowest one at 299MHz / 298.75MHz - the VMNG300 can manage 4 downstreams so an area running at 50% utilisation downstream on 5 downstreams will cause VMNG300s to run with visible contention while the Superhub punters will be fine up to 60%. Once a 6th downstream is added the Superhub is fine up to 66%, 8 downstreams 75%. 100Mbps difference.
5+ downstreams is the intended 100Mbps build, 4 downstreams being an interim solution while hardware was being upgraded.
[snip]
---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 16:15 ----------
I wonder if anyone remembers the VMNG becoming unresponsive under load way back when 
If you were using the connection too much it would forget to respond to keepalives from the CMTS causing T3s, T4s and disconnects, it couldn't handle doing its normal work along with doing TurboDOX so they ended up having to disable TurboDOX to stabilise it. 
Amusingly the Superhub I have here, in modem mode, is more reliable than my VMNG300 was during the same part of its life. Once modem mode is widely available things should be nicely sorted.
Just a little reminder. The Superhub is excrement but the VMNG300 was excrement once as well. |
Firmware upgrades ftw. My VMNG300 is still flaky but I'd hate to think how much flakier a SH would be. I'm tempted to wire it up to a remote IP power control so I can reset it remotely...
Still, once again excellent information and an interesting read, I was appalled at the concept of VM running 100mbps services on 4DS channels, glad to see it's not permanant. Presumably once the hardware's up to the task of 8DS bonding we'll see 200mbps on the horizon.