Cable Forum - View Single Post - Superhub What could possibly have gone wrong?

kwikbreaks · 14-07-2012, 16:55

I know they did some 200Mbps feasibility trials as somebody here was posting about them (roughbeast?) but they were not using a superhub so it doesn't answer the question.

Until they do get upstream bonding working I'm guessing they'll have to rely on the far less satisfactory solution of hoping that load balancing just done by putting a rebooting modem on the least busy upstream will be good enough. I seriously doubt that it will - the higher capacity a pipe has in relation to individual speeds it has to service the higher loading it can carry before it starts to creak. Two bonded 18Mbps channels are far better than two single 18Mbps ones. In fact I really can't see a single channel ever supporting 10Mbps upstream at the sort of contention ratios VM use without it being total dross.

14-07-2012, 16:55	#26
kwikbreaks cf.mega poster Join Date: May 2010 Services: Plusnet FTTC, FoxSat HDR for TV, Vonage VOIP. Posts: 2,082	Re: What could possibly have gone wrong? I know they did some 200Mbps feasibility trials as somebody here was posting about them (roughbeast?) but they were not using a superhub so it doesn't answer the question. Until they do get upstream bonding working I'm guessing they'll have to rely on the far less satisfactory solution of hoping that load balancing just done by putting a rebooting modem on the least busy upstream will be good enough. I seriously doubt that it will - the higher capacity a pipe has in relation to individual speeds it has to service the higher loading it can carry before it starts to creak. Two bonded 18Mbps channels are far better than two single 18Mbps ones. In fact I really can't see a single channel ever supporting 10Mbps upstream at the sort of contention ratios VM use without it being total dross.