50M Installed Finally But... - Page 4

Ignitionnet · 07-05-2011, 12:14

OK I'm content that it's a capacity problem. The TBB graph appears to imply it and the latency now has also gone up.

Ping statistics for 194.168.4.100:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 99, Lost = 1 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 1363ms, Average = 34ms

The one saving grace for the day is that it's a rugby day so lots of people are getting wasted and watching the game rather than using their broadbandings, which is good given I'm stuck working.

Thanks all, I'll take this up with VM directly and having it confirmed / denied along with any applicable fault references. I do not expect it to be fixed until the network overbuild and DOCSIS 2 upgrade as there's very little point.

EDIT: By the way just to clarify distances that DNS server is a few miles away at the RHE:

Tracing route to cache1.service.virginmedia.net [194.168.4.100]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 28 ms 10 ms 13 ms cpc5-mort6-2-0-gw.croy.cable.virginmedia.com [94.173.220.1]
2 11 ms 11 ms 9 ms mort-geam-1a-ge115.network.virginmedia.net [81.96.225.25]
3 16 ms 26 ms 22 ms croy-core-1a-tenge81-490.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.242.41]
4 22 ms 26 ms 26 ms croy-sm-1-ge145.network.virginmedia.net [86.28.89.18]
5 18 ms 15 ms 13 ms cache1.service.virginmedia.net [194.168.4.100]

And to eliminate LAN side, pings from tools.virginmedia.com

PING 94.173.220. (94.173.220.) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 94.173.220.: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=33.8 ms
64 bytes from 94.173.220.: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=19.1 ms
64 bytes from 94.173.220.: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=15.4 ms
64 bytes from 94.173.220.: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=39.4 ms
64 bytes from 94.173.220.: icmp_seq=5 ttl=58 time=41.0 ms

--- 94.173.220. ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4002ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.414/29.770/41.012/10.540 ms

pip08456 · 07-05-2011, 12:23

It was rather obvious that capacity would be the cause and I rather think you knew it in the first place.

Do let us know what VM say about it.

Ignitionnet · 07-05-2011, 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456

It was rather obvious that capacity would be the cause and I rather think you knew it in the first place.

Do let us know what VM say about it.

Yes I did, but always wise to confirm to avoid making a male appendage of myself when I do push it to VM

pip08456 · 07-05-2011, 12:40

True!

Ignitionnet · 07-05-2011, 13:56

Oh while I'm at it the Superhub is a disaster. After falling over yesterday and requiring a reboot it has locked up twice so far today, disconnecting me from VPN / VoIP. The first time it required a power cycle, the second it sorted itself out after a couple of minutes of being unresponsive.

So, yes, an install delayed by a month and when it finally does happen the VoD doesn't work properly, the broadband is congested and is being delivered by unstable CPE that is on current rates becoming unresponsive once every 3 hours.

It's going to be quite funny when the people at VM who were helping me call to see how everything is going.

pip08456 · 07-05-2011, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Oh while I'm at it the Superhub is a disaster.

Do you not read threads in this forum?

Queue Masque et al telling you that they have no problems and it's good kit!

craigj2k12 · 07-05-2011, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Oh while I'm at it the Superhub is a disaster. After falling over yesterday and requiring a reboot it has locked up twice so far today, disconnecting me from VPN / VoIP. The first time it required a power cycle, the second it sorted itself out after a couple of minutes of being unresponsive.

So, yes, an install delayed by a month and when it finally does happen the VoD doesn't work properly, the broadband is congested and is being delivered by unstable CPE that is on current rates becoming unresponsive once every 3 hours.

It's going to be quite funny when the people at VM who were helping me call to see how everything is going.

your speedtest isnt bad, especially for a contended service

whoops, i might have started world war 3 here

Ignitionnet · 07-05-2011, 14:06

I generally operate on the premise Craig that the service should always be faster than the tier below, IE 50Mb should always outperform 30Mb.

In any event not even hitting 30% isn't acceptable.

craigj2k12 · 07-05-2011, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I generally operate on the premise Craig that the service should always be faster than the tier below, IE 50Mb should always outperform 30Mb.

In any event not even hitting 30% isn't acceptable.

okay lol

glad I didnt start a conflict

it looks pretty poo to me

Tazz · 07-05-2011, 14:43

Welcome back to Virgin Media Igni - I feel for you here I have had my fair share of poor service from Virgin...

Ignitionnet · 07-05-2011, 15:03

I use http://www.comhem.se/comhem/bredband...2/-/index.html as an example of how to do it - quoting a speed range with the minimum being the speed of the next tier below.

By that measure I'm currently a 20Mb XL customer getting 65% of max, or an L customer getting a bonus 33%.

Unfortunately I can't do much to help myself due to the Superhub being nailed down.

---------- Post added at 15:50 ---------- Previous post was at 15:47 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tazz

Welcome back to Virgin Media Igni - I feel for you here I have had my fair share of poor service from Virgin...

You'd have thought I'd have learned from last time, leaving XXL early after being the 1st sub on the entire hubsite on it, due to reliability problems

I'm sure it'll get resolved, so it's no biggie. As far as the Superhub goes...

I know you can see what I'm typing, as you are doing your impression of routing on it. I know it's not your fault, it's the abysmal firmware you're being forced to run. You'll get something that wasn't written by a thousand monkeys hitting a thousand keyboards soon.

---------- Post added at 16:03 ---------- Previous post was at 15:50 ----------

It evidently didn't like that, it became unresponsive again and required a power cycle.

I did the extremely uncommon and rare activity of trying to browse a directory on my NAS.

Class device.

craigj2k12 · 07-05-2011, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Class device.

Tazz · 07-05-2011, 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I know you can see what I'm typing, as you are doing your impression of routing on it. I know it's not your fault, it's the abysmal firmware you're being forced to run. You'll get something that wasn't written by a thousand monkeys hitting a thousand keyboards soon.

---------- Post added at 16:03 ---------- Previous post was at 15:50 ----------

It evidently didn't like that, it became unresponsive again and required a power cycle.

I did the extremely uncommon and rare activity of trying to browse a directory on my NAS.

Class device.

ROFL is this what once working for them has done to you... You have resulted in talking nicely to the hardware

Ignitionnet · 07-05-2011, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tazz

ROFL is this what once working for them has done to you... You have resulted in talking nicely to the hardware

About as useful as offshore technical support would be right now.

I really have better things to do than waste my time with their flow charts. The capacity issue is probably a long way beyond them.

I foresee an accident involving the Superhub and a provocative amount of electricity though.

Tazz · 07-05-2011, 15:33

I never wasted my time with them when I had capacity issues as cannot action nothing - retentions who put you through to second line works better

Have you had a look here to see if your UBR is showing high load? http://ukinternetreport.co.uk/cmts/