[Update] ALL 20>30Mb upgrade discussion - Page 148

Stephen · 13-05-2011, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigj2k11

this is more proof that only a few superhubs have problems

he is infact complimenting the fact that his new superhub works

So only a few superhubs have issues. Does this mean you no longer feel that the superhub is a pos? Or that it's a total waste of VM money

craigj2k12 · 13-05-2011, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

So only a few superhubs have issues. Does this mean you no longer feel that the superhub is a pos? Or that it's a total waste of VM money

the one under my stairs is a pos, and i dont recall calling it a waste of money

Ignitionnet · 13-05-2011, 18:27

As I've mentioned before and I'm sure others have the hardware isn't the problem it's firmware.

R27 is due this month, R26 was released the end of last month and rushed through after literally a couple of days of beta testing to fix major issues in R25. R25 went live on the 7th April, R26 2 weeks later.

There may be a hardware element to it as well, I don't know beyond that the Superhub I have is revision 2, and to get it to start to behave I had to offload all wireless functionality and LAN traffic onto another device.

zekeisaszekedoes · 13-05-2011, 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

Are you really that stupid that you are now trying to say that me posting on here is a case of misconduct, you are truly a very stupid person who does not have a clue about anything hence the above post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

Deal with the fool who is trying to say my posts are a case of misconduct his posting is utter vindictive rubbish because we fail to agree to their way of thinking.

Thanks for proving my point about giving VM a bad name.

craigj2k12 · 13-05-2011, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

As I've mentioned before and I'm sure others have the hardware isn't the problem it's firmware.

R27 is due this month, R26 was released the end of last month and rushed through after literally a couple of days of beta testing to fix major issues in R25. R25 went live on the 7th April, R26 2 weeks later.

There may be a hardware element to it as well, I don't know beyond that the Superhub I have is revision 2, and to get it to start to behave I had to offload all wireless functionality and LAN traffic onto another device.

in my opinion, its all sound with regards to hardware apart from the wireless which has an utterly terrible range at best, everything else is fine, they just need to work on the firmware

Chrysalis · 13-05-2011, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

As I've mentioned before and I'm sure others have the hardware isn't the problem it's firmware.

R27 is due this month, R26 was released the end of last month and rushed through after literally a couple of days of beta testing to fix major issues in R25. R25 went live on the 7th April, R26 2 weeks later.

There may be a hardware element to it as well, I don't know beyond that the Superhub I have is revision 2, and to get it to start to behave I had to offload all wireless functionality and LAN traffic onto another device.

The point I have been making is similiar.

If the superhub is used for very basic demand such as a NAT device with no port forwarding and no standalone LAN traffic it is 'adequate' for the job and will seem to be working fine. Since many people will only use it in this manner the impression may be got that the superhub on the whole is an ok device and its just a minority having issues with it when the better explanation is that its only a minority of people using it for anything remotely stressful. Your experience if anything supports my point as when you offloaded your LAN tasks to another device and disabled the wireless it stabilised and became useable. So I dont think there is "bad batches" and so on, I simply think some people dont use the superhub for anything stressful and as such dont see problems. There is the occasional person who has no problems after getting a replacement but that seems to be rare, those who have issues mostly continue to have issues when they get it swapped out.

My own superhub became stable after I set it up with DMZ to the dir615 and it was dealing with zilch lan traffic and no seperate port forwarding rules, in addition with the wireless disabled. Still bugs but was stable at that point of course I had almost made it into a dumb modem to achieve that.

I am not convinced its a software problem only, especially the wireless issues, ultimately tho whether its hardware or software the cause doesnt matter if it doesnt work, all that matters is if it works properly or not.

Nopanic · 13-05-2011, 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I dont doubt they use other departments to get issues resolved but they dont pass me onto 2nd line whilst on the phone.

No they don't, they take ownership, which is something we agree should always be the case, but they do have more flexibility that 1st line.

zekeisaszekedoes · 13-05-2011, 19:11

To go into a little more depth on what I was told yesterday during the conversation I had with one of the aces in the CEO's office, VM is basically using two main kinds of UBRs across their network. One is made by Motorola, the other I didn't catch. It seems that the Super Hub is fine on one but problematic on the other. That's almost verbatim what I was told.

On top of that, I speculate that the manufacturing process is a little slapdash, meaning that on top of the UBR issue there are Super Hubs which don't work properly on any part of the VM network.

I also passed one of my tips on how to break a Super Hub: copy a large file (>4GB) from a gigabit ethernet machine to (for example) a wireless N laptop running at 300Mbps. In my experience at some point the Super Hub will hang requiring a reboot.

pip08456 · 13-05-2011, 19:25

The other is Cisco Kit.

The VMNG300 had similar problems at first.

Pity VM didn't learn then and specifically checked with their sloppy "extensive" testing before release.

AFAIK it only affects the upload rate and has nothing to do with the other reported problems with the POS.

craigj2k12 · 13-05-2011, 19:30

someone on here had an updated minislot size as they were having troubles with the upload speed, and it had been fixed by an apparent update, maybe worth a power cycle to see if yours has been sorted

zekeisaszekedoes · 13-05-2011, 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456

The other is Cisco Kit.

Thanks pip, it certainly was. Considering I have Cisco qualifications you'd think I'd remember a thing like that!

virginruinedntl · 12-06-2011, 19:06

do i take it that its still Â£30 to upgrade from 20mb to 30mb?

Being throttled to 4mb 24/7 when using torrents or usenet, very annoyed with virgin. Tried rebooting modem but doesn't help.

BenMcr · 13-06-2011, 00:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by virginruinedntl

Being throttled to 4mb 24/7 when using torrents or usenet, very annoyed with virgin. Tried rebooting modem but doesn't help.

If your speed is 4Mbit '24/7' then it's not throttling.

virginruinedntl · 13-06-2011, 10:06

phoned virgin support, they said this was the problem:

Upstream Symbol Rate : 5120 Ksym/sec
Upstream transmit Power Level : 55.2 dBmV
Upstream Mini-Slot Size : 4

the upstream power is too high they said, engineer coming tomorrow and will look at the cabinet and my modem. Hoping they might replace it with a new modem so that i might possibly get 30mb upgrade for free.

jb66 · 13-06-2011, 10:14

Not if he puts a regular hub in