Superhub : 200Mbit coming soon? (According to a survey)

[General Maximus]

I would like to read it because there is a big different going from 30 to 60 and 50 to 100 than 100 to 200 and 150 to 300. You are going from 10s of megabits per customer to 100+ per customer and cumulatively that must come out at hundreds of gigabits additional capacity needed per area or even several terabits.

[Ignitionnet]

Nah it's nowhere near that heavy to be honest. Customers don't start using twice as much data because they have twice the headline speed. They tend to do the same things more quickly for the most part.

The sizing of the network is to ensure that bursts of activity can't overwhelm nodes rather than build them for sustained usage by a bunch of customers.

The entire VM network isn't pushing 'several' terabits so it's not quite at that scale. Individual groups of CMTS even at major hubsites aren't pushing multiple terabits. Some of the very largest may be tickling a terabit in total capacity but certainly not multiples of them.

[Kabaal]

Originally Posted by General Maximus

The 19mbit comment above is interesting because i can get 18MB/sec downloading torrents so you would expect ~36MB/sec if you was on 300mbits. Maybe that is what they are trialling atm; what throughput is realistically achievable.

On 152mb i get 19.5 ish with segmented downloads straight from a leaseweb server. I can only guess that the 'astraweb' he tested on just isn't giving enough.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by General Maximus

Maybe that is what they are trialling atm; what throughput is realistically achievable.

Not really. Trialling the impact of the speeds on network load.

As a general rule using performance downloading from purveyors of dodgy content doesn't enter into the decision making processes. It could be done without trialling with the public in any event.

[Sephiroth]

There's a hairs breadth between what Igni has said and what mon General has opined. AT least that will be so in the General's eyes.

[japitts]

Originally Posted by Kushan

I'm worried about contention as my area suffers from it in the evenings as it is

It certainly makes me curious - I've had congestion issues at peak times since a few months now, and from reading between a few lines, I wouldn't be surprised if the "fix" and the "speed uplift works" are one and the same thing.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

There's a hairs breadth between what Igni has said and what mon General has opined. AT least that will be so in the General's eyes.

Perhaps that may be the perception, but not the reality. It seemed to me that the General was referring to testing to ascertain throughput via certain applications which is definitely not VM's problem.

Performance in general use could only be ascertained on network segments fully upgraded to uplift specifications, using CPE of uplift specifications, so entirely futile to run such tests on network not fully upgraded and using the current 8x4 Superhub.

They are testing how much network load increases when the higher speeds are provided. There is a rule of thumb over such things however the UK's usage increases seem to break the trend among the Liberty family.

Find a stereotypical customer base segment averaging 50% utilisation, uplift it, if it goes to 70% you can reasonably assume that this pattern will, on the whole be replicated elsewhere and you need to add 40% additional capacity to maintain the current quality of service in addition to standard BAU upgrades.

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

Originally Posted by japitts

It certainly makes me curious - I've had congestion issues at peak times since a few months now, and from reading between a few lines, I wouldn't be surprised if the "fix" and the "speed uplift works" are one and the same thing.

The same changes as allow for the speed upgrades fix congestion, yes.

Generally when doing work to relieve congestion when an uplift is planned both would be done at the same time for efficiency reasons.

For example where the original plan would've been to double capacity to relieve congestion it would instead be quadrupled to supply uplift capacity simultaneously.

If you are in an area that requires extensive work to relieve congestion the two would be separate - the network rebuilds to relieve congestion would be part of business as usual network upgrade and would be followed by additional capacity to support the uplift.

[Dush]

Cannot wait to get this - I'll have 378mbit with the FTTC line running simultaneously. 47.25 MB/sec.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

If someone could PM me tomorrow morning when my hangover is still in full effect to remind me to get on with it that'd be appreciated.

No-one did so doing nothing on it today and enjoying hair of the dog instead.



---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Dush

Cannot wait to get this - I'll have 378mbit with the FTTC line running simultaneously. 47.25 MB/sec.

Check that whatever you're using to bond will be cool with that level of throughput.

Then tell me what it is so that, if they build cable here, I can do the same thing

[Parlyboy]

Originally Posted by mmm

Thank-you VM, New config received this morning

Primary Downstream Service Flow
SFID	47006
Max Traffic Rate	225280000 bps
Max Traffic Burst	10000 bytes
Min Traffic Rate	0 bps
Primary Upstream Service Flow
SFID	47005
Max Traffic Rate	12902400 bps
Max Traffic Burst	16320 bytes
Min Traffic Rate	0 bps
Max Concatenated Burst	16320 bps
Scheduling Type	BestEffort

From wireless laptop via my own routers:-

Can someone tell me how I check for these results on my SHUB? Thanx

[General Maximus]

Click this link and scroll down to the fifth post (mine) so you can see what you are looking for. If you are using the shub in router mode (which I am sure you will be) go to http://192.168.0.1 (you can click that) it will take you to the router login page which is the first pic on that link I gave you and you are looking for the Operation Config tab.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Check that whatever you're using to bond will be cool with that level of throughput.

Then tell me what it is so that, if they build cable here, I can do the same thing

A PC?

[mmm]

Originally Posted by General Maximus

Click this link and scroll down to the fifth post (mine) so you can see what you are looking for. If you are using the shub in router mode (which I am sure you will be) go to http://192.168.0.1 (you can click that) it will take you to the router login page which is the first pic on that link I gave you and you are looking for the Operation Config tab.

The main thing that usually confuses is that you must NOT be logged in to the modem to get to those screens

personally I have a browser favourite for

http://ntl250.lan/VmRouterStatus_configuration.asp

In modem mode my router knows that is on 192.168.100.1, yes I should change the name - at least its not still TJ210 for which we had to use Robin Walker's scripts to interrogate.

[Dush]

Check that whatever you're using to bond will be cool with that level of throughput.

Then tell me what it is so that, if they build cable here, I can do the same thing

It's a cisco rv042g, goes up to 600Mbps WAN-LAN throughput : http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwa...viewed?start=1

[dragon]

Originally Posted by Dush

Cannot wait to get this - I'll have 378mbit with the FTTC line running simultaneously. 47.25 MB/sec.

Load-Balanced, "Bonded" or Just used individually?.

I'm currently using an LRT224 to balance which works on threaded transfers but some sites/applications hate the sudden IP change.

I did think of "bonding" mine but it would require a lot of Resources to pull off, I've done it before on slow DSL lines and it worked reasonably well but it tends to be CPU intensive on faster connections, prob need X86 boxes at each end.

Then of course there's the bandwidth requirements at the end doing the bonding, It would be doing ~378Mbit/s in + 378Mbit/s out (excluding overheads) depending on how the bandwidth is billed and how much your provider charges for bandwidth usage that could hurt.