Superhub What could possibly have gone wrong? - Page 2

qasdfdsaq · 10-07-2012, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by boroboi

That just it, they've just upgraded capacity so i was hoping there was another reason for it

They've only added downstream capacity, not upstream. Jitter on cable is a function of how the upstream works, and almost all the jitter on VM comes from upstream congestion.

Plus, adding more downstream capacity will increase the load on the upstream channels because of increased ACK traffic.

---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:46 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by boroboi

That's the whole point of channel bonding though, congestion affects you less when you have more channels to balance the load.

Almost all jitter on VM is on the upstream. Upstream channel bonding has not been implemented yet.

---------- Post added at 17:53 ---------- Previous post was at 17:48 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by boroboi

Im not sure if it's their network or not.. i mean, previously i've had a TBB graph up at my CMTS and it's been all over the place... but look here

If you mean like this then that's simply a software change and part of how the supervisor modules in enterprise routers work, and nothing to do with network capacity or congestion.

Quote:

I know its nearly 2 in the morning, but there is not one bit of inconsistency...

Pretty much every ISP's core network is always like that. Core network problems are not only treated as some of the most serious fault types but are also often the easiest to fix.

babis3g · 10-07-2012, 18:11

wonder when they will start fixing the upstream issues
is so expensive to add one more upstream channel?

boroboi · 10-07-2012, 19:37

Upstream apparently does cost more than adding downstream capacity, but you'd think logic would prevail and they would actually upgrade upstream capacity accordingly to account for load?

babis3g · 11-07-2012, 02:48

sorry little off topic...well they don't understand they have problem?

Or when Bt will bring out next year FTTC on demand they will start again an other network updates so for an other 12 months will be unstable connections until they will finish work again by that time

why they just dont do now (which all ready started)a future work to last few years and stay in the competition for a good time

boroboi · 11-07-2012, 03:00

Because they are morons and they want their customers to move to BT Infinity.

I will gladly oblige when i move to Liverpool in a months time. I'm done with the sinking ship, HMS Virgin Media.

babis3g · 14-07-2012, 04:16

Hi again
Having now the r36 firmware it will not change other channels so you was right that your channels was limited
i have reset 7-8 times with r36 and will not change channels atoll
with r35 was so easy almost each reset will change
Not so sure about it

14-07-2012, 04:57

Err, babis3g. You didn't have R35, no one did. Your last iteration was R30 along with the rest of us

babis3g · 14-07-2012, 05:15

apologise , i mean r30

kwikbreaks · 14-07-2012, 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by babis3g

wonder when they will start fixing the upstream issues
is so expensive to add one more upstream channel?

Have they actually got upstream bonding working in the Superhub firmware?

Has anybody actually got it - if so please post up a screenshot showing it.

boroboi · 14-07-2012, 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Have they actually got upstream bonding working in the Superhub firmware?

Has anybody actually got it - if so please post up a screenshot showing it.

Upstream bonding was only in use in test areas i believe.

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.

craigj2k12 · 14-07-2012, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Have they actually got upstream bonding working in the Superhub firmware?

Has anybody actually got it - if so please post up a screenshot showing it.

Its working fine on the network, and on the superhub. The only problem with it is with the VMNG which needs a firmware update

kwikbreaks · 14-07-2012, 21:44

Thanks for the info - seems I was too pessimistic....

boroboi · 15-07-2012, 00:44

Indeed, i've seen no evidence of the SuperHub ever having had problems with upstream bonding, it just needs to be enabled.

It just boggles the mind why VM leave the downstream in such a state.

kwikbreaks · 15-07-2012, 08:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by boroboi

Indeed, i've seen no evidence of the SuperHub ever having had problems with upstream bonding, it just needs to be enabled.

I guess that you wouldn't see any problems if you've never seen it enabled

I'm pretty much certain they'd have problems with upstream bonding in my area - there's only the one channel that I've ever seen