cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Hub 3 / Compal CH7465-LG (TG2492LG) and CGNV4 Latency Cause

Datalink
Up to speed

Good Day Ladies and Gentlemen,

Greetings from the other side of the pond, so to speak.  Over the last few weeks I've been perusing various user forums across North America and Europe for issues related to Intel Puma 6 modem latency.  Of those forums, your Hub 3 stands out as yet another Puma 6 based modem where users see continuous latency no matter what site is used or what online game is played. Considering all of the problems that are on the go, the following information should be of interest to all Hub 3, Compal CH7465-LG and Hitron CGNV4 modem users.  There is much more to post regarding this, so this is a start, to alert VM users as to the real cause of the latency and hopefully engage the VM engineering staff, via the forum staff, with Arris.  I am surprised to see that there has been no mention on this board of users from other ISPs who are suffering the exact same issues with their modems, so, this may come as a surprise to some, and possibly old news to others.

So, the short story ........

The Hub 3 / Compal CH7465-LG (TG2492LG) & Hiton CGNV4 modems are Intel Puma 6 / 6 Media Gateway (MG) based modems.  These modems exhibit high latency to the modem and high latency thru the modem.  The latency affects all IPV4 and IPV6 protocols, so it will be seen on every internet application and game.  The basic cause is the processing of the data packets thru a CPU software based process instead of thru the hardware processor / accelerator.  It appears that a higher priority task runs periodically, causing the packet processing to halt, and then resume.  This is observed as latency in applications and in ping tests to the modem and beyond.  For the last several weeks, Hitron, along with Intel and Rogers Communications in Canada have been addressing the latency issue within the Hitron CGNxxx series modems.  To date, only the IPV4 ICMP latency has been resolved.  Although this is only one protocol, it does show that a Puma 6MG modem is capable of using the hardware processor / accelerator with good results.  Currently Rogers is waiting for further firmware updates from Hitron which should include an expanded list of resolved protocol latency issues.  For Arris modems, "Netdog" an Arris engineer indicated last week that Arris was onboard to address the issue for the Arris SB6190 modem.  That should be considered as good news for any Arris modem (read Hub 3) user as Arris should be able to port those changes over to other Puma 6/6MG modems fairly quickly.  This is not a trivial exercise and will probably take several weeks to accomplish.  Note that there is no guarantee at this point that it is possible to shift all packet processing to the hardware processor / accelerator without suffering from any packet loss side effects.  Time will tell if all of the technical issues can be resolved with the current hardware included in the Puma 6/6MG chipset.  Last night, Netdog loaded beta firmware on selected test modems on the Comcast Communications network.  As this was only done last night, it's too soon to tell what this version resolves and if it was successful or not.  Netdog has contacts with staff at Comcast, Rogers, Charter and Cox Communications to fan out beta versions and modifications for testing.  I'd say its time to add Virgin Media and/or Liberty Global to that group as well.

Recent activity:

Approx three weeks ago a DSLReports user, xymox1 started a thread where he reported high latency to an Arris SB6190 and illustrated that with numerous MultiPing plots.  This is the same latency that I and other users with Rogers communications have been dealing with for months so it came as no surprise.  As well as reporting via that thread, xymox1 took it upon himself to email several staff members at Arris, Intel, Cablelabs and others.  The result of that campaign was Netdog's announcement, last week, that Arris was fully engaged at resolving the issue.  That has led to last nights release of beta firmware, although as I indicated its too early to determine what the beta firmware resolves, if anything.


The original thread that xymox1 started is here:

https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r31079834-ALL-SB6190-is-a-terrible-modem-Intel-Puma-6-MaxLinear-mis...


Yesterday, DSLReports issued a news story covering the thread:

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-Arris-SB6190-Modem-Puma-6-Chipset-Have-Some-Major-Issues-138...


Today, Arris responded:

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Arris-Tells-us-Its-Working-With-Intel-on-SB6190-Puma6-Problems-1...


That response was also picked by Multichannel.com

http://www.multichannel.com/news/distribution/intel-arris-working-firmware-fix-sb6190-modem/409379

This is more news likely to appear in the next few days as additional tech and news staff pick up on this issue.


Hub 3 observations:

Like many others using a Puma 6/6MG modem, Hub 3 users are experiencing latency when they ping the modem, or ping a target outside of the home, game online or use low latency applications.  The common misconception is that this is Buffer Bloat. It's not. Its most likely a case of the packet processing stopping while the CPU processes a higher priority task.  The packet processing is done via the CPU no matter what mode the modem is operating in, modem mode or router mode and no matter what IPV4 or IPV6 protocol is used.  Normally, the latency is just that, latency.  The exception are UDP packets. In this case there is latency and packet loss.  The result of that is delayed and failed DNS lookups, and poor game performance for games that use UDP for player/server comms or player/player comms.


Can this be fixed?

So far, it appears that the answer is yes.  Rogers Communications issued beta firmware to a small group of test modems in October.  This version shifted the IPV4 ICMP processing from the CPU to the hardware processor / accelerator, resulting in greatly improved performance in ping latency.  At the present time we are waiting for the next version firmware which should shift other protocols over to the hardware processor / accelerator.  That can be seen in the following post:

http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/Getting_connected/message-id/369...

The details and results of last nights beta release to the Comcast group have yet to be seen.

At this point there is enough reading to keep most staff and users busy.  My intention is to post some of the history leading up to this point and instructions on how to detect the latency and packet loss.  This is not thru the use of a BQM.  I had hoped to post this all at once but events are moving much faster than I had thought they would.  For now this should suffice to get the ball rolling.

Below is a link to a post with a couple of HrPing plots from my 32 channel modem to the connected CMTS.  This shows the latency that is observed and reflects what others have posted in this forum using Pingplotter and HrPing.

https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r31106550-

HrPing is one of the freebie applications that can be used to monitor the latency to and thru the modem. 

Pingplots with Pingplotter which show the latency from my modem to the CMTS can be found in the first two to three rows of my online image library at Rogers Communications, located below.  They are essentially what the BQM would look like if you were able to zoom into the plot to the point where you could see the individual ping spikes.  Those ping spikes are common to Puma 6 and Puma 6MG modems.

http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/media/gallerypage/user-id/829158

 

 

 [MOD EDIT: Subject heading changed to assist community]

4,478 REPLIES 4,478

wotusaw
Superfast

cje85@

"Are you using WiFi or wired? This is what I get with 9.1.116BA3"

 

Nope, using wired and the very bestest cable money can buy from pc to hub3.

 

Yes, Boltedenergy....should have kept my mouth shut!!Smiley Frustrated

 

I had an engineer here saturday and he picked it up and shove his tester on it/whatever. But don't think he could have messed it up. Maybe it's the rain?

I just don't know. This is the worst it's been. It was not like this after the new patch awhiles back.

Anonymous
Not applicable

New firmware is being pushed out by postcode (according to live chat person).

ColinTaylor
Superfast

OK Just another FYI.

I've been testing the new firmware since I got it this morning and these are my observations.

1. As reported elsewhere the BQM latency graph now looks "normal" and ICMP pings don't suffer the previous spikes.

2. The Puma 6 test shows all green, again without the intermittent red blocks.

3. Intermittent (about every 20 seconds or so) TCP latency spikes are still there for requests of more than a few hundred bytes. Smaller requests like those used in the Puma 6 test do not suffer from this.

4. Overall "feel" with general browsing is noticeably improved. I can't comment about online gaming as I don't do that.

So in summary, the new firmware does a good job at masking the worst effects of the Puma 6 problem but the underlying problem is still present.


wrote:

I'm not talking about whole screen tearing.  This effect is within polygons that have a texture being displayed.  No amount of hardware synch fixes can alter the fact that the client has to catch up by the example of 8-9 frames, and that the client will be mapping a different image to that displayed before. The jerky movement of some other players is an obvious effect, if you consider what has to happen when a texture across an area of screen has the same jump, what you'll have is a momentary thin wedge of missing or overlapping image.  It's like cutting a sheet of graph paper and putting it back at a very slight angle - either side the pattern is the same, but it won't join correctly, creating that obvious discontinuity, that in a game appears as a tear

 

Yeah, but no. https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Lag_compensation This might help you understand what happens. Texture mapped polygons are textured mapped. The mapping doesn't move because a packet is delayed or lost.

Andrew-G
Alessandro Volta

It isn't a single lost packet, it's eight-twelve entire frames that we're talking about.  I'd agree that a few lost packets are neither here nor there, but when you're have a PC trying top catch up on ten complete screen refreshes, that's rather a lot of data in a fast moving game.  There's still only the two options I've indicated - the PC has to make up and blend two different images, or there's going to be discontinuity on the screen.

LAN TO WAN SIDE:

PING www.google.co.uk (216.58.204.3) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from lhr35s07-in-f3.1e100.net (216.58.204.3): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=15.8 ms
64 bytes from lhr35s07-in-f3.1e100.net (216.58.204.3): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=14.6 ms
64 bytes from lhr35s07-in-f3.1e100.net (216.58.204.3): icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=11.7 ms
64 bytes from lhr35s07-in-f3.1e100.net (216.58.204.3): icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=12.1 ms
64 bytes from lhr35s07-in-f3.1e100.net (216.58.204.3): icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=12.9 ms
64 bytes from lhr35s07-in-f3.1e100.net (216.58.204.3): icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=21.9 ms
64 bytes from lhr35s07-in-f3.1e100.net (216.58.204.3): icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=12.9 ms
64 bytes from lhr35s07-in-f3.1e100.net (216.58.204.3): icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=14.0 ms
64 bytes from lhr35s07-in-f3.1e100.net (216.58.204.3): icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=12.6 ms
64 bytes from lhr35s07-in-f3.1e100.net (216.58.204.3): icmp_seq=10 ttl=54 time=12.2 ms

LAN TO LAN SIDE:

PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=2.42 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.46 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.92 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=2.01 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.96 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.97 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=2.01 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.99 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.94 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=2.00 ms


wrote:

It isn't a single lost packet, it's eight-twelve entire frames that we're talking about.  I'd agree that a few lost packets are neither here nor there, but when you're have a PC trying top catch up on ten complete screen refreshes, that's rather a lot of data in a fast moving game.  There's still only the two options I've indicated - the PC has to make up and blend two different images, or there's going to be discontinuity on the screen.


Are you talking about game streaming rather than running locally? If so I guess what you are saying makes sense but there are so many other potential issues that I doubt you could isolate it to the Puma 6 issue.

Is this utilising Wifi as I wouldn't expect more than <1ms to 1ms from a wired connection unless you are using HomePlug devices.

Not sure why it wouldn't let me quote you on my reply @boltedenergy

Tried a few games and most of my issue's seem to have reduced. 

5ee1e56e482fc3c692d3c966a942e31624b40aa3  


wrote:

Is this utilising Wifi as I wouldn't expect more than <1ms to 1ms from a wired connection unless you are using HomePlug devices.

@Not sure why it wouldn't let me quote you on my reply @boltedenergy



It's wired Ethernet 1Gbps connection from my desktop workstation to the SH3 router (directly connected).

The reason for the variance (although much improved in this firmware) is due to the SH3's dodgy puma6 chipset issues.

I ran the same from a desktop (linux) to a desktop (windows 10) inside my LAN as below:

PING 192.168.0.45 (192.168.0.45) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.0.45: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=0.508 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.45: icmp_seq=2 ttl=128 time=0.839 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.45: icmp_seq=3 ttl=128 time=0.485 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.45: icmp_seq=4 ttl=128 time=0.490 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.45: icmp_seq=5 ttl=128 time=0.479 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.45: icmp_seq=6 ttl=128 time=0.486 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.45: icmp_seq=7 ttl=128 time=0.494 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.45: icmp_seq=8 ttl=128 time=0.869 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.45: icmp_seq=9 ttl=128 time=0.882 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.45: icmp_seq=10 ttl=128 time=1.24 ms