Forum Discussion

ellnic60's avatar
ellnic60
Tuning in
13 days ago

Another Hub 5 user with latency issues...

I know some people have had issues with the Hub 4 as well, but I have not long moved from a Hub 4 to a Hub 5, because I wanted the 2.5G port to benefit certain devices and max out the connection. I never experienced an issue with the Hub 4 and I had very consistent ping times of 6/7ms and latency on both download and upload <18ms at all times. However, since getting the Hub 5, I have have worse latency and awful latency spikes. Speed is on point, but latency sucks. Sites that measure buffer bloat have downgraded me from an A to B rating and low latency gaming is suffering.

My kit: Hub 5 in modem mode > 2.5G eth port > OPNsense box with ample capacity. I use Unifi access points (all testing done via cable anyway). Even if my kit were the issue, which it is not, I would have had the same issues with the Hub 4.

So much for Virgin's latest DOCSIS hub. If I had known it was going to be this bad, I wouldn't have bothered getting it. 

Before anyone asks - nothing else on my network has changed, I literally swapped it out with the Hub 4 and now I have this.

Any ideas? Can I get a new hub to see if that does it?

Hub 5
latency
performance
ping
Poor

31 Replies

Sort By
  • ellnic60's avatar
    ellnic60
    Tuning in
    13 days ago

    Btw, I tried posting images of the testing in the post above and I kept getting errors. As soon as I remove them, it works... your forum is even borked.

    I'll try again in this post on a 3rd party site:

    Please ignore dropped packet areas, this is not a problem I have (thankfully) they are either rebooting the Hub to troubleshoot or scheduled downtime.

  • Client62's avatar
    Client62
    Alessandro Volta
    12 days ago

    Check the Upstream / Downstream status tabs for signal level issues / errors.

    See if the same issue persist via a Hub 5 1Gb/s port.

    The Hub 5's 2.5GB/s port expects the connected device to have EEE Disabled,
    set the WAN port of the OPNsense box to have "Energy Efficient Ethernet" Disabled.

     

    • ellnic60's avatar
      ellnic60
      Tuning in
      12 days ago

      Thanks, I was unaware the 2.5G port required EEE off.

      For anyone else in the same situ:

      I created a tunable for:

      hw.em.eee_setting

      then rebooted and confirmed it is set:

      root@OPNsense:~ # sysctl -a | grep eee
hw.bxe.autogreeen: 0
hw.igc.eee_setting: 1
hw.em.eee_setting: 0
dev.em.1.eee_control: 0
dev.em.0.eee_control: 0
root@OPNsense:~ #

      Unfortunately it doesn't appear to have solved the latency issues:

      At the end there after I made changes and power cycled everything there's still a massive spike when testing. 

      The problem is with both download and upload but is worse on the upload by a lot.

      Up/Down Status:

      3.0 Downstream channels
Channel	Frequency (Hz)	Power (dBmV)	SNR (dB)	Modulation	Channel ID
1	411000000	-1.3	38	QAM 256	1
2	419000000	-1.2	38	QAM 256	2
3	427000000	-1.1	38	QAM 256	3
4	435000000	-1.1	38	QAM 256	4
5	443000000	-1.2	38	QAM 256	5
6	451000000	0.9	38	QAM 256	6
7	459000000	0.9	38	QAM 256	7
8	467000000	0.6	38	QAM 256	8
9	475000000	0.5	38	QAM 256	9
10	483000000	0.4	38	QAM 256	10
11	491000000	0.3	38	QAM 256	11
12	499000000	0.2	38	QAM 256	12
13	507000000	0.3	38	QAM 256	13
14	515000000	0.3	38	QAM 256	14
15	523000000	0.2	38	QAM 256	15
16	531000000	0	39	QAM 256	16
17	539000000	0.1	39	QAM 256	17
18	547000000	0	39	QAM 256	18
19	555000000	0.1	39	QAM 256	19
20	563000000	0.1	39	QAM 256	20
21	571000000	0.1	39	QAM 256	21
22	579000000	0	39	QAM 256	22
23	587000000	0.2	39	QAM 256	23
24	595000000	0.2	39	QAM 256	24
25	603000000	0.1	39	QAM 256	25
26	611000000	0.2	39	QAM 256	26
27	619000000	0	38	QAM 256	27
28	627000000	0	38	QAM 256	28
29	635000000	0	38	QAM 256	29
30	643000000	0.2	38	QAM 256	30
31	651000000	0.2	38	QAM 256	31
32	659000000	0.4	38	QAM 256	32

3.0 Downstream channels
Channel	Locked Status	RxMER (dB)	Pre RS Errors	Post RS Errors
1	Locked	38	0	0
2	Locked	38	0	0
3	Locked	38	0	0
4	Locked	38	0	0
5	Locked	38	0	0
6	Locked	38	0	0
7	Locked	38	0	0
8	Locked	38	0	0
9	Locked	38	0	0
10	Locked	38	0	0
11	Locked	38	0	0
12	Locked	38	0	0
13	Locked	38	0	0
14	Locked	38	0	0
15	Locked	38	0	0
16	Locked	39	0	0
17	Locked	39	0	0
18	Locked	39	0	0
19	Locked	39	0	0
20	Locked	39	0	0
21	Locked	39	0	0
22	Locked	39	0	0
23	Locked	39	0	0
24	Locked	39	0	0
25	Locked	39	0	0
26	Locked	39	0	0
27	Locked	38	0	0
28	Locked	38	1	0
29	Locked	38	0	0
30	Locked	38	0	0
31	Locked	38	0	0
32	Locked	38	0	0

3.1 Downstream channels
Channel	Channel Width (MHz)	FFT Type	Number of Active Subcarriers	Modulation (Active Profile)	First Active Subcarrier (Hz)
159	94	4K	1840	QAM 4096	1108

3.1 Downstream channels
Channel ID	Locked Status	RxMER Data (dB)	PLC Power (dBmV)	Corrected errors (Active Profile)	Uncorrectable errors (Active Profile)
159	Locked	40	1.7	1964325914	0

      Up:

      3.0 Upstream channels
Channel	Frequency (Hz)	Power (dBmV)	Symbol Rate (ksps)	Modulation	Channel ID
0	60300000	45.8	5120	QAM 64	1
1	53700000	45.8	5120	QAM 64	2
2	46200000	46.3	5120	QAM 64	3
3	39400000	46.3	5120	QAM 64	4
4	32600000	46.3	5120	QAM 64	5
5	23600000	46.3	5120	QAM 64	6

3.0 Upstream channels
Channel	Channel Type	T1 Timeouts	T2 Timeouts	T3 Timeouts	T4 Timeouts
0	ATDMA	0	0	0	0
1	ATDMA	0	0	16	0
2	ATDMA	0	0	0	0
3	ATDMA	0	0	0	0
4	ATDMA	0	0	0	0
5	ATDMA	0	0	1	0

      I'm a LAN guy so I'll have to let someone else interpret DOCSIS. Although it looks like no uncorrectable errors on the down, and a lot of corrected ones. 

      • legacy1's avatar
        legacy1
        Alessandro Volta
        12 days ago

        Your going to hit some latency with download or uploading due to no BWM plus your high speed means when you do download or upload and the bandwidth shared in the area is at high load that you can't hit your speed will mean VM deal with what bandwidth you can have and any latency impacts.

  • Adduxi's avatar
    Adduxi
    Very Insightful Person
    12 days ago

    I'm looking at the stats and apart from one US channel with T3 errors, the rest are fine.  The DS 3.1 correctable count is always high on the Hub 5 for some reason, mine is 332275527 at the moment. 

    As for the BQM's they are looking not bad, considering some of the other BQM's that are posted here.

    Not sure what you will be able to get done really going on this evidence?

    • Anonymous's avatar
      Anonymous
      6 days ago

      "The DS 3.1 correctable count is always high on the Hub 5 for some reason,"

      Actually there is a very, very good reason for it; the forward error correction on 3.1 is not the same as the RS method used for 3.0. For 3.1 it's a sort of two stage process; what the hub is reporting is a sort of 'well the first stage has passed OK but not sure about the second so I'll flag a 'corrected error'. It's nothing of the sort.

      Best to simply ignore the 'corrected errors' field and just look at the uncorrected numbers; those are the ones to be concerned about.

  • legacy1's avatar
    legacy1
    Alessandro Volta
    12 days ago

    As you have a  OPNsense box I'm sure you can put in rate limits 900Mb down and 99Mb up and check Bufferbloat.

      • ellnic60's avatar
        ellnic60
        Tuning in
        11 days ago

        In fact, lets go one step further, 80up 80down:

         

  • Anonymous's avatar
    Anonymous
    6 days ago

    Well now, despite the week's worth of posts suggesting all sorts of fixes (hint; none of them will work); let's go back to basics. What is the OP complaining about? It's latency, and latency measures what?

    Now also the OP claims that absolutely nothing has changed other than getting a Hub 5 in place of the 4. Fine, why would replacing the hub suddenly make power levels etc. change?

    What happens when you get a new hub? Why your public IP address changes, and maybe, you now have a different route, maybe a more congested route to the destination. 

    Just putting it out there.

  • ellnic60's avatar
    ellnic60
    Tuning in
    6 days ago

    Thanks @IPFreely I'm not a DOCSIS person so I was hoping someone would run an eye over it and spot something! From what you've said about power levels, this makes me think the Hub 5 is more efficient, which would make sense - but then obviously I need a change of attenuators.

    @Anonymous good suggestion. I never make use of the static IP, so I couldn't tell you if it has changed but I am assuming based on what you said that it has.

  • Carley_S's avatar
    Carley_S
    Icon for Forum Team rankForum Team
    3 days ago

    Sorry to hear this is still ongoing for you ellnic60 

    Just cautious as we do not support third-party equipment, that if we were to book you an engineer to check that the attenuators are correct for the change of Hub, and the engineer identifies that the issue is caused by your home set up, rather than our equipment, there would be a £25 charge applied to the account. 

     

    Have you tested the network without your third-party equipment within the network setup? Just to ensure that this is not caused by any of your own equipment before we look to investigate this further. 

     

    • legacy1's avatar
      legacy1
      Alessandro Volta
      3 days ago

      Do you class a PC as  third-party equipment?

    • ellnic60's avatar
      ellnic60
      Tuning in
      2 days ago

      How has the 3rd party equipment entered the new equation? My hub has been in router mode for almost a week whilst John runs his tests..... so yes I have tested like this. I am still waiting to hear the results of these tests.

      And I do agree with legacy on this, anything connecting to it is 3rd party - which I have obviously used to test so that definition isn't perfect.

      However, hang fire because I was talking to one of your engineers who was in the road and yes, the attenuators were there and incorrect so removed. I am monitoring in the meantime.

      Edit: Also, if you're done testing (assuming so if you're mentioning a call out) is it ok to put back in modem mode? Double NATing doesn't agree with some of my games/applications.