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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.