Menu
Reply
  • 234
  • 0
  • 63
dcookster
Superfast
980 Views
Message 2591 of 4,479
Flag for a moderator

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


@Guybrush85 wrote:

@ShadowOfDeth69 wrote:
@Guybrush85

I'd say as far as everyone complaining VM are 100% at fault. There's no way they didn't know about the issues when you know for a fact there were customer trial units sent out for testing. Nobody picked this up and reported back?

They knew full well there were problems yet decided to push ahead with the rollout regardless. They've known all this time and STILL send engineers out with the Hub 3.

Virgin Media. Totally to blame for this whole thing as far as we are concerned. Forget Arris and Intel. They aren't forcing us to use there equipment.

On an unrelated note. How do we quote people here in the forum?

There's a lot of assumptions in there without much grounds. We are in a position today with newer CMTS' and DS Channels locking in at 24. Back when the trials were taking place, it was at 18, and 16 started to come in at most. One thing that seems to be almost always a factor in this is the more DS channels in play, the worse things look (probably down to CPU load).

Back to the testing.... Cablelabs, the independent body responsible for testing these things didn't pick it up. Sure, ICMP looked bad on a TBB graph, but nobody was testing TCP/UDP through proper tools. SamKnows boxes certainly weren't screaming anything, probably due to the frequency they check in. 

So whilst the hub 3 was no angel at release, the level of the issue wasn't known till after. That said, my whole thing about handling/moral standing fits the bill for the rest of it. Although finding another hub is not quite an easy task and you could assume that everyone is hoping for some kind of fix.... but a year in now without any end in sight really!

Quoting... Erm, not sure you can on a phone (if that's what you were using), but from a PC there's a button in the top right of the reply box. 


I was on the trial, the latency issue was noted by many testers.  When rolled out to new Customer it was a box of bugs, nothing has changed much since.

0 Kudos
  • 606
  • 10
  • 49
DarkBahamut
Fibre optic
938 Views
Message 2592 of 4,479
Flag for a moderator

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

The latency was noted indeed, but the graphs didn't look anything they do now which was the point being made. Nearly all testers were still on 8 or 10 channels, and at those configurations the Hub 3 is only slightly worse than a SH2. Sure, that is a concern which is why it was noted, but the full extent wasn't seen till the later rollout of the hub. You can see from the BQM's how much 'worse' it got later on.

Hub 3.0 Trial (Nov 2015)

6345db8a8a6b9cba7c29b2d5e539ba72-20-11-2015

 

 

Hub 3.0 later after rollout (April 2017)

7c492b4793f94d5bf0e8eecb1a290d1e-03-04-2017

 

Hub 3.0 on new firmware (Dec 2017)

afa25de73b6b0e00408364166a49d87828cd6540-11-12-2017

  • 234
  • 0
  • 63
dcookster
Superfast
924 Views
Message 2593 of 4,479
Flag for a moderator

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


@DarkBahamut wrote:

The latency was noted indeed, but the graphs didn't look anything they do now which was the point being made. Nearly all testers were still on 8 or 10 channels, and at those configurations the Hub 3 is only slightly worse than a SH2. Sure, that is a concern which is why it was noted, but the full extent wasn't seen till the later rollout of the hub. You can see from the BQM's how much 'worse' it got later on.

Hub 3.0 Trial (Nov 2015)

6345db8a8a6b9cba7c29b2d5e539ba72-20-11-2015

 

 

Hub 3.0 later after rollout (April 2017)

7c492b4793f94d5bf0e8eecb1a290d1e-03-04-2017

 

Hub 3.0 on new firmware (Dec 2017)

afa25de73b6b0e00408364166a49d87828cd6540-11-12-2017


VM had on their roadmap the rollout of increased channels.  The hardware they purchased should have been future tested for compatibility, that's a pretty basic prerequiste when investing in hardware for any company.

0 Kudos
  • 885
  • 123
  • 391
Andruser
Well-informed
915 Views
Message 2594 of 4,479
Flag for a moderator

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

"The hardware they purchased should have been future tested for compatibility, that's a pretty basic prerequiste when investing in hardware for any company"

It was compatible for their purposes, and tested as such.  There were only three purposes:

1) To provide a mediocre broadband service (check!),

2) For the LED on the front to light up (check!),

3) To be so cheap that the most expensive component was the cardboard box it came in (check!).

Despite actually selling services targeted at gamers, that was Marketing.  The rest of Virginmedia didn't have any interest in gaming, and didn't test the hated Hub 3 in that capacity (not to mention ignoring users who "trialled" the device).

  • 14
  • 0
  • 0
Phyix123
Tuning in
858 Views
Message 2595 of 4,479
Flag for a moderator

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


@dcookster wrote:

@DarkBahamut wrote:

The latency was noted indeed, but the graphs didn't look anything they do now which was the point being made. Nearly all testers were still on 8 or 10 channels, and at those configurations the Hub 3 is only slightly worse than a SH2. Sure, that is a concern which is why it was noted, but the full extent wasn't seen till the later rollout of the hub. You can see from the BQM's how much 'worse' it got later on.

Hub 3.0 Trial (Nov 2015)

6345db8a8a6b9cba7c29b2d5e539ba72-20-11-2015

 

 

Hub 3.0 later after rollout (April 2017)

7c492b4793f94d5bf0e8eecb1a290d1e-03-04-2017

 

Hub 3.0 on new firmware (Dec 2017)

afa25de73b6b0e00408364166a49d87828cd6540-11-12-2017


VM had on their roadmap the rollout of increased channels.  The hardware they purchased should have been future tested for compatibility, that's a pretty basic prerequiste when investing in hardware for any company.


Interesting, can you tell us how long you have been testing the new firmware?

0 Kudos
  • 54
  • 2
  • 24
Grumpy101
Dialled in
808 Views
Message 2596 of 4,479
Flag for a moderator

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

Before people get excited about the new firware it only improves ICMP response, that is, what you see on the BQM graphs from ThinkBroadband.

The firmware does not address TCP/UDP latecy issues which are important for gaming.

So when this get rolled out, no doubt VM will say post your BQM graph please and then say I see no problem. 

Im sure there are tools to plot TCP/UDP in the same manner as the ICMP plots. Thats what we will have to start posting.

 

 

  • 57
  • 2
  • 12
コナー
Dialled in
755 Views
Message 2597 of 4,479
Flag for a moderator

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

Software developer here, working on a system that could replace the quality monitor with one based on TCP requests, would require self-hosting though.




Forever waiting for the Hub 4
  • 395
  • 11
  • 33
PhilHornby
Fibre optic
670 Views
Message 2598 of 4,479
Flag for a moderator

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


@Grumpy101 wrote:

The firmware does not address TCP/UDP latecy issues which are important for gaming.

...

Im sure there are tools to plot TCP/UDP in the same manner as the ICMP plots. Thats what we will have to start posting.

  


I already published some UDP latency results (Using NTP, entirely within VM's network). They showed some improvement - though nothing like as spectacular as the TBB ICMP results.

0 Kudos
  • 885
  • 123
  • 391
Andruser
Well-informed
656 Views
Message 2599 of 4,479
Flag for a moderator

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

"The firmware does not address TCP/UDP latecy issues which are important for gaming....So when this get rolled out, "

Godot will arrive before the new Hub 3 firmware.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
  • 186
  • 1
  • 29
LdGallifryan
Up to speed
634 Views
Message 2600 of 4,479
Flag for a moderator

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

Only problem is they are just going to firmware patch it..

It is like with a car that has a bad part and you put a sock around it to temporarily fix it..

This fix won't fix the issue, it will only mask it on the BQM.. which isn't addressing the TCP/UDP issues this is affecting! .

Aswell as vulnerabilities the Superhub 3.0 exclusively to the Puma 6 Chipset has!

If you read on the Reddit post, a person managed to knock out everything.. that is the puma 6 chip vulnerability as well as KRACK and amongst other vulnerabilities CVE fixes other Router Manufacturers have pushed out and fixed to address these vulnerabilities, we only see fixes probably once every two years...

So your router mode is not protected.. and Anti-Virus/Anti-Malware Etc Programs can only protect you so much!...

Entil Virgin Media put a opt-in opt-out on the firmware and stop doing closed trials of broadband products.. we will always be less secure than the competitors and we will have less of a quality of service than the competitors!

We need to be able to install our own modems and skip the Hub3.0 all together!

Setup a phoneline for Native Products (Superhub Garbage) and own bought support line.

I am suggesting that Virgin Media keeping up with the times and what everyone that is using there service for there needs!

So if we are Competitive Gamers and want to Squeeze that extra low latency/ or that want more security or other things that I cannot think of right now, let us buy or you give us a voucher to buy a certified Modem that is Compatible with VM, so we can bypass the Non Existent Support and Firmware Fixes and Security updates.

And to those who want just basic Internet connection give them your Cra(p)Sup3.0 best ever Garbage .