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

So - I partially agree with this comment (and remember, we're not users, we're "Revenue Units")

But, the issue with Docsis 3.0 is the limited channels they can roll out, and so more contention if they start selling anything much higher than Vivid 350 widely.

Docsis 3.1 gives them more capacity per segment, and they can then sell Vivid 500 or 1000 using Docsis 3.1, whilst still having lower tiers (150, 200 and 350) on Docsis 3.0. That's what the CEO was getting at with not doing it indiscriminately.

Right, so the alternatives are - either badly suffer in congested area for a minimum year or two and maybe eventually get moved onto 3.1, or stay on "adequate with no congestion" SH3 😉

 

"Right, so the alternatives are - either badly suffer in congested area for a minimum year or two and maybe eventually get moved onto 3.1, or stay on "adequate with no congestion" SH3 "

Broadly speaking, that's correct.  Nobody is going to get get "moved onto 3.1" any time soon - the big cheese was absolutely clear that they'll have to pay, the Hub 3 can deliver at least 700 Mbps, and there's apparently a limitless stock of the Hub 3 somewhere.  I'm guessing that anybody wanting the D3.1 hub will be expected to pony up for a full gigabit connection, as and when VM can be bothered to offer it.  I wouldn't be surprised to see 450 Mbps priced at £50 with the Hub 3 (plus this year's "inflationary" price rise), 550 Mbps at £60 again with the Hub 3, and a D3.1 gigabit connection would probably them be initially priced at £100 a month, or maybe something like £80 a month but a hundred quid activation fee.  In the age of £1,300 mobile handsets, a £100 a month broadband connection seems eminently feasible.  Possibly they're holding off D 3.1 until there's more demand for 4K content, because (although nobody needs gigabit for 4K) it'll make a better marketing pitch if they try and tie 4K with gigabit broadband, because that implies to the hard of thinking that only VM cable is suitable for 4K content (a bit like the mendacious claim of "ultrafast broadband for gaming").

Regarding the congestion issue, they've been saying that more channels= less congestion for the move from Superhubs to Hub 3, I've seen no clear evidence either way to say that's working in practice.  You may have noticed the number of people round these forums reporting that a Superhub to Hub 3 upgrade has caused slower speeds, and whilst that's only the unlucky few, it does show that problems can occur.  The congestion issue is only solved by more channels if (a) the congestion is between CMTS and the customer, (b) running D 3.1 introduces no new problems for users of older D 3.0 hubs and the new hubs are properly configured, and (c) VM's equipment can allocate channels efficiently according to utilisation.

A consequence of a two-speed world that mixes D3.0 and D3.1 could be that VM will be much more careful to recover and then redeploy the Hub 3s than they have with the older hubs, where they mostly couldn't give a tinker's cuss about recovering them.  That would be most unfortunate for customers because, despite the fact that the Hub 3 is known to be a dog, such a policy could keep the Hub 3 in widespread use perhaps until 2030.

hammic
Up to speed

In area 30 tonight I decided to run some tests, having felt constant lag or ping spikes during gaming.

Test 1:

78ms : x
80ms : x
82ms : xx
84ms : xxxx
86ms : xxxxx
88ms : xxxx
90ms : xxxxx
92ms : xxxxxxxxxx
94ms : xxxxxxxxxxxxx
96ms : xxxxxxxxxxxx
98ms : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
100 - 149ms :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx»
150 - 199ms :xxxxxxxxxx
200 - 249ms :xx
250 - 299ms :xx
300 - 349ms :x
350 - 399ms :x

Finished. Excess red is a concern if most measurements are 50ms or less.

Test 2:

56ms : x
74ms : x
76ms : xxx
78ms : xxxxxx
80ms : xxxxxxxxx
82ms : xxxxxxx
84ms : xxxxxx
86ms : xxxxxxxx
88ms : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
90ms : xxxxxxxxxxxx
92ms : xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
94ms : xxxxxxxxxxx
96ms : xxxxxxxx
98ms : xxxxxxxxx
100 - 149ms :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
150 - 199ms :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
200 - 249ms :xxxxxxxx
250 - 299ms :xx
300 - 349ms :xxxxxx
400 - 449ms :x
Finished. Excess red is a concern if most measurements are 50ms or less.

To say that I am less than happy is more than an understatement!

well well good bye virgin media finally i have cancelled my whole services from these guys i dont get why the hell give superhub 3 to customers when they dam well know there is a issue with it especially if ur a gamer end off i must say bt is better i dont get any speed near to 350mb with bt at the moment im only getting 12mb which has been perfectly great for gaming....


@Demostrikewrote:

I have the new firmware and my graph looks better. What tests on UDP and tcp would you like done?


Just to remind - the firmware update is a sticking plaster to make the BQM look good.  It doesn't actually fix the underlying problem.  Ping responses are diverted to another processor (I'm told the hardware accelerator) and the improvement in Puma 6 processing capacity is not given when not doing these pings.

 

Seph - ( DEFROCKED - My advice is at your risk)


@Sephirothwrote:

@Demostrikewrote:

I have the new firmware and my graph looks better. What tests on UDP and tcp would you like done?


Just to remind - the firmware update is a sticking plaster to make the BQM look good.  It doesn't actually fix the underlying problem.  Ping responses are diverted to another processor (I'm told the hardware accelerator) and the improvement in Puma 6 processing capacity is not given when not doing these pings.

 


So it is 100% confirmed the firmware does not improve gaming? It just hides the issue to connection quality tests?

If this is true, **bleep** Virgin. I'll be looking to cancel asap. Such a dishonest way to address a problem.


@supernoviwrote:

@Sephirothwrote:

@Demostrikewrote:

I have the new firmware and my graph looks better. What tests on UDP and tcp would you like done?


Just to remind - the firmware update is a sticking plaster to make the BQM look good.  It doesn't actually fix the underlying problem.  Ping responses are diverted to another processor (I'm told the hardware accelerator) and the improvement in Puma 6 processing capacity is not given when not doing these pings.

 


So it is 100% confirmed the firmware does not improve gaming? It just hides the issue to connection quality tests?

If this is true, **bleep** Virgin. I'll be looking to cancel asap. Such a dishonest way to address a problem.



Well Seph know's his stuff so I have no reason to dis-believe this is just VM's way of hiding the issue rather than fixing it.


@supernoviwrote:

@Sephirothwrote:

@Demostrikewrote:

I have the new firmware and my graph looks better. What tests on UDP and tcp would you like done?


Just to remind - the firmware update is a sticking plaster to make the BQM look good.  It doesn't actually fix the underlying problem.  Ping responses are diverted to another processor (I'm told the hardware accelerator) and the improvement in Puma 6 processing capacity is not given when not doing these pings.

 


So it is 100% confirmed the firmware does not improve gaming? It just hides the issue to connection quality tests?

If this is true, **bleep** Virgin. I'll be looking to cancel asap. Such a dishonest way to address a problem.


I'd wait until you get the update and judge it for yourself. People were originally saying packet processing was moved to the WiFi chip, but are now saying Hardware Accelarator instead so I don't think anyone knows for sure exactly what the new firmware does and what has changed. Some people have reported improvements and the DSLreports test definitely looks better than the original October 2017 trial firmware so it looks like more improvements have been made since then. 


@Sephirothwrote:

Just to remind - the firmware update is a sticking plaster to make the BQM look good.  It doesn't actually fix the underlying problem.  Ping responses are diverted to another processor (I'm told the hardware accelerator) and the improvement in Puma 6 processing capacity is not given when not doing these pings. 


Which particular firmware update are you referring to? (since there have been several). Can you back up your assertions with any "before and after" test results?

I'm not a gamer - so I can't speak for its performance in that respect - other issues, though, have been resolved to my satisfaction. (The Trial NDA prevents me from publishing my test results here).

Having said that, I wouldn't dream of using the Hub 3 in 'Router Mode'. Remember the "Krack" vulnerability, discovered six months ago?...Arris seem to be completely ignoring this issue.