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


@philjohn wrote:

Totally agree with you on wanting to get to the bottom of it, but I'm a "hard numbers" guy - we've got a saying at work, when you try and do something new "have you measured it?" If you haven't, you get short shrift ... then again, we're talking about billions of transactions a day happening, so even a few ms either way has a massive impact!

For me, the proof in the pudding will be jitter values on my graphs that are similar to the ones I had on a BT FTTC connection, as that's a quantifiable metric.


Hi

Can you tell me how I go about testing for jitter and anything else that might be of value on here?

Im vivid350 on hub3 in modem mode with .603 firmware.

Not done loads of gaming online but have played BF1 on my ps4 via wifi with no issues at all, it plays just as smooth as it did when I had 100bb line on a hub 1 in modem mode.

 

Thanks

 

*I found this test site I have no idea if its any help, it says it test ping and jitter.

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 10.32.18.png


@Anonymous wrote:

Should I stay with virgin media if latency is my main concern, and I am stuck with a Superhub3?


99% of complaints on here with regards to latency relate only to the fact that it impacts ThinkBroadband's BQM graphs that use ICMP. The Puma 6 issue turns these graphs into a sea of yellow. The majority of users will not notice the issue unless they explicitly test for it.

The Puma 6 issue can affect UDP, with some packets being dropped, which can intermittently affect DNS and hence web page response times.

There appears to be a firmware fix that is in the pipeline (has already been rolled out to some users) to address these issues but by some accounts doesn't totally resolve them.

However, if latency really is key then VM's network is not the best anyway. Even without the Puma 6 issue that can delay/lose an occasional packet, latency and jitter on a cable network like VM's is always going to be worse than other technologies simply because of the way it works. That said, so long as you have a good line connected to a segment of the network that is not over-utilised, latency and jitter are perfectly fine for most applications, including VOIP and FPS/MOBA Gaming.

You can download iperf3 from http://iperf.fr, then select one of their public servers (I tend to use ping.online.net) and run the following tests from a wire connection:

 

iperf3.exe -c ping.online.net -p 5207 -R -u -t 62 -O 2

(this tests UDP downstream, and you'll get a jitter value)

iperf3.exe -c ping.online.net -p 5207 -u -t 62 -O 2

(UDP upstream)
Here's an example of my downstream UDP test, which shows jitter as being very low (0.1ms) and then suddenly jump for a few seconds to 5-7ms
[  7]  36.00-37.00  sec   123 KBytes  1.01 Mbits/sec  0.067 ms  0/87 (0%)
[  7]  37.00-38.00  sec   126 KBytes  1.03 Mbits/sec  0.077 ms  0/89 (0%)
[  7]  38.00-39.00  sec   141 KBytes  1.16 Mbits/sec  0.806 ms  0/100 (0%)
[  7]  39.00-40.00  sec   115 KBytes   938 Kbits/sec  0.089 ms  0/81 (0%)
[  7]  40.00-41.00  sec   130 KBytes  1.06 Mbits/sec  0.113 ms  0/92 (0%)
[  7]  41.00-42.00  sec   113 KBytes   926 Kbits/sec  5.001 ms  0/80 (0%)
[  7]  42.00-43.00  sec   129 KBytes  1.05 Mbits/sec  7.207 ms  0/91 (0%)
[  7]  43.00-44.00  sec   140 KBytes  1.15 Mbits/sec  6.831 ms  0/99 (0%)
[  7]  44.00-45.00  sec   129 KBytes  1.06 Mbits/sec  5.311 ms  0/91 (0%)
[  7]  45.00-46.00  sec   129 KBytes  1.05 Mbits/sec  0.245 ms  0/91 (0%)
[  7]  46.00-47.00  sec   127 KBytes  1.04 Mbits/sec  0.058 ms  0/90 (0%)
[  7]  47.00-48.00  sec   129 KBytes  1.06 Mbits/sec  0.115 ms  0/91 (0%)


@Badvok wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

Should I stay with virgin media if latency is my main concern, and I am stuck with a Superhub3?


99% of complaints on here with regards to latency relate only to the fact that it impacts ThinkBroadband's BQM graphs that use ICMP. The Puma 6 issue turns these graphs into a sea of yellow. The majority of users will not notice the issue unless they explicitly test for it.



Video conferencing also suffers - I work from home on occasion and use Cisco Jabber which is very susceptible to video and audio dropouts if there is excess jitter - it's a total pain at times with me missing a few words every 20-30 seconds.


@philjohn wrote:

You can download iperf3 from http://iperf.fr, then select one of their public servers (I tend to use ping.online.net) and run the following tests from a wire connection:

 

iperf3.exe -c ping.online.net -p 5207 -R -u -t 62 -O 2

(this tests UDP downstream, and you'll get a jitter value)

iperf3.exe -c ping.online.net -p 5207 -u -t 62 -O 2

(UDP upstream)
Here's an example of my downstream UDP test, which shows jitter as being very low (0.1ms) and then suddenly jump for a few seconds to 5-7ms
[  7]  36.00-37.00  sec   123 KBytes  1.01 Mbits/sec  0.067 ms  0/87 (0%)
[  7]  37.00-38.00  sec   126 KBytes  1.03 Mbits/sec  0.077 ms  0/89 (0%)
[  7]  38.00-39.00  sec   141 KBytes  1.16 Mbits/sec  0.806 ms  0/100 (0%)
[  7]  39.00-40.00  sec   115 KBytes   938 Kbits/sec  0.089 ms  0/81 (0%)
[  7]  40.00-41.00  sec   130 KBytes  1.06 Mbits/sec  0.113 ms  0/92 (0%)
[  7]  41.00-42.00  sec   113 KBytes   926 Kbits/sec  5.001 ms  0/80 (0%)
[  7]  42.00-43.00  sec   129 KBytes  1.05 Mbits/sec  7.207 ms  0/91 (0%)
[  7]  43.00-44.00  sec   140 KBytes  1.15 Mbits/sec  6.831 ms  0/99 (0%)
[  7]  44.00-45.00  sec   129 KBytes  1.06 Mbits/sec  5.311 ms  0/91 (0%)
[  7]  45.00-46.00  sec   129 KBytes  1.05 Mbits/sec  0.245 ms  0/91 (0%)
[  7]  46.00-47.00  sec   127 KBytes  1.04 Mbits/sec  0.058 ms  0/90 (0%)
[  7]  47.00-48.00  sec   129 KBytes  1.06 Mbits/sec  0.115 ms  0/91 (0%)

Thanks, is there any other test sites that offer an easier method, don't really want to have to download anything and I have to start changing settings as my mac prevents downloads from unidentified developers.

Well, there's the puma 6 test on dslreports, but that's short-lived TCP connections, rather than UDP.

If you've got homebrew installed on your mac, it's brew install iperf3


@philjohn wrote:

Well, there's the puma 6 test on dslreports, but that's short-lived TCP connections, rather than UDP.

If you've got homebrew installed on your mac, it's brew install iperf3


No idea what that program is, will check it out.


@philjohn wrote:

You can download iperf3 from http://iperf.fr, then select one of their public servers (I tend to use ping.online.net) and run the following tests from a wire connection:

 

OK so I tested both my Vivid 200 Gamer and BT FTTC 80/20 connections here are the results no real surprises to be totally honest.

iperf3.exe -c ping.online.net -p 5207 -R -u -t 62 -O 2

(this tests UDP downstream, and you'll get a jitter value)

iPerf.VM.PNGiPerf.BT.PNG

 

 

iperf3.exe -c ping.online.net -p 5207 -u -t 62 -O 2

(UDP upstream)iPerf.VM.UP.PNG
iPerf.BT.UP.PNG

 
I think we all know which connection I use for anything that requires low and stable latency.

Anonymous
Not applicable

Wow, who knew that those old bt copper wires still provide better ping than this 'docsis' technology that virgin has.

 


@Anonymous wrote:

Wow, who knew that those old bt copper wires still provide better ping than this 'docsis' technology that virgin has.


Everyone - it's been that way for a while now. Remember, with FTTC the DSL signal is only going over a very short stretch of twisted pair before the DSLAM and then it's fibre all the way.