Menu
Reply
Highlighted
  • 2.77K
  • 139
  • 405
jpeg1
Trouble shooter
977 Views
Message 1 of 13
Flag for a moderator

200 > 350 update

I recently had to take a Hub 3, following the sad demise of my old 2ac.

The present 200Mb/s contract was perfectly adequate for our needs, but since I was downgrading the TV package to lose the channels we never watch I decided to upgrade to 350Mb/s at the same time.

Naturally I never expected to observe any difference to the service parameters, and indeed all the stats looked the same apart from the obvious updates for the new speed..

But looking at the BQM I can see an increase in latency during the busy periods, and even a few dropped packets which I have never found before except during fault conditions.

If this turns out to be a consistent pattern, I've actually got a worse service than before.

I wonder if anyone with more knowledge of the network can explain why this could happen?

BQM.PNG

 

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 4.59K
  • 309
  • 767
Roger_Gooner
Superstar
957 Views
Message 2 of 13
Flag for a moderator

Re: 200 > 350 update

It could be the latency for which the hub 3.0 was notorious for. This was partly fixed with a firmware upgrade last year, but a proper solution could not be found as the Puma 6 chipset is rather weak. Having said that, posting some stats and logs could be be helpful.

--
Hub 3.0, TP-Link Archer C8, TP-Link TL-SG1008D 8-port gigabit switch, V6
My Broadband Ping - Roger's VM Broadband Connection
  • 2.77K
  • 139
  • 405
jpeg1
Trouble shooter
954 Views
Message 3 of 13
Flag for a moderator

Re: 200 > 350 update

I don't think it's the Puma problem because I had the Hub 3 going at 200 for a few days before the speed upgrade, and there was no visible change until then.
Stats are all OK.

 

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 1.02K
  • 58
  • 192
Forum Team
Forum Team
875 Views
Message 4 of 13
Flag for a moderator

Re: 200 > 350 update

Hi jpeg1,

 

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sorry that you've noticed some latency and packet loss since your upgrade.

 

I'm afraid this one's got me pretty stumped. All your stats look great from our end, too and I've had a look at the network segment but can't identify any problems there either. I'll flag this with another colleague to investigate further and see if we can come up with any ideas or suggestions.

 

Thanks,

Rachael

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 2.77K
  • 139
  • 405
jpeg1
Trouble shooter
871 Views
Message 5 of 13
Flag for a moderator

Re: 200 > 350 update

Thanks. I'll keep monitoring.

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 1.02K
  • 58
  • 192
Forum Team
Forum Team
861 Views
Message 6 of 13
Flag for a moderator

Re: 200 > 350 update

Hi jpeg1,

 

No worries, thank you for keeping an eye on it for now. I'll get back to you as soon as I can, hopefully with something helpful!

 

Thanks,

Rachael

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 2.77K
  • 139
  • 405
jpeg1
Trouble shooter
791 Views
Message 7 of 13
Flag for a moderator

Re: 200 > 350 update

I've been keeping an eye on things since changing from SH2ac and 200 Mb/s to the Hub 3 and 350 Mb/s service.

There are a few niggles that show up, as illustrated in yesterday's typical BQM.

1. There is a trickle of lost packets throughout the day, even during the quiet overnight times.

2. There is a 30 minute 'hump' in the minimum latency at 2pm. This happens once on most days, always the same height and length but at different times.

Neither of these effects is particularly serious and they don't affect use of the service, but they never happened with the old setup so I'm curious to know what might be happening.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Untitled-1.png

 

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 12.53K
  • 480
  • 1.12K
legacy1
Alessandro Volta
769 Views
Message 8 of 13
Flag for a moderator

Re: 200 > 350 update

Their is a way to check if your packet loss is downstream or upstream in modem mode with a PC with BQM using Wireshark if you like to know.

  • 2.77K
  • 139
  • 405
jpeg1
Trouble shooter
750 Views
Message 9 of 13
Flag for a moderator

Re: 200 > 350 update

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm currently running WS to monitor a little box that's running some suspect software. I'll see if I can run that check concurrently. I'm guessing that if the packet loss is in the upstream that points to a Hub3 problem. Is that right?

In the meantime here is yesterday's trace, with its strange 30 minute hump.  And possibly a second one later.

2019-05-31_09-59-37.png

 

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 2.77K
  • 139
  • 405
jpeg1
Trouble shooter
710 Views
Message 10 of 13
Flag for a moderator

Re: 200 > 350 update

Well, the dropped packets have faded away.

But I'm still getting the 30 minute step in minimum latency once a day at varying times. And there is something pushing up the average latency in regular 10 minute bursts in the early morning.

It looks like someone local to me is doing something strange on line.

Any ideas?

2019-06-03_14-06-50.png

0 Kudos
Reply