Anyone With 100 Mb and the VMNG300 actually Hitting "100" or more? Or Is It Just.....

[ethan103]

Ok,

I will be blagging a 100 Mb upgrade via my old modem on Monday as its now available in my area and just wanted to know,

Has anyone actually hit "100" via the VMNG300?


The reason I say that is because a few people have posted tests and they are always no more than 97 Mb on the VMNG300, while Ive seen SH users post 101 Mb ?


Is this due to the VMNG300?

Or can it actually hit 100 Mb just like the SH?


(I know we are talking about 3 Mb or so but just wanted to know :D :p: )

[Nopanic]

VMNG can max the connection easily .. speedtest sites are crap :)

As I have posted (a few times now :) ) I get 11MB/S from torrents and stupid speeds from Speedtest.net ..

[Peter_]

Have you not read the fact that some areas are now using 5 downstreams as Virginmedia starts it rollout of up to 8 downstreams which will in essence make the VMNG300 only able to offer you a degraded service due it only having 4 downstreams and to get your service back to normal you will need a Superhub.

I can but just smile at all the prior posts made advising of the futility of requesting a VMNG300 due to this upgrade.

[ethan103]

Have you not read the fact that some areas are now using 5 downstreams as Virginmedia starts it rollout of up to 8 downstreams which will in essence make the VMNG300 only able to offer you a degraded service due it only having 4 downstreams and to get your service back to normal you will need a Superhub.

I can but just smile at all the prior posts made advising of the futility of requesting a VMNG300 due to this upgrade.


No Harm In Trying.

I can ask for the config file to be sent,

I Can test it with the VMNG300,

Any problems I just ask the agent to send out engineer plus superhub.

[Pantsu-san]

I can but just smile at all the prior posts made advising of the futility of requesting a VMNG300 due to this upgrade.

I can but just smile at having 100Mb on my existing kit without having to beta test another piece of VM hardware at my own expense.

[Bullstein]

Have you not read the fact that some areas are now using 5 downstreams as Virginmedia starts it rollout of up to 8 downstreams which will in essence make the VMNG300 only able to offer you a degraded service due it only having 4 downstreams and to get your service back to normal you will need a Superhub.

I can but just smile at all the prior posts made advising of the futility of requesting a VMNG300 due to this upgrade.

Whilst your busy smiling

Can you tell me how many areas countrywide are using more than 4 channels? And when it will be rolled out over the whole country? Because if I was a VM employee I wouldn't be smiling at people managing to hang on to working existing VMNG300's whilst waiting for the superdud fiasco to eventually get their firmware right well after trying to push faulty hardware into their decent customers

Keep smiling why don't you

[Ignitionnet]

To answer the original question...

... no you can't hit '100' on speed tests or whatever, the 100Mb service is capped at 102.4Mb/s which isn't enough to leave 100Mb/s after overheads.

Simply look at people who are on 10Mb, move the decimal place to the right and you're pretty much there.

[Peter_]

Whilst your busy smiling

Can you tell me how many areas countrywide are using more than 4 channels? And when it will be rolled out over the whole country? Because if I was a VM employee I wouldn't be smiling at people managing to hang on to working existing VMNG300's whilst waiting for the superdud fiasco to eventually get their firmware right well after trying to push faulty hardware into their decent customers

Keep smiling why don't you
The is quite a few on 5 and then they will roll out the other downstreams and slowly but surely the other CMTS will follow at which point the VMNG300 will become defunct due to its lack of downstream channels, oddly when I posted this everyone thought it was just scaremongering, but it was not.

[qasdfdsaq]

The config file for 100mb is capped at pretty much precisely 100mb. Minus overheads and speedtest sites being inaccurate, you will never get more than 94-97mb readings.

This has nothing to do with the VMNG300 or Superhub, neither will give you "101+" on VM's current 100mb config. The config files are identical, the speeds will be near enough identical, unless something of VM's is malfunctioning.

Using a VMNG300 in areas utilizing 5-8 downstreams will not give you degraded service, unless again VM's network is malfunctioning, or VM prove useless at capacity management (which wouldn't surprise me). You only need 2 downstreams for full 100mb service, you do not need a Superhub. Even then, taken in isolation increasing network capacity will only make users service better, not worse. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

[ethan103]

The config file for 100mb is capped at pretty much precisely 100mb. Minus overheads and speedtest sites being inaccurate, you will never get more than 94-97mb readings.

This has nothing to do with the VMNG300 or Superhub, neither will give you "101+" on VM's current 100mb config. The config files are identical, the speeds will be near enough identical, unless something of VM's is malfunctioning.

Using a VMNG300 in areas utilizing 5-8 downstreams will not give you degraded service, unless again VM's network is malfunctioning, or VM prove useless at capacity management (which wouldn't surprise me). You only need 2 downstreams for full 100mb service, you do not need a Superhub. Even then, taken in isolation increasing network capacity will only make users service better, not worse. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.


Thank you for the reply, really constructive and informative.

Given the choice, I think people would keep the VMNG300, at lest for now anyway, so that's what I want to do.

If in the future it dosent work a quick phone call and an egineer will be round anyway....

[broadbandking]

I have to say my superhub is fine, one question tho what do you mean you'll be blagging 100Mb upgrade?

[Nopanic]

To answer the original question...

... no you can't hit '100' on speed tests or whatever, the 100Mb service is capped at 102.4Mb/s which isn't enough to leave 100Mb/s after overheads.

Simply look at people who are on 10Mb, move the decimal place to the right and you're pretty much there.

So in real money thats about 12.8MB/s ?

[Ignitionnet]

Yes sir. After the evil overheads probably manage about 12.0MB/s, maybe a touch higher, same as on 10Mb most people score around the 1.2MB/s mark.

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 ----------

Using a VMNG300 in areas utilizing 5-8 downstreams will not give you degraded service, unless again VM's network is malfunctioning, or VM prove useless at capacity management (which wouldn't surprise me). You only need 2 downstreams for full 100mb service, you do not need a Superhub. Even then, taken in isolation increasing network capacity will only make users service better, not worse. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

An area using 8 downstreams will cause problems for VMNG customers at 50% utilisation assuming a perfect traffic balance between all downstreams, people on Superhubs are good to 75% before visible contention.

Nothing useless about that really, an area that doesn't break 50% utilisation is pretty underused.

This will be exacerbated by increased numbers of customers on VMNGs, they'll all lock to the first 4 channels in the MDD message and imbalance load.

It won't render them defunct but there will be cases where people on VMNGs are seeing performance hits and people on Superhubs aren't, and given how intolerant people in the UK are of not seeing absolute maximum performance 24x7 on their (in their mind) expensive internet service it'll cause complaints.

I'm currently running on Superhub firmware R29 in modem mode, it's absolutely fine so far just as R26 was in 'manual' modem mode.

[Nopanic]

Yes sir. After the evil overheads probably manage about 12.0MB/s, maybe a touch higher, same as on 10Mb most people score around the 1.2MB/s mark.

My 11.5 is a little more disappointing now ;)

[qasdfdsaq]

An area using 8 downstreams will cause problems for VMNG customers at 50% utilisation assuming a perfect traffic balance between all downstreams, people on Superhubs are good to 75% before visible contention.

Nothing useless about that really, an area that doesn't break 50% utilisation is pretty underused.

This will be exacerbated by increased numbers of customers on VMNGs, they'll all lock to the first 4 channels in the MDD message and imbalance load.

It won't render them defunct but there will be cases where people on VMNGs are seeing performance hits and people on Superhubs aren't, and given how intolerant people in the UK are of not seeing absolute maximum performance 24x7 on their (in their mind) expensive internet service it'll cause complaints.

I'm currently running on Superhub firmware R29 in modem mode, it's absolutely fine so far just as R26 was in 'manual' modem mode.
However, in an area that's got, say, 80% utilization now on 4 channels, moving to 5 channels will reduce that to 64%, Superhubs can load balance across all 5 but even with the VMNG's 4, those 4 channels will still have lower utilization than they do now. Any increase in DS channels increases capacity, and even users on single channel DOCSIS 2 modems will see less contention due to lower average utilization on each individual channel.

However, that's assuming they keep utilization in check, although specifically, it's still not unique to the 100mb service. Where utilization is high enough to cause visible contention, yes VMNG300 users will see it at lower levels than Superhub users, but then 30mb and 50mb users on VMNG300's will also be similarly affected. There might be slightly different thresholds before someone "feels" their connection slowing down, but there's still nothing unique to 100mb that makes it require a Superhub.

[Peter_]

Regardless of peoples love affair with the VMNG300 sooner they will start to fail and give degraded service and the will be no other option but to upgrade to a Superhub and the VMNG300 will become a distant memory.

[qasdfdsaq]

Not before the Superhubs themselves all fail and get replaced by something else. Given they can't route 400mb properly and don't support 3x3/4x4 MIMO required to benefit from 400mb, my guess is they'll have to be replaced after 200mb is out.

Then the Superhubs will become a distant memory and we can leave this whole fiasco behind us.

[ethan103]

Regardless of peoples love affair with the VMNG300 sooner they will start to fail and give degraded service and the will be no other option but to upgrade to a Superhub and the VMNG300 will become a distant memory.


Why will it fail though ? :confused: :confused: :confused:

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------

Not before the Superhubs themselves all fail and get replaced by something else. Given they can't route 400mb properly and don't support 3x3/4x4 MIMO required to benefit from 400mb, my guess is they'll have to be replaced after 200mb is out.

Then the Superhubs will become a distant memory and we can leave this whole fiasco behind us.


Yeah, If The Superhub Worked, I'd have no problems with it, I would rather hold out for a new piece of hardware with maybe all the problems sorted.

[TJS]

Why will it fail though ? :confused: :confused: :confused:

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------




Yeah, If The Superhub Worked, I'd have no problems with it, I would rather hold out for a new piece of hardware with maybe all the problems sorted.

Have you actually tried the hub?

Mine works flawlessly, as do many other peoples'

[ethan103]

Have you actually tried the hub?

Mine works flawlessly, as do many other peoples'


Not worth the risk tbh.

My VMNG300 works perfectly.

Why change?


I think untill the new modem only firmware isn't out, I won't be getting it.

Once the new firmware is out, I'll be on the phone to VM to get it.

[Bullstein]

My hub works perfectly too, it seems better than the VMNG300 even though I'm still only on 4 channels

I had 100MB + VMNG300, but opted for Superhub after 2 months to compare but I resented a hub being forced on me when I was about to upgrade to 100MB

[Skie]

For as much doom and gloom as Masque would like everyone to believe, it dosent matter.

The VMNG300 was needed because the superhub was terrible at nearly everything for some people and without modem mode the 300 was the best short term solution. Now that the repeatedly delayed modem mode (and a batch of other fixes) are looking close to being ready, the need for the standalone modem will go away.

The availability of 100meg on an "unsupported product" has worked out as a stop gap to keep people happy. Its just a shame that one or two VM staff here have been vocal opponents of their own customers good experience. Even worse is that VM released such a sub-par product. Again. Roll on the 200+meg Megahub, featuring no lessons learnt.

[Peter_]

For as much doom and gloom as Masque would like everyone to believe, it dosent matter.

The VMNG300 was needed because the superhub was terrible at nearly everything for some people and without modem mode the 300 was the best short term solution. Now that the repeatedly delayed modem mode (and a batch of other fixes) are looking close to being ready, the need for the standalone modem will go away.

The availability of 100meg on an "unsupported product" has worked out as a stop gap to keep people happy. Its just a shame that one or two VM staff here have been vocal opponents of their own customers good experience. Even worse is that VM released such a sub-par product. Again. Roll on the 200+meg Megahub, featuring no lessons learnt.
All I am saying is sooner much rather than later the VMNG300 will fail to provide the service you are paying for and you will have no choice except to have a Superhub, the is a second Superhub on the horizon which will be supplied alongside the existing Superhub to ensure that is is no lack of stock as more Superhubs are put onto the network.

[ethan103]

All I am saying is sooner much rather than later the VMNG300 will fail to provide the service you are paying for and you will have no choice except to have a Superhub, the is a second Superhub on the horizon which will be supplied alongside the existing Superhub to ensure that is is no lack of stock as more Superhubs are put onto the network.


What's different about the "new" Superhub?

How long before it's released?

[Peter_]

What's different about the "new" Superhub?

How long before it's released?
It will be made by a different supplier, will look identical but use a different chipset with exactly or near as damn it the same performance as the existing kit.

The will be no option to chose one over the other, you will get the one the technician has in his van or whatever the picker in the warehouse takes off the shelf.

[ethan103]

It will be made by a different supplier, will look identical but use a different chipset with exactly or near as damn it the same performance as the existing kit.

The will be no option to chose one over the other, you will get the one the technician has in his van or whatever the picker in the warehouse takes off the shelf.


By using the different chipset, what differences does that mean for performance?

Better or same?

And again, When R28/R29 is out for current superhubs, how do you upgrade the SH to the new firmware?

[roughbeast]

The config file for 100mb is capped at pretty much precisely 100mb. Minus overheads and speedtest sites being inaccurate, you will never get more than 94-97mb readings.

Is there any particular reason why they couldn't cap 100Mb at say 105Mb? Currently no one can achieve 100Mb, whereas 50Mb is quite often on or above 50Mb because it is capped at 53Mb.

[Ignitionnet]

Is there any particular reason why they couldn't cap 100Mb at say 105Mb? Currently no one can achieve 100Mb, whereas 50Mb is quite often on or above 50Mb because it is capped at 53Mb.

Purely a policy decision to cap at 102.4Mbps just as the 53Mbps cap on XXL and the 33Mbps cap on XL are policy decisions.

VM could cap at 100Mbps and sell the service as 100Mbps perfectly accurately.

[Peter_]

By using the different chipset, what differences does that mean for performance?

Better or same?

And again, When R28/R29 is out for current superhubs, how do you upgrade the SH to the new firmware?
A different chipset is because it is a different manufacturer.

Th hubs update automatically to the latest firmware as soon as it is a available you have to do nothing as it will be forced through if required.

[pinkpound]

Hello

Im on the vmng300 and 100mb but getting alot of disconnects when speed is maxed out coulds some 1 check my power levels please

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/08/59.jpg


thanks in advance

:)

[Peter_]

Your downstream is rather high and probably needs a tech how about posting the upstream.

[pinkpound]

Hello

heres upstream

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/08/57.jpg


thanks

[qasdfdsaq]

Upstream is on the high side of normal, but still OK. Downstream is definately too high - optimal is +7 or below. My VMNG300 gets quite a few disconnects even at +7.

[pinkpound]

Hello all

Ive not been getting good speeds either last 2 days

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/08/123.png (http://www.speedtest.net)


https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/08/124.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/08/125.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

this is @ most times of the day..

Giganews is giving me 6000-8000KB/s max thru the day

Thinking of going back to 50mb were I got a constant 6000-6200KB/s for £7 less :(

[pinkpound]

Hello

Just an update had and Engineer out Wednesday evening who fixed my power levels

Down

Power Level
(dBmV) 5.79 5.42 5.47 5.75

UP

Power Level
(dBmV) 42.50

Speeds have still been up/down .. Giganews speeds goes from 11500KB/s to 7200KB/s constantly

Speed tests range from 60mb to 90mb mainly hover around 75mn but I never get above 3.3mb upload

Anyway @ 11:10am today my modem rebooted and Im back on 50mb :rolleyes: ..Tho I hadnt asked for it yet :P

So I think I will stay on 50mb til the 100mb is stable

[ethan103]

Hello

Just an update had and Engineer out Wednesday evening who fixed my power levels

Down

Power Level
(dBmV) 5.79 5.42 5.47 5.75

UP

Power Level
(dBmV) 42.50

Speeds have still been up/down .. Giganews speeds goes from 11500KB/s to 7200KB/s constantly

Speed tests range from 60mb to 90mb mainly hover around 75mn but I never get above 3.3mb upload

Anyway @ 11:10am today my modem rebooted and Im back on 50mb :rolleyes: ..Tho I hadnt asked for it yet :P

So I think I will stay on 50mb til the 100mb is stable



Im getting a very constant 100 Mb via my modem :confused:

[pinkpound]

I mine was very unstable speed wise internetuser and the upload was 1/3 the speed

and Im not talking peak times either...

The engineer logged into vm speedtest and it was 95mb / 9.4mb ..but with in an hour I retested with vm speedtest and it dropped to 70mb and 3.3mb .. tested with giganews to and dropped from 11500kb/s to 7800kbs

speeds were up/down permantly

[qasdfdsaq]

This is what happens when you release a 100mb service on a network that only has enough capacity to give two people at a time full speed...

[pinkpound]

And I wasnt 1 of them qasdfdsaq ;)

[barnsley]

Morning all,

Just had my upgrade completed (took less than 5 minutes!), here are the results: -

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1419975118.png

Well happy for just £4.00 per month extra!

Dave

[qasdfdsaq]

And I wasnt 1 of them qasdfdsaq ;)
Well when more than 2 people on your node (250+ homes) try to use their connection at the same time, nobody will get full speed. The available capacity just gets shared pseudo-evenly between everyone.

[4motions]

Not sure if VM have done something between yesterday and today but my connection has gone from a poor 20-40mb connection up to around 97-98mb. Hope it stays that way :)

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/08/111.png (http://www.speedtest.net)