Anyone had a 5th channel added?

[Neo-Tech]

Just wondering if anyone else has had an extra downstream channel added to their SuperHub?

I was added one a few weeks ago which caused hell for a few hours as I just couldn't get a working connection due to upstream being so low but that fixed itself...

(Would love to hear Igni's input on why, etc)

[Graham M]

I would imagine it's got something to do with reducing congestion, 50MBit/4 = 12.5 per channel, 50MBit/5 = 10 per channel, just a guess :)

[craigj2k12]

all areas will be moving to 8 channels, the earlier areas getting 5 at first

I think you have the wrong idea graham about how bandwidth is 'split' between the channels, im fairly sure when channels are bonded, they become "as one" - I could be wrong though, thats how i understood it

I think the 5th channel is for 100mbit capacity, where as 8 channels is preparation for 200mbit

[morley04]

I had a 5th channel on the Hub but swaped back to the modem :)

[Neo-Tech]

Doubt it's to reduce congestion... my TBB graphs say otherwise. They only reduced when my upstream channel changed.

And hmm... Seph said in a thread where someone reported a similar thing that it was a new high capacity line card added to their UBR, 'tis probably the same thing for me? (heck06)

[Ignitionnet]

Capacity. 4 x 50Mb = 200Mb split between all the modems in the local area, 5 x 50Mb = 250Mb split between them, simples :)

[Mick Fisher]

Just wondering if anyone else has had an extra downstream channel added to their SuperHub?

I was added one a few weeks ago which caused hell for a few hours as I just couldn't get a working connection due to upstream being so low but that fixed itself...

(Would love to hear Igni's input on why, etc)
Yeah I went to 5 channels a few weeks back. Basicly went through the same experience you describe plus my downstream signal levels went through the roof. :( However the connection is still seems OK in spite of the high levels.

Hmmm...Just took a screen shot to show my downstream levels at all around 11dbmV and find they have automagically reduced to a more healthy :confused: :) :-

http://jrfers.webspace.virginmedia.com/myimages/levels.png

[craigj2k12]

superhub firmware bug that reports mad downstream power on the 5th channel

[Chrysalis]

Doubt it's to reduce congestion... my TBB graphs say otherwise. They only reduced when my upstream channel changed.

And hmm... Seph said in a thread where someone reported a similar thing that it was a new high capacity line card added to their UBR, 'tis probably the same thing for me? (heck06)

Thats because downstream capacity has no affect on upstream congestion. So your tbb graph was probably showing upstream congestion.

However downstream congestion does exist in some areas.

[jimgors]

still on 4 channels and can NEVER achieve more then 90mb on speedtest

[RB2004]

Is your laptop or desktop running at 1Gb/s?

I wrongly assumed that now modern laptops and computers were all 1Gb/s lol until I came accross a dell laptop the other day with only 100Mb/s LAN card.. It maxed out between 90-95mbit

Whereas a gigabit LAN port on same connection achieves 104mbit

[roughbeast]

Just 4 channels here.

[Mick Fisher]

Is your laptop or desktop running at 1Gb/s?

I wrongly assumed that now modern laptops and computers were all 1Gb/s lol until I came accross a dell laptop the other day with only 100Mb/s LAN card.. It maxed out between 90-95mbit

Whereas a gigabit LAN port on same connection achieves 104mbit
I have an ACER 8730 laptop thats only around a year or so old that only has a 100mbps lan adapter. :( It also has 4 gig of RAM but had a 32bit OS installed so only sees 3gig :( I guess ACER just used what they had laying around the Factory when they built it. :dozey:

[Neo-Tech]

Yeah I went to 5 channels a few weeks back. Basicly went through the same experience you describe plus my downstream signal levels went through the roof. :( However the connection is still seems OK in spite of the high levels.

Hmmm...Just took a screen shot to show my downstream levels at all around 11dbmV and find they have automagically reduced to a more healthy :confused: :) :-

Odd. My upstream is getting better as the weather improves (currently at 30.8 dBmV during the day and 30.5 dBmV at night) and my downstream power levels are near perfect between -1, 0 and 1.

Thats because downstream capacity has no affect on upstream congestion. So your tbb graph was probably showing upstream congestion.

However downstream congestion does exist in some areas.
Most likely. My area was the first to get 100Mb when launched, and was also the area used for testing the improved upload speeds, probably because I was overbuilt the previous year. However, there is no mention of this rumored speed upgrade everyone's getting...

Also, thanks Igni for clearing that up. That should mean increased capacity, maybe I should download as much as I want before the new AUP/DUP restrictions kick in (if that's what happening)... *whistle*

[Ignitionnet]

Also, thanks Igni for clearing that up. That should mean increased capacity, maybe I should download as much as I want before the new AUP/DUP restrictions kick in (if that's what happening)... *whistle*

Yep, certainly, the days of 100Mb being free of everything besides the traffic shaping on P2P / newsgroups are numbered. Fill the boots now.

[Neo-Tech]

A bit off topic but my event log has been showing some error messages I have never seen before...

Mon Jan 02 14:55:57 2012 Critical (3) Started Unicast Maintenance Ranging - No Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Mon Jan 02 14:54:50 2012 Critical (3) UCD invalid or channel unusable;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Mon Jan 02 14:43:14 2012 Error (4) DCC rejected message syntax error;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Mon Jan 02 12:24:27 2012 Error (4) DHCP RENEW sent - Invalid DHCP v4 option;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Sun Jan 01 20:37:27 2012 Error (4) Service Add Response rejected - Invalid Transaction ID;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Sun Jan 01 02:52:11 2012 Notice (6) Bad CMTS DBC-ACK: msg syntax error;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Sat Dec 31 18:17:20 2011 Critical (3) DHCP FAILED - Requested Info not supported.;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Sat Dec 31 18:17:04 2011 Critical (3) No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.0;CM-VER=3.0;
Sat Dec 31 18:16:54 2011 Critical (3) No UCDs Received - Timeout;;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Sat Dec 31 18:16:54 2011 Error (4) UCC-REQ received with invalid or out of range US channel ID.;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Sat Dec 31 16:03:05 2011 Error (4) DCC rejected parameter invalid for context;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00;CM-QOS=1.0;CM-VER=3.0;
Sat Dec 31 16:03:03 2011 Notice (6) CMTS DCC 323000000 MHz
Sat Dec 31 16:02:32 2011 Critical (3) Received Response to Broadcast Maintenance Request, But no Unicast Maintenance opportunities received - T4 time out;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Time Not Established Critical (3) DHCP FAILED - Requested Info not supported.;CM-MAC=;CMTS-MAC=;CM-QOS=1.0;CM-VER=3.0;


http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/d8286c6c6a097ee68fcef2578f35bd3e-02-01-2012.png (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/d8286c6c6a097ee68fcef2578f35bd3e-02-01-2012.html)