50M Think Broadband Ping Monitor Results (POST YOURS) - Page 72

thenry · 10-03-2012, 12:46

nice Kymmy but 'get a life'

decent firmware on the SH could see better results.

Kymmy · 10-03-2012, 13:21

There though is a difference between adequate and perfect.. The superhub's performance is adequate for my usage and probably a good proportion of VM customers. I'm not though saying it is perfect and could probably be bettered but very few need perfection..

Just getting sick and tired of the "Superhub isn't working perfect so no-body must be happy with it" brigade and it's a pity on forums that people don't tend to post good experiences as much as bad experiences..

thenry · 10-03-2012, 13:29

ok fair enough but I did make it clear that 5GHz rocked for me on the SH

with regards to this latency issue. thats exactly the thing, it can be better and easily.

Chrysalis · 10-03-2012, 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

There though is a difference between adequate and perfect.. The superhub's performance is adequate for my usage and probably a good proportion of VM customers. I'm not though saying it is perfect and could probably be bettered but very few need perfection..

Just getting sick and tired of the "Superhub isn't working perfect so no-body must be happy with it" brigade and it's a pity on forums that people don't tend to post good experiences as much as bad experiences..

your 2nd graph looks like more utilisation on the UBR rather than a difference in local hardware and usage. There is congestion on that 2nd graph no doubt, its just not very severe.

Kymmy · 10-03-2012, 14:42

Is that possibly the difference between the DOCSIS 1 & 3 ?

Andrewcrawford23 · 10-03-2012, 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Is that possibly the difference between the DOCSIS 1 & 3 ?

i am assuming you have docsis 1 modme for the business if so it possible most peopel in your area are off docsis 1 and as such it imprvoing it btu i say teh shub is causing some of those spikes

Kymmy · 10-03-2012, 14:54

It is a village with the UBR in a very small town.. Not many businesses about..

qasdfdsaq · 10-03-2012, 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I'm more than happy with those results and if you want to try to use those results to slag off the superhub then honestly..get a life

Sorry, but as the new connection has introduced more than 5 times more latency into your system, that's a shameful result if the SH is the cause.

Kymmy · 10-03-2012, 15:24

Do you honestly think I'm anal enough to worry about a bit more latency????

qasdfdsaq · 10-03-2012, 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

There though is a difference between adequate and perfect.. The superhub's performance is adequate for my usage and probably a good proportion of VM customers. I'm not though saying it is perfect and could probably be bettered but very few need perfection..

I'm not sure you're aware but a lot of (educated) people (and network engineers) believe latency is more important than bandwidth. Increased latency is why websites load slower on a VM 50mb connection than a BT 40mb, contrary to what you'd expect.

So for many people it's "adequate" for their needs (because it loads fast enough) but on the other hand they're being misled if they think it's faster than a 40mb connection from the competition. VM's excessive peddling of download speeds comes at the cost of latency and responsiveness. The latency problem, is something that some people claim the Superhub makes a lot worse - so it's just another example of the same thing.

Nobody's to my knowledge done a direct scientific comparison between the two, so your graphs, being as close as it gets, shows your 50mb being a lot worse than your 10mb. Even if you're happy with that, I don't think it's fair to berate the few who aren't. After all, if it literally takes 2-4 times as long to do most things on a 50mb connection, it's a bit of a ripoff.

---------- Post added at 15:27 ---------- Previous post was at 15:25 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Do you honestly think I'm anal enough to worry about a bit more latency????

This is the kind of attitude that allows VM to continue getting away with ripping people off by peddling unneccessarily high speeds at the cost of actual performance.

Again, that latency, is why your 50mb is slower in actual use than my 30mb. I'm not saying you should care, but I know I would if that were the case. Hence why I disconnected my 50mb and went down to another provider's "slower" service. That latency, also means your 50mb probably isn't any faster than your 10mb for interactive use. Downloading large files is another matter.

thenry · 10-03-2012, 15:30

qas comparisons were made on docsis3, the VMNG300 and the SuperHub.. its blatantly showed the SH clocked up more. I saw a few people state the same thing and also various monitors confirm this. thats just me browsing the web too. Chrysalis and craigj2k12 have actually tested so would know much more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Do you honestly think I'm anal enough to worry about a bit more latency????

strong words and to be honest its pathetic.. bit of a cowboys comment, leave it be it'll do... no it wont and seeing as the fix could be rather simple I think fixing the issue would be more worthwhile. After all theres a huge investment thats been made in all this speed.

qasdfdsaq · 10-03-2012, 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Do you honestly think I'm anal enough to worry about a bit more latency????

Why are you posting in a ping monitor thread if you don't care about ping?

---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenry

qas comparisons were made on docsis3, the VMNG300 and the SuperHub.. its blatantly showed the SH clocked up more. I saw a few people state the same thing and also various monitors confirm this. thats just me browsing the web too. Chrysalis and craigj2k12 have actually tested so would know much more.

I haven't seen any actual numbers. I wish I had, but a couple of Thinkbroadband graphs could have a hundred and one reasons for the differences.

craigj2k12 · 10-03-2012, 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

I haven't seen any actual numbers. I wish I had, but a couple of Thinkbroadband graphs could have a hundred and one reasons for the differences.

Me and Chrys made a thread about it on this very forum, with pings, tracert's, TBB graphs, download speed tests, general browsing and video streaming, the superhubs performance was a lot lower across the board

qasdfdsaq · 10-03-2012, 15:47

Links or it didn't happen.

Kymmy · 10-03-2012, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Why are you posting in a ping monitor thread if you don't care about ping?.

It wasn't for my benefit, Just posted the whole lot as people might be interested especially as I was asked to post the TBB monitors, but instead it's the Anti-superhub so called experts who jump on it and deem it not good enough.. If someone doesn't like the superhub then don't get a superhub!!

I rarely game, I don't care about 2 more seconds to load a web page and most of my traffic is purely files and database sharing with various applications which are all running at full speed..

Everyone to their own but don't expect others to care about non-perfect results unless it actually impacts on what they're using the connection for