Kitz Forum

Broadband Related => FTTC and FTTP Issues => Topic started by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 10, 2015, 10:06:32 PM

Title: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 10, 2015, 10:06:32 PM
Just for interest (as I don't yet really understand what the new stats are telling us), I have attached 1 day stats for 2 separate users (Hitman & garypower)

2 sets of montages are now created by HG 612 Modem Stats.

One montage includes the Bearer independent data and Bearer 0 data & the other includes the new Bearer 1 data.


Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 10, 2015, 10:08:15 PM
Here's the Bearer 1 data for each user.

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 10, 2015, 10:14:54 PM
Finally, I have attached a few days worth of garypower's stats, showing the changes from non-G.INP enabled data & G.INP enabled data.

The large gaps are from before he updated HG612 Modem Stats to the latest G.INP compatible version.




EDIT:

Would anyone like to take a stab at explaining what the stats actually mean?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 11, 2015, 11:56:21 PM
Will G.INP increase latency ?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on March 12, 2015, 05:23:49 PM
it increases temporarily when it has to correct an error, which is better than permanent increase from normal interleaving.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 12, 2015, 06:59:56 PM
it increases temporarily when it has to correct an error, which is better than permanent increase from normal interleaving.

I am trying to work which is the better for example say the stats show this for a line ->

EX1: Interleave: 16 DS 8 US INP: 48.00 DS 47.00 US

EX2: Interleave: 12 DS 6 US INP: 54.00 DS 51.00 US





Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 12, 2015, 08:18:20 PM
I haven't yet managed to figure out what the new "huge" INP values are telling us.

However, I think the setup of G.INP is that the other parameter "INPrein" takes over the job of handling against REIN - the "repetitive electrically induced noise", which causes short, small levels of interference that re-occurs at 50Hz or 100Hz - from the old parameter "INP" that seemed to be used to do that job.

My old calculations, which may have been bogus, expected the old DLM designs (eg INP=3, delay=8) to protect against noise of 0.75ms happening every 8ms.

I think, with G.INP, that the "INP" parameter of the same name now does something completely different - that it is now focussed on SHINE (Single high impulse something-or-other). I think this protects against a big burst of noise that doesn't happen so often.

If FEC were used in the old way, protection of 46 or 48 symbols would be huge - and would consume a massive overhead. With Retransmission in place, the INP value obviously plays a totally different part in dimensioning the setup - as the concept of retransmission seems designed to cope with SHINE events. (Now into more speculative territory) ... I don't think the concept of re-transmission works too well for someone who really does suffer from REIN; for repetitive plain old FEC/interleaving is the best tool. So I *think* parameters "INPrein" and "delay" configure the minimalistic FEC/interleaving that we see (where D=4, for example) to give REIN protection, while "INP" configures the rest of the G.INP setup for SHINE protection.

If I'm right, then DLM has a two-dimensional task to tune G.INP in to the errors being experienced on one line, having to figure out how much of the problem is due to REIN and how much is due to SHINE, and independently set parameters for the two.

@Baldy

Thanks - seeing the graphs over time really help to give you an idea of what changes over time. Once you understand the size of the changes, then you can go back to look at each individual (human-readable) page of stats, before vs after, and try to interpret it.

I've tried doing this while reading the G.INP specs, but there are plenty of aspects that haven't gelled yet, and I don't think I'm close to understanding well.

So the graphs are a vital part of this ...
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 12, 2015, 10:10:24 PM
I haven't yet managed to figure out what the new "huge" INP values are telling us.
However, I think the setup of G.INP is that the other parameter "INPrein" takes over the job of handling against REIN - the "repetitive electrically induced noise", which causes short, small levels of interference that re-occurs at 50Hz or 100Hz - from the old parameter "INP" that seemed to be used to do that job.

That's an honest answer WWWombat it's only if and when G.INP is activated on my line i'll get get some kind of feedback, as we know no two Broadband lines are the same even if the attenuation is the same.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: garypower on March 12, 2015, 11:12:45 PM
What I do know is :

When my line had interleaving off (not very often) latency to bbc.co.uk was ~ 10ms
With interleaving on, that it had much of the time this was more like 20ms

With the g.inp it pretty much seems to be 10ms again - I have not looked too hard and there may be more small burst jumps but I am not noticing them.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 12, 2015, 11:32:19 PM
There's a bit of explanation here:-

http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/techzine/g-inp-secret-stable-100-mbps-copper/

It does include this text:-

The G.inp standard protects transmissions from impulse noise, improving line stability while reducing latency at the same time. By combining G.inp with vectoring, service providers can currently deliver 100 Mbps reliably over a single copper pair  reusing their existing copper infrastructure .

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: splbound on March 18, 2015, 10:14:35 AM
As well if anyone is interested. I was Just put on G.INP at 4:00am 18/03/2015.

Was syncing at about 56000 now syncing at 65813. Very healthy increase. Pings more than halved now.
Stats up on MDWS as my username here if anybody wants to peruse.

My QLT and Hlog look pretty much the same as usual so I believe these increases were due to G.INP being put into place.

Happy Days.. Hope it lasts.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tommy45 on March 18, 2015, 10:47:23 AM
Code: [Select]
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Plink log 2015.03.18 10:28:15 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=

xdslcmd info --stats
xdslcmd: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Retrain Reason: 1
Last initialization procedure status: 0
Max: Upstream rate = 32206 Kbps, Downstream rate = 85316 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 20000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 79999 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Link Power State: L0
Mode: VDSL2 Annex B
VDSL2 Profile: Profile 17a
TPS-TC: PTM Mode(0x0)
Trellis: U:ON /D:ON
Line Status: No Defect
Training Status: Showtime
Down Up
SNR (dB): 7.2 13.9
Attn(dB): 13.5 0.0
Pwr(dBm): 12.4 3.2
VDSL2 framing
Bearer 0
MSGc: -6 -6
B: 130 97
M: 1 1
T: 0 0
R: 8 8
S: 0.0518 0.1554
L: 21468 5457
D: 16 8
I: 139 106
N: 139 106
Q: 16 8
V: 14 2
RxQueue: 57 39
TxQueue: 19 13
G.INP Framing: 18 18
G.INP lookback: 19 13
RRC bits: 24 24
Bearer 1
MSGc: 186 58
B: 0 0
M: 2 2
T: 2 2
R: 16 16
S: 5.3333 16.0000
L: 48 16
D: 3 1
I: 32 32
N: 32 32
Q: 0 0
V: 0 0
RxQueue: 0 0
TxQueue: 0 0
G.INP Framing: 0 0
G.INP lookback: 0 0
RRC bits: 0 0
Counters
Bearer 0
OHF: 0 0
OHFErr: 0 0
RS: 1485528144 3196410
RSCorr: 8790 671
RSUnCorr: 0 0
Bearer 1
OHF: 1202365 158489
OHFErr: 0 0
RS: 14427642 533292
RSCorr: 0 6
RSUnCorr: 0 0

Retransmit Counters
rtx_tx: 514 67
rtx_c: 397 67
rtx_uc: 0 0

G.INP Counters
LEFTRS: 7 1
minEFTR: 79982 19991
errFreeBits: 23564798 5890148

Bearer 0
HEC: 0 0
OCD: 0 0
LCD: 0 0
Total Cells: 2971153725 0
Data Cells: 6364912 0
Drop Cells: 0
Bit Errors: 0 0

Bearer 1
HEC: 0 0
OCD: 0 0
LCD: 0 0
Total Cells: 0 0
Data Cells: 0 0
Drop Cells: 0
Bit Errors: 0 0

ES: 11 1
SES: 10 0
UAS: 69 59
AS: 19314

Bearer 0
INP: 46.00 47.00
INPRein: 0.00 0.00
delay: 0 0
PER: 0.00 0.00
OR: 0.01 0.01
AgR: 80614.82 20102.08

Bearer 1
INP: 4.00 4.00
INPRein: 4.00 4.00
delay: 3 0
PER: 16.06 16.06
OR: 95.62 31.87
AgR: 95.62 31.87

Bitswap: 1071/1071 2/2

Total time = 1 days 20 hours 30 min 46 sec
FEC: 80128 135410
CRC: 6848 2
ES: 11 1
SES: 10 0
UAS: 69 59
LOS: 1 0
LOF: 5 0
LOM: 0 0
Latest 15 minutes time = 46 sec
FEC: 0 0
CRC: 0 0
ES: 0 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Previous 15 minutes time = 15 min 0 sec
FEC: 101 0
CRC: 0 0
ES: 0 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Latest 1 day time = 20 hours 30 min 46 sec
FEC: 36684 44100
CRC: 6817 0
ES: 10 0
SES: 10 0
UAS: 32 22
LOS: 1 0
LOF: 5 0
LOM: 0 0
Previous 1 day time = 24 hours 0 sec
FEC: 43444 91310
CRC: 31 2
ES: 1 1
SES: 0 0
UAS: 37 37
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Since Link time = 5 hours 21 min 53 sec
FEC: 8790 671
CRC: 0 0
ES: 0 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0


HELLO HG612
xdslcmd info --pbParams
xdslcmd: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Retrain Reason: 1
Last initialization procedure status: 0
Max: Upstream rate = 32206 Kbps, Downstream rate = 85316 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 20000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 79999 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Discovery Phase (Initial) Band Plan
US: (7,32) (871,1205) (1972,2782)
DS: (33,859) (1216,1961) (2793,3970)
Medley Phase (Final) Band Plan
US: (7,32) (871,1205) (1972,2782)
DS: (33,859) (1216,1961) (2793,3970)
  VDSL Port Details   Upstream   Downstream
Attainable Net Data Rate:     32206 kbps     85316 kbps
Actual Aggregate Tx Power:        3.2 dBm      12.4 dBm
 =========================================================================================
  VDSL Band Status U0 U1 U2 U3 U4 D1 D2 D3
  Line Attenuation(dB): 3.2 15.1 21.8   N/A   N/A 8.7 19.1 29.2
Signal Attenuation(dB): 3.2 14.1 21.0   N/A   N/A 11.5 18.9 29.2
SNR Margin(dB): 13.9 13.9 13.9   N/A   N/A 7.2 7.2 7.2
TX Power(dBm): -11.8 -27.9 3.1   N/A   N/A 8.0 7.9 7.0
As of 5am my connection went onto G inp, My IP profile is 77.35 instead of the normal 77.44 ? I'm also still using an older unlocked firmware Software version = V100R001C01B030SP06  Firmware version = A2pv6C038m.d24j which would appear to work with G.INP , no doubt some one will tell me if it isn't working as well as it should, I still have the ECI that i was issued with by by installing engineer, Which that was to fail to sync,  the DLM would require a reset, ?





Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on March 18, 2015, 11:20:21 AM
Can someone on a G.inp enabled line do the following, possibly?

xdslcmd profile --show
xdslcmd info --cfg

ta :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: splbound on March 18, 2015, 11:30:21 AM
Can someone on a G.inp enabled line do the following, possibly?

xdslcmd profile --show
xdslcmd info --cfg

ta :)

Just ran these for you:

# xdslcmd profile --show

Modulations:
        G.Dmt   Enabled
        G.lite  Enabled
        T1.413  Enabled
        ADSL2   Enabled
        AnnexL  Enabled
        ADSL2+  Enabled
        AnnexM  Disabled
        VDSL2   Enabled
Phone line pair:
        Inner pair
Capability:
        bitswap         On
        sra             On
        trellis         On
        sesdrop         Off
        CoMinMgn        Off
        24k             On
        phyReXmt(Us/Ds) Off/On
        TpsTc           AvPvAa
        monitorTone:    On
        dynamicD:       On
        dynamicF:       Off
        SOS:            On
        Training Margin(Q4 in dB):      -1(DEFAULT)
       
# xdslcmd info --cfg

xdslcmd: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Retrain Reason: 1
Last initialization procedure status:   0
Max:    Upstream rate = 20539 Kbps, Downstream rate = 65084 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 17000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 65813 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps

adslTrainingMarginQ4:   -1
adslShowtimeMarginQ4:   -1
adslLOMTimeThldSec:     -1
adslDemodCapMask:       0090447a
adslDemodCapValue:      0090447a
adsl2Param:             00000000
adslPwmSyncClockFreq:   0
adslHsModeSwitchTime:   0
adslDemodCap2Mask:      00500200
adslDemodCap2Value:     00500000
vdslParam:              007f00ff
vdslParam1:             00000000
xdslAuxFeaturesMask:    00060003
xdslAuxFeaturesValue:   00060003
vdslCfgFlagsMask:       00210400
vdslCfgFlagsValue:      00210400
xdslCfg1Mask:   00000000
xdslCfg1Value:  00000000
xdslCfg2Mask:   00000000
xdslCfg2Value:  00000000
xdslCfg3Mask:   00000000
xdslCfg3Value:  00000000
xdslCfg4Mask:   00000000
xdslCfg4Value:  00000000
maxDsDataRateKbps:      0
maxUsDataRateKbps:      0
maxAggrDataRateKbps:    0
xdslMiscCfgParam:       00000000
AFE_ID:                 10608100 00000000
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on March 18, 2015, 11:42:22 AM
Brill, thanks :)

I was wondering whether upstream PhyR would be enabled; it's not. Also wondered whether G.inp would be displayed under capabililties; it's not!

The cfg output looks very similar to my own too, although I don't have it to hand. There may be something to be gleaned from vdslCfgFlagsValue:      00210400 but not sure!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: loonylion on March 18, 2015, 01:34:12 PM
There may be something to be gleaned from vdslCfgFlagsValue:      00210400 but not sure!

Code: [Select]
G.INP feature bit

Bit 17 xdslAuxFeaturesMask—ON

Bit 17 xdslAuxFeaturesValue—ON

xdslAuxFeaturesMask—00040003

xdslAuxFeaturesValue—00040003

Bit 17 xdslAuxFeaturesMask—OFF

Bit 17 xdslAuxFeaturesValue—OFF

xdslAuxFeaturesMask—00060003

xdslAuxFeaturesValue—00060003


GinpUs support

Bits 18 kDslGinpUsSupported—OFF

xdslAuxFeaturesValue—00024003

Bits 18 kDslGinpUsSupported—ON

xdslAuxFeaturesValue—00064003


FireDS support

Bits 22 kDslFireDsSupported—OFF

adslDemodCap2Value—00900000

Bits 22 kDslFireDsSupported—ON

adslDemodCap2Value—00d00000


FireUS support

Bits 23 kDslFireUsSupported—Off

adslDemodCap2Value—00500000

Bits 23 kDslFireUsSupported—On

adslDemodCap2Value—00d00000

extract from Cisco documentation at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/access/800/firmware/release/notes/VDSL2/fwrn35l.html
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Ixel on March 18, 2015, 01:40:03 PM
Has anyone on an ECI cabinet had G.INP yet or is it just Huawei cabs?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: loonylion on March 18, 2015, 01:59:39 PM
Has anyone on an ECI cabinet had G.INP yet or is it just Huawei cabs?

Just Huawei so far.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Ixel on March 18, 2015, 04:51:31 PM
Damn. I hope they're including ECI in their rollout, oh well, time will tell. Thanks.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on March 18, 2015, 05:57:14 PM
I am going to fire of an email to the openreach CEO to see what he says about the ECI situation.

We have one plusnet staff member who says ECI has been included in vectoring testing (g.inp needed for vectoring), andyh who I dont know who he is but he knows too much for a customer.

We also have BS who we know works for openreach and is well placed and he says he hasnt seen any ECI activity, I give him the most credibility.

I dont know why BT always go dual vendors, as one vendor always end up been worse than the other.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 18, 2015, 06:46:35 PM
Theres quite alot of G.INP users over the last two days and Roseway got his yesterday at 11:36am  :) I am using the Huawei cab and still waiting for G.INP, i'll be the last FTTC user to get it  :lol:
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on March 18, 2015, 07:02:16 PM
no you will get it whilst no ECI have it. :p

G.INP so far seems an all win for those who have it.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Hitman on March 18, 2015, 10:01:07 PM

G.INP so far seems an all win for those who have it.

Not so great for me at the moment due to ongoing repairs and investigations to find a cause of half BB DS, G.inp was added to try to aid my line alas not, no real change yet  ???

That said, it does look promising to those with a decent line.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 18, 2015, 10:21:14 PM
That said, it does look promising to those with a decent line.

Well you see your line has two parts Internal and External if you make sure the internal part is 100% then you can say the external part is faulty but there could be other variable's
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Hitman on March 18, 2015, 10:50:06 PM
The internal (If you mean the Exchange/Cab etc..) hardware has been upgraded/replaced/different port and 1 repair to the property (4 pair) cable 10ft from my house, just an ongoing process of elimination, my modem is next to the NT5 which has also just been upgraded today to a HH5 as part of the ongoing process BT is working on, I think the HH5 addition is the last "hardware" fix they can try.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bigmac77 on March 19, 2015, 09:06:52 PM
I have two lines both running from the same Huawei cabinet, both are running on unlocked HG612's and both of these are using software version V100R001C01B030SP06, however this morning one line was G.INP enabled the other was not and still isn't. Prior to yesterday both lines were running at a similar speed and produced a similar number of FEC's around a million or so per day. In the last 14 hours the G.INP enabled line had recorded just 9500 FEC's and no other errors the other line is still clocking up errors at it's usual rate.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on March 19, 2015, 09:22:04 PM
Interesting!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 19, 2015, 09:44:12 PM
I have two lines both running from the same Huawei cabinet, both are running on unlocked HG612's and both of these are using software version V100R001C01B030SP06

Are both using the exact same firmware V100R001C01B030SP06 comes in two flavours ?

1. unlockedgui
2. unlockedgui-nobtagent

the first one still updates to V100R001C01B030SP08 the second one will not update to V100R001C01B030SP08

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bigmac77 on March 19, 2015, 10:20:17 PM
Are both using the exact same firmware V100R001C01B030SP06 comes in two flavours ?

1. unlockedgui
2. unlockedgui-nobtagent

the first one still updates to V100R001C01B030SP08 the second one will not update to V100R001C01B030SP08

Both are running the same version, unlockedgui.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 19, 2015, 10:21:19 PM
In the last 14 hours the G.INP enabled line had recorded just 9500 FEC's and no other errors the other line is still clocking up errors at it's usual rate.


Have you had chance to study the new Bearer 1 G.INP data yet, along with what has now moved from being recorded against Bearer 0 to being recorded against Bearer 1.

Also the new data that isn't specifically allocated to Bearer 0 or Bearer 1?

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bigmac77 on March 19, 2015, 10:53:52 PM
Here are the stats

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 20, 2015, 01:47:08 AM
Those seem to have quite a difference from the ones annemt posted earlier (different thread).

Post-eclipse, I'll have a look ...

Oh - can you post up the non-G.INP stats too? Good for comparison...
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 20, 2015, 06:51:56 AM
Interesting.

I think this is the first time I've seen anything other than zero reported for Bearer 0 INPRein, even on G.INP activated connections.


EDIT:

Taking a look at the other thread, I see that annemt also has a value of 1 for Bearer 0 INPRein.

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 20, 2015, 08:43:32 AM
Yet the two end up with very different FEC settings.  :'(
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: annemt on March 20, 2015, 10:01:33 PM
I remember Bald eagle when i was having problems from long ago from when i changed cabinet Anne respect
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 21, 2015, 06:58:59 AM
Hi Anne,

Yes, I remember that.

How had your connection been pre-G.INP & how does it seem since?



Your connection's sync speeds seems to be banded currently:-

Max:    Upstream rate = 20864 Kbps, Downstream rate = 66084 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 14999 Kbps, Downstream rate = 39999 Kbps


However, SNRM levels seem to suggest that higher sync speeds could be achieved:-

                       Down            Up
SNR (dB):        14.6            10.0


You're not on an unusual 40/15 product are you?

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 21, 2015, 07:17:01 AM
I have attached the ongoing stats montages, showing pre-G.INP & post-G.INP data from one connection that I've been keeping an eye on.

The data is from a HG612 modem & the connection is seemingly currently capped at exactly 60000Kbps/17000Kbps (Bearer 0)



The gap in the graphs between 5th March & 8th March is due to my older program version unfortunately not being G.INP compatible.

The latest version is compatible so anyone using it should be able to see the transition exactly as & when it happens.



Not all the new data is included in the montages as there's a) so much of it & b) I'm still not 100% sure what is actually worth plotting.


The graph border colour schemes generally depict:-

Grey   = Bearer 0 data
Green = General data, non-Bearer specific
Yellow = Bearer 1 data


Comments, theories, suggestions, general discussions are invited as to what all this new data is actually telling us.


Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: annemt on March 21, 2015, 01:07:50 PM
Hi B E, my connection was fine until December when i started getting a lot of re-syncs. and eventually my speed dropped to 25 down 5 up it was about 62 down 18 up orig. i knew there was noise on the line but could not trace it and bt said nothing wrong. so i removed a pair of home plugs and funnily enough the speed started to improve over about 3 weeks so i have been watching it like a hawk ever since . Anne more stats  from yesterday and today slowly increasing so is it G.inp or is my line less noisy?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 21, 2015, 02:15:43 PM
[off-topic]
Ah, ha! Home plugs. Just the same "problem creators" that N*Star had a while ago . . .  :-X
[/off-topic]
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: dnpark38 on March 21, 2015, 04:50:48 PM
I'm not as technical as you guys here but I'm interested in getting improvements.
This G-IMP I take it is only for some people so is there a list on a website saying who has it ans hasn't?
Is it to be rolled out to us all and is there a completion date?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 21, 2015, 07:33:58 PM
I'm not as technical as you guys here but I'm interested in getting improvements.
This G-IMP I take it is only for some people so is there a list on a website saying who has it ans hasn't?
Is it to be rolled out to us all and is there a completion date?

No website that i know of the only way to know if G.INP is enabled on your line is to have an unlocked HG612 or 3rd party modem that works with DSLstats or HG612_Modem_stats.

Someone did say it would take 7 months for FTTC lines to be G.INP enabled but we don't know the start date so i don't think there could be a completion date.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: annemt on March 21, 2015, 09:52:07 PM
[off-topic]
Ah, ha! Home plugs. Just the same "problem creators" that N*Star had a while ago . . .  :-X
[/off-topic]
they are crap. funny thing is belkin sent them as a replacement for an ethernet wireless adapter that could not be upgraded to wpa Anne
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 21, 2015, 10:01:29 PM
I have some new Devolo's that I'm watching like a hawk ... and I haven't seen a dicky bird out of them. The line runs at about 40 ES per day.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 21, 2015, 10:09:39 PM
I saw something where BT said they were rolling out G.INP at the rate of 45,000 lines per day.

You can reckon that BT has around 60,000 cabinets, and near 4m subscribers.

If the BT rollout rate is 45,000 live lines per day, then that would be 90 days, or 650 cabs/day.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: annemt on March 21, 2015, 11:38:05 PM
I have some new Devolo's that I'm watching like a hawk ... and I haven't seen a dicky bird out of them. The line runs at about 40 ES per day.
listen on your phoneline crackles like ice crispies Anne.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 22, 2015, 12:12:05 AM
I have some new Devolo's that I'm watching like a hawk ... and I haven't seen a dicky bird out of them. The line runs at about 40 ES per day.


FWIW, I have been using Devolo dLAN 500 WiFi units for quite a long time now.
Whether they are switched on, switched off, plugged in or unplugged, they make absolutely no difference to my connection's performance & error stats.

If they had made any difference & with me being somewhat obsessed about connection stats, Mrs. Eagle would still be putting up with the much poorer wireless range (due to very thick walls between rooms) of my Netgear WNR1000 v 3 router for her Candy Crushing & so on  ;)



Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 22, 2015, 01:59:25 AM
I'm using the 500 AV Wireless+ units, and don't get a peep from them either - in either audio or VDSL2. If they did *anything*, I'd be trying for something better.

Right now, I'm using the WiFi in 2.4GHz mode, but sometime soon I'll swap it to 5GHz.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 23, 2015, 09:41:45 AM
Gone to G.inp this morning! Seems after the mystery sync loss for ten minutes the other night, its pushed it to the cab.

Last night we had a power cut, and I had to resync the connection manually to get my snr back up - I'd resync before everyone else!

On G.inp I'm on full sync and increased snr, I'll PST some stats if anyone wants them?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 23, 2015, 10:03:43 AM
I'm using the 500 AV Wireless+ units, and don't get a peep from them either - in either audio or VDSL2. If they did *anything*, I'd be trying for something better.

Right now, I'm using the WiFi in 2.4GHz mode, but sometime soon I'll swap it to 5GHz.

OK, this is off-topic I suppose but.....

What units exactly are they please?

I have Devolo 200s (dLan 200 AVeasy)  here and also Solwise 500s (PL-500AV-SMT). Can't use either make though as they are both as bad as each other. Just running them for lan to other rooms, I get about 40-60,000+ extra FECs/Min as soon as I make a physical LAN connection and if I plug the Sony smart TV LAN connection in to one  - it goes to Millions/min!!

These plugs are NOT WiFi though - using several normal repeaters around the property currently but speed is not good and chronic latency by the looks of it. So I wonder if a WiFi able Homeplug is much better than a wired one from the interference angle?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 23, 2015, 10:16:58 AM
I'm using the 500 AV Wireless+ units, and don't get a peep from them either - in either audio or VDSL2. If they did *anything*, I'd be trying for something better.

Right now, I'm using the WiFi in 2.4GHz mode, but sometime soon I'll swap it to 5GHz.

OK, this is off-topic I suppose but.....

What units exactly are they please?

I have Devolo 200s (dLan 200 AVeasy)  here and also Solwise 500s (PL-500AV-SMT). Can't use either make though as they are both as bad as each other. Just running them for lan to other rooms, I get about 40-60,000+ extra FECs/Min as soon as I make a physical LAN connection and if I plug the Sony smart TV LAN connection in to one  - it goes to Millions/min!!

These plugs are NOT WiFi though - using several normal repeaters around the property currently but speed is not good and chronic latency by the looks of it. So I wonder if a WiFi able Homeplug is much better than a wired one from the interference angle?

I have TP Link 500mbps home plugs, one sits next to the HG612, and I've never had problems with them and fec errors. They link to a wireless access point at the back of the house, and so always have a lot of traffic, but never have problems? It must be the brand of home plug that affects the connection differently?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on March 23, 2015, 10:41:13 AM
it does seem g.inp is replacing fast path as the fastest profile. either that or the threshold to move from fast path to g.inp is lower than the first interleave profile.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on March 23, 2015, 10:48:35 AM
Gone to G.inp this morning! Seems after the mystery sync loss for ten minutes the other night, its pushed it to the cab.

Last night we had a power cut, and I had to resync the connection manually to get my snr back up - I'd resync before everyone else!

On G.inp I'm on full sync and increased snr, I'll PST some stats if anyone wants them?

Yes!

What was synch before vs now? Plus any other before/afters if you can. Logging onto MDWS is a PITA :P
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 23, 2015, 10:53:06 AM
Gone to G.inp this morning! Seems after the mystery sync loss for ten minutes the other night, its pushed it to the cab.

Last night we had a power cut, and I had to resync the connection manually to get my snr back up - I'd resync before everyone else!

On G.inp I'm on full sync and increased snr, I'll PST some stats if anyone wants them?

Yes!

What was synch before vs now? Plus any other before/afters if you can. Logging onto MDWS is a PITA :P

Ok, so before sync was 71714 with interleaving applied - SNR around 5.9-6dB.

G.INP: 79,999kbps with 6.6dB SNR ;D . Upstream sync gone from 19,999 to 20,000kbps. INP increased from 3 to 44.  Stats attached if interested :)

Had a mystery loss of sync for 10 mins on the 18th, must have been the cab getting G.INP enabled
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 23, 2015, 12:25:52 PM
BaldEagle1 has gone G.INP this morning at 7am i don't see much change in his DS attainable or line sync a slight increase in US attainable but i've only had a quick look at his line stats.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 23, 2015, 12:46:26 PM
Indeed NS, you are correct.

G.INP hasn't magically reduced Line & Signal attenuation or massively improved SNRM. Hence not that much has changed (yet).

My connection's sync speeds have been 'banded' at 4999 Kbps US & 22399 Kbps DS for quite some time.

That may/may not now change over the next few days.



There seems to be some slight scope for a US sync speed improvement, but not for DS  :( as can be seen in the attached.

I'll probably wait until this evening (when I have at least 12 hours worth of G.INP stats to consider) before I post much in the way of detailed stats/graphs etc.


Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: roseway on March 23, 2015, 01:12:33 PM
I did notice that your errored seconds have plummeted to zero, so that's one clear benefit, but I guess it doesn't make a lot of practical difference.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 23, 2015, 01:29:05 PM
Time will no doubt tell, but it does appear that any real hope of me getting back some of my lost speed due to increased crosstalk now all hinges on Vectoring.

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on March 23, 2015, 01:30:01 PM
roseway beat me to it, g.inp has pretty much killed your errors at what seems no noticeble penalty to the connection.

newt must be begging for g.inp now.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 23, 2015, 03:36:56 PM
Interestingly my but loading has changed, some of the central tones are powered back and the far right tones are being used? Image attached
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 23, 2015, 03:59:41 PM
Ooh, that looks odd!  ???

I'll check via MDWS to see the entire tone spectrum.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 23, 2015, 04:10:02 PM
b*cat was slowly plodding around "up north" (via Google Maps) when he noticed that the Eagle's Nest is connected via a large Huawei cabinet. Now those cabinets are fitted with Huawei SmartAX MA5603T DSLAMs and according to B*Sheep's recent post, they will be the first to have vectoring "turned on".

So I wonder who will be the guinea-pig? (Or should that be guinea-eagle?)   :D
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 23, 2015, 04:29:28 PM
Interestingly my but loading has changed, some of the central tones are powered back and the far right tones are being used? Image attached

Assuming that MDWS has been updated (as a result of your recent resynchronisation event), the bit loading graph looks purrfectly normal.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 23, 2015, 04:38:14 PM
Ooh, that looks odd!  ???

I'll check via MDWS to see the entire tone spectrum.

I just checked on MDWS now, and it all looks fine there?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 23, 2015, 04:45:00 PM
I just checked on MDWS now, and it all looks fine there?

Agreed.  :)

However there is something not right with your server that is displaying the images (apart from only showing up to tone 255 for the bit loading graph).  :(
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 23, 2015, 04:46:28 PM
You need to drag zoom the start of the plot on MDWS as otherwise they are lost  8)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 23, 2015, 04:49:25 PM
newt must be begging for g.inp now.

I sure am because as you know i'm sitting on 1500 errored seconds a day and it would not take to much electrical interference to push the daily quota above the DLM threshold, so G.INP will be very welcome indeed  :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 23, 2015, 04:51:39 PM
I just checked on MDWS now, and it all looks fine there?

Agreed.  :)

However there is something not right with your server that is displaying the images (apart from only showing up to tone 255 for the bit loading graph).  :(

Yes I know the server is a bit broken, its a botch for the RPi web server, as it doesn't seem to work on its own, I need to fix it, but I haven't got the time yet :-X

You need to drag zoom the start of the plot on MDWS as otherwise they are lost  8)

Thanks Tony, never knew that! No idea what those lost tones are there  ???

edit: fixed all the graphs on my webserver (http://www.jamieidavies.co.uk/dslstats/webserver/) 8)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 23, 2015, 05:10:56 PM
edit: fixed all the graphs on my webserver (http://www.jamieidavies.co.uk/dslstats/webserver/) 8)

<Cough> Another fur-ball.  ::)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 23, 2015, 05:12:50 PM
edit: fixed all the graphs on my webserver (http://www.jamieidavies.co.uk/dslstats/webserver/) 8)

<Cough> Another fur-ball.  ::)

This is purposely like this, my combined page doesn't work on the Pi, I use this directory tree to view my stats

Page is still there: http://www.jamieidavies.co.uk/dslstats/webserver/combined.html but I still can't fix the bottom iframe  ???
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 23, 2015, 05:13:51 PM
Ah . . .  ;)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 23, 2015, 05:23:41 PM
Ah . . .  ;)

This may do it (http://www.jamieidavies.co.uk/dslstats/webserver/allstats.html) :)

Strange the loss in a few tones though  ???
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 23, 2015, 05:46:36 PM
This may do it (http://www.jamieidavies.co.uk/dslstats/webserver/allstats.html) :)

Yes!  :dance:
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 23, 2015, 09:29:12 PM
I have attached the stats montages for the last 24 hours.

The switch from non-G.INP Bearer 0 only to G.INP activated on Bearer 0 & Bearer 1 is easy to spot, as are the changes to various counts.

I'm not immediately 'feeling' any advantages from G.INP being activated, but maybe the reduced/non-existent ES, CRC, HEC counts etc. will help in time.

These seem to have been replaced by FEC/RSCorr, mainly on Bearer 0, but with a few on Bearer 1.
Also, non-Bearer specific rtx_tx & rtx_c are now playing a part.


The G.INP montage includes LEFTRS delta values, but for an overview, I have also attached the cumulative DS LEFTRS graph on its own.


I'll be keeping my eagle eye on things for the next few days in case DLM decides it likes what it now sees & removes or adjusts the sync speed capping/banding on my connection.



Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 23, 2015, 09:48:30 PM
Just for completeness/comparison purposes, I have attached snapshot montages from 18:00 last night (non-G.INP) & from 18:00 tonight (G.INP active).



Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 24, 2015, 12:19:00 PM
FWIW, I have been using Devolo dLAN 500 WiFi units for quite a long time now.
Whether they are switched on, switched off, plugged in or unplugged, they make absolutely no difference to my connection's performance & error stats.

If they had made any difference & with me being somewhat obsessed about connection stats, Mrs. Eagle would still be putting up with the much poorer wireless range (due to very thick walls between rooms) of my Netgear WNR1000 v 3 router for her Candy Crushing & so on  ;)

Um. I spotted some of these while out this morning  so decided to buy them and give them a try.

Plugged the main unit into the nearest non-UPS socket at 11:49 and FECs instantly went from under 1000 to nearly 300,000  :-X

That is without any LAN connection into it. Connecting the LAN didn't make a lot of difference.

So took it downstairs onto another ring of the main to see what happened (although no LAN available) and only 225,000 FEC there....

Removed at 12:02 as MDWS will show....

Plugged the wireless end (only) in at 12:15 to same socket as the Master was ..... FEC's up to 170,000...

Removed. Ideas please?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Dray on March 24, 2015, 12:28:46 PM
Do you have a UTP modem cable?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 24, 2015, 01:25:45 PM
Do you have a UTP modem cable?

I don't know - its 10 inches of screened twisted pair cable into the master socket so I guess so.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Dray on March 24, 2015, 01:31:09 PM
STP rather than UTP then :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 24, 2015, 01:37:38 PM
STP rather than UTP then :)

Okay I give up - what's the difference?

If S=Single and D=Double then the spare I have has 4 wires....
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: loonylion on March 24, 2015, 01:42:01 PM
STP rather than UTP then :)

Okay I give up - what's the difference?

If S=Single and D=Double then the spare I have has 4 wires....

STP = shielded twisted pair, UTP = unshielded twisted pair. There's also FTP, which is foil shielded twisted pair.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 24, 2015, 01:46:05 PM
I'm using the 500 AV Wireless+ units

What units exactly are they please?

In the power socket by the router, I have a Devolo dLAN 500 AV duo+
In the power socket elsewhere, I have a Devolo dLAN 500 AV Wireless+

I bought them as part of the Devolo dLAN 500 AV Wireless+ Starter Kit, which is this item at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00A67I5EK
Not cheap, though mine was £95. Worth noting that the ethernet sockets are 10/100 but not gigabit, in these models.

The router (Billion 8800NL) is plugged in via the pass-thru power, but nothing else is.

The Devolo's report speeds between them at 220Mbps (from router to remote) and 250Mbps.

However, when performing speedtests, I'm limited to around 56-60Mbps downstream, when a direct-wired laptop can get ~75Mbps.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 24, 2015, 01:51:44 PM
STP rather than UTP then :)

Okay I give up - what's the difference?

If S=Single and D=Double then the spare I have has 4 wires....

STP = shielded twisted pair, UTP = unshielded twisted pair. There's also FTP, which is foil shielded twisted pair.

Ah! Thanks. I still find it difficult to believe that a homeplug just inserted into a ring mains 60 feet away from the modem would generate that sort of interference on even an unshielded flat 10 inch lead?

Mind you there may be another reason for it due to the way the electrics are wired in this older building. I may need to get someone in who knows what they are doing  to try alternative earthing arrangements I suspect. It was all redone 23 years ago when we moved in for safety reason but it was dial-up then.......
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 24, 2015, 01:52:14 PM
Thanks for posting your stuff @BaldEagle. Will try to go over it this afternoon, alongside annem's and jid's.

Any more text-stats & graph montages to add to the mix?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 24, 2015, 01:52:34 PM
What units exactly are they please?

Devolo dLAN 500 AV Wireless+ Starter Kit ....
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 24, 2015, 01:54:19 PM
Ah! Thanks. I still find it difficult to believe that a homeplug just inserted into a ring mains 60 feet away from the modem would generate that sort of interference on even an unshielded flat 10 inch lead?

It may be being transferred through the mains, and into the PSU of the modem, and on into the power circuits.

Have you got the modem PSU plugged into the pass-through? This is supposed to be filtered.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 24, 2015, 03:23:29 PM
Ah! Thanks. I still find it difficult to believe that a homeplug just inserted into a ring mains 60 feet away from the modem would generate that sort of interference on even an unshielded flat 10 inch lead?

It may be being transferred through the mains, and into the PSU of the modem, and on into the power circuits.

Have you got the modem PSU plugged into the pass-through? This is supposed to be filtered.

Sorry, what is a 'pass-through' ????

Edit
Um... if you mean the plug-in socket on the Homeplug, don't think that idea would work too well, even if it had one (these don't my other ones do but are no better). If you look at the original posts, the modem/router is on a UPS (dedicated), plus all the other equipment in here mostly runs off two more 1500W UPS. The Homeplug has to go into an unfiltered socket directly to the ring mains or it isn't going to work I guess
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 24, 2015, 04:02:00 PM
Ah. That complicates things somewhat...

I agree that the homeplug ought to go onto an unfiltered connection to the ring main - and preferably without an extension lead.

However, I'd have thought your UPS would effectively filter the homeplug signal from the PSU anyway - and you wouldn't suffer from this problem.

But your UPS ought to make it easy to test whether the errors are mains-borne or RF; just have the modem run from UPS on battery while the homeplug remains in the mains. That way there would be no path from the ring main via the UPS to the modem.

Thinking further, though, perhaps you would need to run the test without even a network connection into the modem - just to be sure it isn't coming through the ethernet cable either.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 24, 2015, 04:27:45 PM
Ah. That complicates things somewhat...

I agree that the homeplug ought to go onto an unfiltered connection to the ring main - and preferably without an extension lead.

However, I'd have thought your UPS would effectively filter the homeplug signal from the PSU anyway - and you wouldn't suffer from this problem.

But your UPS ought to make it easy to test whether the errors are mains-borne or RF; just have the modem run from UPS on battery while the homeplug remains in the mains. That way there would be no path from the ring main via the UPS to the modem.

Thinking further, though, perhaps you would need to run the test without even a network connection into the modem - just to be sure it isn't coming through the ethernet cable either.

Thanks. Tried the UPS-with-no-mains idea but no improvement. The other idea will take MDWS off-air so will leave that until I have to take the server down for some other reason.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 24, 2015, 04:35:17 PM
Removed. Ideas please?

Take them back and request a refund!  ::)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: vic0239 on March 24, 2015, 04:51:16 PM
I used to use these devices, but found they induced interference on my vintage radios, particularly in the VHF band. Battery sets were not affected so I assumed it was mains borne. Switched them off and the interference was gone.  :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 24, 2015, 05:15:48 PM
Removed. Ideas please?

Take them back and request a refund!  ::)

All three sets I have?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 25, 2015, 12:05:07 PM
G.INP enabled at 4:07am on my line ;D

xdslcmd info --stats
xdslcmd: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Retrain Reason:   1
Last initialization procedure status:   0
Max:   Upstream rate = 7274 Kbps, Downstream rate = 33136 Kbps
Bearer:   0, Upstream rate = 7379 Kbps, Downstream rate = 33499 Kbps
Bearer:   1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Link Power State:   L0
Mode:         VDSL2 Annex B
VDSL2 Profile:      Profile 17a
TPS-TC:         PTM Mode(0x0)
Trellis:      U:ON /D:ON
Line Status:      No Defect
Training Status:   Showtime
      Down      Up
SNR (dB):    6.2       5.9
Attn(dB):    24.6       0.0
Pwr(dBm):    11.3       4.5
         VDSL2 framing
         Bearer 0
MSGc:      -6      -6
B:      235      227
M:      1      1
T:      0      0
R:      12      14
S:      0.2242      0.9827
L:      8849      1970
D:      8      4
I:      248      242
N:      248      242
Q:      8      4
V:      1      0
RxQueue:      27      12
TxQueue:      9      6
G.INP Framing:      18      18
G.INP lookback:      9      6
RRC bits:      24      24
         Bearer 1
MSGc:      90      58
B:      0      0
M:      2      2
T:      2      2
R:      16      16
S:      10.6667      16.0000
L:      24      16
D:      1      1
I:      32      32
N:      32      32
Q:      0      0
V:      0      0
RxQueue:      0      0
TxQueue:      0      0
G.INP Framing:      0      0
G.INP lookback:      0      0
RRC bits:      0      0
         Counters
         Bearer 0
OHF:      0      0
OHFErr:      4      0
RS:      501950560      3296140
RSCorr:      35807      116
RSUnCorr:   0      0
         Bearer 1
OHF:      1758505      716861
OHFErr:      0      0
RS:      10550662      2766782
RSCorr:      44      1
RSUnCorr:   0      0

         Retransmit Counters
rtx_tx:      1428      6
rtx_c:      1194      6
rtx_uc:      8      0

         G.INP Counters
LEFTRS:      21      0
minEFTR:   33505      7374
errFreeBits:   14433193      3163440

         Bearer 0
HEC:      0      0
OCD:      0      0
LCD:      0      0
Total Cells:   1819564484      0
Data Cells:   1272284      0
Drop Cells:   0
Bit Errors:   0      0

         Bearer 1
HEC:      0      0
OCD:      0      0
LCD:      0      0
Total Cells:   0      0
Data Cells:   0      0
Drop Cells:   0
Bit Errors:   0      0

ES:      1913      23
SES:      10      0
UAS:      74      64
AS:      28247

         Bearer 0
INP:      46.00      43.00
INPRein:   0.00      0.00
delay:      0      0
PER:      0.00      0.00
OR:      0.01      0.01
AgR:      33552.22   7395.24

         Bearer 1
INP:      2.50      4.00
INPRein:   2.50      4.00
delay:      0      0
PER:      16.06      16.06
OR:      47.81      31.87
AgR:      47.81   31.87

Bitswap:   19263/19263      135/135

#
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Ixel on March 25, 2015, 12:35:14 PM
...

ECI or Huawei cab?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on March 25, 2015, 01:00:07 PM
So is interleaving completely disabled once gimp kicks in? Delay 0 / 0  even though there still appears to be interleaving (and INP) on both bearers?

Everyone on gimp pinging fastpath style to bbc.co.uk? :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 25, 2015, 01:10:25 PM
...

ECI or Huawei cab?

Huawei - as are all enabled so far. You can see them for all users/data on MyDSLWebStats.
Don't worry. I'll post as soon as I'm notified of an ECI one  :congrats: (such as mine....)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on March 25, 2015, 01:34:16 PM
excellent news newt :)

so far looks a decent improvement on your line :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 25, 2015, 04:18:36 PM
excellent news newt :)

so far looks a decent improvement on your line :)

Errored seconds and CRC's have magically disappeared and FEC's are much lower than i've ever seen on this FTTC line over the past three years, I'll give this G.INP technology a 10 out of 10 we should of had this years ago  ;)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 25, 2015, 04:19:01 PM
So is interleaving completely disabled once gimp kicks in? Delay 0 / 0  even though there still appears to be interleaving (and INP) on both bearers?

No, interleaving and FEC can still be used with G.INP active. However, they are turned down dramatically, so the bandwidth overhead is reduced, and the increase in latency is reduced - one calculation I made was for 0.2ms instead of 8ms.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Hitman on March 25, 2015, 05:05:50 PM
UPDATE:

Well finally I've had all my faults resolved after a month of new kit in the exchange/cab, a free HH5 and 2 cable repairs, I requested a broadband boost engineer last week as nothing was getting to the bottom of my BB issues, however he turned up this Monday and did find a dodgy pair, so he put me on a new spare.

From a faulty 38DS/6US line it went up to 58DS/14US on the Monday but this morning I found the I/P had changed/resync and now its running at 70DS/19US with the HH5 showing a profile of 78DS/28US (SNR 6.3DS/10.7US).

BBC ping was 48ms, now 17ms  :)

Now this is better than when I first got infinity 4+ years ago, maybe due to all the line fixes etc.. or G.Inp doing it's job but whatever reason i'm well chuffed now!

Just wanted to say thanks to the guy's on here in the know and Bald_eagle1 etc.. for giving great advice and helping me understand the stats, thanks everyone!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 25, 2015, 05:20:46 PM
This could be just a coincident I looked at Bald-Eagle1's uptime before his line was G.INP enabled and noticed a gap of 1 hour a power down of modem on the 17th so I turned my HG612 off for 1 hour on monday evening 23rd and G.INP was enabled on the 2nd day  :-\
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 25, 2015, 05:44:26 PM
I think that may well have been a coincidence.

My connection was down for only 3 minutes on 17th.
Stats were harvested at 11:54 & the resync was picked up at 11:58.

Working back from AS, it seems thae actual resync was at Tue Mar 17 11:57:41 2015



Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 25, 2015, 05:50:06 PM
UPDATE:

Well finally I've had all my faults resolved after a month of new kit in the exchange/cab, a free HH5 and 2 cable repairs <snip>

Just purrfect!  :thumbs:  :dance:
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 25, 2015, 06:25:49 PM
This could be just a coincident I looked at Bald-Eagle1's uptime before his line was G.INP enabled and noticed a gap of 1 hour a power down of modem on the 17th so I turned my HG612 off for 1 hour on monday evening 23rd and G.INP was enabled on the 2nd day  :-\

I had a short power cut the night before it was enabled on my line. Around about 10mins downtime, again probably a complete coincidence!  ;D
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 25, 2015, 07:32:52 PM
again probably a complete coincidence!  ;D

It's just me looking to deeply into others stats and hopefully finding something in common to the event  :blush:
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 25, 2015, 07:39:01 PM
again probably a complete coincidence!  ;D

Your error rates are looking good there Newt!

It's just me looking to deeply into others stats and hopefully finding something in common to the event  :blush:
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 25, 2015, 08:10:18 PM
I am deffo seeing the same effects on the lower tones 65 to 85 as Jid noticed after G.INP was enabled see my Dslstats tone graphs.

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 25, 2015, 08:57:54 PM
Obviously I can't be precise but it looks like approximately tones 61 - 82 are affected.  :-\

When converted to the corresponding frequencies, is there anything significant that might account for their attenuated bit-loading?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 25, 2015, 09:19:49 PM
Obviously I can't be precise but it looks like approximately tones 61 - 82 are affected.  :-\

When converted to the corresponding frequencies, is there anything significant that might account for their attenuated bit-loading?

Well thats 271Khz to 349Khz my radio scanner is not picking up any radio signals in this band it's very quiet so it's not Radio Frequency Interference that's causing this from what i can see/hear.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 25, 2015, 09:32:06 PM
Hmm . . . That's puzzling.  :-\
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 25, 2015, 10:24:45 PM
Hmm . . . That's puzzling.  :-\

What ever it's purpose is it's not effecting the line and Dslstats is showing me 0.10 errored seconds for 18 hours that's bloody amazing when you compare it prior to G.INP it would be like 1200 on fast path for the same 18 hours.

And when I was interleaved for many of years the errored seconds for 24 hours would have been 245  :bye:
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 25, 2015, 10:35:31 PM
It goes to show that all of your careful optimisation of the wiring within your local environment has paid a dividend. G.Inp appears to be the "final piece of the jigsaw". Once vectoring is enabled, you will then be in "bonus territory".  ;D
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: AnnM on March 25, 2015, 10:48:38 PM
Well I've been G.INPd today and if you look on MyDSLWebSite at my Bitloading graph the U0 band makes interesting reading...it appears to be ECI based  ???
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 25, 2015, 11:03:53 PM
I am deffo seeing the same effects on the lower tones 65 to 85 as Jid noticed after G.INP was enabled see my Dslstats tone graphs.

Looks almost identical to mine  ???

Same here, full sync and no notable performance issues, except the nightly congestion on the TalkTalk network at my exchange ::)

I've had no ES at all in the last 24 hours, a first ever at full sync :o Can't complain G.INP is doing a good job!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 25, 2015, 11:07:02 PM
Well I've been G.INPd today and if you look on MyDSLWebSite at my Bitloading graph the U0 band makes interesting reading...it appears to be ECI based  ???

The U0 band is not ECI based it's just your standard power cut back for your shorter line to stop you interfering with longer broadband lines ADSl ADSL2 and so on  ;)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 26, 2015, 02:21:50 AM
Well I've been G.INPd today and if you look on MyDSLWebSite at my Bitloading graph the U0 band makes interesting reading...it appears to be ECI based  ???

The U0 band is not ECI based it's just your standard power cut back for your shorter line to stop you interfering with longer broadband lines ADSl ADSL2 and so on  ;)

I just commented elsewhere on this, but I'll repeat here...

I'm on a Huawei, about 100m away - and I definitely get the upstream power reduced.

But in terms of bit-loading, I see that the bit-levels in US1 are *much* lower than US2 (2-3 vs 6-7), but the bit-loading in US0 (7-8) mirrors US2. It seems that the UPBO, for me, doesn't really affect US0.

But it is certainly weird looking at your bit-loading from before and after G.INP, in that region of tones 64-80 (260-360kHz). Strange!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on March 26, 2015, 05:16:13 AM
excellent news newt :)

so far looks a decent improvement on your line :)

Errored seconds and CRC's have magically disappeared and FEC's are much lower than i've ever seen on this FTTC line over the past three years, I'll give this G.INP technology a 10 out of 10 we should of had this years ago  ;)

yep as I said before, what were BT thinking taking so long to enable this, its a technology thats been around for years and this would have saved them a ton of resources on fault callouts I am sure of it.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: AnnM on March 26, 2015, 06:25:22 AM
Well I've been G.INPd today and if you look on MyDSLWebSite at my Bitloading graph the U0 band makes interesting reading...it appears to be ECI based  ???

The U0 band is not ECI based it's just your standard power cut back for your shorter line to stop you interfering with longer broadband lines ADSl ADSL2 and so on  ;)

Thanks for clearing that up!  :-[
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: renluop on March 26, 2015, 07:39:08 PM
I'm slipping this one in ( rude though it be). I wondered if it might have any relevance to what is going on with GINP et al.

I do not have FTTC but out of curiosity look up occasionally, what I would get. In the last couple of months, in order, clean down estimates have been 38, 32, 37 Mbps. Cab is ECI AFAICS.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 26, 2015, 07:41:37 PM
:(

Mine haven't got G.INP enabled yet! Maybe BT won't do it on my line because my line are pretty short and still non-DLM on the line for 16 days. My nickname adslmax is now live via mydslwebstats.

Code: [Select]
Stats recorded 26 Mar 2015 19:40:47

DSLAM/MSAN type:        BDCM:0xa44f / v0xa44f
Modem/router firmware:  AnnexA version - A2pv6F039g1.d24m
DSL mode:                VDSL2 Profile 17a
Status:                  Showtime
Uptime:                  16 days 16 hours 43 min 4 sec
Resyncs:                0 (since 26 Mar 2015 19:32:43)

Downstream Upstream
Line attenuation (dB):  11.2 0.0
Signal attenuation (dB): Not available on VDSL2
Connection speed (kbps): 79987 19999
SNR margin (dB):        11.3 14.7
Power (dBm):            12.5 1.2
Interleave depth:        1 1
INP:                    0 0
G.INP:                  Not enabled

RSCorr/RS (%):          N/A 1.9891
RSUnCorr/RS (%):        N/A 0.0000
ES/hour:                0 0
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: HighBeta on March 26, 2015, 08:25:00 PM
You probably don't want it Max  :no:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBA9DSlWkAAv4OW.png)

http://aastatus.net/2115
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 26, 2015, 08:28:20 PM
Ah thanks! Phew! Maybe BT will leave my line alone. :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 26, 2015, 09:09:12 PM
You probably don't want it Max  :no:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBA9DSlWkAAv4OW.png)

http://aastatus.net/2115

Interesting, I saw a decrease in latency when G.INP was enabled, but it has creeped up a bit since yesterday, by only 2ms mind you.

(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thinkbroadband.com%2Fping%2Fshare-thumb%2F1e4360d5328f052b862f254c41aa47d5-26-03-2015.png&hash=a48c7b1b6d9dd041eac4e9fe944bed77c5466c1e) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/1e4360d5328f052b862f254c41aa47d5-26-03-2015.html)

(Peaks are SamKnows box running tests )
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 26, 2015, 10:10:28 PM
Latency was never a top priority for me line stability was always foremost and with the help of G.INP i can now relax as CRC's and ES's are out of the equation unless something goes very wrong on this line.

There are quite a lot of users with very little errors on there current fastpath profile i doubt G.INP would make much difference to there line but a least it has the added protection from REIN and Shine that's always a good thing  :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 26, 2015, 10:30:01 PM
Latency was never a top priority for me line stability was always foremost and with the help of G.INP i can now relax as CRC's and ES's are out of the equation unless something goes very wrong on this line.

There are quite a lot of users with very little errors on there current fastpath profile i doubt G.INP would make much difference to there line but a least it has the added protection from REIN and Shine that's always a good thing  :)


Same here, never been bothered about latency too much
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: HighBeta on March 26, 2015, 11:31:25 PM
Those of us on aa seem to have a different view   :-[

Hopefully bt might allow some profile changes / options in the near future to accommodate end user preferences. :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 26, 2015, 11:56:58 PM
Is it true that G.INP roll out for all Huawei cabinets roll out will be completed by end of this month then the next roll out for all the remaining ECI cabinets from April until end of June this year?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 27, 2015, 12:23:58 AM
Seems that noise bursts do cause a spike in latency
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 27, 2015, 02:21:17 AM
You probably don't want it Max  :no:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBA9DSlWkAAv4OW.png)

http://aastatus.net/2115

Most direct evidence on here suggests that G.INP activation (from a line where DLM had intervened) causes a decrease in latency.

Discussions elsewhere - seem to focus on the fact that this extra latency only happens when the modem runs old firmware that is incompatible with G.INP. The modem then resorts to a latency-rich setup, but (to an ISP) it doesn't look like DLM has ordered it.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on March 27, 2015, 06:17:58 AM
Seems that noise bursts do cause a spike in latency

yes errors will now give jitter (or sustained latency if they are sustained)

for people with stable fast path lines g.inp might be seen as a hindrance, on the other hand if error rate is low then jitter from errors should also be low.  It does seem tho based on aaisp's complaint and ignition's post on tbb some people are been stuck with consistent increased latency.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Black Sheep on March 27, 2015, 07:32:05 AM
Is it true that G.INP roll out for all Huawei cabinets roll out will be completed by end of this month then the next roll out for all the remaining ECI cabinets from April until end of June this year?

Yes.  :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Tacitus on March 27, 2015, 08:35:39 AM
Is there anywhere I can check to find out whether my cabinet is Huawei?  Using Telnet it tells me the DSLAM chipset is Broadcom and the VDSL Firmware version is 05-04-08-00-00-06.  I'm currently using a Draytek 2760, although I do have a locked Huawei. 

I'm guessing the ISP could tell me if they were so inclined.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: ip75 on March 27, 2015, 08:57:33 AM
I was GINPed this morning at about 6:30am. Slight increase in SNRM (line is capped 80/20), no increase in latency. No non-FEC errors whatsoever since then. Stats are on MDWS.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Ixel on March 27, 2015, 09:44:39 AM
You probably don't want it Max  :no:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBA9DSlWkAAv4OW.png)

http://aastatus.net/2115

Ouch! An increase in latency by 15ms? With that BT may as well just stick everyone on a profile with a delay of 16ms and an INP of something like 3 lol (traditional error correction of course). Should result in little loss in overhead. Well hopefully BT will make some adjustments to relieve this kind of impact, unless of course those lines seeing a 15ms~ increase in latency are actually getting a lot of errors.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: roseway on March 27, 2015, 10:02:14 AM
Is there anywhere I can check to find out whether my cabinet is Huawei?  Using Telnet it tells me the DSLAM chipset is Broadcom and the VDSL Firmware version is 05-04-08-00-00-06.  I'm currently using a Draytek 2760, although I do have a locked Huawei. 

The Broadcom chipset means that the cabinet is Huawei.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Tacitus on March 27, 2015, 10:17:07 AM
The Broadcom chipset means that the cabinet is Huawei.

Thanks.  I thought that might be the case but couldn't be sure.  If that is the case then going by reports, I should be G.INP enabled by the end of next week.  Presumably vectoring comes later.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: ip75 on March 27, 2015, 10:50:35 AM
One side effect of G.INP is that it appears to have completely screwed up the Web GUI stats. It's now showing attenuation in the SNRM row, and the power value in both the correct row and the attenuation row.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 27, 2015, 10:53:48 AM
Look like my FTTC G.INP will be more likely next week now. As I checked mine this morning. Nothing yet. Still got 4 more days to go left for the completed G.INP roll out.

I be very surprise if mine haven't done!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 27, 2015, 11:11:58 AM
I was GINPed this morning at about 6:30am. Slight increase in SNRM (line is capped 80/20), no increase in latency. No non-FEC errors whatsoever since then. Stats are on MDWS.

I was also G.INP'd this morning. I used to run at around 60 ES's per day, usually 2-10 per hour, and nothing special happened yesterday - so it is probably fair to say that G.INP is on its way for all lines.

The resulting settings from my line profile (presumably representing no DLM intervention) set INP to 46/47, INPrein to 0/0, and delay to 0/0. The sync has activated a small amount of FEC and interleaving (as seen on other reports); I've had no ES's since the resync,  and had minimal impact on latency - I think the tiny difference visible in this graph is as attributable to PN gateway's as it is to my line.
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thinkbroadband.com%2Fping%2Fshare-thumb%2F0f06e352392d8c9c7ed839191dad873e-27-03-2015.png&hash=4d16eecbf22680176671f26c342393451afd92c1) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/0f06e352392d8c9c7ed839191dad873e-27-03-2015.html)

My line is also capped at 80/20, and SNRM increased by about 0.8dB down, 0.5dB up. My attainable downstream went from around 100Mbps to 106Mbps.

Unfortunately, these aren't visible on MDWS, as my HG612 modem stats collection program crashes every time it tries to harvest...
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 27, 2015, 11:33:46 AM
Some other bits that might help:
- Plink text files, from the HG612 snapshots: before (2 weeks ago) and after. (Can't generate BaldEagle's ongoing graphs, as there is no harvesting)
- Graphs from DSLstats
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: b4dger on March 27, 2015, 11:34:46 AM
Has anyone using a standard issue ECI modem had G.INP enabled? Or if anyone has information that would be great.

Earlier I read here that the firmware would need to be auto upgraded - it would be good to know how that will work? Once an ECI modem user has been put on G.INP is it still the case that using a spare ECI modem that hasn't had it's firmware upgraded will have problems?

Sounds like a time bomb for ISP customer service...

Thanks.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 27, 2015, 11:34:52 AM
so it is probably fair to say that G.INP is on its way for all lines.

It's good to hear that G.INP is all good news so far with less errors for everyones. But sadly, I think my line won't be G.INP enabled. I be very surprise if mine haven't done.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 27, 2015, 11:51:05 AM
But sadly, I think my line won't be G.INP enabled. I be very surprise if mine haven't done.

Note that my previous resync was a 10-minute outage 24 days ago. Consensus at the time was that the DSLAM was probably upgraded to G.INP at that time, even though my line has only switched today. Today's resync time was much shorter, comparing the old BQM.
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thinkbroadband.com%2Fping%2Fshare-thumb%2F808b72f253cd5c3e9ebd8979e060e961-03-03-2015.png&hash=2b0968d761c0d0dee0d240cb2380bce3f304cbc1) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/808b72f253cd5c3e9ebd8979e060e961-03-03-2015.html)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 27, 2015, 12:03:07 PM
My FTTC was downtime 17 days ago for 10 minutes as well. But, no sign of G.INP enabled yet.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Balb0wa on March 27, 2015, 01:33:30 PM
Not had mine done yet, Chesterfield exchange,huawei cab.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 27, 2015, 04:16:15 PM
Can't generate BaldEagle's ongoing graphs, as there is no harvesting


I see from the other thread that you are now using the Billion bug fix version & that ongoing stats harvesting is back online.

The montages from your connection may be interesting to view in due course.

(PM also sent).

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: xreyuk on March 27, 2015, 11:12:35 PM
Looks like G.INP was enabled on my line this morning.

If you want to take a look, I have my stats on MyDSLWebStats.

SNRM went from 5.3dB down, and 5.2dB up to 8.4dB down and 6.2dB up without any speed changes. It also reduced interleaving to 8 from around 860, and reduced delay from 8 to 0.

I'm a happy bunny!

Can I expect DLM to intervene and start raising my download speed now that my SNRM is so high?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: loonylion on March 27, 2015, 11:50:03 PM
Looks like G.INP was enabled on my line this morning.

If you want to take a look, I have my stats on MyDSLWebStats.

SNRM went from 5.3dB down, and 5.2dB up to 8.4dB down and 6.2dB up without any speed changes. It also reduced interleaving to 8 from around 860, and reduced delay from 8 to 0.

I'm a happy bunny!

Can I expect DLM to intervene and start raising my download speed now that my SNRM is so high?

eventually yes, it will raise your speed a bit.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 28, 2015, 12:11:35 AM
Does G.INP reset DLM itself?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on March 28, 2015, 01:20:25 AM
Does G.INP reset DLM itself?

No.  :no:  It improves the overall quality of the circuit such that the DLM itself re-adjusts the parameters so used.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: loonylion on March 28, 2015, 04:25:57 AM
I just got G.INPed  ;D

upstream speed went up by around 1.5mbps, downstream by around 4-5mbps. interleave dropped from 777 to 16. I seem to be banded downstream as there's still some SNR available.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: AArdvark on March 28, 2015, 04:36:19 AM
Welcome to the club :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 28, 2015, 07:29:46 AM
I just got G.INPed  ;D

upstream speed went up by around 1.5mbps, downstream by around 4-5mbps. interleave dropped from 777 to 16. I seem to be banded downstream as there's still some SNR available.

I don't know if everyone realises but you can also be de-G.INPed  :o No idea what the decision is based on myself.

It's happened to several users and MDWS will send you a mail to notify you it's happened, in addition to the one you get when it's first applied or reapplied.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 28, 2015, 09:37:57 AM
I got G.INP enabled now this morning at 7:50am

Hi

This is to let you know that a resync/restart occurred on your line at 28-03-2015 07:50 local time (+/- 1 minute).

Reason: 1 RDI/DLM

Current Downstream Sync Rate is now 79999kbps
Current Upstream Sync Rate is now 20000kbps

These alert e-mails are active by default, if you want to turn them off then use the Options link at the bottom of the MyDSLWebStats window. You can also view your recent Resyncs and other related data in the Resync/LOS data pane.


The MyDSLWebStats Team


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 28, 2015, 10:43:47 AM
I got G.INP enabled now this morning at 7:50am

Hi

This is to let you know that a resync/restart occurred on your line at 28-03-2015 07:50 local time (+/- 1 minute).

The MyDSLWebStats Team


That's the Resync mail, there is a separate one for G.INP activation/deactivation....
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 28, 2015, 10:46:29 AM
Has anyones notice BT IP Profile has a strange reduced on G.INP enabled.

Before G.INP disabled

BT IP: 77.42 Sync: 79987k/19999k

After G.INP enabled

BT IP: 77.35 Sync: 79999k/20000k

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 28, 2015, 11:06:42 AM
That now works out at approximately 96.69% of sync speed compared to the previous (non-G.INP) 96.79%.



I have just tested this on my own connection, modem freshly rebooted.

Sync 22399/4999 & BT's IP Profile is 21.66/20

96.69% = 21.66% (rounded up).

Maybe the slight reduction in IP Profile is for the small 'overhead' required for G.INP?


Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 28, 2015, 11:12:35 AM
That now works out at approximately 96.69% of sync speed compared to the previous (non-G.INP) 96.79%.



I have just tested this on my own connection, modem freshly rebooted.

Sync 22399/4999 & BT's IP Profile is 21.66/20

96.69% = 21.66% (rounded up).

Maybe the slight reduction in IP Profile is for the small 'overhead' required for G.INP?

As long the sync rate stay higher. I was wondering if G.INP will ever go back to fast path as I can see G.INP put interleaving ON. The ping was about the same no affect!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: AArdvark on March 28, 2015, 11:24:59 AM
It is supposed to be switched on/off according to the condition of your line. If it works like DLM usually works it will be quick to apply G.INP but slow to remove it. :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 28, 2015, 11:28:15 AM
Are u saying G.INP will be removed soon? I doubt it won't be! Look like the end of famous word 'fast path'
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: AArdvark on March 28, 2015, 11:38:55 AM
I have read somewhere on kitz forum that G.INP has been removed off lines.

Sorry, cannot remember where I have just read it.

G.INP is supposed to provide enhanced Impulse noise protection, it is possible that if you have a very good line you do not need it. :o

Supposedly it is possible to convince DLM you have a very good line  ;D :o
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tbailey2 on March 28, 2015, 11:44:22 AM
I have read somewhere on kitz forum that G.INP has been removed off lines.

http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,15162.msg283306.html#msg283306 (http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,15162.msg283306.html#msg283306)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: sorc on March 28, 2015, 11:58:17 AM
Looks like I have had it turned on in the last week or so (going by the ISP's line data page)

Modem now connected at 75-76Mbit compared to 65-70 before and it looks so far like the number of errors is a lot lower too. I also see the web admin bug where the attenuation is now reported as SNR (I was almost surprised to see 17dB SNR). xdslcmd reports 6.3dB which sounds about right. I don't keep a log of line statistics to compare to so this is just off the top of my head.

Additionally it looks like the BT wholesale checker has already updated based on the new statistics, it's reporting a few Mbit higher on both clean and impacted

A nice improvement anyway. Huawei modem/huawei cabinet. Can we have vectoring now? :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: theogeor on March 28, 2015, 12:00:52 PM
G.INP has been enabled on my line yesterday afternoon. Interleave depth is better than has ever been and that is reflected on the ping time I now get..

However something strange... it might be a reporting issue than a mystery but for the time is strange.. Look at the downstream rate and bearer rate... I have seen the downstream rate been lower than the bearer by the way.... Max sync speed I had until now was 33500-34000 so is a bit lower but never had 32400 before..

Any ideas why I am getting this ? I gave the modem a full reboot just in case but it stayed the same ....

ast initialization procedure status:   0
Max:   Upstream rate = 7450 Kbps, Downstream rate = 32464 Kbps
Bearer:   0, Upstream rate = 1999 Kbps, Downstream rate = 32400 Kbps
Bearer:   1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Link Power State:   L0
Mode:         VDSL2 Annex B
VDSL2 Profile:      Profile 17a
TPS-TC:         PTM Mode(0x0)
Trellis:      U:ON /D:ON
Line Status:      No Defect
Training Status:   Showtime
      Down      Up
SNR (dB):    6.1       19.6
Attn(dB):    25.1       0.0
Pwr(dBm):    12.3       6.1
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tommy45 on March 28, 2015, 12:08:52 PM
I have read somewhere on kitz forum that G.INP has been removed off lines.

Sorry, cannot remember where I have just read it.

G.INP is supposed to provide enhanced Impulse noise protection, it is possible that if you have a very good line you do not need it. :o

Supposedly it is possible to convince DLM you have a very good line  ;D :o
well looking at the my webstats all users page danbl  would appear to of had G.inp enabled for some 37 days so i won't be holding my breath on  getting de G.inp'd any-time soon,
As for DLM it never has been perfect and i doubt any automated system will ever been  in this field
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 28, 2015, 01:33:45 PM
I doubt we won't seeing any G.INP removed for a long time and probably never will.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 28, 2015, 02:21:13 PM
I turned of the HG612 last night for 15 minutes and noticed the DS INP: changed from 46:00 to 49:00 what sort of change will that do to my line ?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 28, 2015, 02:24:56 PM
U should have leave it powered off for at least 30 minutes not 15 minutes
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tommy45 on March 28, 2015, 02:35:01 PM
As long as you don't repeatedly  power off/on (re boot) the modem you should be fine, even if the connection is on the most stringent of the 3 DLM stability profiles (in theory at least) i would see the shift from 46 to 49 on the inp  wouldn't amount to much but as little is known it's just a guess
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Ixel on March 28, 2015, 04:49:13 PM
It might be that re-syncing can result in a slightly different INP each time.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 28, 2015, 04:57:34 PM
I turned of the HG612 last night for 15 minutes and noticed the DS INP: changed from 46:00 to 49:00 what sort of change will that do to my line ?

May be that on resync the G.INP algorithm calculates the most suitable correction rates for the line.

Obviously all an assumption  ???
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: AArdvark on March 28, 2015, 05:10:05 PM
I found that DLM will keep re-syncing your line adjusting the DS / US INP over a period of days until it decides you are at the optimum settings. (For now  ;D it is DLM.)

I had 2 or 3  re-syncs then my line has been stable for 18+ days. i.e. no more resyncs.

Still waiting for the line sync to recover back to the sync rate I was at, but more and more it is looking like there is a profile of 67/20 that people are getting stuck at even if they previously had syncs higher than 67M.

Would love to know if this is true ?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: tommy45 on March 28, 2015, 06:07:47 PM
Hasn't re-synced mine yet  but it may do if several steps have been taken by dlm in the past
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 28, 2015, 06:16:05 PM
May be that on resync the G.INP algorithm calculates the most suitable correction rates for the line.

Obviously all an assumption  ???

I do remember when this line was interleaved the depth would change quite often after a reboot and depending on the current sync rate IE: with a higher sync rate the more interleaving was applied and less for a lower sync rate.

But I guess it depends on the amount of noise there is on the line during the re-sync.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Balb0wa on March 28, 2015, 07:23:54 PM
i was g inped 5 hrs ago, funny time indeed. My ping is a lot better, knocked 8ms off to the bbc  16-17ms now , not bad for a long line

Before

(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg537.imageshack.us%2Fimg537%2F6791%2F8LvkWu.jpg&hash=27c6092cff4f1b3a58d4806a255e8fa06c04dcd4)

After

(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg661.imageshack.us%2Fimg661%2F3706%2FUsTtHc.jpg&hash=788eb22923f954440167a6834ac57d3986ed6534)





Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: danivtec on March 28, 2015, 08:06:45 PM

i was g inped 5 hrs ago, funny time indeed. My ping is a lot better, knocked 8ms off to the bbc  16-17ms now , not bad for a long line

Before

(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg537.imageshack.us%2Fimg537%2F6791%2F8LvkWu.jpg&hash=27c6092cff4f1b3a58d4806a255e8fa06c04dcd4)

After

(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg661.imageshack.us%2Fimg661%2F3706%2FUsTtHc.jpg&hash=788eb22923f954440167a6834ac57d3986ed6534)

Off topic but how are you getting 4db for the DS Snr?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Balb0wa on March 28, 2015, 08:11:24 PM
no idea, probably dropping as its night, my line is pretty poor to be fair, lots of ali cable and  about 1200 metres.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jid on March 28, 2015, 08:47:04 PM
no idea, probably dropping as its night, my line is pretty poor to be fair, lots of ali cable and  about 1200 metres.

You're seeing a lower snr margin as noise has increased since the resync that enabled G. Inp.

If you resynced now you'd drop sync speed so worth keeping an eye on error rates with a lower snr margin.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 29, 2015, 04:08:42 AM
I turned of the HG612 last night for 15 minutes and noticed the DS INP: changed from 46:00 to 49:00 what sort of change will that do to my line ?

INP is set by DLM to specify how big a burst of SHINE must be protected against. Bigger numbers mean DLM wants more protection, so it affects the way in which the modem configures the retransmission queues. Likely to have little impact on your line speed or latency.

INP_rein defines the amount of protection against REIN. The modem adjust FEC and interleaving for this, and it has a small impact to speeds and latencies, as seen so far, anyway.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: theogeor on March 29, 2015, 10:53:25 AM
no idea, probably dropping as its night, my line is pretty poor to be fair, lots of ali cable and  about 1200 metres.

Interesting.. My line is about 1200m as well but I get significant better speed but I am on a good quality copper line. I am about double that... One important point is that I am using a shielded cable from the master socket to the modem and that made massive difference. Modem was syncing (but unstable ) at around 22-25mbits and now I have a stable 32-34Mbits ... 

Theo
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 29, 2015, 01:00:28 PM
Here's my full-monty graph spread from the last 4 days.

There isn't really anything of note, except that the OHFerr and the ES, even though they were low, have now disappeared entirely.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on March 29, 2015, 01:53:25 PM
That montage needs to be read in conjunction with the other one from the same period.

As still quite a bit goes on using Bearer 0, such as RSCorr etc., now that Interleaving has been applied (at low depths), it might be useful if you could post it (or even better (for me), a zipped copy of your modem_stats.log for say the last 4 days).

See the attached examples from my connection.



Ultimately, I'd like to combine all the relevant individual graphs into a single montage, but I'm still not quite sure exactly what data is worth plotting & what isn't.


EDIT:

BTW, it looks like you haven't updated the graphpd.exe program yet (& maybe also some of the others?).
The current version should be 5.0.0.5

The program updates can be done via the GUI.




Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 29, 2015, 06:27:54 PM
I updated graphpd earlier today, but I'm not sure whether I did it before or after I created those graphs.

Here are the new graphs, including the other one this time  :-[

Haven't forgotten the email/PM...
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on March 29, 2015, 06:48:12 PM
This snippet of the modem-stats logfile is only 2 days worth, but I needed to chop it that much so it would fit as an attachment.

If you want more, from before or after, just ask...
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on March 29, 2015, 07:06:15 PM
I notice the ping are reduced from 12ms to 9ms now on FTTC (G.INP) after 1 day using London server
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F4250435389.png&hash=26aba8549409ff4ca557a416997008ca19321f07) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4250435389)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on March 30, 2015, 10:17:51 PM
The stats after G.INP has been enable on this line for just under a week it's most definitely helping my line during the noisey evening time from REIN & SHINE and the RFI effects on errors is being held at bay by FEC though still the DS SNRM does it own thing  :giggle:

G.INP is definitely recommend for the average noisey line on FTTC
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: xreyuk on March 31, 2015, 12:44:19 AM
It's definitely helping my line, a hell of a lot.

I was at a 44Mbps sync speed (exactly, almost like I was banded) with a 5.4dB SNRM. I would get around 9ES per hour with this, including up in the 30-40 seconds per hour mark in peak times.

Since the G.INP has been enabled we're still at 44Mbps exactly (again, like we've been banded) however it's now a 8.5dB SNRM, with 1 ES/day and 3 CRCs per day.

Made up, and hopefully DLM will kick in soon and remove the banding and raise the speeds.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on April 01, 2015, 03:49:20 PM
Not happy with G.INP now :(

Because DLM has increasing ping now as the Billion haven't resync at all since last Saturday!  Ping now increasing from 12ms to 16ms just before 1pm  :no: :no: :no:

What the hell going on? See my BQM below

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on April 01, 2015, 03:56:18 PM
if the modem hasnt lost sync then likely its a routing change between tbb and plusnet. although I dont see it on my graph.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on April 01, 2015, 04:02:08 PM
Before bbc.co.uk ping was 10ms and now 13ms (I have checked the billion router. It's haven't lost the sync or anything changed at all. Nothing)

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Windows\System32>ping bbc.co.uk

Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.244.20] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.244.20: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.58.244.20: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.58.244.20: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.58.244.20: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 212.58.244.20:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 13ms


Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 01, 2015, 05:04:59 PM
Before bbc.co.uk ping was 10ms and now 13ms (I have checked the billion router. It's haven't lost the sync or anything changed at all. Nothing)

I am not a ping expert but 13ms sounds quite good to me, TBH my BT ISP line has never gone below 25ms when it was on the strange fastpath profile and when it was interleaved an now the G.INP profile just sit's at 25ms, so this must be down to the BT ISP route.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on April 01, 2015, 05:30:51 PM
My latest billion stats:

Code: [Select]
adsl info --stats
adsl: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Last Retrain Reason:    0
Last initialization procedure status:   0
Max:    Upstream rate = 35881 Kbps, Downstream rate = 105573 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 20000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 79999 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Link Power State:       L0
Mode:                   VDSL2 Annex B
VDSL2 Profile:          Profile 17a
TPS-TC:                 PTM Mode(0x0)
Trellis:                U:ON /D:ON
Line Status:            No Defect
Training Status:        Showtime
                Down            Up
SNR (dB):        12.3            16.3
Attn(dB):        11.3            0.0
Pwr(dBm):        12.5           -1.3

                        VDSL2 framing
                        Bearer 0
MSGc:           -6              -6
B:              130             97
M:              1               1
T:              0               0
R:              8               8
S:              0.0518          0.1554
L:              21468           5457
D:              16              8
I:              139             106
N:              139             106
Q:              16              8
V:              14              2
RxQueue:                57              39
TxQueue:                19              13
G.INP Framing:          18              18
G.INP lookback:         19              13
RRC bits:               24              24
                        Bearer 1
MSGc:           186             58
B:              0               0
M:              2               2
T:              2               2
R:              16              16
S:              5.3333          16.0000
L:              48              16
D:              3               1
I:              32              32
N:              32              32
Q:              0               0
V:              0               0
RxQueue:                0               0
TxQueue:                0               0
G.INP Framing:          0               0
G.INP lookback:         0               0
RRC bits:               0               0

                        Counters
                        Bearer 0
OHF:            0               0
OHFErr:         0               0
RS:             2716152320              3038525
RSCorr:         96522           35037
RSUnCorr:       0               0
                        Bearer 1
OHF:            23054942                80053
OHFErr:         0               0
RS:             276659300               2400587
RSCorr:         57              140
RSUnCorr:       0               0

                        Retransmit Counters
rtx_tx:         1700            824
rtx_c:          1693            791
rtx_uc:         0               0

                        G.INP Counters
LEFTRS:         40              10
minEFTR:        79999           19991
errFreeBits:    451844219               114854581

                        Bearer 0
HEC:            0               0
OCD:            0               0
LCD:            0               0
Total Cells:    1137280766              0
Data Cells:     595978910               0
Drop Cells:     0
Bit Errors:     0               0

                        Bearer 1
HEC:            0               0
OCD:            0               0
LCD:            0               0
Total Cells:    0               0
Data Cells:     0               0
Drop Cells:     0
Bit Errors:     0               0

ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
AS:             370380

                        Bearer 0
INP:            46.00           47.00
INPRein:        0.00            0.00
delay:          0               0
PER:            0.00            0.00
OR:             0.01            0.01
AgR:            80614.82        20102.08

                        Bearer 1
INP:            4.00            4.00
INPRein:        4.00            4.00
delay:          3               0
PER:            16.06           16.06
OR:             95.62           31.87
AgR:            95.62   31.87

Bitswap:        594/594         1046/1046

Total time = 4 days 6 hours 53 min 0 sec
FEC:            96522           35037
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Latest 15 minutes time = 8 min 0 sec
FEC:            16              23
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Previous 15 minutes time = 15 min 0 sec
FEC:            297             295
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Latest 1 day time = 6 hours 53 min 0 sec
FEC:            7587            1748
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Previous 1 day time = 24 hours 0 sec
FEC:            50973           12702
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Since Link time = 4 days 6 hours 52 min 59 sec
FEC:            96522           35037
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
 >
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 01, 2015, 05:33:39 PM
Before bbc.co.uk ping was 10ms and now 13ms (I have checked the billion router. It's haven't lost the sync or anything changed at all. Nothing)

I am not a ping expert but 13ms sounds quite good to me

With respect, this is not helpful and is the position most seem to adopt. 10 to 13 is like, 30% increase? How would you like to lose 30% of your bandwidth? Gamers don't care about bandwidth. We use very little of it but latency, is hugely important.

I suspect we're not naive enough to believe 1ms less makes us pro gamers but when serialisation, encapsulation and switching delays have been accounted for, every extra millisecond represents a suboptimal path and that is just as frustrating to the geek inside as a loss of bandwidth.

Sorry for ranting :D
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 01, 2015, 07:03:23 PM
Sorry for ranting :D

I am a Gamer and 25ms makes no difference to my online gaming experience i would take your rant and stuff it up into the games hosting servers arse if 1ms makes all the difference to your gaming experience  ;) the issue must be on the hosting site.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 01, 2015, 08:08:04 PM
If you were as bad at games as me, you'd cry about ping too :D
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on April 01, 2015, 08:20:43 PM
if the modem hasnt lost sync then likely its a routing change between tbb and plusnet. although I dont see it on my graph.

This, or a new PPP session has plonked max on a different gateway. I've definitely seen 3ms differences between gateways.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 02, 2015, 11:19:28 AM
My latest billion stats:

Code: [Select]
adsl info --stats
adsl: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Last Retrain Reason:    0
Last initialization procedure status:   0
Max:    Upstream rate = 35881 Kbps, Downstream rate = 105573 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 20000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 79999 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Link Power State:       L0
Mode:                   VDSL2 Annex B
VDSL2 Profile:          Profile 17a
TPS-TC:                 PTM Mode(0x0)
Trellis:                U:ON /D:ON
Line Status:            No Defect
Training Status:        Showtime
                Down            Up
SNR (dB):        12.3            16.3
Attn(dB):        11.3            0.0
Pwr(dBm):        12.5           -1.3

                        VDSL2 framing
                        Bearer 0
MSGc:           -6              -6
B:              130             97
M:              1               1
T:              0               0
R:              8               8
S:              0.0518          0.1554
L:              21468           5457
D:              16              8
I:              139             106
N:              139             106
Q:              16              8
V:              14              2
RxQueue:                57              39
TxQueue:                19              13
G.INP Framing:          18              18
G.INP lookback:         19              13
RRC bits:               24              24
                        Bearer 1
MSGc:           186             58
B:              0               0
M:              2               2
T:              2               2
R:              16              16
S:              5.3333          16.0000
L:              48              16
D:              3               1
I:              32              32
N:              32              32
Q:              0               0
V:              0               0
RxQueue:                0               0
TxQueue:                0               0
G.INP Framing:          0               0
G.INP lookback:         0               0
RRC bits:               0               0

                        Counters
                        Bearer 0
OHF:            0               0
OHFErr:         0               0
RS:             2716152320              3038525
RSCorr:         96522           35037
RSUnCorr:       0               0
                        Bearer 1
OHF:            23054942                80053
OHFErr:         0               0
RS:             276659300               2400587
RSCorr:         57              140
RSUnCorr:       0               0

                        Retransmit Counters
rtx_tx:         1700            824
rtx_c:          1693            791
rtx_uc:         0               0

                        G.INP Counters
LEFTRS:         40              10
minEFTR:        79999           19991
errFreeBits:    451844219               114854581

                        Bearer 0
HEC:            0               0
OCD:            0               0
LCD:            0               0
Total Cells:    1137280766              0
Data Cells:     595978910               0
Drop Cells:     0
Bit Errors:     0               0

                        Bearer 1
HEC:            0               0
OCD:            0               0
LCD:            0               0
Total Cells:    0               0
Data Cells:     0               0
Drop Cells:     0
Bit Errors:     0               0

ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
AS:             370380

                        Bearer 0
INP:            46.00           47.00
INPRein:        0.00            0.00
delay:          0               0
PER:            0.00            0.00
OR:             0.01            0.01
AgR:            80614.82        20102.08

                        Bearer 1
INP:            4.00            4.00
INPRein:        4.00            4.00
delay:          3               0
PER:            16.06           16.06
OR:             95.62           31.87
AgR:            95.62   31.87

Bitswap:        594/594         1046/1046

Total time = 4 days 6 hours 53 min 0 sec
FEC:            96522           35037
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Latest 15 minutes time = 8 min 0 sec
FEC:            16              23
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Previous 15 minutes time = 15 min 0 sec
FEC:            297             295
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Latest 1 day time = 6 hours 53 min 0 sec
FEC:            7587            1748
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Previous 1 day time = 24 hours 0 sec
FEC:            50973           12702
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Since Link time = 4 days 6 hours 52 min 59 sec
FEC:            96522           35037
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
 >

                        Bearer 1
INP:            4.00            4.00
INPRein:        4.00            4.00
delay:          3               0
PER:            16.06           16.06
OR:             95.62           31.87
AgR:            95.62   31.87

Bear 1 (G.INP) side of things has put an extra 3ms on your line and it's done the exact same thing to my short error free line too..
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on April 02, 2015, 11:24:01 AM
                        Bearer 1
INP:            4.00            4.00
INPRein:        4.00            4.00
delay:          3               0
PER:            16.06           16.06
OR:             95.62           31.87
AgR:            95.62   31.87

Bear 1 (G.INP) side of things has put an extra 3ms on your line and it's done the exact same thing to my short error free line too..

Wish DLM put delay: 0 0 (not 3 0)  >:(
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Dray on April 02, 2015, 11:29:50 AM
Bearer 0 has no delay. Bearer 1 is used by G.Inp
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 02, 2015, 11:33:13 AM
Yep G.INP has added delay of 3ms to your line for NO REASON AT ALL, yet I have seen long noisy lines with ZERO delay.

G.INP is NOT working well at all for short lines.

My short line stats are identical to yours and G.INP has added 3ms to my ping too..
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on April 02, 2015, 11:35:38 AM
Yeah I blamed Openreach for unfit for purpose for FTTC G.INP delay of 3ms on ping! No need for that for my short line! God, I hate BT sometime!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: dnpark38 on April 02, 2015, 11:41:14 AM
"I hate BT sometime!"
Only sometimes, that's an improvement on most people who hate BT all the time :-)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 02, 2015, 11:42:33 AM
Whats more shocking is how CRAP the ECI modem is with G.INP enabled!

my line has been perfect for the last 3 years with FULL SYNC and fastpath.

Since this G.INP has been forced upon my line it's been much slower and higher latency
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: sorc on April 02, 2015, 11:43:00 AM
I have to say that I would find it rather hard to get worked up over a 3ms increase. In the grand scheme of things it's not a big deal. Approaching 10ms increase, maybe it's worth caring about

That said, I seem to have got the best of both worlds, 6Mb increase and maybe 1 or 2ms decrease..
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on April 02, 2015, 12:07:49 PM
Updated: Have BT starting to love me now?

Interesting BQM graph showing reduced in ping just after 11am this morning. (I notice between 12:30pm yesterday and before 11am today the ping was higher by 3ms extra. Graph below:

Speed test also reduced from 12ms to 9ms
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F4259877875.png&hash=9953c9f262d0adecf78c8586d94b46a4a1c63f0d) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4259877875)

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 02, 2015, 12:26:28 PM
Can you ping and trace route bbc.co.uk? :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 02, 2015, 12:30:07 PM
Updated: Have BT starting to love me now?

Interesting BQM graph showing reduced in ping just after 11am this morning. (I notice between 12:30pm yesterday and before 11am today the ping was higher by 3ms extra. Graph below:

Speed test also reduced from 12ms to 9ms
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F4259877875.png&hash=9953c9f262d0adecf78c8586d94b46a4a1c63f0d) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4259877875)

What does your stats show now on bearer 1?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: dnpark38 on April 02, 2015, 12:31:14 PM
adslmax
Does the higher speed product lower the ping over mine?
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F4259931909.png&hash=a31ab18d8ee2d2656784ab7178339b7e0a45b224) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4259931909)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on April 02, 2015, 12:35:39 PM
@lockeh my stats bearer 1 now showing 0 0

@boost my bbc co uk ping now 9ms
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 02, 2015, 12:38:10 PM
@lockeh my stats bearer 1 now showing 0 0

@boost my bbc co uk ping now 9ms

What's the lowest ping you see in the tracert? First/second hop etc? :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 02, 2015, 12:40:32 PM
@lockeh my stats bearer 1 now showing 0 0

@boost my bbc co uk ping now 9ms

Level of INP do you have on bearer 1 now? My guess is 2.00
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on April 02, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
Level of INP do you have on bearer 1 now? My guess is 2.00

Yes u are correct there!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 02, 2015, 12:46:21 PM
@lockeh my stats bearer 1 now showing 0 0

@boost my bbc co uk ping now 9ms

Level of INP do you have on bearer 1 now? My guess is 2.00

He's on MDWS if you can get on there!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on April 02, 2015, 12:47:44 PM
What's the lowest ping you see in the tracert? First/second hop etc? :)

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Windows\System32>tracert www.bbc.co.uk

Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.244.26]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
  2    11 ms    9 ms    11 ms  lo0.10.central10.pcl-bng01.plus.net [195.166.130
.138]
  3    11 ms    9 ms    11 ms  irb.10.PCL-CR02.plus.net [84.93.249.82]
  4    12 ms    11 ms    12 ms  ae1.ptw-cr02.plus.net [195.166.129.2]
  5    10 ms    11 ms    10 ms  ae2.ptw-cr01.plus.net [195.166.129.4]
  6    11 ms    10 ms    11 ms  kingston-gw.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.6]
  7     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  8     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  9    11 ms    11 ms    11 ms  ae0.er01.telhc.bbc.co.uk [132.185.254.109]
 10    11 ms    11 ms    11 ms  132.185.255.149
 11    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  www.bbc.co.uk [212.58.244.26]

Trace complete.

C:\Windows\System32>
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on April 02, 2015, 01:37:47 PM
fastpath from leics

Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.246.54]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  home.gateway [192.168.1.253]
  2    24 ms    25 ms    16 ms  lo0-central10.pcl-ag05.plus.net [195.166.128.186
]
  3    15 ms    15 ms    15 ms  link-a-central10.pcl-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.17
6]
  4    58 ms    17 ms    15 ms  xe-1-2-0.pcl-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.208]
  5    15 ms    15 ms    15 ms  ae1.ptw-cr01.plus.net [195.166.129.0]
  6    16 ms    15 ms    15 ms  kingston-gw.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.6]
  7     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  8    16 ms    16 ms    16 ms  ae0.er02.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [132.185.254.90]
  9    18 ms    18 ms    17 ms  132.185.255.165
 10    16 ms    16 ms    16 ms  bbc-vip045.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.246.54]

us ECI'ers on fastpath mwhahahaha
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bowdon on April 02, 2015, 02:21:33 PM
Pings do move around slightly all day/night. I'm usually on an IRC server and have a self ping addon to my client. So it pings all the time, so I can see the ping moving. The further away the server is the more up and down the ping will be. British and  Scandinavian locations seem to be better than Europe I've noticed.

Anyways thats my 2 pings worth lol.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 02, 2015, 02:30:18 PM
:D
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 02, 2015, 05:59:14 PM
FWIW, I'm on a 1100m line.
These are some of my Bearer1 stats (Huawei DSLAM & Huawei HG612 modem):-

Code: [Select]
Bearer 1
INP: 2.50 4.00
INPRein: 2.50 4.00
delay: 0 0
PER: 16.06 16.06
OR: 47.81 31.87
AgR: 47.81 31.87

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 02, 2015, 06:17:35 PM
1000 meter line info

Code: [Select]
xdslcmd info --stats
Bearer 1
INP: 2.50 4.00
INPRein:            2.50 4.00
delay: 0 0
PER: 16.06 16.06
OR: 47.81 31.87
AgR: 47.81            31.87

#
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on April 02, 2015, 06:22:30 PM
b*cat wonders if B*Eagle1 and N*Star have a time-share on the same circuit!  ::)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on April 02, 2015, 06:26:09 PM
very nice newt, I see you getting less than 15ES a day now.

All that hassle you had trying to fix things internally and all that was required was for BT to turn something on :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 02, 2015, 06:51:33 PM
b*cat wonders if B*Eagle1 and N*Star have a time-share on the same circuit!  ::)

I thinks bald_eagle1's line was very similar to my own until he was hit by crosstalk and i tend to use BE1 line stats as my benchmark.

very nice newt, I see you getting less than 15ES a day now.

All that hassle you had trying to fix things internally and all that was required was for BT to turn something on :)

From 1500 ES per day to just under 15 ES on a bad day thats a miracle from anyones point of view  ;D

I inproved my line during the worst effects of noise so it was well worth it and G.INP is the Icing on the cake.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 02, 2015, 08:17:58 PM
What are your DS LEFTRS graphs like?
I have attached mine.

LEFTRS is apparently an indicator of how much crosstalk is affecting our connections.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 02, 2015, 08:52:23 PM
It's going to be choppy BE1

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 02, 2015, 09:31:05 PM
Ah.

I had forgotten that you don't log 24/7.

I suppose if you generated 12 hour graphs they might give a rough indication of what changes over a 'real' 24 hours.



Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 02, 2015, 09:42:18 PM
Ah.

I had forgotten that you don't log 24/7.

I suppose if you generated 12 hour graphs they might give a rough indication of what changes over a 'real' 24 hours.

I do log 24/7 using Dslstats on the RPi it's just the HG612_Modem_stats uses MS windows OS for the program to work and the PC go's to sleep the same time as me ;)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on April 02, 2015, 09:51:04 PM
those stats are g.inp only?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 02, 2015, 10:05:11 PM
I do log 24/7 using Dslstats on the RPi it's just the HG612_Modem_stats uses MS windows OS for the program to work and the PC go's to sleep the same time as me ;)


I'd also forgotten that too.

I think I should get my coat now!  ::)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on April 03, 2015, 12:14:25 AM
Here are my equivalent graphs.

Original G.INP activation 27/03/15 at 06:00ish
Manual resync just before 28/03/15 00:00
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 03, 2015, 12:37:34 AM
It would help if i knew what LEFT meens and I can guess the RS is re-transmit ;)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on April 03, 2015, 01:16:44 AM
I think:

EFTR = Error-Free Throughput

Calculated once per second and, I guess, depends on how many packets need to be retransmitted.

LEFTR = A Low EFTR defect

This defect is an event (a bit like discovering a CRC error, or a FEC) that gets logged whenever the calculated EFTR goes below a threshold value (defined by LEFTR_THRESH).

LEFTRS = A counter of second-long periods where one or more LEFTR defects were logged. In this sense, it works just like the ES counter does, as a time-based monitor for the number of CRC errors.

I'm pretty sure the first two definitions are right, but the spec doesn't use the term "LEFTRS". Instead, it always goes longhand with "leftr defect seconds counter". However, it seems to be the best choice.

What does it mean? With CRC's being a thing of the past (anything which used to get a CRC error will now get re-transmitted), I think LEFTRS will be used as the equivalent of ES.

There is also a "severe low EFTR defect" known as SEFTR, but there doesn't appear to be a SEFTRS counter; I *think* SEFTR events get counted in the existing SES counter.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 03, 2015, 07:22:48 AM
Here are my equivalent graphs.



Which, if I have correctly understood the various articles I have read recently, along with your own comments, suggest/confirm that your connection is hardly affected by crosstalk (or other 'interference') at all.


Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: hadookaan on April 03, 2015, 03:09:08 PM
Hi all I used to get a ping of 4-5ms and just noticed its gone up quite alot to 15-16ms is this due to inp, and is there any way i can revert back to my old ping...as all this nonsense is annoying me!!

this is my connection statistic if that helps!
39952 kbps   10000 kbps
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lloyd on April 03, 2015, 03:29:26 PM
Hi all I used to get a ping of 4-5ms and just noticed its gone up quite alot to 15-16ms is this due to inp, and is there any way i can revert back to my old ping...as all this nonsense is annoying me!!

this is my connection statistic if that helps!
39952 kbps   10000 kbps

probably best if you ask a question in one place. Some one has already responded to your duplicate question on another thread
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: roseway on April 03, 2015, 03:58:03 PM
Agreed. I've moved hadookan's query to a separate thread here: http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,15273.msg283896.html#msg283896
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on April 03, 2015, 04:52:03 PM
Which, if I have correctly understood the various articles I have read recently, along with your own comments, suggest/confirm that your connection is hardly affected by crosstalk (or other 'interference') at all.

I don't know if it really does show crosstalk, or just noise of any source. Nevertheless, I only used to get around 50 ES's per day, from maybe 80 CRC's, so I wasn't heavily affected by anything anyway. I do however, see odd increases and decreases in SNRM that look awfully like someone, somewhere turning a modem on or off; SNRM gets affected then, but error rate doesn't change.

G.INP activation came with a small amount of FEC and interleaving on bearer 0; DSLstats tells me that I'm now averaging maybe 1,000 FEC's per day. It looks like this is mopping up the errors that my line used to suffer from. I see no RSuncorr now, which, on the face of it, means I shouldn't be troubling the retransmission portion of G.INP.

However, the retransmission counters are increasing, so it looks like *some* packets get retransmitted. I guess LEFTRS gets incremented, not just when a packet gets retransmitted, but when "a lot" of packets need retransmitting at roughly the same time - so the graphs suggest I've had a couple of those occasions. The absence of RSuncorrs therefore seems to be a red herring.

Can you post up your sets of graphs for, say, the last 10 days?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 03, 2015, 09:24:36 PM
I don't know if it really does show crosstalk, or just noise of any source.

crosstalk will manifest itself as noise into the effected end-users line but the difference is it's another broadband signal thats interfering with the EU's line rather than the normal culprits like RFI and REIN this is were vectoring comes in it's able to mask out the crosstalk/noise from the disturbing broadband signal.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bowdon on April 03, 2015, 11:35:42 PM
I had a unique opportunity last night to see what happened with my modem stats when there was a power cut across 99% of the town. Luckily my house/modem kept on, and so did the cabinet.

I noticed that my SNR numbers increased and I got very few errors, no error seconds at all. I actually thought the program had bugged out as nothing was moving lol.

It makes me wonder if the phone cables from the cabinet are near to power lines.

I'm hoping g.inp will counter this low level interference when it arrives to my eci cabinet.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 04, 2015, 01:30:57 AM
I'm hoping g.inp will counter this low level interference when it arrives to my eci cabinet.

It will if G.INP works the same way as it does on the Huawei cabinet, it does a good job on REIN interference and RFI and SHINE :yay:
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 04, 2015, 06:19:20 AM
Can you post up your sets of graphs for, say, the last 10 days?


I'm away from home at the moment, so I'll post the graphs on my return.

In the meantime, my Bearer 0 data graphs can be viewed on MDWS.



Pre-G.INP, I was on fastpath, but did see low numbers of DS RSCorr/FEC, RSUnCorr, CRC & HEC counts.
ES were generally at around 1000 per day.

ES CRC, HEC & RSUnCorr have now all but disappeared, but I now see fairly constant (& lowish?) levels of rtx_tx, rtx_c & an occasional rtx_uc.
I also now see quite a few RSCorr on Bearer 0 & low levels on Bearer 1.

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 04, 2015, 10:58:40 AM
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi474.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr110%2Flock3h%2FCapturejhgk.jpg&hash=8211443043be193be3477448aa899d38b5ab1818)

Anyone know why my line has interleave enabled?

before the rubbish G.INP was forced on my line I had 3 years worth of full sync fast path trouble free line.

The line is only about 80 meters long of underground .5 copper.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Balb0wa on April 04, 2015, 11:17:44 AM
Im loving ginp on my poor line and zyxel, 14-15ms ping to bbc now.

(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg538.imageshack.us%2Fimg538%2F3476%2FY4n3g2.jpg&hash=3dc3d701eea3debbc09da0db2370eb719a8722c4)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bowdon on April 04, 2015, 11:20:25 AM
Anyone know why my line has interleave enabled?

From my limited understanding interleaving as to be on for g.inp to work.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on April 04, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi474.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr110%2Flock3h%2FCapturejhgk.jpg&hash=8211443043be193be3477448aa899d38b5ab1818)

Anyone know why my line has interleave enabled?

before the rubbish G.INP was forced on my line I had 3 years worth of full sync fast path trouble free line.

The line is only about 80 meters long of underground .5 copper.

But your line still in excellent full sync anyway even with interleave on! Not much different between interleave and fast path.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 04, 2015, 01:01:08 PM
I know but I want my fast path ping back :(

This is as bad as it can get with noise on the line as my cab is now full.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Black Sheep on April 04, 2015, 01:07:38 PM
A prime example of the adage, 'Your never going to satisfy everyone'.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 04, 2015, 01:21:25 PM
I don't don't understand why my interleave depth is so high 16 down and 8 up.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on April 04, 2015, 01:41:51 PM
Anyone know why my line has interleave enabled?

It looks like it is becoming the default setting for every line.

I had a 100m line, running at around 50 ES per day, but I was converted.

From my limited understanding interleaving as to be on for g.inp to work.

I don't think it *has* to be turned on. However, the new configuration still has two jobs to perform: fixing REIN and SHINE.

The retransmission part of G.INP is best suited to SHINE, but REIN is best handled by FEC and interleaving still. The difference is that the settings for FEC and interleaving, used alongside G.INP retransmission, give a much reduced impact.

I know but I want my fast path ping back :(
I don't don't understand why my interleave depth is so high 16 down and 8 up.
Do you know how much latency you are complaining about? Have you calculated it?

Interleaving works by putting data into a two-dimensional array, row by row; then emptying data out of it column by column. The overall delay incurred is proportional to the (depth multiplied by width); it always beats me why people are worried by interleaving depth, when width matters too.

When DLM intervened with a standard setting of INP=3 and delay=8, the (depth x width) calculation would result in, for example, (1421 x 64) = 91,000. A data volume of 91,000 therefore maps to 8ms.

With G.INP active, a typical equivalent calculation is (16*139) = 2,200. That is 40 times smaller than the old setting, so probably amounts to 0.2ms.

Are you really worried about 0.2ms?

Do you know what this 0.2ms penalty buys you elsewhere? It turns as many noise errors into FECs as it can, rather than them becoming retransmissions. Something re-transmitted takes much longer and becomes seen as jitter in the path, which isn't an ideal result either.

Quote
This is as bad as it can get with noise on the line as my cab is now full.

Until a subscriber changes to one who lies closer to you within the cable bundle. Or, much worse, a second cab gets added.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on April 04, 2015, 01:59:39 PM
I don't know if it really does show crosstalk, or just noise of any source.

crosstalk will manifest itself as noise into the effected end-users line but the difference is it's another broadband signal thats interfering with the EU's line rather than the normal culprits like RFI and REIN this is were vectoring comes in it's able to mask out the crosstalk/noise from the disturbing broadband signal.

I understand what the different kinds of noise are. When I said "I don't know if it really does show crosstalk", I'm expressing my doubt as to whether the LEFTRS counter manages to distinguish crosstalk from any other kind of noise. So I doubt that a human can look at the results of the counter, and conclude something about crosstalk, versus other kinds of noise.

If FEC and interleaving are configured as well as G.INP retransmission, then I believe that most REIN will be handled within the FEC process; this means retransmission is left to deal with SHINE - and LEFTRS therefore gives an idea of how big the SHINE impulses are (and/or how often they are seen), and does successfully distinguish that from REIN.

However, I'm not really sure whether "excess" noise from crosstalk is perceived more as REIN or SHINE. Note: by "excess" noise, I mean the noise from crosstalk that isn't already part of the "noise floor" (ie, it hasn't already been detected within the SNR calculation), such that a lower bit-loading has already been chosen during the sync.

Even if the excess crosstalk left over after the SNR reduction does result in SHINE, I don't think LEFTRS can distinguish, say, from the spike when heating or fluorescents are turned on. I'd need to read more theory on it...

If FEC and interleaving are not turned on, then retransmission is being left to deal with REIN too - in which case, I seriously doubt that LEFTRS can distinguish anything at all. However, I don't think we've seen a configuration like this.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 04, 2015, 02:28:03 PM
My ping was 8-9ms for years before this G.INP, now it's closer to 20, some may think I'm moaning about nothing but all I do is game on my line and I'm miffed about it to be honest.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on April 04, 2015, 03:02:21 PM
I have ever so slightly less attenuation that you (8.4dB), but otherwise very similar. The interleaving depth is the same, and the INP settings are the same.

A TBB BQM from before G.INP:
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thinkbroadband.com%2Fping%2Fshare-thumb%2Fc82ae205d95fc18f84b7702367612962-25-03-2015.png&hash=569b74dfa0d1381cf3fce66ba7326a2a5053779b) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/c82ae205d95fc18f84b7702367612962-25-03-2015.html)

And afterwards:
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thinkbroadband.com%2Fping%2Fshare-thumb%2F02d746f5e0831060cb11c4811189456f-28-03-2015.png&hash=74782cfad3ffcfce985f514762eacbc9f951d72b) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/02d746f5e0831060cb11c4811189456f-28-03-2015.html)

Attached are the latency results from my SamKnows whitebox. I've seen bigger differences happen by just hopping between gateways from BTW into Plusnet.

Activation of G.INP made very little difference here. Are you sure you can put your change down to G.INP? As in - are you sure you can put your change down to G.INP working correctly with your modem? Looking at your previous posts suggests you are at risk of running on old firmware. What modem and firmware version are you using?

Actually, looking at your previous posts, your latency change isn't consistent. Here you are saying it has increased by 11-12ms, but in previous posts you are saying 3ms. Which is it?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 04, 2015, 03:25:02 PM
I just want to say thanks to WWWombat for helping me understand more about the ins and outs of G.INP, could read your informative and easy to understand posts all day  :thumbs:
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 04, 2015, 06:27:52 PM
It varied, when I first had G.inp enabled it increased by 3ms then it increase by about 12ms and reduced sync with ECI modem, I installed the HG612 and in deceased slightly. Had a BT engineer out had the port reset abut wouldn't stick and interleave wouldn't budge and needed someone at BT OR HQ to fix the interleave on up and down. I had 9ms ping to BBC again for a few days and then G.INP reapplied with and same again.

I wonder if having ECI connected when G.INP got applied caused a higher state of interleave?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: adslmax on April 04, 2015, 06:51:13 PM
How come on the real time on this site: http://www.mydslwebstats.co.uk/HG612-MultUsersLivei.htm?UO=3

that you noticed boost UP has the biggest SNR, Attainable Rate but still not yet G.INP enabled on his Huawei cabinet? And few others on Huawei cabinets are not yet G.INP enabled yet as I thought Openreach has completed the roll out for all Huawei cabinets?

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 04, 2015, 07:13:05 PM
I think it's sometimes better to use a graph to show how G.INP is better for all even the die hard fastpath users  ;)

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 04, 2015, 08:57:30 PM
that you noticed boost UP has the biggest SNR, Attainable Rate but still not yet G.INP enabled on his Huawei cabinet?

This could be that they are still using the HG612V100R001C01B028SP10_no-btagent firmware on there HG612 or there current 3rd party modem is unable to use G.INP i am not sure.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 04, 2015, 09:39:43 PM
Pretty sure boost is using the latest firmware on his HG after demoting the BH5a to auth n wireless only.

Good luck convincing gamers that interleaved is better than  fastpath :P

It could be argued that gaming packets are so small the connection has be to almost ruined before it's noticeable in game.

Meanwhile, though, your TCP connections might be rewindowing all shapes and YouTube drops to minimal quality.

We don't care. Ping is king!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: loonylion on April 04, 2015, 09:47:00 PM
It also depends on what games you're playing. MMORPGs are more tolerant of latency than shooters.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 04, 2015, 10:05:19 PM
Quite!
It's mostly the FPS crew that whinge about ping :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 04, 2015, 10:26:46 PM
Pretty sure boost is using the latest firmware on his HG after demoting the BH5a to auth n wireless only.

Good luck convincing gamers that interleaved is better than  fastpath :P

Boost we are not trying to convince you that G.INP makes the game experience better or worse all I am saying is that it makes your line more stable as errored seconds are lower and the amount of people that complain i've been moved off fastpath and am now interleaved was due to end-users going above their daily errored second quota.

If you are using DSLstats to upload your data to MDWS you can use the stats tab to show your modem/firmware: version.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 04, 2015, 11:07:53 PM
I'm not against g.inp :D

Is it starting to get a little silly here, though? It seems like no one can get away with posting their valid concerns about latency ramp without someone chiming in about how 10ms~ doesn't really matter or how wonderful error correction is :)

When longstanding members adopt a dismissive attitude on certain topics there is a risk that valid technical issues get lost in the mire of p00 we already have to put up with from BT, lol.

When someone asks for help we should probably try and provide real help instead of convincing everyone there isn't really a problem :P

Hopefully, I'm not too guilty of this myself but please pick me up on it if I'm being silly :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 04, 2015, 11:14:10 PM
When someone asks for help we should probably try and provide real help instead of convincing everyone there isn't really a problem :P

I am up for that  :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 05, 2015, 09:56:25 AM
Quote
moved off fastpath and am now interleaved was due to end-users going above their daily errored second quota.

Wrong. I have had a perfect 3 year service on fasthpath, my line has NEVER dropped and got 0% pl and the only thing that has ruined my line IS G.INP

My error seconds was 0 before and 0 after..
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: BritBrat on April 05, 2015, 10:22:02 AM
I have been getting help to monitor my connection again from roseway, thanks.

Now having flashed the HG612 to latest firmware I now seem to be  able to monitor the stats again so below is my stats:

Code: [Select]

xdslcmd info --stats
xdslcmd: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Retrain Reason: 0
Last initialization procedure status: 0
Max: Upstream rate = 8169 Kbps, Downstream rate = 52832 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 9997 Kbps, Downstream rate = 53998 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Link Power State: L0
Mode: VDSL2 Annex B
VDSL2 Profile: Profile 17a
TPS-TC: PTM Mode(0x0)
Trellis: U:ON /D:ON
Line Status: No Defect
Training Status: Showtime
Down Up
SNR (dB): 5.9 4.1
Attn(dB): 22.3 0.0
Pwr(dBm): 12.2 5.9
VDSL2 framing
Bearer 0
MSGc: -6 -6
B: 243 227
M: 1 1
T: 0 0
R: 10 16
S: 0.1439 0.7254
L: 14122 2691
D: 8 4
I: 254 244
N: 254 244
Q: 8 4
V: 0 0
RxQueue: 42 16
TxQueue: 14 8
G.INP Framing: 18 18
G.INP lookback: 14 8
RRC bits: 24 24
Bearer 1
MSGc: 122 58
B: 0 0
M: 2 2
T: 2 2
R: 16 16
S: 8.0000 16.0000
L: 32 16
D: 1 1
I: 32 32
N: 32 32
Q: 0 0
V: 0 0
RxQueue: 0 0
TxQueue: 0 0
G.INP Framing: 0 0
G.INP lookback: 0 0
RRC bits: 0 0
Counters
Bearer 0
OHF: 0 0
OHFErr: 2 0
RS: 375653472 2361207
RSCorr: 4275944 9905
RSUnCorr: 0 0
Bearer 1
OHF: 10500855 56429
OHFErr: 0 0
RS: 84006350 3514053
RSCorr: 85 25
RSUnCorr: 0 0

Retransmit Counters
rtx_tx: 40636 36
rtx_c: 4375 321
rtx_uc: 3 0

G.INP Counters
LEFTRS: 78 23
minEFTR: 53987 9994
errFreeBits: 138878331 106508342

Bearer 0
HEC: 0 0
OCD: 0 0
LCD: 0 0
Total Cells: 334868363 0
Data Cells: 463237793 0
Drop Cells: 0
Bit Errors: 0 0

Bearer 1
HEC: 0 0
OCD: 0 0
LCD: 0 0
Total Cells: 0 0
Data Cells: 0 0
Drop Cells: 0
Bit Errors: 0 0

ES: 2 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 44 44
AS: 168676

Bearer 0
INP: 47.00 43.00
INPRein: 0.00 0.00
delay: 0 0
PER: 0.00 0.00
OR: 0.01 0.01
AgR: 54052.91 10019.02

Bearer 1
INP: 2.00 4.00
INPRein: 2.00 4.00
delay: 0 0
PER: 16.06 16.06
OR: 63.75 31.87
AgR: 63.75 31.87

Bitswap: 126122/126122 626/627

Total time = 1 days 22 hours 52 min 0 sec
FEC: 4275944 9905
CRC: 2 0
ES: 2 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 44 44
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Latest 15 minutes time = 7 min 0 sec
FEC: 148 9521
CRC: 0 0
ES: 0 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Previous 15 minutes time = 15 min 0 sec
FEC: 224 3
CRC: 0 0
ES: 0 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Latest 1 day time = 22 hours 52 min 0 sec
FEC: 3724437 9642
CRC: 2 0
ES: 2 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Previous 1 day time = 24 hours 0 sec
FEC: 551507 263
CRC: 0 0
ES: 0 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 44 44
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Since Link time = 1 days 22 hours 51 min 15 sec
FEC: 4275944 9905
CRC: 2 0
ES: 2 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
#



Code: [Select]

Stats recorded 05 Apr 2015 10:21:42

DSLAM/MSAN type:        BDCM:0xa44f / v0xa44f
Modem/router firmware:  AnnexA version - A2pv6C038m.d24j
DSL mode:                VDSL2 Profile 17a
Status:                  Showtime
Uptime:                  1 day 22 hours 52 min 15 sec
Resyncs:                0 (since 05 Apr 2015 09:06:35)

Downstream Upstream
Line attenuation (dB):  22.3 0.0
Signal attenuation (dB): Not monitored
Connection speed (kbps): 53998 9997
SNR margin (dB):        5.9 4.8
Power (dBm):            12.2 5.9
Interleave depth:        8 4
INP:                    47.00 43.00
G.INP:                  Enabled

RSCorr/RS (%):          1.1333 0.4708
RSUnCorr/RS (%):        0.0000 0.0000
ES/hour: 
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Chrysalis on April 05, 2015, 11:23:40 AM
I'm not against g.inp :D

Is it starting to get a little silly here, though? It seems like no one can get away with posting their valid concerns about latency ramp without someone chiming in about how 10ms~ doesn't really matter or how wonderful error correction is :)

When longstanding members adopt a dismissive attitude on certain topics there is a risk that valid technical issues get lost in the mire of p00 we already have to put up with from BT, lol.

When someone asks for help we should probably try and provide real help instead of convincing everyone there isn't really a problem :P

Hopefully, I'm not too guilty of this myself but please pick me up on it if I'm being silly :)

if people are seeing a sudden jump of latency whilst the modem has NOT resynced, after been put on g.inp my input is its a bug in the implementation.

g.inp is supposed to have dynamic latency but not in this way, my guess is the bump of latency occurs when it first has to increase by such amount and then for whatever reason doesnt decrease again when it is supposed to.

SRA had similar bugs on some devices where by it would adjust the SNR and then the SNR would become "stuck" at which point until a new resync was done it would act like SRA was off.

I suspect this is a bug basically.

rizla's input here might be useful as he seems to know a lot about sky's g.inp implementation, so it be useful to know if sky LLU users have the same issues (I think they dont).

IF I am right then in theory if someone initiates a new resync then latency should recover.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 05, 2015, 12:29:37 PM
Both bug and bodge make a lot of sense, especially if the wonderful DLM is parsing error stats in a particular way.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on April 05, 2015, 12:54:14 PM
It varied, when I first had G.inp enabled it increased by 3ms then it increase by about 12ms and reduced sync with ECI modem, I installed the HG612 and in deceased slightly. Had a BT engineer out had the port reset abut wouldn't stick and interleave wouldn't budge and needed someone at BT OR HQ to fix the interleave on up and down. I had 9ms ping to BBC again for a few days and then G.INP reapplied with and same again.

Which of these figures are measured? Preferably by something running all the time, such as a TBB BQM or f8lure?

I'm concerned about whether you have taken latency figures from modem stats, rather than from observed behaviour. For example, in one previous post, you interpret a setting of "INP=4, delay=3" as having actually put 3ms delay on the line. Unfortunately, those stats were for bearer 1 - which isn't the main data channel. Bearer 0, which *is* the main data channel, had "INP=0, delay=0" - so no added latency for the vast majority of your data.

Quote
I wonder if having ECI connected when G.INP got applied caused a higher state of interleave?

Have you read any of the other posts around here? It looks like there is a BIG problem with ECI modems and G.INP right now, and there are a lot of mixed opinions swirling around forums.

Here are my opinions ...

It looks like some (at least) ECI modems have failed to upgrade to G.INP-compatible firmware; when G.INP attempts to go active, the result is indeed slower speeds and higher latency. A DLM reset fails to fix this. No surprise really, as the DLM reset was only meant as a temporary way to regain sync, to give breathing space to allow the firmware upgrade to happen.

(NB: Openreach expected ECI modems with incompatible firmware to *look* like they had synced, but to have actually failed to sync. It doesn't look like it has turned out this way)

Unfortunately, ECI modems are locked, so no-one can confirm this is what has happened. This adds to the general confusion.

People with unlocked Huawei modems, but left on incompatible firmware, report the same behaviour. When they upgrade themselves to compatible firmware, speeds and latency return to normal (with G.INP active).

I suspect, therefore, that your ECI modem is one of those suffering such a problem.

The obvious next question is - how many of your observed changes to latency can be explained by a duff ECI modem? And how many can't be explained this way?
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on April 05, 2015, 01:00:54 PM
Is it starting to get a little silly here, though? It seems like no one can get away with posting their valid concerns about latency ramp without someone chiming in about how 10ms~ doesn't really matter or how wonderful error correction is :)

I agree, it is hard to remain objective on this issue.

However, we are currently undergoing a sea change in the way in which error-mitigation works on our DSL lines, and it isn't always clear that other people understand that. A visceral hatred of interleaving can come from how interleaving behaved in the past, without understanding how it will work in the future.

None of which is helped by having modem failures, like we seem to be seeing.

Quote
When someone asks for help we should probably try and provide real help instead of convincing everyone there isn't really a problem :P

I find my first step tends to be to make sure someone understands that what they are complaining about has changed utterly. I think it is important to make sure they are not just complaining about a label.

It probably comes over like I'm trying to convince them there isn't a problem, I agree.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 05, 2015, 05:44:30 PM
Bearer 1 does have a say in latency

         Bearer 1
INP:      4.00      4.00
INPRein:   4.00      4.00
delay:      3      0
PER:      16.06      16.06
OR:      95.62      31.87
AgR:      95.62   31.87


The delay setting 3 does add 3ms.

Read adslmax post as he had delay set to 3 and it was removed for some reason and is now set at 0 and his ping did drop by 3ms backed up by thinkBB graph. 
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: WWWombat on April 06, 2015, 11:22:52 AM
Again, I point you back to understanding what bearer 0 and bearer 1 are for.

Bearer 1 does have a say in latency

         Bearer 1
INP:      4.00      4.00
INPRein:   4.00      4.00
delay:      3      0
PER:      16.06      16.06
OR:      95.62      31.87
AgR:      95.62   31.87

Look at the bottom line of this: The "AgR" line - or aggregate rate.

Bearer 1 carries 95Kbps. Compare that to bearer 0, which carries 80,614Kbps (at least it does on my 80/20 line).

Which do you think is carrying the main stream of data?

Another clue comes from the OR data (Overhead Rate). It seems that bearer 0 has almost no overhead, but bearer 1 is entirely overhead.

The final giveaway comes from reading G.998.4 - the G.INP specification - section 9, combined with the annex that applies to VDSL2. The spec uses different numbering, but it puts the user data into bearer 0, protected by retransmission. And it puts the "overhead channel" (which sends management data back and forth) into bearer 1, protected by FEC and interleaving.

Result: 0ms delay to user data. 3ms to the overhead channel, sending management data back and forth between the modems.

Quote
Read adslmax post as he had delay set to 3 and it was removed for some reason and is now set at 0 and his ping did drop by 3ms backed up by thinkBB graph. 

With the best will in the world, I wouldn't put Max down as the most stringent observer of experimental behaviour.

Max and I have one thing in common... we both use Plusnet. It is observed behaviour for Plusnet connections to change gateway at each resync. It is also observed behaviour for latency to alter within 1-2ms on different gateways, and I suspect that one gateway is even worse.

With a natural tendency to not want to switch too often, it makes it hard to confirm whether small latency changes come from landing on a slower/faster gateway, or from a change in modem settings. Distinguishing one from the other takes time, and careful observation. No jumping to conclusions.

So lets swap to an experimental investigator I trust a little more. One who makes more careful observations, and is less prone to rush to judgement...

So far, I have seen a max of 1ms of variation in my end-end ping times since G.INP activation, having swapped through 3 different gateways. Attached is my BQM of the day G.INP activated (snipped, to fit to the Kitz size requirement); you see a tiny increase when G.INP activates at 06:30; a slight decrease after a resync at 19:15; a slight increase at 22:15. All 3 resyncs resulted in the same configuration of both bearer 0 and bearer 1 as I mention earlier.

Yet I had the same exact configuration - 3ms "delay" in bearer 1, only downstream, alongside INP of 4 and INPrein of 4 in both directions - introduced at 06:30, and left in place at each of the other resyncs.

So what scale are those changes? Zoomed in, I can see that 20ms on the scale is represented by 28 pixels - so a pixel is approximately 0.7ms. The visible changes in the graph happen at the scale of 1 pixel, less than 1ms.

You certainly don't see 3ms extra latency switch into effect in any of my test results - either this BQM, or the previous graphs. What you see are the kind of changes I'd expect by swapping gateways at Plusnet.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: jelv on April 06, 2015, 12:06:20 PM
Does anyone know if new cabinets are being installed with G.INP enabled? My installation is due on 14th (I ordered on the first day it was accepting orders). The cabinet looks like a Huawei 288.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 06, 2015, 12:19:05 PM
Many things...

Another cracking post!
I hadn't even noticed the aggregate rate matched the synch speed!
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 06, 2015, 12:20:21 PM
FWIW, I am also with PlusNet.

My connection was fastpath (at a capped/banded 22.4 Mbps DS & 5 Mbps US) until G.INP was activated, but I did see fairly low levels of RSCorr (FEC) etc.

These are my G.INP stats from my HG612 modem (Sync speeds still apparently capped/banded):-


Code: [Select]
xdslcmd info --stats
xdslcmd: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Retrain Reason: 0
Last initialization procedure status: 0
Max: Upstream rate = 5374 Kbps, Downstream rate = 21920 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 4999 Kbps, Downstream rate = 22399 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Link Power State: L0
Mode: VDSL2 Annex B
VDSL2 Profile: Profile 17a
TPS-TC: PTM Mode(0x0)
Trellis: U:ON /D:ON
Line Status: No Defect
Training Status: Showtime
Down Up
SNR (dB): 5.9 6.2
Attn(dB): 24.5 0.0
Pwr(dBm): 12.8 6.6
VDSL2 framing
Bearer 0
MSGc: -6 -6
B: 166 73
M: 1 1
T: 0 0
R: 10 8
S: 0.2370 0.4662
L: 5974 1407
D: 16 8
I: 177 82
N: 177 82
Q: 16 8
V: 5 5
RxQueue: 12 12
TxQueue: 6 6
G.INP Framing: 18 18
G.INP lookback: 6 6
RRC bits: 24 24
Bearer 1
MSGc: 90 58
B: 0 0
M: 2 2
T: 2 2
R: 16 16
S: 10.6667 16.0000
L: 24 16
D: 1 1
I: 32 32
N: 32 32
Q: 0 0
V: 0 0
RxQueue: 0 0
TxQueue: 0 0
G.INP Framing: 0 0
G.INP lookback: 0 0
RRC bits: 0 0
Counters
Bearer 0
OHF: 0 0
OHFErr: 103 0
RS: 2623506496 1957702
RSCorr: 693262 1286
RSUnCorr: 0 0
Bearer 1
OHF: 41529587 797852
OHFErr: 4 0
RS: 249177152 3560509
RSCorr: 1260 78
RSUnCorr: 8 0

Retransmit Counters
rtx_tx: 23470 126
rtx_c: 14531 182
rtx_uc: 666 0

G.INP Counters
LEFTRS: 778 23
minEFTR: 22405 4997
errFreeBits: 289054759 91140315

Bearer 0
HEC: 0 0
OCD: 0 0
LCD: 0 0
Total Cells: 2964033152 0
Data Cells: 1200718095 0
Drop Cells: 0
Bit Errors: 0 0

Bearer 1
HEC: 0 0
OCD: 0 0
LCD: 0 0
Total Cells: 0 0
Data Cells: 0 0
Drop Cells: 0
Bit Errors: 0 0

ES: 29 0
SES: 2 0
UAS: 55 55
AS: 667078

Bearer 0
INP: 41.00 41.00
INPRein: 0.00 0.00
delay: 0 0
PER: 0.00 0.00
OR: 0.01 0.01
AgR: 22458.21 5059.16

Bearer 1
INP: 2.50 4.00
INPRein: 2.50 4.00
delay: 0 0
PER: 16.06 16.06
OR: 47.81 31.87
AgR: 47.81 31.87

Bitswap: 420725/420725 691/693

Total time = 1 days 18 hours 23 min 58 sec
FEC: 734540 1494
CRC: 109 0
ES: 29 0
SES: 2 0
UAS: 55 55
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Latest 15 minutes time = 8 min 58 sec
FEC: 421 0
CRC: 0 0
ES: 0 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Previous 15 minutes time = 15 min 0 sec
FEC: 659 0
CRC: 0 0
ES: 0 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Latest 1 day time = 18 hours 23 min 58 sec
FEC: 44626 67
CRC: 2 0
ES: 2 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Previous 1 day time = 24 hours 0 sec
FEC: 78723 147
CRC: 2 0
ES: 2 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0
Since Link time = 7 days 17 hours 17 min 57 sec
FEC: 693262 1286
CRC: 103 0
ES: 28 0
SES: 2 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
LOM: 0 0


HELLO HG612
xdslcmd info --pbParams
xdslcmd: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Retrain Reason: 0
Last initialization procedure status: 0
Max: Upstream rate = 5374 Kbps, Downstream rate = 21920 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 4999 Kbps, Downstream rate = 22399 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Discovery Phase (Initial) Band Plan
US: (7,32) (871,1205) (1972,2782)
DS: (33,859) (1216,1961) (2793,3970)
Medley Phase (Final) Band Plan
US: (7,32) (871,1200)
DS: (33,859) (1216,1783)
  VDSL Port Details   Upstream   Downstream
Attainable Net Data Rate:      5374 kbps     21920 kbps
Actual Aggregate Tx Power:        6.6 dBm      12.8 dBm
 =========================================================================================
  VDSL Band Status U0 U1 U2 U3 U4 D1 D2 D3
  Line Attenuation(dB): 8.1 53.2   N/A   N/A   N/A 21.7 65.3   N/A
Signal Attenuation(dB): 8.1 52.7   N/A   N/A   N/A 30.4 65.1   N/A
SNR Margin(dB): 6.0 6.2   N/A   N/A   N/A 5.9 5.9   N/A
TX Power(dBm): -1.0 5.9   N/A   N/A   N/A 11.6 6.3   N/A

Good Bye HG612


My reading of G.998.4 is that one channel is used for overhead & another channel is used for data.
Whether these are Bearer 0 & Bearer 1 respectively, I'm not sure yet.

On my own connection, it appears that Bearer 0 carries the most RSCorr/FEC overhead, but the non-channel specific rtx has quite a part to play (at least that data isn't reported as being channel specific by the HG612).

Bearer 0 also seems to be the channel managing RxQueue & TxQueue.


I have attached my 4 day DS RSCorr graphs for Bearer 0 & Bearer 1 for reference.

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 06, 2015, 12:28:41 PM
Here's the DS rtx data:-

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 06, 2015, 01:20:05 PM
I hadn't even noticed the aggregate rate matched the synch speed!


I don't think it does (see the stats I posted from my connection).

I haven't yet been able to suss out exactly what it does report, but it does appear to remain as a static value, even following  resyncs/modem reboots.


Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 06, 2015, 01:38:02 PM
I don't think it does

Upstream rate = 4999 Kbps, Downstream rate = 22399 Kbps
AgR:      22458.21   5059.16

That seems alarmingly close? :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: boost on April 06, 2015, 01:44:14 PM
MSGc:      90      58
B:      0      0
M:      2      2
T:      2      2
R:      16      16
S:      10.6667      16.0000
L:      24      16
D:      1      1
I:      32      32
N:      32      32
Q:      0      0
V:      0      0

I keep forgetting what all these mean too!
Any chance we could get a short list stickied in this forum, if anyone has the definitions? :)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 06, 2015, 01:46:25 PM
They are indeed close, but not an exact match.

Maybe we could state that they 'almost' match, maybe even adding that AgR is always slightly higher than actual sync speed (if that is indeed true)?

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 06, 2015, 02:01:26 PM
MSGc:      90      58
B:      0      0
M:      2      2
T:      2      2
R:      16      16
S:      10.6667      16.0000
L:      24      16
D:      1      1
I:      32      32
N:      32      32
Q:      0      0
V:      0      0

I keep forgetting what all these mean too!
Any chance we could get a short list stickied in this forum, if anyone has the definitions? :)

There is some detail here, but G.INP has added quite a lot more data, for which explanations in layman's terms would be most welcome, with the full set summarised in a single 'stickied' post.

http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,10289.msg205453.html#msg205453



I'm afraid I'm not in a position to provide those explanations myself as I'm still attempting to understand the new G.INP stats  & I have failed to obtain any clear official documented (factual) explanations so far.

The G.998.4 standard that we are able to access is due to be replaced with an updated version at some stage, so there might be some significant differences to the older version we can actually view at the moment.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: lockeh on April 06, 2015, 03:50:59 PM
I'm synced at 79999 and 20000 yet Zen is reporting 79912 & 19978?

Before G.inp Zen reported 79999 and 19999.

There are my stats for last 19hours sync (I change from 2b to 3b modem and notice the attainable is slightly lower on the 3B - I have noticed this before on different lines)

Is there anything amiss? Also there is no capacity in my cab as it's full.

Code: [Select]
xdslcmd info --stats

xdslcmd: ADSL driver and PHY status

Status: Showtime

Retrain Reason: 0

Last initialization procedure status: 0

Max: Upstream rate = 34038 Kbps, Downstream rate = 97684 Kbps

Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 20000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 79999 Kbps

Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps

Link Power State: L0

Mode: VDSL2 Annex B

VDSL2 Profile: Profile 17a

TPS-TC: PTM Mode(0x0)

Trellis: U:ON /D:ON

Line Status: No Defect

Training Status: Showtime

Down Up

SNR (dB): 10.8 15.3

Attn(dB): 9.6 0.0

Pwr(dBm): 13.1 -6.2

VDSL2 framing

Bearer 0

MSGc: -6 -6

B: 130 97

M: 1 1

T: 0 0

R: 8 8

S: 0.0518 0.1554

L: 21468 5457

D: 16 8

I: 139 106

N: 139 106

Q: 16 8

V: 14 2

RxQueue: 57 39

TxQueue: 19 13

G.INP Framing: 18 18

G.INP lookback: 19 13

RRC bits: 24 24

Bearer 1

MSGc: 186 58

B: 0 0

M: 2 2

T: 2 2

R: 16 16

S: 5.3333 16.0000

L: 48 16

D: 3 1

I: 32 32

N: 32 32

Q: 0 0

V: 0 0

RxQueue: 0 0

TxQueue: 0 0

G.INP Framing: 0 0

G.INP lookback: 0 0

RRC bits: 0 0

Counters

Bearer 0

OHF: 0 0

OHFErr: 0 0

RS: 947457840 1963300

RSCorr: 171 349

RSUnCorr: 0 0

Bearer 1

OHF: 4242988 65384

OHFErr: 0 0

RS: 50915113 4153850

RSCorr: 0 11

RSUnCorr: 0 0



Retransmit Counters

rtx_tx: 7105 37

rtx_c: 24 2922

rtx_uc: 0 3649



G.INP Counters

LEFTRS: 0 78

minEFTR: 79999 19997

errFreeBits: 83157548 156773334



Bearer 0

HEC: 0 0

OCD: 0 0

LCD: 0 0

Total Cells: 1895028733 0

Data Cells: 110592801 0

Drop Cells: 0

Bit Errors: 0 0



Bearer 1

HEC: 0 0

OCD: 0 0

LCD: 0 0

Total Cells: 0 0

Data Cells: 0 0

Drop Cells: 0

Bit Errors: 0 0



ES: 0 0

SES: 0 0

UAS: 25 25

AS: 68155



Bearer 0

INP: 46.00 47.00

INPRein: 0.00 0.00

delay: 0 0

PER: 0.00 0.00

OR: 0.01 0.01

AgR: 80614.82 20102.08



Bearer 1

INP: 4.00 4.00

INPRein: 4.00 4.00

delay: 3 0

PER: 16.06 16.06

OR: 95.62 31.87

AgR: 95.62 31.87



Bitswap: 27974/27974 144/144



Total time = 18 hours 56 min 20 sec

FEC: 171 349

CRC: 0 0

ES: 0 0

SES: 0 0

UAS: 25 25

LOS: 0 0

LOF: 0 0

LOM: 0 0

Latest 15 minutes time = 11 min 20 sec

FEC: 0 8

CRC: 0 0

ES: 0 0

SES: 0 0

UAS: 0 0

LOS: 0 0

LOF: 0 0

LOM: 0 0

Previous 15 minutes time = 15 min 0 sec

FEC: 0 0

CRC: 0 0

ES: 0 0

SES: 0 0

UAS: 0 0

LOS: 0 0

LOF: 0 0

LOM: 0 0

Latest 1 day time = 18 hours 56 min 20 sec

FEC: 171 349

CRC: 0 0

ES: 0 0

SES: 0 0

UAS: 25 25

LOS: 0 0

LOF: 0 0

LOM: 0 0

Previous 1 day time = 0 sec

FEC: 0 0

CRC: 0 0

ES: 0 0

SES: 0 0

UAS: 0 0

LOS: 0 0

LOF: 0 0

LOM: 0 0

Since Link time = 18 hours 55 min 55 sec

FEC: 171 349

CRC: 0 0

ES: 0 0

SES: 0 0

UAS: 0 0

LOS: 0 0

LOF: 0 0

LOM: 0 0



HELLO HG612
xdslcmd info --pbParams
xdslcmd: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Retrain Reason: 0
Last initialization procedure status: 0
Max: Upstream rate = 34038 Kbps, Downstream rate = 97684 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 20000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 79999 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Discovery Phase (Initial) Band Plan
US: (7,32) (871,1205) (1972,2782)
DS: (33,859) (1216,1961) (2793,3970)
Medley Phase (Final) Band Plan
US: (7,32) (871,1205) (1972,2782)
DS: (33,859) (1216,1961) (2793,3970)
  VDSL Port Details   Upstream   Downstream
Attainable Net Data Rate:     34038 kbps     97684 kbps
Actual Aggregate Tx Power:    -   6.2 dBm      13.1 dBm
====================================================================================
  VDSL Band Status U0 U1 U2 U3 U4 D1 D2 D3
  Line Attenuation(dB): 2.3 9.1 12.2   N/A   N/A 5.6 11.4 17.1
Signal Attenuation(dB):   N/A 7.9 11.6   N/A   N/A 7.0 11.3 17.1
SNR Margin(dB):   N/A 15.3 15.3   N/A   N/A 10.8 10.9 10.8
TX Power(dBm): -128.0 -33.8 -6.1   N/A   N/A 9.7 8.0 6.8

Good Bye HG612



xdslcmd --version
xdslcmd version 1.0
DSL PHY: AnnexA version - A2pv6C038m.d24j
******* Pass *********


equipcmd swversion display
software version: V100R001C01B030SP08

xdsl firmware version: A2pv6C038m.d24j

cpu version: BCM6368

cfe version: 1.0.37-102.6

display version success
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 06, 2015, 04:10:10 PM
Now that the errored seconds have been reduced by 98% by G.INP on a relatively nosiy line my thoughts start to wonder into how the ISP will see a problematic line as errored seconds was a good way to moniter this for issues and I take the DLM algorithms must have been changed somewhat with the introduction of G.INP.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Ixel on April 06, 2015, 05:50:04 PM
AgR is the aggregate rate, meaning the actual sync rate + overheads.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: JordanBlack68 on April 07, 2015, 04:42:33 PM
Speed was 77000/19999 now its back to 79999/20000

Pings to BBC were about 32ms, now down to 22ms.

Code: [Select]
Max: Upstream rate = 33916 Kbps, Downstream rate = 89004 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 20000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 79999 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Link Power State: L0
Mode: VDSL2 Annex B
VDSL2 Profile: Profile 17a
TPS-TC: PTM Mode(0x0)
Trellis: U:ON /D:ON
Line Status: No Defect
Training Status: Showtime
Down Up
SNR (dB): 8.3 15.0
Attn(dB): 13.8 0.0
Pwr(dBm): 13.2 4.2
VDSL2 framing
Bearer 0
MSGc: -6 -6
B: 130 97
M: 1 1
T: 0 0
R: 8 8
S: 0.0518 0.1554
L: 21468 5457
D: 16 8
I: 139 106
N: 139 106
Q: 16 8
V: 14 2
RxQueue: 57 39
TxQueue: 19 13
G.INP Framing: 18 18
G.INP lookback: 19 13
RRC bits: 24 24
Bearer 1
MSGc: 186 58
B: 0 0
M: 2 2
T: 2 2
R: 16 16
S: 5.3333 16.0000
L: 48 16
D: 3 1
I: 32 32
N: 32 32
Q: 0 0
V: 0 0
RxQueue: 0 0
TxQueue: 0 0
G.INP Framing: 0 0
G.INP lookback: 0 0
RRC bits: 0 0
Counters
Bearer 0
OHF: 0 0
OHFErr: 0 0
RS: 1914448256 694663
RSCorr: 728315 35
RSUnCorr: 0 0
Bearer 1
OHF: 1549509 506991
OHFErr: 0 0
RS: 18593370 1927301
RSCorr: 0 3
RSUnCorr: 0 0

Retransmit Counters
rtx_tx: 113628 2
rtx_c: 204 19287
rtx_uc: 0 0

G.INP Counters
LEFTRS: 3 61
minEFTR: 79999 19997
errFreeBits: 30368494 610697078

Bearer 0
HEC: 0 0
OCD: 0 0
LCD: 0 0
Total Cells: 3829004125 0
Data Cells: 38663116 0
Drop Cells: 0
Bit Errors: 0 0

Bearer 1
HEC: 0 0
OCD: 0 0
LCD: 0 0
Total Cells: 0 0
Data Cells: 0 0
Drop Cells: 0
Bit Errors: 0 0

ES: 0 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 23 23
AS: 24890

Bearer 0
INP: 46.00 47.00
INPRein: 0.00 0.00
delay: 0 0
PER: 0.00 0.00
OR: 0.01 0.01
AgR: 80614.82 20102.08

Bearer 1
INP: 4.00 4.00
INPRein: 4.00 4.00
delay: 3 0
PER: 16.06 16.06
OR: 95.62 31.87
AgR: 95.62 31.87

Bitswap: 7075/7075 0/0
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: AlexMUK on April 10, 2015, 05:28:05 PM
Hi All,

I'm new to all of this.. I got thoroughly disenchanted with my HH5, used both as a VDSL2 model and router. Horrible wireless drops, intermittent routing issues, slow downs etc all with the current .204 release. I was experiencing simultaneous disconnections of all wireless clients, poor throughput and the like. Lync was unusable, and the overall stability of the service over Wi-Fi in particular was atrocious.

In order to prepare and enable myself to use a decent router, I decided to go back to the HG612, unlock it and see what my line performance was like. I used to have a solid 80/20 sync rate, and very good throughput, although it had slipped back to around 72 down / 19.9 up for a while.

I ran the HG612 for about 24 hours to check whether sync speed had improved, but there was no real difference between the HH5 an the HG612 - sync speed down about 72Mb with 6.5Db noise margin.

I upgraded the HG612 to the latest firmware  at 11:40, and G.INP seems to have kicked in immediately. My sync speed immediately improved to 80/20 with DS noise margin improved from 6.2 to 8.6Db downstream, and 10.5 to 13.6 Db upstream. FEC errors and bitswaps have dropped to nothing/almost zero at the same time, and interleaving has been reduced a lot, so latency/RTD is now 1ms.. I'm quite impressed with that, to put it mildly!.

A secondary benefit is that the HH5 is now completely stable for wireless and wired clients - no more disconnections so far at all. It leads me to think that Wi-Fi may have been affected by the VDSL modem workload, but who knows.. for now, I'm very happy with my setup.

All stats are up on mydslwebstats.co.uk.. user name is as used here, as well as below. I'd be interested in people's comments on my line stats but it all looks good to me.

Code: [Select]
Welcome Visiting Huawei  Home Gateway
Copyright by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Login:admin
Password:
ATP>sh


BusyBox v1.9.1 (2014-01-21 16:44:38 CST) built-in shell (ash)
Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands.

# xdslcmd info --stats
xdslcmd: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Retrain Reason: 0
Last initialization procedure status:   0
Max:    Upstream rate = 32073 Kbps, Downstream rate = 90596 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 20000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 79999 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
Link Power State:       L0
Mode:                   VDSL2 Annex B
VDSL2 Profile:          Profile 17a
TPS-TC:                 PTM Mode(0x0)
Trellis:                U:ON /D:ON
Line Status:            No Defect
Training Status:        Showtime
                Down            Up
SNR (dB):        8.6             13.5
Attn(dB):        6.1             0.0
Pwr(dBm):        12.6           -11.5
                        VDSL2 framing
                        Bearer 0
MSGc:           -6              -6
B:              130             97
M:              1               1
T:              0               0
R:              8               8
S:              0.0518          0.1554
L:              21468           5457
D:              16              8
I:              139             106
N:              139             106
Q:              16              8
V:              14              2
RxQueue:                57              39
TxQueue:                19              13
G.INP Framing:          18              18
G.INP lookback:         19              13
RRC bits:               24              24
                        Bearer 1
MSGc:           186             58
B:              0               0
M:              2               2
T:              2               2
R:              16              16
S:              5.3333          16.0000
L:              48              16
D:              3               1
I:              32              32
N:              32              32
Q:              0               0
V:              0               0
RxQueue:                0               0
TxQueue:                0               0
G.INP Framing:          0               0
G.INP lookback:         0               0
RRC bits:               0               0
                        Counters
                        Bearer 0
OHF:            0               0
OHFErr:         0               0
RS:             1657526960              620864
RSCorr:         372             144
RSUnCorr:       0               0
                        Bearer 1
OHF:            1341571         298237
OHFErr:         0               0
RS:             16098117                1092286
RSCorr:         0               1
RSUnCorr:       0               0

                        Retransmit Counters
rtx_tx:         10943           16
rtx_c:          24              16
rtx_uc:         0               0

                        G.INP Counters
LEFTRS:         0               0
minEFTR:        79999           19997
errFreeBits:    26293195                6572136

                        Bearer 0
HEC:            0               0
OCD:            0               0
LCD:            0               0
Total Cells:    3315166653              0
Data Cells:     120923360               0
Drop Cells:     0
Bit Errors:     0               0

                        Bearer 1
HEC:            0               0
OCD:            0               0
LCD:            0               0
Total Cells:    0               0
Data Cells:     0               0
Drop Cells:     0
Bit Errors:     0               0

ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            24              24
AS:             21550

                        Bearer 0
INP:            46.00           47.00
INPRein:        0.00            0.00
delay:          0               0
PER:            0.00            0.00
OR:             0.01            0.01
AgR:            80614.82        20102.08

                        Bearer 1
INP:            4.00            4.00
INPRein:        4.00            4.00
delay:          3               0
PER:            16.06           16.06
OR:             95.62           31.87
AgR:            95.62   31.87

Bitswap:        10/10           0/0

Total time = 5 hours 59 min 34 sec
FEC:            372             144
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            24              24
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Latest 15 minutes time = 14 min 34 sec
FEC:            21              9
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Previous 15 minutes time = 15 min 0 sec
FEC:            8               17
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Latest 1 day time = 5 hours 59 min 34 sec
FEC:            372             144
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            24              24
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Previous 1 day time = 0 sec
FEC:            0               0
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
Since Link time = 5 hours 59 min 9 sec
FEC:            372             144
CRC:            0               0
ES:             0               0
SES:            0               0
UAS:            0               0
LOS:            0               0
LOF:            0               0
LOM:            0               0
#
#

I just wanted to thank everyone involved in  building the firmware, web tools and expertise to enable this to happen. It's a really fantastic piece of work by the community, and this has saved me so much aggravation and effort in trying to see what was happening and get a resolution. I was resigned to making the best of a bad deal, but for now at least, all is well.


Regards,
Alex
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 10, 2015, 09:44:37 PM
How does my rtx_tx per min look like compared to yours ?



Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 10, 2015, 10:31:24 PM
How does my rtx_tx per min look like compared to yours ?


I'm not sure who the question was aimed at, but mine are attached.

Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on April 10, 2015, 11:25:13 PM
I'm not sure who the question was aimed at, but mine are attached.

Thats kind of lowish rtx_tx per min BE1 though i'll have to take your current long line with a low sync into consideration, Im going to call it a day at my end the RPi is just not Co-operating as it feels like a hardware issue on the RPi b+ and it's only six months old  :(
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: pettaw on April 12, 2015, 07:32:28 AM
I don't harvest my modem for stats and so I didn't notice that my line had G.Imp enabled at all until I was fiddling about downloading something and I noticed my downstream bandwidth looking a bit high, so I logged into the modem. I have always been on fastpath although I have a line which has weird spiky drops in SNR. Some of these spikes would cause sync to be dropped and I would see regular resyncs approximately once every 3 days or so.
When I logged in I mistakenly thought that my SNR had gone up to 16db so I rebooted the modem to see if I could increase sync speed without seeing how long my connection had been up for. Because I didn't realise that the webGUI reports incorrectly I didn't realise until I looked at the stats using BEs scripts....oops. It was then I noticed that interleaving had been applied and I have this new Bearer 1 thing.

Anyway. I do have the luxury of having a Samknows whitebox on my line so I interrogated it and it turns out that I went on G.Imp on the Saturday of the Easter weekend.

I have an interleaving depth of 8 D/S and 8 U/S and my sync speed has gone up from approx 66Mbps to approx 70Mbps but my whitebox data shows it has NOT affected my latency in any way.

I'll keep you updated as to how stable my line is now that G.Imp has been enabled.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on April 12, 2015, 03:00:48 PM
Just one small point -- it is G.Inp (or G.INP) not G.Imp (or G.IMP)!  ;)

On the subject of "weird spiky drops in SNR", do they tend to occur when the telephone is used? Assuming that there is a telephone connected to the circuit, of course. If yes, then perhaps you would please post a few example graphs that show the effect.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Black Sheep on April 12, 2015, 03:03:05 PM
Just one small point -- it is G.Inp (or G.INP) not G.Imp (or G.IMP)!  ;)

On the subject of "weird spiky drops in SNR", do they tend to occur when the telephone is used? Assuming that there is a telephone connected to the circuit, of course. If yes, then perhaps you would please post a few example graphs that show the effect.

Freudian slips ?? ;)
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: pettaw on April 12, 2015, 05:54:23 PM
:D So sorry. Serves me right for not reading my stats carefully. And no the spikes are nothing to do with the telephone. Seem to occur at random.
Freudian slips ?? ;)
Very possibly.

I have no recent graphs because as I said I don't run the scripts any more but this is from 2012.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: burakkucat on April 12, 2015, 06:11:27 PM
Hmm  :hmm:  That is certainly "not right". But accepting your word that there is no correlation with usage of the telephone, I would suggest that it should just be categorised as "one of life's little mysteries".

Ideally I would have liked to have seen the graph for just one 24 hour period, as that would give a better "feeling" for what is occurring.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on May 02, 2015, 09:15:12 PM
Thought this may be helpful for G.INP lines regarding the figures you see  INP: 47.00  41.00 DS and US and how this effects your CRC's and ES seconds and note during my observation the Interleave depth has not changed it's still DS 8 and US 4

I have had three changes on the DS and just 1 on the US, initially when G.INP arrived on my line the DS INP: was 46.00 and US INP: 43.00 and then the DS INP: increased to 49.00 this value was able to decrease most CRC's & ES's seconds and after a week or so the DS INP: decreased by 01.00 (48.00) with a wee bit more ES's.

Now the DS INP: is 47.00 and US is 41.00 the ES's have increased 2 fold on the downstream instead of 4 ES per day it's now 8+ .

So that should give us some idea on how noisy the line is for example DS INP value of 41.00 low line noise and DS INP value of 54.00 very high line noise.   
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on May 02, 2015, 10:38:32 PM
Remember, INP = Impulse Noise Protection.

I have fairly high level of background noise (crosstalk) that robbed me of almost 10 Mbps over quite a few months.

However, my INP values are only 41 for both DS & US, which suggests I'm not affected much by impulse noise.


What sort of daily LEFTRS values are you seeing?

I see around 72 per day, usually in very low delta values of 1, 2 or 3 (see attached graph).

These are apparently some sort of indication of interference.


I recall that your connection's SNRM is somewhat affected in the evenings by Radio China (or other radio station(s).
I wonder if that could be classed as INP? i.e it's not there all the time.


In contrast, see WWWombat's LEFTRS graph over 6 days - only 2 LEFTRS in total.

He has INP values of 46 DS & 47 US

His INP values MAY be higher than mine simply because he has a much higher speed connection or that my connection is at such low speed that it doesn't need higher INP values.


It really isn't as easy to suss out good/poor connections and/or faults etc. on G.INP active connections.


Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on May 03, 2015, 12:13:23 AM
It really isn't as easy to suss out good/poor connections and/or faults etc. on G.INP active connections.

All I am saying here is that a pattern is evolving and that's good

As for the LEFTRS values you will need to ask Roseway to supply this value on his program, but still we are awaiting for these results to be implemented into tony's MDWS, use guys don't seemed to have found a common ground relating to the values that is important for your average G.INP line.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on May 03, 2015, 04:55:30 PM
Having a look at the Leftrs value all it seems to do is increment, I take these values are coming in from the dslam in realtime ?

Code: [Select]
Downstream Upstream
General
rtx_tx          293197          57             
rtx_c            15355            1023           
rtx_uc          235              122             
LEFTRS          396              33             
minEFTR          32898            7636           
errFreeBits      124200589        376781790       
Bearer 0
RxQueue          26              12             
TxQueue          13              6               
G.INP Framing    18              18             
G.INP Lookback  13              6               
RRC Bits        24              24             
Interleave depth 8                4               
INP              47.00            41.00           
INPRein          0.00            0.00           
Delay            0                0               
Bearer 1
Interleave depth 1                1               
INP              2.50            4.00           
INPRein          2.50            4.00           
Delay            0                0               
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: roseway on May 03, 2015, 06:32:39 PM
Yes, the LEFTRS values are counters which increment, not instantaneous values line SNRM.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on May 04, 2015, 08:51:03 AM
As for the LEFTRS values you will need to ask Roseway to supply this value on his program, but still we are awaiting for these results to be implemented into tony's MDWS, use guys don't seemed to have found a common ground relating to the values that is important for your average G.INP line.


We have been discussing this over the weekend & have now more or less agreed what is worth uploading to MDWS (there's quite a lot of new, relevant data to consider) & Roseway will be including some of it in the graphs locally generated via DSLStats.


Regarding your other message, yes. LEFTRS is indeed reported by the modem as a cumulative value.
We have to calculate the delta values via our programs.

A lot of LEFTRS delta spikes & high total daily values seem to indicate a 'nearside' interference issue/effect (such as general background noise (crosstalk), Rein when interference occurs for longish periods of time & then ceases or sporadic Impulse noise spikes).


FWIW, I do remotely monitor a connection where a water authority pump kicks in at exactly 23:00 each night & switches off at exactly 05:00 the next morning.

I'd like to see how that connection is handled by G.INP, but it is connected to an ECI DSLAM which as we know, are not yet G.INP capable.


Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: roseway on May 04, 2015, 09:21:33 AM
I've added a graph of LEFTRS to the G.INP section of DSLstats. It will be in the next release.
Title: Re: G.INP enabled Stats Comparison
Post by: NewtronStar on May 04, 2015, 01:13:33 PM
I've added a graph of LEFTRS to the G.INP section of DSLstats. It will be in the next release.

That will be good to see this graph on DSLstats it should make easier to understand how this line is performing, I still run hg612_modem_stats but as it not monitoring 24/7 it's very hard to see a trend with all the gaps.

One other thing regarding INP: values they only seem to change when you turn off/on the VDSL2 modem not sure if other notice this to, It could be the time of day when it resyncs due to my variable DS SNRM.