CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
01-05-2017 11:03 AM - edited 05-02-2017 07:09 AM
*** This post was last edited May 2, 2017 ***
Good morning Community,
As I mentioned in a post two days ago, we have received the next firmware 2.0.10.20 from Hitron. We are currently running initial testing on this version and will push it out to participants in the firmware trial program as soon as it passes initial testing.
However, while running these tests, we discovered abnormal behavior with ICMP and are awaiting feedback from Hitron today to asses how this will be addressed. As soon as I this is confirmed, I’ll update the change log with the correct version information and start pushing it out.
In parallel, we are still working on the following high priority items. In some cases below, I requested affected customers to reach out to me via private message. If you do so, please include your modem MAC address in the subject line (even if we exchange messages daily) as there are a lot of you reaching out to me daily 🙂
UDP Packet Loss
The investigation for what has been reported as UDP packet loss is still ongoing. We have deployed a probe at one fellow forum member on both a CODA-4582 and a CGNM-3552 to collect additional data. We are actively working with Hitron and Intel on the results observed.
Based on what we know so far, in most instances UDP packet loss is coupled with higher uplink usage in the area. Although the impact is noticeable in specific logs (League of Legends), the root cause for the perceivable impact (while playing) is likely related to bufferbloat (see next issue).
Bufferbloat
When comparing the performance of a CODA-4582 to a CGNM-3552 in the same network conditions, the CODA-4582 consistently reports higher bufferbloat when tested on DSLReports.
Update April 12: The solution for this problem will come in two folds. It will require a change in software which will possibly be included in 2.0.10.27 but more likely in 2.0.10.28 and a change in network configuration.
The network configuration change is not compatible with the current firmware so this change will only come after a vast majority of the modems are running the new code. We are however looking at a way to make the change only for specific modems to support testing in the community.
Update April 22: This problem seems resolved in firmware 2.0.10.27
5 GHz WiFi Low range for channels 36 to 48
Lower WiFi channels on the modem have a much smaller range. This is due in part to the limit imposed by Industry Canada to maximum transmit power.
Furthermore, the current automatic channel selection (auto mode) tends to select the lower channels when in similar load conditions.
Workaround: manually select higher channels (149-153-157-161)
Update April 22: The channel selection algorithm has been improved in firmware 2.0.10.27
Loss of OFDM Channel Lock
Under some RF conditions, the modem fails to lock properly on the OFDM channel. This typically result in variable performance.
Update April 12: This problem is resolved in 2.0.10.26T2
List of connected device does not get fully populated
This is a known issue that has been tracked since firmware 2.0.10.13. We are making improvements at every firmware but it is not a perfect system.
The situation is worst after a reboot or firmware upgrade as the list gets reset and must be repopulated as devices renew their DHCP lease.
NAT Loopback not working for wired clients
When setting up port forwarding to an internal server, it is possible for a client on WiFi to reach the server using the external IP/port. If the client is on a wired interface, it doesn't work.
Update April 12: This problem is resolved in 2.0.10.26T2 (not confirmed)
LAN Counters not working
Some customers reported that LAN counters (especially in bridge mode) are reporting inaccurate values.
This problem has been reported to Hitron for investigation.
Unexpected modem reboot
Some customers reported their modem reboots unexpectedly. We have also seen this behavior in our lab.
Update April 12: This problem is resolved in 2.0.10.26T2
Missing SC-QAM Channels
After a reboot, some modems are missing SC-QAM channels. A fix has been implemented in 2.0.10.26T2 to address this behavior but it has not corrected all scenarios.
Investigation continues with Hitron.
WiFi Survey
The WiFi Survey functionality in firmware 2.0.10.26T2 (and possibly before) reports incorrect SSID names.
Guest Network
When connecting to the Guest Network, an error message is displayed "only allow DHCP client to use this wireless". This has been reported in firmware 2.0.10.26T2.
Update April 22: This issue has been resolved in firmware 2.0.10.27
Update May 2: It seems this issue is not fully resolved and still experienced by some users
Future Planned Improvements
The following are items that we are working on in parallel of the above.
- Improvement in WiFi speeds
- Improvement in latency / bufferbloat
Dave
*Edited Labels*
- Labels:
-
Gigabit
-
HiTron
-
Internet
-
Troubleshooting
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-04-2017 07:48 PM
It would be helpful if you can give us some more information like:
What is the make/model of the computer you have
What type of wireless network card do you have
Are you using 2.4 Ghz or 5 Ghz?
What settings do you have on the Rogers modem for 2.4 Ghz and 5 Ghz
Did you run a site survey to see if you are using a channel that is already used in your neighbourhood.
Please keep in mind that with wired connections, you will get great speeds (as you have mentioned). With wireless, the "base" connection will give you Internet access but the speed will not be that good. To get the most out of wireless with the Rogers Router/Modem (or any device for that matter), you have to spend some time to tweak it. My suggestions would be as follows:
- Turn of the 2.4 Ghz and use 5 Ghz only (assuming all your wireless devices are using that). If your wifi on your computer does not have 5 Ghz, I would suggest you upgrade the wifi card. The Max speed you can get on 2.4 Ghz (properly configured) is about 120 Mbps which is rare if you are on the same channel as your neighbour and have a poor wifi card.
- Turn on 80 Mhz frequency for 5 Ghz and use the higher channels (149+) as they use higher power and better throughput
- Make sure that you are using WPA2 encryption
These settings will give you much better performance. I have a older laptop with an upgraded wifi (intel AC) and get over 500 Mbps with the above settings.
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 12:02 AM - edited 03-05-2017 12:13 AM
The coda-4582 doesn't perform as well as it should on League Of Legends when compared to the CGNM-3552.
So I switched from the CODA-4582 down to the CGNM-3552 today to see if it would make a difference in League of Legends and WOW, I can definitley say that the CODA-4582 has some problems.
- The problems that could be plaguing the CODA-4582 are the UDP packet loss, or could the modem be a bit more sensitive?
Obervations---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. One thing I noticed right away was that the CGNM-3552's upstream signal strength was stronger than the CODA-4582. On the 3552 I'm getting a signal strength between 35-36 and on the 4582, 31-32.
Speed tests on the CGNM-3552 dramatically improved; the upload graph was constant and perfectly linear. On the 4582 the fluctuations were crazy.
- Speed test (http://speedcheck.rogers.com/en.html) graphs on the CGNM-3552 was much more constant and stable. On the coda-4582, jitter and ping fluctuates- ping and jitter on 3552 is more constant.
- Does the coda-4582 need more signal strength to achieve a constant upload speed?
2. Playing League of Legends was significantly BETTER ON THE CGNM-3552 than on the CODA-4582. HOW?
- Ping on the CODA-4582 fluctuates between 24ms-65ms; CGNM-3552 has a STABLE PING of 27-30MS
- Average packet loss on the CGNM-3552 IS LESS (2.1 packets lost/min compared to 4582's 6 packets lost/min)
- packet loss numbers above were taken from league of legends network logs and converted to graphs on logsoflag.com
- Overall, thegame was MUCH MORE RESPONSIVE on the 3552 than on the 4582, given the reasons above.
What is causing the CODA-4582 to perform much worse (higher packet loss & inconsistent ping in league of legends), than the CGNM-3552? I know for sure, and have the evidence that something is wrong with the CODA-4582, but can it be pinpointed down to the Puma 7 chipset or the DOCSIS tuners given that they are new?
I'm confident that improvements still need to be made to reach Broadcom's level.
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 06:27 AM
Running the .24 Firmware that everyone's on at the moment. Seems I got some decent packet loss while broadcasting but this seemed to only impact me between 11:50PM and 12:50AM. The first hop shown is the router, second hop is the modem (both the CODA-4582).
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 12:17 PM
@MegnaGaming you have occasional packet loss on the first hop to the router, which is a little unusual. You shouldn't see any packet loss to the router. I would suggest running an extended test to the router only. Use the routers address as the target and set the ping interval to 1 second and let that run for a day. What I would like to see is an extended run to the router without any packet loss. If the packet loss is still evident, then its time to go hunting for the cause. After that, target the CMTS, which is the IP address after the modem. From your plot, there is occasional packet loss, which appears to be minimal, is still present. Personal opinion, there is a packet loss issue with the CODA-4582. Its singular occurrences, but its still present throughout the day from what I've seen. Running an extended all day test to the CMTS will also illustrate the variance in the average ping times between the quiet early morning hours and the busier times in the evening. When you move up in time scale, up beyond 30 min with the pingplotter display, pingplotter switches to an averaged display instead of the min-max display in the 60 sec, 5 and 10 min displays. Even with the averaged display, you will probably see a large difference between the quiet and busy times of the day.
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 01:12 PM - edited 03-05-2017 01:19 PM
I switched down to the CGNM-3552 after all the UDP packet loss issues w/ the CODA-4582 and it's seem to be resolved. There definitley has to be some UDP packet loss issue on the CODA-4582, as my ping and packet loss is a lot lower on the 3552 than on the 4582. As a result, gameplay in League of Legends was more responsive than on the 4582.
Speed tests results on the 3552 are a lot more constant than on the 4582.
@Datalink What are your thoughts? I thought that the 4582 was supposed to be better for UDP?
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 01:43 PM
The Coda-4582 suffers from same UDP issues as the CGN3ACMR series , still waiting on a fix been a while, would be nice if @RogersDave could provide us with an update on the UDP issues on CODA.
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 03:02 PM
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 05:24 PM
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 07:10 PM
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 07:13 PM
I have Window 7 that is connected wired. I have no issues there.
I dont know my network card but the best download speed I can get is through my S7 phone. I get about 80 mbps now on the same room as the router and the same speed on the next room next to it. Then it just drops to 40 mbps and below as I move around. I used 2.4 Ghz for this test.
For 5 Ghz. I get about 250 mpbs, even in the living room but my other devices are not equipped with 5 Ghz so I have to use 2.4 Ghz.
I am using the channel where I get the best speed. I think its channel 4.
My question is if I buy another router and I connect that through the CODA modem(They will be placed beside each other). Will it have a better range and speed?. Or is it maxed out already?
My goal is to have smoother streaming while someone else is playing a game or browsing the internet.
Thanks
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 07:37 PM
Last few days have been horrible with packet loss and even staying connected. Getting point i get kids texting every few minutes begging to back to old third party provider. Modem reboot seems to fix it for a bit, but that doesnt last long. Checked signal levels, they always seem good. The gateway going to sleep issue getting worst too. Time to get one old modems, i dont mind being beta tester that at least i would expect half decent connection.
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 07:46 PM - edited 03-05-2017 07:47 PM
@Kdurantulla if you have gigabit service, then it should not be maxed out unless there are other issues on the go. With a good router in place, you could see much higher wifi data rates, but, that depends on both the router and device. If you look at the following chart, you can see the various connection rates that are possible with, 1 or more antenna. The number on the right side the Modulation and Coding index (QAM) is the number that you multiply the connection rate with in order to calculate the max theoretical throughput. You can see the connection rates that are possible by using a 20, 40, 80 and 160 Mhz wide channel, divided into 400 or 800 nano-second spacing between broadcasts. So, the whole point of this is to say, yes, you will see higher performance, but, the router and end device have to agree on a common connection rate. That's the difficult part in terms of buying equipment as manufacturers don't usually release that information, as in "This device supports dual antenna, VHT index #9, 160 Mhz channels, using 400 ns guard channels." Going thru the chart, that gives you a connection rate of 1733.3 Mb/s which would in theory give you a max throughput of 5/6 x 1733.3Mb/s = 1,444.4 Mb/s. In theory, faster than the gigabit service. If the device supports a connection rate which is much less than that, it won't matter if you have the fastest router in the world, the connection rate and therefore the throughput rate will be limited by the end device. You could be standing next to the router, or in the next room, running a speedtest, and it won't matter where you are because the device will be limiting the throughput.
So, a little homework is required in selecting a router for wifi data rates, and more homework is required to determine why your devices won't keep up with the router. Its all a matter of the specifications, or should I say, trying to find those specifications.
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 08:23 PM
@RyzenFX what happened to your post last night? It was up for a minute or two and then it disappeared.
In theory, the 4582 should be better for UDP, however, there is a real problem when it comes to testing that theory. With TCP/IP and ICMP its possible to ping a target to get a response that can be measured throughout the day. UDP requires a co-operative target that returns a UDP response, as in a DNS server or co-operating server configured for UDP testing or possibly a data transfer or backup program that can be configured to run UDP transfers at various rates. I haven't found a Windows application that will continuously ping a DNS server for an address, where that response time can be measured and recorded for further analysis. That would be very handy for situations such as this. Same as pingplotter results, but, pure UDP in both directions.
Its possible to test for UDP throughput and from that testing I know that there are issues with UDP transfer rates for the 4582. What the 4582 should not be suffering from is the latency spikes that are evident on all of the other Hitron modems and which are easily seen for TCP/IP and ICMP tests. If you run GRC's DNS Benchmark, which is a UDP test application what you will see is that the 3552 suffers 10 to 12 % losses for cached results where the 4582 doesn't have any losses. So, one can surmise that the transfer rates or payload size that are seen in that test with the 4582 don't result in UDP losses. So, the question that requires asking is, what is the payload size for LOL and is it all UDP? Maybe with that info we can start to make a little more sense out of this. Does LOL indicate if the ping times and losses are UDP or TCP/IP. How does anyone know, without monitoring the data exchange with Wireshark, that the LOL data exchange is actually UDP?
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 09:40 PM
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 10:05 PM - edited 03-05-2017 10:10 PM
@Datalink I was wondering where my post went, I was hoping I'd get some good feedback from it 😞
League of Legends has two SEPERATE clients, a log-in client and in-game client. From what I'm seeing from the inbound rules in the windows firewall, League of Legends uses both TCP and UDP protocol. I'm certain that the in-game client uses UDP, as the company behind it has a site that lists the UDP ports required to be open- you can find it here. The log-in client uses TCP.
Whenever a new game is created, the in-game client creates a network log. Given that the in-game client uses UDP, I am confident the packet loss and ping is purely UDP. I am able to convert the raw network logs into a graph on a site called logsoflag.com.
Other than that, I can't be more certain that there is a UDP packet loss issue on the CODA-4582. Ping times are much more stable and UDP packet loss is a lot less on the CGNM-3552. It's only a matter of replicating it and finding a fix.
Dave said that the team at Hitron was not able to replicate this issue multiple times. They can get on-site data if they are able to send a team over to my place and compare the packet loss betweem the two modems, but that's far from unlikely.
Given that you said the CGNM-3552 has UDP packet loss I can't help but think why is it showing the inverse for me? Gameplay, ping times, and packet loss is signifcantly lower on the 3552 than on the 4582. I've been trying to figure what is causing the problem, but it's puzzling that I can't find anything else.
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 10:08 PM
They should be able to easy re-create the issue playing any games that require UDP. That should be fairly easy to do.
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 10:12 PM - edited 03-05-2017 10:16 PM
@JohnBeaudin I completely understand your point of view, but the Hitron team tried replicating by playing multiple games of League of Legends. They used the same methods I did to convert the raw network logs, but they basically had no packet loss, thus they weren't able to successfully reproduce the issue.
I think the only way we're going to get answers is if they do an on-site test.
I've exhausted everything I could possibly do to pin point the issue, but it just puzzles me that the 3552 performs much better than the 4582 in UDP. I know for sure that the 4582 is better at handling UDP than the 3552 b/c of the newer Puma 7 chipset, but it doesn't seem to be the case in my scenario.
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 10:18 PM
Looks like they're missing something , the Puma7 chipset should indeed outperform the 3552 easily.. but I had the CGN3ACMR before.. I switched to the CODA to get rid of the UDP issues but I am also experiencing the same thing with the CODA. I highly doubt we are isolated case, but rather think we're the norm and firmware fix will be needed if they can re-create the problem then we have a chance to get a fix.
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 10:25 PM
For sure a firmware fix is required, but what worries me is how are we able to reproduce this issue? Dave told me that because Hitron cannot reproduce the issue getting a fix will really hard.
This leaves me to my suggestion, why not gather onsite data from customers who are experiencing this problem such as me?
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 10:32 PM
We will need to wait for Dave returns on the forum and then we might have an update on this.
Re: CODA-4582 - Open Issues for Investigation
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
03-05-2017 10:37 PM
@RyzenFX wrote:@JohnBeaudin I completely understand your point of view, but the Hitron team tried replicating by playing multiple games of League of Legends. They used the same methods I did to convert the raw network logs, but they basically had no packet loss, thus they weren't able to successfully reproduce the issue.
I think the only way we're going to get answers is if they do an on-site test.
I've exhausted everything I could possibly do to pin point the issue, but it just puzzles me that the 3552 performs much better than the 4582 in UDP. I know for sure that the 4582 is better at handling UDP than the 3552 b/c of the newer Puma 7 chipset, but it doesn't seem to be the case in my scenario.
The problem my kids are having while playing games sounds exactly like yours.
When they play DOTA2, Overwatch and Battlefield 1, it can be fine for 5-10 minutes or 30 minutes, or it can be absolutely horrible with packet loss. I went far as putting switch on the LAN wire to his computer, my laptop can easily hit 330mb downloads and great pings, while is game freezing point can't be played. Its not speed/ping issue or signal issue. We did not have the problem with Surfboard modem and TPIA, all wiring same as before. Getting tired of getting kids complaining about it.