[Snap] UFB Poor Performance

Forums › 2degrees (including Slingshot, Orcon, Flip, Stuff Fibre, MyRepublic, 2talk and Vocus) › [Snap] UFB Poor Performance

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

776 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Snap Internet

#725598 1-Dec-2012 20:48

Hello,

We are still working with customers who are experiencing impacted performance on UFB, at present we are discussing with Chorus (as it is isolated to Chorus only UFB sites) and hope to have this resolved shortly. but just to be clear we certainly regard this as an open fault/issue and its top priority to get resolved quickly. (it has taken longer than we had hoped to resolve, we really do want to get this sorted ASAP!)

Thanks,
Snap

Snap

0800 BROADBAND (276 232)
www.snap.net.nz

@SnapInternet on Twitter
Snap Internet on Facebook

Our Social Media Team:
^RO Ricky - Technical Lead
^AT Ashleigh - Retail Marketing Coordinator

Kiwiownage

112 posts

Master Geek

#725600 1-Dec-2012 20:55

Thanks for the reply Ralph!

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek

#725733 2-Dec-2012 13:29

RalphFromSnap: Hello,

we are discussing with Chorus (as it is isolated to Chorus only UFB sites) and hope to have this resolved shortly. but just to be clear we certainly regard this as an open fault/issue and its top priority to get resolved quickly. (it has taken longer than we had hoped to resolve, we really do want to get this sorted ASAP!)

Thanks,
Snap

But is it in chorus' best interests to resolve this?

Very low down on their priorities list I'd imagine.

How can one tell if your UFB install is a "chorus only" site?

The force is strong with this one!

HowickDota

423 posts

Ultimate Geek

#725748 2-Dec-2012 13:59

You can tell if you're using chorus ufb, roughly, from this map:
ufb map

Bodisaffa

10 posts

Wannabe Geek

#727586 5-Dec-2012 19:05

Any news on this Ralph?

Count me in the poor performance UFB club. Install a week ago. I doubt I am saying anything others haven't already said but here are my results.

The max I have seen is 22 down and 9 up. This is of course not bad but not UFB by a long way. Those speeds are also local NZ speeds. International speeds are a complete joke. 2mbps MAX.

All speed tests aside real world international download speeds have not exceeded 200kbps.

My old telecom ADSL connection had a 1.5 MB download speed from the same international site. My iPhone on 3G data downloads from the same site 3 times quicker than my snap UFB.

Completely unacceptable.

I have spoken to my chorus install engineers twice who say there is nothing wrong with the install. All speed issues are down to the provider.

To sum up.

UFB is worse than my old ADSL
My iPhone downloads faster than my SNAP UFB

SNAP UFB has been awful.

Really wishing I had just taken a Telecom ADSL plan at my new place whilst waiting for their UFB plans next year.

There HAS to be something wrong with Snap's international link.

varix

111 posts

Master Geek

#727607 5-Dec-2012 19:53

I dont think you can say there HAS to be sometihng wrong with Snaps international link. Unless they have a different link for International and a different link for DSL.

I have been on VDSL with Snap for a few months now and I can easily max out my line up and down at 48mbit down and 10mbit up on international HTTP downloads.

Bodisaffa

10 posts

Wannabe Geek

#727621 5-Dec-2012 20:38

The fact you are getting the speeds you are getting on SNAP VDSL only highlights how broken SNAP's UFB is.

It's just incomprehensible that SNAP's international download speeds on UFB can be slower by a long way than ADSL, VDSL and in my case even mobile data.

I'm awaiting SNAP's response hoping they can sort this out.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Noodles

487 posts

Ultimate Geek

#727645 5-Dec-2012 21:18

SneakerPimps: Noodles - can you try http://mirrors.gigenet.com/ubuntu/quantal/ubuntu-12.10-desktop-i386.iso

For me:
(Snap UFB)
1 Thread - ~130KB/s
5 Threads - ~650KB/s

(Xtra DSL)
1 Thread - ~300KB/s
5 Threads - ~1.5MB/s

Snap UFB 100/50:

1 Thread - ~266KB/s
5 Threads - ~1147KB/s

Snap ADSL:

1 Thread - ~360KB/s
5 Threads - ~851KB/s

Hmm...

mercutio

1392 posts

Uber Geek

#727657 5-Dec-2012 21:38

Noodles:
SneakerPimps: Noodles - can you try http://mirrors.gigenet.com/ubuntu/quantal/ubuntu-12.10-desktop-i386.iso

For me:
(Snap UFB)
1 Thread - ~130KB/s
5 Threads - ~650KB/s

(Xtra DSL)
1 Thread - ~300KB/s
5 Threads - ~1.5MB/s

Snap UFB 100/50:

1 Thread - ~266KB/s
5 Threads - ~1147KB/s

Snap ADSL:

1 Thread - ~360KB/s
5 Threads - ~851KB/s

Hmm...

one thing to keep in mind for that download is that it's on ipv6 and ipv4, so you may get better/worse speed on ipv6... from chicago I get..64.1megabytes/sec with ipv4 versus 51.5megabytes/sec with ipv6 (oh how i wish to get those speeds at home) so to be fair probably should make sure they're both ipv4.

using http://69.65.56.239/ubuntu/quantal/ubuntu-12.10-desktop-i386.iso seems to give the same file, if you've got ipv6 enabled and want to force ipv4.

also on that adsl test, you may get better performance with 4 or less threads. i've found that having lots of threads doesn't always improve performance on a line that's working properly, it can in fact lead to degredation, packet loss, lag etc.

mattgreen

133 posts

Master Geek

#727669 5-Dec-2012 21:50

Bodisaffa: The fact you are getting the speeds you are getting on SNAP VDSL only highlights how broken SNAP's UFB is.

It's just incomprehensible that SNAP's international download speeds on UFB can be slower by a long way than ADSL, VDSL and in my case even mobile data.

I'm awaiting SNAP's response hoping they can sort this out.

Not sure why you think it's Snap at fault here. Orcon UFB customers are also complaining about performance when their ADSL customers aren't.

The common link here is Chorus. One would assume they are having teething issues in the network and/or handover to the ISPs.

Keep in mind that Chorus had less than 1000 connected residential UFB customers just a month ago. You are privileged to be one of them. This is standard early adopter stuff that you should be expecting - and therefore should have some patience.

mercutio

1392 posts

Uber Geek

#727694 5-Dec-2012 22:11

mattgreen:
Bodisaffa: The fact you are getting the speeds you are getting on SNAP VDSL only highlights how broken SNAP's UFB is.

It's just incomprehensible that SNAP's international download speeds on UFB can be slower by a long way than ADSL, VDSL and in my case even mobile data.

I'm awaiting SNAP's response hoping they can sort this out.

Not sure why you think it's Snap at fault here. Orcon UFB customers are also complaining about performance when their ADSL customers aren't.

It's most likely an issue with not rate limiting users properly, and hitting Chorus's rate limits. which Snap should be able to fix by implementing QoS/AQM on their BRAS servers. That's sounding more technical than I'd hoped to sound.

But basically, it's like if too many packets are sent, then data will just be dropped, and instead you want it to be queued for a period - ie there may be 1/1000th of a second of buffering, when you want 10/1000ths a second of buffering. The way TCP/IP transfers work speed keeps ramping up until there is packet loss, but a see saw pattern of spiky and erratic transfer speeds can happen when the line is much faster than the limit.

Unfortunately a quick google serach isn't hilighting anything to illustrate such.

mattgreen

133 posts

Master Geek

#727757 5-Dec-2012 23:32

mercutio:
mattgreen:
Bodisaffa: The fact you are getting the speeds you are getting on SNAP VDSL only highlights how broken SNAP's UFB is.

It's just incomprehensible that SNAP's international download speeds on UFB can be slower by a long way than ADSL, VDSL and in my case even mobile data.

I'm awaiting SNAP's response hoping they can sort this out.

Not sure why you think it's Snap at fault here. Orcon UFB customers are also complaining about performance when their ADSL customers aren't.

It's most likely an issue with not rate limiting users properly, and hitting Chorus's rate limits. which Snap should be able to fix by implementing QoS/AQM on their BRAS servers. That's sounding more technical than I'd hoped to sound.

But basically, it's like if too many packets are sent, then data will just be dropped, and instead you want it to be queued for a period - ie there may be 1/1000th of a second of buffering, when you want 10/1000ths a second of buffering. The way TCP/IP transfers work speed keeps ramping up until there is packet loss, but a see saw pattern of spiky and erratic transfer speeds can happen when the line is much faster than the limit.

Unfortunately a quick google serach isn't hilighting anything to illustrate such.

The minimum handover for UFB at a POI is 1Gb though right? One would assume Snap would have buckets of bandwidth relative to customers in the catchment areas so shouldn't be a problem.

yitz

2074 posts

Uber Geek

#727770 5-Dec-2012 23:58

mattgreen:
The minimum handover for UFB at a POI is 1Gb though right? One would assume Snap would have buckets of bandwidth relative to customers in the catchment areas so shouldn't be a problem.

You need to think of it in terms of the medium being available or not available for transmit/receive in each split second.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#727792 6-Dec-2012 05:59

While there clearly are teething issues occuring people also do need to remember that the speeds mentioned at all EIR - ie best effort traffic. There is no guarantee at all that you'll be able to get 30/10 (or your 50 or 100Mbps) at any time of the day.

Having said this however speeds shouldn't be worse than DSL. I've heard some speculation as to what the cause is, but won't be posting it here publically.

Bodisaffa

10 posts

Wannabe Geek

#727797 6-Dec-2012 06:34

Can you speculate the level of work involved to fix the issue if what you have heard is correct??

Thanks.

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19