so 5 yesterday how many today get activated I wonder...and don't you think guys it's a bit too early to tell if eci cabinets enabled with g.inp mean a loss of sync speed?

Yes, definitely too early. The results from yesterday were 3 faster, 2 slower on the downstream sync and 2 slower, 3 the same on the upstream sync. But the differences were tiny.

What really matters is the throughput and the quality of the data stream, how many errors are occurring.

How is streaming affected, how is gaming affected. That sort of thing.

Mine went g.inp yesterday morning. I lost some sync speed on up and down but the latency has improved massively from pre g.inp of 20ms to around 11/12ms after g.inp. tested my ps4 last night seemed better on a hard wired connection to the router.

Mydsl user "skyeci"

Max attainable rate seems to be slower at the cabinets when g.inp is enabled. 99Mb as opposed to 137 or 155Mb on a recent example I've seen. I've only dealt with Huawei cabinet so far though.

That's probably due to interleaving being removed

According to the kitz forums MikeZ has joined the party

I ignored those that were on interleaving before the move to g.inp, the one's that were on fast path had a hit on sync speed.

not sure why wombat wont post it here but here is a quote from his explanation of overhead used.

We can do a little bit of analysis, though.
- First, we can see that DLM has used 4 different INP values - 46, 47, 49, 50. Presumably ordered from best to worst.
- jamesfoley's line has INP=46, and gets FEC settings of R=6, N=185. This means 3% of the line's bandwidth is now being used for this small amount of FEC alongside retransmission.
- skyECI/skeynewb's line has INP=50, and gets FEC settings of R=12, N=240. This means 5% of the line's bandwidth is gobbled up by overhead.

With a sample size of two, it is hard to reach proper conclusions, but it looks like higher INP values make for higher FEC overheads.

Now I checked baldeagle's stats and his also has the FEC overheads, so the FEC overheads are not unique to ECI cabinets, what is different is that the hawuei cabinets had a speed bump which masked these FEC overheads, whilst the ECI cabinets did not. So sadly us ECI users are on the second rate service but this is at least something, great for those on interleaved lines.

Given my current sync of 72mbit (which I think with the slight snrm drop I have had in the past month would probably resync at 71 to 71.5 range on fast path), I expect a sync speed of approx 68.8mbit on the ECI g.inp configuration, assuming I am on the lightest profile.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 19-Mar-16 19:18:14)

I think he's too busy at home at the moment actually.

My ECI cabinet started to support G.INP today..

I have two FTTC lines both on fastpath.

The first line got G.INP'd and increased it's sync speed from 66Mb to 68Mb.

My second line (with a HH5a) restarted a few hours later and increased it's sync speed from 61Mb to 65Mb! No G.INP (as confirmed by sync speed calculation) and on still on fastpath.

I don't understand!

Thanks
Tim