Poor single thread on TBB on whole Virgin Media network?

Does everyone on Virgin Media have poor single thread speed results that are not the same as their multi-thread speeds on TBB speed test?

I am particularly interested on those with 200mbps or higher packages as the single-threaded speeds usually lie between 70-120mbps.

I personally can never reach 200mbps single thread speeds at any time of the day on the TBB speed tester (off-peak or peak) and I do not understand why. However what I do find strange is if I download a test file from TBB with 1 connection, it downloads at full speed.

Here is my TBB test:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Here is my TBB 1GB test on 1 connection:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Here is a 1GB test file from NL(Netherlands) Leaseweb:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Here is a UBUNTU ISO on 1 connection:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Single thread speed test on testmy.net:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Single thread speed test on DSLReports.com/speedtest:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

So why can I download a test file at full speed single threaded but not achieve the same speed on the TBBx1 test?

Edited by deleted (Wed 24-May-17 16:38:46)

Interesting that so many keep mentioning this and with similar screen shots.

Care to run a test today and post link e.g. http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest

The testmy.net file is being served from the Virgin Media network so no surprise its working well. Don't know about DSLreports file location.

On the web browser file downloads, which actual browser? Some browsers if you download a file are not actually single thread but use multiple threads to speed things up.

Your speed test on our server was done at a time when that evening things started to go very bad for data going via LINX (https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7710-speed-and-latency-problems-repeat-once-again-for-virgin-media-users and then very very bad on 17th).

Virgin Media said this was just a 1% loss in capacity, so if losing 1% can cause those issues then it seems to suggest running the network very close to the point of issues and hence the single thread issues.

http://tbb.st/1495632101496057055 some get the speeds and if that was most other speed testers people would be none the wiser about the slope on multi-thread and single thread performance.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Interesting that so many keep mentioning this and with similar screen shots.

Care to run a test today and post link e.g. http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest

The testmy.net file is being served from the Virgin Media network so no surprise its working well. Don't know about DSLreports file location.

On the web browser file downloads, which actual browser? Some browsers if you download a file are not actually single thread but use multiple threads to speed things up.

Your speed test on our server was done at a time when that evening things started to go very bad for data going via LINX (https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7710-speed-and-latency-problems-repeat-once-again-for-virgin-media-users and then very very bad on 17th).

Virgin Media said this was just a 1% loss in capacity, so if losing 1% can cause those issues then it seems to suggest running the network very close to the point of issues and hence the single thread issues.

http://tbb.st/1495632101496057055 some get the speeds and if that was most other speed testers people would be none the wiser about the slope on multi-thread and single thread performance.

Here is the speedtest as requested:
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14956458068...

As for the browser, I am aware that they are multi-threaded and I do not use the browser to download but an external file download manager called Internet Download Manager (IDM) with connections set to 1 as can be seen in the image where the N. column shows the connections (1,2,3,4,5,6).

In one of the images the file location is in the Netherlands so maybe it isn't LINX as I believe that problem was only at a specific time during the day however I have never seen TBBx1 reach 200mbps at any time of the day.

Are there any Virgin Media speed tests recently on TBB that you can find with TBBx1=HTTPx6 and on 200mbps or higher?

Edited by deleted (Wed 24-May-17 18:21:15)

Okay notice the long slope, so something is not good

As for the LINX issue, while latency is better still seeing a 10ms jump inside the virgin core network, but its not as bad as before, so something is congesting still, but not to the degree of last week.

http://tbb.st/1495643605379635255 is one of the better recent tests today
http://tbb.st/1495645011337834655

casting a wider net
http://tbb.st/1493971965691757355
http://tbb.st/1495102828581851055

And the person running these tests were probably very happy
http://tbb.st/1495348245361947955
http://tbb.st/1494045675132997255

The issues in Virgin Media are not just about the interconnect to LINX there appear to be multiple issues

http://tbb.st/1495634151616639255 FTTP business connection 900 Mbps down on both single and multiple at 3pm this afternoon

Edited by MrSaffron (Wed 24-May-17 19:02:09)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Okay notice the long slope, so something is not good

As for the LINX issue, while latency is better still seeing a 10ms jump inside the virgin core network, but its not as bad as before, so something is congesting still, but not to the degree of last week.

http://tbb.st/1495643605379635255 is one of the better recent tests today
http://tbb.st/1495645011337834655

casting a wider net
http://tbb.st/1493971965691757355
http://tbb.st/1495102828581851055

And the person running these tests were probably very happy
http://tbb.st/1495348245361947955
http://tbb.st/1494045675132997255

The issues in Virgin Media are not just about the interconnect to LINX there appear to be multiple issues

http://tbb.st/1495634151616639255 FTTP business connection 900 Mbps down on both single and multiple at 3pm this afternoon

So it seems that it is possible a very small minority are getting single thread speeds close to their multi-thread. I can't seem to ever reach 200mbps single thread on the tester.

Has there been any Virgin Media customers recently with 300mbps single thread speeds?

What could explain that I can get full speeds on the TBB test files with 1 connection but not on the TBB speed tester? I wonder if Virgin Media are even aware of this and plan on addressing this issue on their network at all?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The testmy.net file is being served from the Virgin Media network so no surprise its working well.

testmy.net isn't served from within Virgin's network, only speedtest.net uses internal servers.

When running testmy.net my router shows it connects to "uk.testmy.net" and a traceroute shows this goes through linx:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 18 ms 18 ms 12 ms 10.250.64.1
3 32 ms 17 ms 15 ms pres-core-2a-xe-710-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.104.74.241]
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 31 ms 30 ms 28 ms brhm-bb-1c-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.254.42.110]
9 27 ms 36 ms 45 ms tcl5-ic-2-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [212.250.15.210]
10 30 ms 29 ms 29 ms linx-224.inx.as13213.net [195.66.226.9]
11 30 ms 49 ms 58 ms 83.170.70.238
12 58 ms 30 ms 30 ms dc5.as13213.net [83.170.70.138]
13 34 ms 27 ms 40 ms uk.testmy.net [109.123.121.170]

Something seems to be dragging down the single thread speed on the TBB test as it constantly shows poor speeds which I can't replicate on testmy.net, dslreports.com or standard HTTP file downloads.

There are some genuine single thread speed problems in parts of Virgin's network, almost exclusively in areas using old Motorola CMTS, but the TBB test seems to be showing poor results even for users who don't actually have any problems with single thread download speeds.

Given the moans about many services not working for many Virgin customers one would hope they are aware of the issues

Seeing SamKnows box testers now reporting problems too

In the past to show to Virgin Media that there are issues with some of their links we have altered routing from our end and suspect if the same experiment took place then the same result would happen

Or put another way that is a different way through line that testmy.net is reached via. The joy of very large networks.

When the same file server is able to produce good speeds for others then what do I do?

There are a lot of factors that can affect single-thread speed more than multi-thread speed. These can be related to the PC/Tablet/Phone doing the test, the method of connection (Wi-Fi 2.4GHz, Wi-Fi 5GHz, Ethernet cable, etc), the devices in the line (switch, router, modem) all before the connection to the ISP is actually involved and then the multitude of devices the ISP will use to route data to/from TBB.

TBB generally just like to claim that the catch-all 'congestion' is the cause without going into any details.

There are also differences in the way cable (DOCSIS) works compared to xDSL. With xDSL you efectively only have one channel for communications even though this is spread over a number of frequency bands whereas cable is more akin to MLPPP with data sent in a number of bonded channels. Cable needs to request permission to transmit on a channel which causes additional latency whereas xDSL doesn't. All of this adds up to very different characteristics for cable and xDSL for speed tests and is why ping/latency graphs also look very different.

But to be honest you really don't need to worry about the single-thread speed unless it drops below what you actually need for a single stream, i.e. about 25Mbps for a UHD video (though most will actually need a lot less than that).

Edited by Daemon66 (Thu 25-May-17 12:17:41)

If cable is so different why market products aimed directly at people like gamers where latency performance is critical and adverts extoling ability to stream video reliably to tablets in the home.

Perhaps we should simply refuse to run BQM for Virgin users and stop running any speed test diagnostics beyond showing an average speed for 32 thread downloads to get around the issues DOCSIS has.

A question though, how does DOCSIS explain the rises in latency we are seeing in the Virgin core network before even reaching the DOCSIS nodes?

In reply to a post by Daemon66:

TBB generally just like to claim that the catch-all 'congestion' is the cause without going into any details.

There are also differences in the way cable (DOCSIS) works compared to xDSL. With xDSL you efectively only have one channel for communications even though this is spread over a number of frequency bands whereas cable is more akin to MLPPP with data sent in a number of bonded channels. Cable needs to request permission to transmit on a channel which causes additional latency whereas xDSL doesn't. All of this adds up to very different characteristics for cable and xDSL for speed tests and is why ping/latency graphs also look very different.

Could you go into some more detail on this, please?

In reply to a post by Daemon66:

But to be honest you really don't need to worry about the single-thread speed unless it drops below what you actually need for a single stream, i.e. about 25Mbps for a UHD video (though most will actually need a lot less than that).

This too. I'm not sure people on 300Mb would be fine if they hit the download button at a website and it delivers about 1/10th the performance of their tier due to single-thread issues with VM.

It's not unreasonable for customers to expect better.

Edited by deleted (Thu 25-May-17 13:58:11)

More detail, that's what Google is for. I was just highlighting that cable is very different to xDSL so you should expect different behaviour.

I very much doubt anyone uses single-threaded in-browser downloads for anything very big these days so not many people are actually going to notice that it is slower.
Most browsers support multi-threaded HTTP/S and so long as one can run several concurrent UHD video streams or download game software through multi-threaded portals one probably isn't going to notice an issue. And I'm pretty sure that covers the majority of VM's customer's use.

Single thread performance generally tracks likely video streaming (note I said streaming NOT download) performance generally, and even then we see people with variable 20 to 50 Mbps single results who still suffer issues streaming on Virgin currently.

I guess its the different behaviour of cable, and thus should recommend xDSL to anyone who wants to stream video?

What? You really don't think cable is different to xDSL?

So far as I can tell, gaming is fine on cable as is streaming and VOIP. The only thing that the difference dramatically affects is single-threaded downloads. If only we had another cable service to compare with.

Are you bonkers? I don't think I ever claimed that DOCSIS was the cause of ALL VM problems, in fact I think I clearly mentioned that causes of issues are manifold.

In reply to a post by Daemon66:

More detail, that's what Google is for. I was just highlighting that cable is very different to xDSL so you should expect different behaviour.

If you could give a really quick outline of what the limiting factors are that'd be great. I know the basics but specifics on why it would be such a problem and cause so much difference would be really useful.

Usually when someone makes a claim the burden of proof lies on them, so it would be really good to know why you think the differences between cable and xDSL could account for all this 'out of the box' rather than it being something up with VM's implementation or hardware.

A UHD video stream is very unlikely to need even 25Mbps, typically they are around 10Mbps. If people who get single-threaded speeds in excess of 20Mbps are having issues it is not because of that. It is more likely there is congestion that is causing too long delays between data blocks, something your 'bufferbloat' metric could highlight?

Ah ok so people are not complaining about problems gaming, Skype not working, video constantly buffering and other issues such as modem being offline for a 15 to 30 minutes and once back speeds are slow?

So yes cable is a very different technology to xDSL and you might notice that for years no bad news stories on Virgin Media from me but only recently because things have become bad enough, i.e. outside the norms for what we see for cable users and that is after a month or two where things looked like they might actually be improving.

Just fell off my chair laughing, might need to lobby Netflix as they are clearly wasting bandwidth and putting people off buying the UHD option with their minimum speed requirements.

So what should I do, come on tell me what numbers I should tell Virgin Media customers, and a good reason for not telling them numbers already in the test?

Cable was designed for mass distribution from the headend out to the customers. The reverse path is a later add-on and relies on a scheduled request-to-send mechanism to stop all the customers trying to talk at the same time adding latency to acks etc. Each upstream channel does this independently. TCP throughput is very latency dependent. Multi-threaded throughput is increased if multiple acks can be bundled together reducing the average latency.

Likewise on the downstream each packet (not Ethernet packet) of data needs to be queued since it is actually sent to everyone connected to that same channel, the modem picks off the packets intended for it. These packets which can arrive on any one of the downstream channels in any order then need to be put back together into Ethernet frames before being passed onto the router (or the router part of the SuperHub). Again there is additional latency added because the parts may arrive out-of-order but only when all have arrived can the data be passed on. This is why latency is higher and subject to more jitter on cable.

Edited by Daemon66 (Thu 25-May-17 16:00:20)

What? Am I talking english here? Of course people have problems, that doesn't mean that when cable is working it can't handle streaming, gaming, VOIP, etc. [censored]?

And notice that in the news items where I'm reporting about poor performance I am not comparing to the xDSL services, but observations based on over a decade of seeing what we see from cable customers.

Perhaps I need educating on what is the maximum single thread speed I can expect to see for cable customers then?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Perhaps I need educating on what is the maximum single thread speed I can expect to see for cable customers then?

Perhaps. I personally have NEVER got anywhere near full connection speed with a TBB single-thread test, and it is definitely not due to congestion.

In reply to a post by Daemon66:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Perhaps I need educating on what is the maximum single thread speed I can expect to see for cable customers then?

Perhaps. I personally have NEVER got anywhere near full connection speed with a TBB single-thread test, and it is definitely not due to congestion.

Kindly detail what is causing the issues then?

As a reference here is my BT connection:
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14957305174...

In reply to a post by Daemon66:

Cable was designed for mass distribution from the headend out to the customers. The reverse path is a later add-on and relies on a scheduled request-to-send mechanism to stop all the customers trying to talk at the same time adding latency to acks etc. Each upstream channel does this independently. TCP throughput is very latency dependent. Multi-threaded throughput is increased if multiple acks can be bundled together reducing the average latency.

Likewise on the downstream each packet (not Ethernet packet) of data needs to be queued since it is actually sent to everyone connected to that same channel, the modem picks off the packets intended for it. These packets which can arrive on any one of the downstream channels in any order then need to be put back together into Ethernet frames before being passed onto the router (or the router part of the SuperHub). Again there is additional latency added because the parts may arrive out-of-order but only when all have arrived can the data be passed on. This is why latency is higher and subject to more jitter on cable.

Okay.

Are you familiar with selective acknowledgement, DOCSIS scheduling, Payload Header Suppression, ack suppression and per-service flow upstream burst parameter/buffer configuration?

The scheduler arranges packets to minimise arrival out of order and ensure it can be mitigated by even a small buffer on the cable modem. It's a FIFO operation by default so as soon as a packet arrives on the IP side it gets split up into 188 byte chunks, encapsulated in MPEG 2 frames and fired down the service group. Not a lot of queuing and not much delay, you can fit an awful lot of 188 byte + overhead frames into a 55.6Mb/s bearer.

The scheduler is not like MLPPP - the bonding is at a lower level than MLPPP, it runs at the MAC layer and is fully managed by the CMTS.

Selective acknowledgement and ack suppression dramatically reduce the need for upstream transmission to the point where 350Mb of downstream can be accommodated by 7Mb of upstream with room to spare through use of a TCP proxy on the CPE to eliminate redundant acknowledgements.

Payload Header Suppression reduces the overhead on layer 3/4 protocols by eliminating redundant information.

Buffers in DOCSIS 3.0 can be configured per service flow. VM have a lot of control over this depending on the firmware they use on their CMTS.

The ~4ms of jitter inherent in DOCSIS without congestion isn't avoidable without some more advanced work, the access network delay in DOCSIS 3.0 is 4-8ms due to the frequency of upstream MAPs, every 2ms on the downstream by default, alongside CMTS processing delays and contention slot availability, but there's no need for this to seriously impact on throughput.

I have no idea what's happened at VM towers, but a friend nearby on a very lightly utilised node running on a Cisco 10k with the 3 x 1 GE SPA delivering 12 downstreams, the tactical solution awaiting full CCAP deployment, can max out with a single stream, making me think it's an issue with either CMTS software/hardware or CCAP software/hardware.

I'm sure you know about CCAP so no need for me to supply any links on that one.

There are some potential issues with regards to single thread performance when using Remote PHY, but as VM aren't doing that just yet that shouldn't be a problem.

There may be some vendor-specific issues going on alongside an overly stretched core network, but DOCSIS 3.0 itself isn't an impediment to very high single-threaded throughput.

And a couple of Virgin Media ones today

http://tbb.st/1495727285823497855
http://tbb.st/1495735233448554455
http://tbb.st/1495736060530551855
http://tbb.st/1495727544136327855

Actually looking a bit better this evening, though still a fair share of ones like http://tbb.st/1495734906576872755

Gets popcorn...

It is always worth remembering that there are some people in the forums, including yourself, who have deep technical knowledge. Thank you for all that you contribute here.

In reply to a post by Daemon66:

But to be honest you really don't need to worry about the single-thread speed unless it drops below what you actually need for a single stream, i.e. about 25Mbps for a UHD video (though most will actually need a lot less than that).

I had slow single thread speed on VM all last year (Motorola CMTS) and it was incredibly frustrating. The speeds would jump around randomly during downloads and regularly fell to under 10Mbps.

Windows updates, Android updates, Sky on demand, downloading music and TV from Amazon, and files from Dropbox/wetransfer were just some of the things that suffered awful performance. It affected almost everything other than Origin and Steam game downloads.

Thankfully it was solved in December when I was switched to a new CIsco CMTS and single thread speeds are now perfect (other than on TBB).

No one paying for 200Mbps should be happy with 25Mbps.

Edited by deleted (Thu 25-May-17 21:05:08)

"when cable is working"

I think this is the whole point. It isn't for many users.

Edited by broadband66 (Fri 26-May-17 08:42:20)

Origin and Steam are well known for throwing lots of threads and multiple file sources i.e. to satisfy gamers desire for as fast possible downloads.

In reply to a post by David_W:

Gets popcorn...

It is always worth remembering that there are some people in the forums, including yourself, who have deep technical knowledge. Thank you for all that you contribute here.

Compared to genuine experts just a newbie, but thanks.

Hmm, an interesting ramble into stuff I wasn't talking about above the DOCSIS layer.

It is also interesting that you assert that these few milliseconds here and there have no real effect but I've yet to see a TBB test showing single-thread speed anywhere close to multi-thread speed, e.g. within 1%.

Maybe I'm wrong and DOCSIS isn't having an effect, unfortunately that would seem to imply the fault lies with TBB's test.

I have no idea what is causing the specific issues at the moment. My comments were intended to be more general and highlight the fact single-thread tests on cable never seem to get close to multi-thread tests and that the causes of a single single-thread test being bad can be many and several.

In reply to a post by Daemon66:

Hmm, an interesting ramble into stuff I wasn't talking about above the DOCSIS layer.

It is also interesting that you assert that these few milliseconds here and there have no real effect but I've yet to see a TBB test showing single-thread speed anywhere close to multi-thread speed, e.g. within 1%.

Maybe I'm wrong and DOCSIS isn't having an effect, unfortunately that would seem to imply the fault lies with TBB's test.

All these bar selective acknowledgement and ack suppression are part of DOCSIS.

Are you familiar with selective acknowledgement, DOCSIS scheduling, Payload Header Suppression, ack suppression and per-service flow upstream burst parameter/buffer configuration?

Ack suppression is incorporated into cable modems and has been since the mid-2000s to reduce upstream requirements. Selective acknowledgement, alongside cumulative acknowledgement, is what allows ack suppression to work.

Regrettably I can't test any of this out to try and find the root cause. I would expect the experience seen in the TBB test to mirror that of single threaded downloads.

EDIT: Reading my post back apart from those references to TCP functionality all the rest was pretty solidly DOCSIS and cable system implementation All MAC and PHY.

Edited by deleted (Fri 26-May-17 12:59:07)

Regrettably I can't test any of this out to try and find the root cause. I would expect the experience seen in the TBB test to mirror that of single threaded downloads.

I still cannot figure out why the TBB tester gives me such poor single threaded speeds but downloading the test files on TBB network with single thread connection gives me full speeds.

TBB test (~100mbps single thread):
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/_assets/speedtest/but...

TBB test file on single thread (>200mbps):
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

What could be the problem here?

I've just downloaded the 1GB file from TBB in 53.1 seconds, with an average speed of 160Mbps.

This ties in with the results given by testmy.net and dslreports:

http://testmy.net/db/VtPJI2cT7
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/13947144

However the TBB x1 test is only showing 60-84Mbps

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/_assets/speedtest/but...

It seems to be underestimating the single thread speeds, especially as test file downloads from TBB are so much faster. than the test results.

In reply to a post by thinksingle:

I still cannot figure out why the TBB tester gives me such poor single threaded speeds but downloading the test files on TBB network with single thread connection gives me full speeds.

Many many years ago when I was on cable, NTL used to run their network incredibly hot, and then installed transparent proxy caches to reduce external traffic for HTTP. These then became the point of failure and broke.

I suspect they still run the network hot, and you get asymmetric routing around the VM consumer network (note, this is on the TCP/IP side, before it gets to DOCSIS physical) and it is seen as 'good enough' by the money people.

So its possible there is a network issue that means single streams are handled quite well, and multiple streams expose a weakness in a design. VM has to have a lot of capacity to sell 200 and 300 mbps services; and managing that capacity is incredibly complicated.

This isn't a corporate network with 1,000 people's 100mbps to the desk connections.

In reply to a post by cje85:

I've just downloaded the 1GB file from TBB in 53.1 seconds, with an average speed of 160Mbps.

This ties in with the results given by testmy.net and dslreports:

http://testmy.net/db/VtPJI2cT7
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/13947144

However the TBB x1 test is only showing 60-84Mbps

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/_assets/speedtest/but...

It seems to be underestimating the single thread speeds, especially as test file downloads from TBB are so much faster. than the test results.

Ok I've found a way to compare the TBB speedtester and TBB test files:

http://imgur.com/a/j1xeE

I wonder if there is perhaps a bug in the ack suppression? I dont know how ack suppression works but it sounds like something that has the potential to harm throughput if it suppresses the wrong acks? There is a surpress ack option on my asus wifi router, and if I enable it sometimes I get slow downstream throughput. But I dont know if that works the same way as the docsis version.

Also as far as I know selective ack's dont reduce the ack traffic, but they do allow you to get away to a degree with dropped packets by allowing only part of a chunk of data to be need to be re transmitted instead of the whole chunk in the event of dropped packets.

Nagle algorithm reduces ack traffic and is on by default in all versions of windows, freebsd, ios. For linux (including android) nagle algorithm is used on large packets but not small packets.

Given the recent posts from multiple people that show dslreport single threaded tests and tbb http downloads been full speed, that shines a new light on the situation.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 27-May-17 02:11:20)

You're thinking of cumulative acknowledgement. Nagle is used to reduce packet count by having applications fill more of an MSS before the payload is put into a packet and sent on the wire.

I was thinking of cumulative and selective. The suppression as mentioned is done at the modem and a cumulative acknowledgement produced when required.

Without selective acknowledgement suppression breaks in a big way

Not aware of it being broken. Would expect to see variations between different CPE.

Until we can be confident that the Virgin Media core network is not playing around in terms of limiting performance almost possible to do anything conclusive.

The volume of people posting poor speeds with a wide range of speed testers and doing so in response to services not working does point to their being ongoing issues.

How far apart in time are those two images?

And the server can deliver to others at the right speeds
http://tbb.st/1495634300474153855
http://tbb.st/1495499395598914855
http://tbb.st/1494082321344887355
And checks show the server happy to serve at higher speeds.

So why not to Virgin Media users?

To add some other providers have had single thread complaints, and had us check things our end and not found anything untoward to date, and those providers have found issues in their own side, exactly what no-one has told us, so there maybe something going on somewhere with some networking hardware/firmware that is not helping things in addition to all the other Virgin Media issues.

If it was just little old us saying Virgin Media is having speed problems then the 'you are wrong' pressure I am under would be justified. Even Ofcom reported earlier this year on differences being marked at Virgin Media for their simulated video streaming (i.e. single thread) compared to FTTC services.

Edited by MrSaffron (Sat 27-May-17 11:35:33)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Until we can be confident that the Virgin Media core network is not playing around in terms of limiting performance almost possible to do anything conclusive.

The volume of people posting poor speeds with a wide range of speed testers and doing so in response to services not working does point to their being ongoing issues.

If they ever deploy cable here perhaps we should co-op test. Brand new, very low utilisation cable node, known uncongested local network, and no congestion at least until core as the backhaul from the VM CMTS is brand new, 2 (8*10) Gb.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

How far apart in time are those two images?

And the server can deliver to others at the right speeds
http://tbb.st/1495634300474153855
http://tbb.st/1495499395598914855
http://tbb.st/1494082321344887355
And checks show the server happy to serve at higher speeds.

So why not to Virgin Media users?

To add some other providers have had single thread complaints, and had us check things our end and not found anything untoward to date, and those providers have found issues in their own side, exactly what no-one has told us, so there maybe something going on somewhere with some networking hardware/firmware that is not helping things in addition to all the other Virgin Media issues.

If it was just little old us saying Virgin Media is having speed problems then the 'you are wrong' pressure I am under would be justified. Even Ofcom reported earlier this year on differences being marked at Virgin Media for their simulated video streaming (i.e. single thread) compared to FTTC services.

Both tests were done near the time of my posting so at 9PM.

It's quite strange how http://http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com/1GB.zip ->12MB/s
inline with the TBB speed tester single thread results.

However test files from http://ipv4.download.thinkbroadband.com/1GB.zip -> 27MB/s

I wonder where the issue could be as it's not due to over-utilisation in my area or peak time speeds. It's very confusing as you have shown it is possible on Virgin Media to reach 200mbps single threaded on the TBB speed tester: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14957272858...

Only difference I can spot is the CMTS deployed (Motorola,Arris and Cisco) is different and something to do with CMTS QOS? I am on the Arris CMTS. I'm also using the SH3 but I do not have another modem to test with so I cannot test if that is the underlying problem.

Any ideas?

Edited by deleted (Sat 27-May-17 12:06:11)

Both tests were done near the time of my posting so at 9PM.

If both tests at 9pm why does our speed test badge show 6:10pm (BST) on 24th?

Have you done a traceroute to both servers?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If both tests at 9pm why does our speed test badge show 6:10pm (BST) on 24th?

A very typical disingenuous TBB response, he was talking about the two file downloads, one from http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com and one from ipv4.download.thinkbroadband.com which show a marked difference even though coming from a similar location.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Both tests were done near the time of my posting so at 9PM.

If both tests at 9pm why does our speed test badge show 6:10pm (BST) on 24th?

Have you done a traceroute to both servers?

I meant the two http file downloads from the two addresses. I was using my own TBB speed test as a reference.

Here is a new one done @ 4PM:
http://imgur.com/a/LUhjl

Here are the traceroutes:

Tracing route to http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms RT-AC68U [192.168.1.254]
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 17 ms 11 ms 19 ms bmly-core-2a-xe-821-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.194.25]
4 14 ms 17 ms 16 ms bmly-core-2b-ae1-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.159.234]
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 15 ms 22 ms 14 ms eislou2-ic-2-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.254.84.62]
7 17 ms 18 ms 14 ms linx-gw2.thdo.ncuk.net [195.66.236.240]
8 15 ms 19 ms 16 ms te2-1-9.star10g.bdr-rt1.thn.ncuk.net [80.249.97.18]
9 15 ms 14 ms 13 ms speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]

Trace complete.


Tracing route to ipv4.download1.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.148]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms RT-AC68U [192.168.1.254]
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 12 ms 13 ms 13 ms bmly-core-2a-xe-821-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.194.25]
4 12 ms 12 ms 14 ms bmly-core-2b-ae1-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.159.234]
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 14 ms 22 ms 13 ms eislou2-ic-2-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.254.84.62]
7 12 ms 14 ms 17 ms linx-gw2.thdo.ncuk.net [195.66.236.240]
8 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms te2-1-9.star10g.bdr-rt1.thn.ncuk.net [80.249.97.18]
9 13 ms 17 ms 18 ms download.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.148]

Trace complete.

Edited by deleted (Sat 27-May-17 16:03:23)

Sorry for being disingenuous, clearly my input and questions are not welcome on the matter.

Thanks

Did not think they should be routed differently, and I can consistently download faster from http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com server which is what I would expect i.e. nailing 840 Mbps and better on a machine with a 1 Gbps link

http://tbb.st/1495763140797050755 is a recent test and the shape is interesting, suggesting something is slow to allow the speeds to ramp up

http://tbb.st/1495898141777812255 and then others don't see that behaviour but look just like any other connection, just with slower speeds than you'd expect
http://tbb.st/1495897985394527955
http://tbb.st/1495897066770640255

http://tbb.st/1495896880719221955 then somewhat similar to what you've posted before

Looking at other providers (and remember exactly same server)
http://tbb.st/1495898077896583655
http://tbb.st/1495727800659645755 (KCom is important as away from London and similar 200 to 300 Mbps speeds to cable)
http://tbb.st/1494439032786691055
http://tbb.st/1494110297142206855

In reply to a post by thinksingle:

Does everyone on Virgin Media have poor single thread speed results that are not the same as their multi-thread speeds on TBB speed test?

I am particularly interested on those with 200mbps or higher packages as the single-threaded speeds usually lie between 70-120mbps.

I personally can never reach 200mbps single thread speeds at any time of the day on the TBB speed tester (off-peak or peak) and I do not understand why. However what I do find strange is if I download a test file from TBB with 1 connection, it downloads at full speed.

Here is my TBB test:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Here is my TBB 1GB test on 1 connection:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Here is a 1GB test file from NL(Netherlands) Leaseweb:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Here is a UBUNTU ISO on 1 connection:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Single thread speed test on testmy.net:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Single thread speed test on DSLReports.com/speedtest:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

So why can I download a test file at full speed single threaded but not achieve the same speed on the TBBx1 test?

I have a similar same issue to the one you're having and from memory it's an issue with the CMTS equipment itself rather than the network. There were some people being switched over to newer Cisco CMTS's over on the Virgin Media forums a few months ago but not sure whether this is going to be a nationwide thing.

Pretty ridiculous though. I always get shoddy single thread speeds and have to use IDM to get full throught.

Edited by chris6273 (Sat 27-May-17 19:02:57)

I'm only getting approx. 20mbps from my 100mbps connection on single thread download.
After a1/2 hour in chat followed by a frustrating 2 hours on the telephone to Virgin yesterday it was obvious their staff are clueless and just kept on quoting multithreaded download speed as being fine.
The advisor I spoke to in the Swansea office tried to imply I had 9 other devices logged into my SH3, I only had one pc connected via Ethernet, I then had to prove it to him by swapping over to modem only mode and allowing him to remote connect to me, great show Virgin, the client is always a lying b*st*rd in your view! I didn't even get an apology.
I did eventually get them to say they did not support single threaded downloads, not the answer I was looking for and a total cop out imho.
Any ideas how to escalate this as I'm not at all happy to be paying for a service that is not working to it's full capacity?

Tricky. Obviously there's no entitlement to have it working at full capacity, and if there are no other symptoms than the TBB result I am not sure what grounds there are for an escalated complaint.

It's not just the TBB result on here but also on other sites and real world physical download speed including trying to download a 1Gb test file from here which gives me a pathetic 2-2.5Mb/sec. All tests I've done give comparable results.

Edited by deleted (Sun 28-May-17 01:47:52)

The single thread problem is more noticable on 152mb packages and above as the single thread speeds typically max out at 70-120mbps. Therefore most test results on 30, 50, 70 and 100 will usually seem OK on the single thread speeds until you go onto the higher speeds where they will become more apparent.

Looks as though the CMTS is a big factor in the single thread speeds from the looks of it.

Edited by deleted (Sun 28-May-17 12:56:11)

It's pretty noticeable on my 100mbps connection I'm only getting 20-22mbps so not just an issue with higher speeds.

Interested to know how you draw the conclusion 'Therefore most test results on 30, 50, 70 and 100 will usually seem OK'

Generally where something is limiting speed you see a sharp rise to the limit and it holding, so lets look at some tests this afternoon

http://tbb.st/1495982561205636155
http://tbb.st/1495982046533850355
http://tbb.st/1495981979777380455
http://tbb.st/1495981625502732455
http://tbb.st/1495980809856201155
http://tbb.st/1495979869487769055

I should have worded it better - I meant that if the single thread results that look like the one you just linked (if the person was on 50mb:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14959816255...

it seems to look OK as the TBBx1 and HTTPx6 graph do meet, however in reality if they moved up to a higher package:

for example 100mb:
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14959820465...

and 152mb:
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14959808098...

that the gap between the TBBx1 and HTTPx6 widens so it becomes more noticable.

So what I am trying to say is for those on lower packages that have 50mb TBBx1 and 50mb HTTPx6 it may 'mask' the problem until they upgrade their packages onto the higher speeds. It is difficult to judge if they have the single thread issue or not.

Edited by deleted (Sun 28-May-17 16:33:37)

In reply to a post by Busa:

It's pretty noticeable on my 100mbps connection I'm only getting 20-22mbps so not just an issue with higher speeds.

Yes it is noticable for you. What I meant was that in a hypothetical situation if you had single thread speeds close to the lower packages e.g. you have 100mb single thread on your 100mb package but if you were to upgrade to 300mb package your single thread remains 100mb and there would be a 200mb gap in single to multithread. So for those on the lower packages that think they have single thread speeds close to their package may only start to notice the problem when they upgrade to the higher packages. Which is why it is better to look at higher speed packages as the chance of them getting 300mb single thread is lower than them getting 50mb single thread on 50mb connection.

Edited by deleted (Sun 28-May-17 16:30:33)

In reply to a post by chris6273:

In reply to a post by thinksingle:

Does everyone on Virgin Media have poor single thread speed results that are not the same as their multi-thread speeds on TBB speed test?

I am particularly interested on those with 200mbps or higher packages as the single-threaded speeds usually lie between 70-120mbps.

I personally can never reach 200mbps single thread speeds at any time of the day on the TBB speed tester (off-peak or peak) and I do not understand why. However what I do find strange is if I download a test file from TBB with 1 connection, it downloads at full speed.

Here is my TBB test:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Here is my TBB 1GB test on 1 connection:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Here is a 1GB test file from NL(Netherlands) Leaseweb:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Here is a UBUNTU ISO on 1 connection:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Single thread speed test on testmy.net:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

Single thread speed test on DSLReports.com/speedtest:
http://virgin.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/imag...

So why can I download a test file at full speed single threaded but not achieve the same speed on the TBBx1 test?

I have a similar same issue to the one you're having and from memory it's an issue with the CMTS equipment itself rather than the network. There were some people being switched over to newer Cisco CMTS's over on the Virgin Media forums a few months ago but not sure whether this is going to be a nationwide thing.

Pretty ridiculous though. I always get shoddy single thread speeds and have to use IDM to get full throught.

There is an issue with single thread downloads on RiverDelta/Motorola CMTS. it affected my connection all last year but I was switched to a Cisco CMTS in December and since then single thread speeds have been fine. The only exception is the TBB speed test which continues to show much lower single thread results which I can't replicate on any other speed test or file download.

cje85 what speed do you get from:

http://http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com/1GB.zip

Any idea why there is a difference in speed single-thread between

http://http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com/1GB.zip ->12MB/s

and

http://ipv4.download.thinkbroadband.com/1GB.zip -> 27MB/s

Looks like different servers. Might have different numbers of people accessing them, or be on the network in a different way.

Do a traceroute to the IPs:
http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com = 80.249.103.8
and
ipv4.download.thinkbroadband.com = 80.249.99.130

for my Plusnet I get:

C:\>tracert 80.249.103.8

Tracing route to speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  <my router>
  2     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  lo0.central10.pcn-bng01.plus.net [195.166.130.248]
  3    10 ms    17 ms    10 ms  411.be5.pcn-ir02.plus.net [84.93.253.71]
  4     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  195.99.125.144
  5    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  195.99.127.87
  6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  7    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]

Trace complete.

C:\>tracert 80.249.103.8

Tracing route to speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  <my router>
  2     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  lo0.central10.pcn-bng01.plus.net [195.166.130.248]
  3    10 ms    17 ms    10 ms  411.be5.pcn-ir02.plus.net [84.93.253.71]
  4     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  195.99.125.144
  5    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  195.99.127.87
  6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  7    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]

Trace complete.

Got ya

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Looks like different servers. Might have different numbers of people accessing them, or be on the network in a different way.

Do a traceroute to the IPs:
http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com = 80.249.103.8
and
ipv4.download.thinkbroadband.com = 80.249.99.130

for my Plusnet I get:

C:\>tracert 80.249.103.8

Tracing route to speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  <my router>
  2     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  lo0.central10.pcn-bng01.plus.net [195.166.130.248]
  3    10 ms    17 ms    10 ms  411.be5.pcn-ir02.plus.net [84.93.253.71]
  4     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  195.99.125.144
  5    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  195.99.127.87
  6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  7    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]

Trace complete.

C:\>tracert 80.249.103.8

Tracing route to speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  <my router>
  2     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  lo0.central10.pcn-bng01.plus.net [195.166.130.248]
  3    10 ms    17 ms    10 ms  411.be5.pcn-ir02.plus.net [84.93.253.71]
  4     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  195.99.125.144
  5    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  195.99.127.87
  6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  7    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]

Trace complete.

Looks like you pasted the same traceroute twice but here is mine:

Tracing route to http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms RT-AC68U [192.168.1.254]
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 17 ms 11 ms 19 ms bmly-core-2a-xe-821-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.194.25]
4 14 ms 17 ms 16 ms bmly-core-2b-ae1-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.159.234]
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 15 ms 22 ms 14 ms eislou2-ic-2-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.254.84.62]
7 17 ms 18 ms 14 ms linx-gw2.thdo.ncuk.net [195.66.236.240]
8 15 ms 19 ms 16 ms te2-1-9.star10g.bdr-rt1.thn.ncuk.net [80.249.97.18]
9 15 ms 14 ms 13 ms speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.103.8]

Trace complete.


Tracing route to ipv4.download1.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.148]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms RT-AC68U [192.168.1.254]
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 12 ms 13 ms 13 ms bmly-core-2a-xe-821-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.194.25]
4 12 ms 12 ms 14 ms bmly-core-2b-ae1-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.159.234]
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 14 ms 22 ms 13 ms eislou2-ic-2-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.254.84.62]
7 12 ms 14 ms 17 ms linx-gw2.thdo.ncuk.net [195.66.236.240]
8 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms te2-1-9.star10g.bdr-rt1.thn.ncuk.net [80.249.97.18]
9 13 ms 17 ms 18 ms download.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.148]

Trace complete.

But since when did Virgin sell a 10 Mbps upload 50 Mbps package?

As for gap, yes a 5% difference will look wider to the eye as speeds increase

But as others on other providers can get over 100 Mbps it is not a limit per se, and also when we've had people testing where a limit was involved you got a flat line due to the limit and not a congested line

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

But since when did Virgin sell a 10 Mbps upload 50 Mbps package?

As for gap, yes a 5% difference will look wider to the eye as speeds increase

I was talking about download speeds not upload (TBBx1 and HTTPx6 on the TBB speed tester).

Edit: I used the wrong test here is the correct one:
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14955570907...

Edited by deleted (Mon 29-May-17 16:29:25)

In reply to a post by thinksingle:

I was talking about download speeds not upload (TBBx1 and HTTPx6 on the TBB speed tester).

You're missing his point. The two meet, however the customer should, going by his upload, be receiving at least 150Mb down, not about 50.

The user in that test has an upload of > 10Mb. There's nothing below 150Mb on VM with that upload. That is not an example of a properly functional VM connection. It looks potentially like one that's being heavily limited by wireless performance.

It's pretty slow to ramp up, too. Wonder if that was done on a mobile phone?

In reply to a post by thinksingle:

I should have worded it better - I meant that if the single thread results that look like the one you just linked (if the person was on 50mb:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14959816255...

it seems to look OK as the TBBx1 and HTTPx6 graph do meet, however in reality if they moved up to a higher package:

for example 100mb:
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14959820465...

and 152mb:
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14959808098...

Are these tests all being done on the same connection with rate limiting applied?

The 100/152Mb were done with a rate limit of about 3Mb/s on the upstream. The other test as I mentioned looks heavily limited by wireless performance, potentially with a sub-optimal TCP stack too.

Thats the issue with looking at a database of results, not knowing the OS, and hardware used.

This information can be grabbed somewhat via browser headers tho. Might be an idea for TBB to consider that.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by thinksingle:

I was talking about download speeds not upload (TBBx1 and HTTPx6 on the TBB speed tester).

You're missing his point. The two meet, however the customer should, going by his upload, be receiving at least 150Mb down, not about 50.

The user in that test has an upload of > 10Mb. There's nothing below 150Mb on VM with that upload. That is not an example of a properly functional VM connection. It looks potentially like one that's being heavily limited by wireless performance.

It's pretty slow to ramp up, too. Wonder if that was done on a mobile phone?

Apologies that was my error I used the wrong example for 50mb it should've been this one:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14955570907...

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by thinksingle:

I was talking about download speeds not upload (TBBx1 and HTTPx6 on the TBB speed tester).

You're missing his point. The two meet, however the customer should, going by his upload, be receiving at least 150Mb down, not about 50.

The user in that test has an upload of > 10Mb. There's nothing below 150Mb on VM with that upload. That is not an example of a properly functional VM connection. It looks potentially like one that's being heavily limited by wireless performance.

It's pretty slow to ramp up, too. Wonder if that was done on a mobile phone?

Anyhow, do you know why I am seeing different single thread download speeds between

http://http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com/1GB.zip ->12MB/s

and

http://ipv4.download.thinkbroadband.com/1GB.zip -> 27MB/s

MrSaffron says it isn't a problem at TBB's end so what could be the "bottleneck" here?

In reply to a post by thinksingle:

cje85 what speed do you get from:

http://http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com/1GB.zip

It peaked at just 103Mbps and was generally around 80Mbps.

the normal 1Gb file download test from http://ipv4.download.thinkbroadband.com/1GB.zip reached 219Mbps.

So it seems that connections to http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com are bring limited in some way which may be causing the poor single thread results on the TBB speed test.

In reply to a post by thinksingle:

Looks like you pasted the same traceroute twice but here is mine:

Oops - sorry about that.

Looks like your route, outbound at least, is the same for both servers.

Nope - discussing elsewhere.

We've been doing that for some years now, hence why can talk of PC/phone/tablet speeds and estimate effect of Wi-Fi on overall results

http://tbb.st/1496072510407845355 Samsung Galaxy S6
http://tbb.st/1496090358791242455 iPhone5
http://tbb.st/1496005899788757255 OnePlus

Mine:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14961510867...

How come you have 20 mbps up?

In reply to a post by scorpion:

Mine:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14961510867...

How come you have 20 mbps up?

I'm on the Vivid 200 Gamer package.

I've done various speed tests from different servers and made a small collage:

http://i.imgur.com/ZK3DtFM.png

As you can see I can download faster from New York than http://http-speedtest4.thinkbroadband.com/1GB.zip which is very odd.

Can you identify what the cause is for the difference in speeds? All tests were conducted at the time of my speedtest:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14964331036...

Yes it is believed to be down to the way Virgin Media are handling traffic from the two different servers, one going over a more congested route than the other.

As has been said before, the Virgin Media core network is large and various parts of it have congestion

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Yes it is believed to be down to the way Virgin Media are handling traffic from the two different servers, one going over a more congested route than the other.

As has been said before, the Virgin Media core network is large and various parts of it have congestion

I can varify that this does seem to be the issue, I suffer the same with my Virgin connection, it was worse but Virgin made a little change that made things better but seems that some core network equipment upgrades around these servers regions will be needing/getting upgrades soon.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Yes it is believed to be down to the way Virgin Media are handling traffic from the two different servers, one going over a more congested route than the other.

As has been said before, the Virgin Media core network is large and various parts of it have congestion

Yes I do agree what you are saying is true as I have managed to get almost full speed once @27MB/s however this lasts for a maximum of 3 seconds and drops right back down to 12-14MB/s again.

My speedtest done at time of posting:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14966669111...

But then a test done right after:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/14966673744...

Edited by deleted (Mon 05-Jun-17 13:57:01)

Apart from speed tests how does the single thread slowness affect your everyday use of the internet?

Just curious.

Ofcom has something to say on this
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015...

Pages 32 and 33

So you end up with the scenario where the national regulator is saying cable up to 100 Mbps is worse for streaming 4K video than up to 76 Mbps VDSL2 services.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

So you end up with the scenario where the national regulator is saying cable up to 100 Mbps is worse for streaming 4K video than up to 76 Mbps VDSL2 services.

An interesting interpretation of that publication. Perhaps a better(unbiased) one would be that cable services have a larger variation in quality of service (as we all know). At no point in the document does Ofcom even hint that cable 100Mbps is always worse than 76Mbps VDSL2 for streaming 4K video.

Edited by Daemon66 (Wed 07-Jun-17 09:57:59)

Never said 'always'

And a larger variation in the quality of service is surely important

Maybe November 2016 which the report actually looks at was just a very bad month for Virgin Media, but I look at what the public are saying and it does not look that way to me, or are all those customers on social media biased too?

In reply to a post by Daemon66:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

So you end up with the scenario where the national regulator is saying cable up to 100 Mbps is worse for streaming 4K video than up to 76 Mbps VDSL2 services.

An interesting interpretation of that publication. Perhaps a better(unbiased) one would be that cable services have a larger variation in quality of service (as we all know). At no point in the document does Ofcom even hint that cable 100Mbps is always worse than 76Mbps VDSL2 for streaming 4K video.

They don't say it's always worse, neither did Mr S, however the document clearly states that streaming performance is worse across their test panel on VM 100Mb than 76Mb VDSL. Mr S's comment is perfectly consistent with the data, while obviously what you think he said, which sadly seems to fit an ongoing pattern to try and show bias, does not.

VM's current performance is unacceptable. Liberty Global's management of VM's engineering, operations and capacity planning is concerning. Liberty Global's lack of appreciation of the UK market continues to cause problems.

If Ofcom insist on median peak time performance advertising VM's advertised speeds won't come close to their current levels. That is multiple threads. Single would be considerably worse.

Sadly it would be a bad idea for me to go into specifics but VM are having a nightmare, hitting bottleneck after bottleneck at the moment, and do not have the funding available to resolve the issues in a timely fashion.

I would strongly recommend looking some more into those bottlenecks I mentioned. In some areas they are, quite literally, end to end.

hmm, you changed your view? I thought it was looking good on the planning for the new projects? I think this is the most damning post I have seen from you regarding VM.

Even tho I have been critical of VM in the past, it can only be good for the UK market if they can get their act together, as the stigma attached to them isnt shrinking.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Never said 'always'

No? You said: "cable up to 100 Mbps is worse for streaming 4K video than up to 76 Mbps VDSL2 services". I can't see any caveat in there that limits it from being all encompassing.

God I hate that I'm on here attempting to defend VM, a company I despise but have no alternative to use, just because I see an obvious bias that annoys me.

So I apologise for not adding 'some users may see performance that eskews the Ofcom analysis and our own analysis. This is the nature of the beast when reporting based on analysis of results, via the two mechanisms i.e. SamKnows monitoring and our crowd level observations and what we are seeing people post from social media.'

Perhaps people would prefer the bias where we say nothing when we see performance dip and it appears to be affecting a large number of customers, and also ignore other reports that also show the quality of service appears much more variable?

What sort of performance levels should we start to highlight that things are not performing well for Virgin Media customers?

You was actually been lenient, as I looked at the pdf and its not just 76mbps VDSL that beats VM 100mbit for streaming but also 38mbit VDSL, a service that is under half of the marketed speed.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

So I apologise for not adding 'some users may see performance that eskews the Ofcom analysis and our own analysis. This is the nature of the beast when reporting based on analysis of results, via the two mechanisms i.e. SamKnows monitoring and our crowd level observations and what we are seeing people post from social media.'

Perhaps people would prefer the bias where we say nothing when we see performance dip and it appears to be affecting a large number of customers, and also ignore other reports that also show the quality of service appears much more variable?

What sort of performance levels should we start to highlight that things are not performing well for Virgin Media customers?

A classic disingenuous post, you sound like a politician.

You actually said "cable up to 100 Mbps is worse for streaming 4K video than up to 76 Mbps VDSL2 services" which is only true in less than 10% of the tests. It's the same falacy as when ISPs advertised only the speeds that 10% could achieve, I seem to recal you did, rightfully, have issues with that. All it would have required would have been the word 'sometimes' or 'occasionally' inserted to make it a reasonable statement.

Of course VM have problems, no one questions that, and yes of course you should report on those issues. I wouldn't want you not to, just drop the blatant bias against cable. I have no idea why you feel so badly about cable that you always have to paint things worse than they are but it is incredibly tiresome.

Edited by Daemon66 (Thu 08-Jun-17 10:02:03)

Now don't upset people, or I dare mention I've been able to stream 4K without buffering on my 26 Mbps line

Lets try this, Ofcom research indicates its 10% of the time that people with Virgin Media up to 100 Mbps have issues with streaming 4K, but Infinity 2 (up to 76 Mbps) have issues less of the time. No one can predict when these 10% situations will occur, and as the testing is done in relatively short bursts rather than simulating a full 90 minute film it is difficult to predict how many buffering or low quality stream events people will experience. Some will have no issues at all and others may find streaming to be a pointless thing to try, and a full spectrum of experience in between.

As for feeling bad about cable I don't, I want cable to succeed I want to get back to reporting about the speed tests that look like DOCSIS 3.1 in test and people in the 300 Mbps areas posting speed tests from that service and posting fastest WiFi based tests once more.

blatant bias against cable

What absolute rubbish. Clearly the post of someone who isn't prepared to listen or accept the finding of others.

It appears that you are the one who seems to believe that everything with VM is OK and no VM users are experiencing problems. Perhaps you should get out a bit and see what many VM users are saying about their connections. Some have few problems but others especially gamers are experiencing severe problems with many of those leaving for more stable connections albeit connections with a lower headline speed.

OK guys lets chill here, now I will say that bias against virgin media or even any ISP is prevalent here, but when you think about it only people who are themselves experiencing problems will search the internet and arrive at various forums, I myself am a customer who is receiving everything virgin media promised me, except the Puma 6 issue, but I have faith that eventually they will find a fix, and if I wanted too I could walk but like I say it always seems like they have a massive problem but its just because the ones that do have issues shout louder then people who don't.

I will admit the fact that virgin media have so many arguing about bad service is sort of a problem.

I read this thread with interest because i have the same problem on virgin 300 and its even worse than yours.

I cant even multithread my full speed, as i need so many threads my hard drive cant keep up. Id prob need an SSD to temporary all the parts to even get it close to full speed.

if any one know a multithread download client that uses ram, please let me know.

Ive done alot of tests here

My thread of virgin forums

also my line Quality link is here.

ThinkBroadBand Line Quality

I found it very hard to read because it always looks the same, idle or downloading.

Please can you post your line quality link so we can compare ?

I am using the modem superhub 3 in modem mode with a ASUS AC 1900 Router running at 1000Mhz.

The best client i have found is ninja download manager. It runs alot faster than bitkinex for me.

Im thinking about moving to the business voom package maybe the new modem will help ? Also the support could be better if not going back down to 200, not point paying so much for 300 when its like this. Even multithread, its hard to get above 18 mb/s and the speed fluctuates a lot and goes down to 6-7 often.

Problem is BT side no alternatives max would be 76MB, and ive been quoted at 40-50 tops.

Edited by deleted (Thu 08-Jun-17 20:00:51)

Here is my line quality: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...

Have you tried using another PC/Laptop with a 1gb NIC on a wired connection or if you have one of the flagship smartphones (Galaxy S8) connected to your 5ghz wifi to test?

But since it was fine before you went onto VIVID 300 perhaps you have a faulty Super Hub 3 or by coincidence your area became heavily oversubscribed recently causing the permanent low speeds.

You can give the Voom fibre a go but if that doesn't solve your problem even VDSL up to 52mb is better than what you are getting right now.

Edited by deleted (Thu 08-Jun-17 23:38:39)

In reply to a post by MCM:

It appears that you are the one who seems to believe that everything with VM is OK and no VM users are experiencing problems. Perhaps you should get out a bit and see what many VM users are saying about their connections. Some have few problems but others especially gamers are experiencing severe problems with many of those leaving for more stable connections albeit connections with a lower headline speed.

Did you actually read that before you posted it? Or perhaps you meant to direct it at someone else to whom some of what you said may apply?

Not sure about the "No one can predict" bit, I think it is pretty well known that the issues VM customers experience are typically very localised. But no need for such convoluted language, your statement only needed an "occasionally", a "sometimes" or a "in some cases" added to make it fair.

Typically local, but am seeing enough posting with issues that also relate to core network issues too.

Interesting you mention that about the 300 Mbps service, we are generally not seeing the people nailing the 300 Mbps results that we used to, and it is in theory becoming more widely available.

The post was aimed at you due to your incessant and unrelenting refusal to accept that many users are having problems and then accusing Andrew of a bias against cable because he chose to post something with which you disagree. Get a grip, let your posts reflect reality rather our own clearly biased opinion.

Im on virgin 300 and my connection totally sucks balls.

Look at my post on virgin media speed and all the tests ive done, plus all the things i tried.

There are issues in my area, and ive been told its not congested.

I have now ordered a virgin business line, had to go for voom 2 and get 5 extra IPs, just for it work in modem mode. But hey ho. 2 year contract, I guess ill like it or lump it and see what BT has to offer after if its no good. But 76mb vs 200 is a big difference, even if you need to create 250 million threads to get close to utalizing the virgin line. Bit exaggerated but still 20 threads and im close and even then the connection floats up and down speed wise ! (No joke)

Edited by deleted (Fri 09-Jun-17 17:08:48)

I only test from a wired connection, i dont really care about wireless speeds to much. Anything i need to go fast or connect well is hard wired.

From your single thread speeds, i see you are prob still with hub2, don't bother changing as i think things will get worse.

Your line quality is almost exactly the same as mine. We could on the same road, its that similar.

I think this is an issue with capacity plain and simple.

I use Ninja download where i can but speed can fluctuate, also filezilla or bitkinnex. I think i easily out pace what i would get on VSDL or similar. However not getting what i am paying for, expected or was sold.

The latency makes for laggy web experience.

I'm actually using the Hub 3 which is why our line quality looks very similar. The latency is caused by a faulty chip used by all Hub 3s. If I had the SH2 I probably wouldn't have the high latency. Virgin must upgrade their network for us to see improvements, but when and if it will happen would rely on Liberty Global's decisions.

Edited by deleted (Fri 09-Jun-17 23:32:36)

So I've got a friend on the same street as me and here's his VM 200 BQM

I was thinking of ordering the 300Mbit VM Business... I wonder if I should reconsider now.. heh. Every speed test I did did seem to be quite fast, to be fair (testing on 5Ghz WiFi so almost 200Mbit).

Do you have his TBB speedtest? Curious to see what his single thread speeds are.

There is no confirmation business will be faster, on the same line simply by chaning the package.

Line same, modem different.

I was paying 65.99 for the broadband basically, and didn't need the lowest tv and weekend calls. Plus i am also a real business. This price was also due to go up due to being on a homeworks discounted rate for 3 months.

so 55 was worth it for a punt.

If i had BT cabling in the house i may have jumped ship to be fair. But as there is none, i tried the business router.

I would not consider virgin business until you are sure it will work.

Seriously thinking about it, i think id prefer better single thread performance and latency, as improved web surfing and video streaming my main activities.

Edited by deleted (Sun 11-Jun-17 14:13:52)

In reply to a post by thinksingle:

Do you have his TBB speedtest? Curious to see what his single thread speeds are.

I will have some TBB tests over the next few days.

In reply to a post by MCM:

The post was aimed at you due to your incessant and unrelenting refusal to accept that many users are having problems and then accusing Andrew of a bias against cable because he chose to post something with which you disagree. Get a grip, let your posts reflect reality rather our own clearly biased opinion.

How very strange, you appear to be living in an alternate reality, or perhaps you simply need to learn to read.

that looks pretty steady to be fair, what you looking for is if it looks the same peak and off peak and that graph does.

The newest superhubs and when is loads of channels seems to create a permanent very spiky graph which I think is a side affect of docsis rather than congestion.

I've run some tests, though I was time constrained and the connection was using 5GHz .11n but just 2 meters away from the SH3.

Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4

I suppose it seems OK to me?