Your forum username:
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up


    Welcome to Sky User - The Unofficial Support Forum for everything Sky! - Proudly helping over 65k members.


    Advertisement

    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
    Results 11 to 20 of 24

    Interleave value 64? (stat report)

    This is a discussion on Interleave value 64? (stat report) within the Sky Broadband help forums, part of the Sky Broadband help and support category; Originally Posted by MrStabby The 64/8 may be the max delay setting which is changeable on the DSLAM . It ...

    1. #11
      Saturday's Avatar
      Saturday is offline Sky User Super Mod
      Exchange:
      Broadband ISP: Sky Broadband Unlimited Pro
      Router: Sky Hub SR102
      Sky TV: Sky+HD box
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Posts
      6,085
      Thanks
      20
      Thanked 51 Times in 47 Posts

      Re: Interleave value 64? (stat report)

      Quote Originally Posted by MrStabby View Post
      The 64/8 may be the max delay setting which is changeable on the DSLAM.
      It sets the maximum delay teh DSLAM can wait between sending packets. If it's too high then your sync rate will not relate to your (slower) data rate.
      I should imagine a better setting would be 8 or even 0.
      I don't believe that is correct. 64/8 relates to the interleave depth not delay. 64/8 is a "normal" interleave figure which denotes that the maximum transfer frame length and transmitted codeblock length are being used - multiples of 64(8).

      Interleave delay defines the spacing of the input bytes and their placement. The higher the interleave delay, the higher the interleave depth.

      In any case, except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. noise bursts of unusually long duration), interleaving will not have a material impact on throughput.


    2. Advertisement
    3. #12
      geo48's Avatar
      geo48 is offline Sky User Member
      Exchange: lancaster
      Broadband ISP: waiting for max
      Router:
      Sky TV:
      Join Date
      Jun 2007
      Posts
      21
      Thanks
      0
      Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

      Re: Interleave value 64? (stat report)

      Tried TCPoptimizer effect is little to none, have used that prog sometime ago but recently have been using yamicsoft xpmanager to good effect anyway tried it even added a few uk sites to bring the latency down but still the line maxes out at about 10.5 which by the way is 60-65% of the 15323 and my downloads are still <50% of what I got with 8218 sync, plus still unhappy (more with myself for spending a couple of days looking for what appears non existent malware, the problem is variants appear so quickly that you tend to trust the guru's especially if they sound plausible)
      Not had chance to go the mognut route yet but these are the first page stats:-

      System Up Time 03:12:47
      Port Status TxPkts RxPkts Collisions Tx B/s Rx B/s Up Time
      WAN PPPoA 16755 30038 0 166 3710 03:11:27
      LAN 10M/100M 30195 17000 0 3739 203 03:12:45
      WLAN 11M/54M 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00

      ADSL Link Downstream Upstream
      Connection Speed 15323 kbps 764 kbps
      Line Attenuation 25.0 db 14.0 db
      Noise Margin 1 4.4 db 12.0 db


      Hope thats readable but those compare with the dynamode stats which contain much more ie interleave info apart from fast or interleaved. Are the stats obtained via mognuts more comprehensive?

      Think the line is fine am i missing something?

    4. #13
      geo48's Avatar
      geo48 is offline Sky User Member
      Exchange: lancaster
      Broadband ISP: waiting for max
      Router:
      Sky TV:
      Join Date
      Jun 2007
      Posts
      21
      Thanks
      0
      Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

      Re: Interleave value 64? (stat report)

      Just trolling the net still trying to get my head round this Interleave and came across this
      "* When all these fail, try to improve the interleave depth of the DSLAM at the CO and use a more reliable modem. For subscribers who suffer from frequent connection breaks, the recommended interleave depth is 64/64. Tests suggest that when interleave depth is increased from 8 to 64, connection breaks can be considerably reduced."

      This would seem to suggest that the default is indeed 8, it also starts with when all these fails its part of a paper on maintaining a good isp/exchange.

      Back to the troll (ok trawl)

      Getting flash backs now but the headaches have stopped!!

    5. #14
      Isitme's Avatar
      Isitme is offline Sky User Moderator
      Exchange: Bannockburn
      Broadband ISP: Sky Broadband Unlimited
      Router: Sky Hub SR102
      Sky TV: Sky+ HD
      Join Date
      Dec 2006
      Location
      Central Scotland
      Posts
      33,892
      Thanks
      63
      Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,589 Posts

      Re: Interleave value 64? (stat report)

      Are the stats obtained via mognuts more comprehensive?
      Very much so, even more detailed than the Dynamode stats in your first post

    6. #15
      geo48's Avatar
      geo48 is offline Sky User Member
      Exchange: lancaster
      Broadband ISP: waiting for max
      Router:
      Sky TV:
      Join Date
      Jun 2007
      Posts
      21
      Thanks
      0
      Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

      Re: Interleave value 64? (stat report)

      Ok will try and be as brief as possible The netgear (got mognuts now) report fast, the dynamode and DMT (via dynamode) report interleave. I have seen both fast and interleave repoted on the dynamode, only fast on netgear
      Stats for Netgear

      /usr/sbin/adslctl: ADSL driver and PHY status
      Status: Showtime Channel: FAST, Upstream rate = 764 Kbps, Downstream rate = 15323 Kbps
      Link Power State: L0
      Mode: ADSL2+
      Channel: Fast
      Trellis: ON
      Line Status: No Defect
      Training Status: Showtime
      Down Up
      SNR (dB): 14.9 13.0
      Attn(dB): 25.0 14.0
      Pwr(dBm): 1.3 12.4
      Max(Kbps): 19780 864
      Rate (Kbps): 15323 764
      G.dmt framing
      K: 239(0) 24
      R: 16 16
      S: 1 8
      D: 64 8
      ADSL2 framing
      MSGc: 59 68
      B: 238 23
      M: 1 8
      T: 2 1
      R: 16 16
      S: 0.4980 7.7037
      L: 4096 216
      D: 64 8
      Counters
      SF: 1900763 1900761
      SFErr: 0 1
      RS: 247099216 16156468
      RSCorr: 2453 4
      RSUnCorr: 0 0

      HEC: 0 0
      OCD: 0 0
      LCD: 0 0
      Total Cells: 1111937580 55452459
      Data Cells: 2206765 171054
      Drop Cells: 0
      Bit Errors: 0 0

      ES: 1 1
      SES: 1 0
      UAS: 14 17
      Total time = 8 hours 33 min 7 sec
      SF = 1900763
      CRC = 0
      LOS = 1
      LOF = 0
      ES = 1
      Latest 1 day time = 8 hours 33 min 7 sec
      SF = 1900763
      CRC = 0
      LOS = 1
      LOF = 0
      ES = 1
      Latest 15 minutes time = 3 min 7 sec
      SF = 11613
      CRC = 0
      LOS = 0
      LOF = 0
      ES = 0
      Previous 15 minutes time = 15 min 0 sec
      SF = 55590
      CRC = 0
      LOS = 0
      LOF = 0
      ES = 0
      Previous 1 day time = 0 sec
      SF = 0
      CRC = 0
      LOS = 0
      LOF = 0
      ES = 0
      15 minutes interval [-30 min to -15 min] time = 15 min 0 sec
      SF = 55591
      CRC = 0
      LOS = 0
      LOF = 0
      ES = 0
      15 minutes interval [-45 min to -30 min] time = 15 min 0 sec
      SF = 55590
      CRC = 0
      LOS = 0
      LOF = 0
      ES = 0
      15 minutes interval [-60 min to -45 min] time = 15 min 0 sec
      SF = 55591
      CRC = 0
      LOS = 0
      LOF = 0
      ES = 0

      Stats for Dynamode

      Statistics -- ADSL

      Mode: ADSL2+
      Line Coding: Trellis On
      Status: No Defect
      Link Power State: L0

      Downstream Upstream
      SNR Margin (dB): 14.3 14.5
      Attenuation (dB): 26.0 12.6
      Output Power (dBm): 14.5 12.6
      Attainable Rate (Kbps): 19688 864
      Rate (Kbps): 15323 764
      MSGc (number of bytes in overhead channel message): 59 68
      B (number of bytes in Mux Data Frame): 238 23
      M (number of Mux Data Frames in FEC Data Frame): 1 8
      T (Mux Data Frames over sync bytes): 2 1
      R (number of check bytes in FEC Data Frame): 16 16
      S (ratio of FEC over PMD Data Frame length): 0.4980 7.7037
      L (number of bits in PMD Data Frame): 4096 216
      D (interleaver depth): 64 8
      Delay (msec): 7 15

      Super Frames: 10223 10221
      Super Frame Errors: 0 1
      RS Words: 1329080 86878
      RS Correctable Errors: 0 0
      RS Uncorrectable Errors: 0 N/A

      HEC Errors: 0 0
      OCD Errors: 0 0
      LCD Errors: 0 0
      Total Cells: 5985135 296529
      Data Cells: 181829 30311
      Bit Errors: 0 0

      Total ES: 0 1
      Total SES: 0 0
      Total UAS: 17 74

      DMT piccy bottom of page.
      Both agree on line sync speed, attainable speed, attenuation noise etc. The only grey area being the interleave.
      I had recently with last isp occasion to carry out extensive speed & ping tests due to errors drops etc and the problem resolved however I have retained copies and also their email in which after a number of weeks they admitted that there had been a problem at their end and although they denied they new about it suddenly owned up when the MAC was requested.Then strangely all ok again!

      Anyway the facts are download speeds are about 50%, speed around 65% of attainable(would expect ,in 80%), ping times are almost double, Tested on three systems, three o.s's ( one being linux live cd), two clean installs all give to within a narrow margin the same results. Two different routers (dynamoode adsl 2+) more cales and routing than you can shake a stick at, back now to using cisco cables into cat5e wired house. All this has been done because T2 guy insisted that the lower speed was down to malware etc. I'm not happy with that plus the interleave question is beginning to bug me from what I,ve read interleave is almost a prerequisite for iptv but surely still wouldn't alter the firmware to misreport the line status.

      Anyone got comments please !!!
      Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Interleave value 64? (stat report)-dmtjpg.jpg  

    7. #16
      Isitme's Avatar
      Isitme is offline Sky User Moderator
      Exchange: Bannockburn
      Broadband ISP: Sky Broadband Unlimited
      Router: Sky Hub SR102
      Sky TV: Sky+ HD
      Join Date
      Dec 2006
      Location
      Central Scotland
      Posts
      33,892
      Thanks
      63
      Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,589 Posts

      Re: Interleave value 64? (stat report)

      I can't contribute to how your speed is so low with such exceptional stats, but here is an explanation of Interleaving courtesy of Kitz.

    8. #17
      geo48's Avatar
      geo48 is offline Sky User Member
      Exchange: lancaster
      Broadband ISP: waiting for max
      Router:
      Sky TV:
      Join Date
      Jun 2007
      Posts
      21
      Thanks
      0
      Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

      Re: Interleave value 64? (stat report)

      Good post by Kitz there thanks for pointing it out. I've also been ferreting about and have attached some additional stats .
      One is a screenshot of DMT 8.05 with the sky"netgear router supplied ,original firmware This clearly shows the connection to be interleaved at depth 64/8, which the dynamode and it's own DMT support. The only dissenting stat is the mognuts obtained stats from the sky box. Line 6 clearly states "fast" as there is no other reference to interleave or the figures 64/8 I can only assume that the fast relates to an inferred interleave of 1.
      The second lot are a detailed log of the dynamode negotiation sequence at the end this clearly shows the interleave successfully negotiated at 64/8.
      From this it is my belief that the line is interleaved to the figures in question, I also believe that this explains why the ping times are now almost double, why the download speeds sre effectivly half of what they were previously and why despite the stats good quality I can never get beyond 10.5 ish speed.

      What it doesn't explain is why the T2 guy was so insistent that the line was sync'd at 15323 and that's what I should be getting anything else was due to malware on my system and backing that by the cached pages in netstat (unfortunately its many years since I retired and have used netstat) as proof of malware, he also worrying said it was a method they used regularly to highlight malware issues.

      Also what I find disconcerting that the quite readily obtainable sky box stats should infer no interleave. This is a potentially serious firmware issue as the user is deprived of the true status of their connection.
      In the "Kitz" post it states "BT state that interleaving has been "shown to significantly improve error performance and stability of marginal lines".
      but it also gives the downside for connections .I also found this "The interleaved path of ADSL has value primarily for the transport of highly compressed video streams, where relatively low bit error rates can cause substantial impairments to the received picture. The fast path is preferred for both data transmissions and voice over DSL."

      So you can see why a company heading to mass iptv would prefer an interleaved connection, but has the firmware been written to conceal the fact and how can a 16Mb service be advertised when even on a "good" the max achievable will be 10-11 (60% of advertised)

      Am I now totally paranoid (flashbacks again "I'll save you sarge"


      Can't get the doc file to attach so hers a pasted version
      Jan 1 00:00:28 user info kernel: br0: port 1(eth0) entering forwarding state
      Jan 1 00:00:28 user info kernel: device nas_0_35 left promiscuous mode
      Jan 1 00:00:28 user info kernel: br0: port 2(nas_0_35) entering disabled state
      Jan 1 00:00:28 user info kernel: device nas_0_35 entered promiscuous mode
      Jan 1 00:00:28 user info kernel: br0: port 2(nas_0_35) entering learning state
      Jan 1 00:00:28 user info kernel: br0: topology change detected, propagating
      Jan 1 00:00:28 user info kernel: br0: port 2(nas_0_35) entering forwarding state
      Jan 1 00:00:28 user crit kernel: ADSL link up, interleaved, us=764, ds=15323
      Jan 1 00:00:28 user warn kernel: ATM Soft SAR: ATM link connected.
      Jan 1 00:00:31 daemon notice pppd[279]: pppd 2.4.1 started by admin, uid 0




      Other strange bit is the time date looks like default to me ???
      Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Interleave value 64? (stat report)-dmtnetgear.jpg  

    9. #18
      Isitme's Avatar
      Isitme is offline Sky User Moderator
      Exchange: Bannockburn
      Broadband ISP: Sky Broadband Unlimited
      Router: Sky Hub SR102
      Sky TV: Sky+ HD
      Join Date
      Dec 2006
      Location
      Central Scotland
      Posts
      33,892
      Thanks
      63
      Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,589 Posts

      Re: Interleave value 64? (stat report)

      Just a small point ref your concern about the time/date. Have you checked that the time/zone is being properly displayed in the router?

    10. #19
      geo48's Avatar
      geo48 is offline Sky User Member
      Exchange: lancaster
      Broadband ISP: waiting for max
      Router:
      Sky TV:
      Join Date
      Jun 2007
      Posts
      21
      Thanks
      0
      Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

      Re: Interleave value 64? (stat report)

      Yep pasted here
      Schedule

      Days:
      Every Day
      Sunday
      Monday
      Tuesday
      Wednesday
      Thursday
      Friday
      Saturday

      Time of day: (use 24-hour clock)
      All Day
      Start Time Hour Minute
      End Time Hour Minute

      Time Zone
      Adjust for Daylight Savings Time
      Use this NTP Server ...

      Current Time: 2007-06-19 21:11:20

      Must admit you had me thinking as I've had this and dynamode on off dmt connected etc and to be honest I've just about had it, spent all weekend chasing none existing malware and just had this in other thread

      yes i do work ************** and yes we would get the sack if we were caught putting customers on fast path - even though it would appear to solve a lot of issues...

      we can try and tweak line configs but putting someone on Fast at the risk of my job is just not worth it, regardless of what the public thinks


      I respect what the guy is saying that's why I've cut some bits out hopefully not create flak for him. What is really bugging there are so many varying opinions about interleave, it does create latency, my pings have doubled and up/download sppeds halved when compared to the 8128 connection I had previously and I can only reach 60-65% of sync speed, it may well be other factors but nowhere was it stated that this was an interleaved service (will admit probably wouldn't have fully understood the implications to start with and would probably not have affected my decision to "try" sky but this has been a real slog to find out what I have so far, and why does the sky firmware report the channel as "fast" I have already had issues with the accounts people and was exonerated there in fact the incentives in recompense offered to come back were most generous and I was prepared to accept that as a one off, but this firmware issue seems to run deep when the staff are threatened with dismissal for putting people on fast, it makes one wonder with the iptv race how far are some companies prepared to go?

    11. #20
      Saturday's Avatar
      Saturday is offline Sky User Super Mod
      Exchange:
      Broadband ISP: Sky Broadband Unlimited Pro
      Router: Sky Hub SR102
      Sky TV: Sky+HD box
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Posts
      6,085
      Thanks
      20
      Thanked 51 Times in 47 Posts

      Re: Interleave value 64? (stat report)

      You're chasing the wrong solution to your problem. Being on an interleaved connection is not causing your slow throughput. Think about it: even if you don't accept the technical reasons why interleave isn't the problem, the vast majority of Sky's customers (i.e. hundreds of thousands) are on interleave. How many have this problem? You, and just a couple of others that I've heard of. For the others an exchange/exchange equipment problem looks the likely cause.

      However, whatever the cause turns out to be (even if it is some freakish interleave issue) only Sky T3 have any chance of sorting this for you. I can see you are upset and frustrated but you'll have to persevere with the Sky fault resolution process.

     

     
    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

    Tags for this Thread

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •  
    SkyUser - Copyright © 2006-2014. SatDish and NewsreadeR | SkyUser is in no way affiliated with Sky Broadband / BSkyB
    RIPA NOTICE: NO CONSENT IS GIVEN FOR INTERCEPTION OF PAGE TRANSMISSION