Administrators Netduma Iain Posted June 9, 2015 Administrators Share Posted June 9, 2015 yes it would to google please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 with 1.4mB/s D and 2.6kB/s U loads [my son knew i had started a download while playing battlefield 4.] Microsoft Windows [Version 6.3.9600] © 2013 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. C:\Users\5cents>ping 8.8.8.8 Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=1864ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=1136ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=1263ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=1818ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 1136ms, Maximum = 1864ms, Average = 1520ms C:\Users\5cents>ping 192.168.0.1 Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 0ms C:\Users\5cents>ping 192.168.100.1 Pinging 192.168.100.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Ping statistics for 192.168.100.1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 0ms C:\Users\5cents>ping 8.8.8.8 Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=263ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=652ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=540ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=876ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 263ms, Maximum = 876ms, Average = 582ms C:\Users\5cents>ping 8.8.8.8 Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=1051ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=1111ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=991ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=1029ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 991ms, Maximum = 1111ms, Average = 1045ms C:\Users\5cents>ping 192.168.0.1 Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms C:\Users\5cents>ping 192.168.100.1 Pinging 192.168.100.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63 Request timed out. Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Ping statistics for 192.168.100.1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 0ms C:\Users\5cents>ping 192.168.100.1 Pinging 192.168.100.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Ping statistics for 192.168.100.1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms C:\Users\5cents>ping 192.168.100.1 Pinging 192.168.100.1 with 32 bytes of data: Request timed out. Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Ping statistics for 192.168.100.1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms C:\Users\5cents>tracert 8.8.8.8 Tracing route to google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms 1 ms <1 ms R1.lan [192.168.0.1] 2 * * * Request timed out. 3 1116 ms 1070 ms 1131 ms dtr01ahvlnc-tge-0-1-0-3.ahvl.nc.charter.com [96. 34.67.49] 4 1169 ms 1161 ms 1136 ms crr01ahvlnc-bue-20.ahvl.nc.charter.com [96.34.93 .250] 5 871 ms 877 ms 1183 ms crr11gnvlsc-bue-10.gnvl.sc.charter.com [96.34.93 .243] 6 1116 ms 1071 ms * bbr01gnvlsc-bue-3.gnvl.sc.charter.com [96.34.2.1 12] 7 1042 ms 1095 ms 1311 ms bbr01spbgsc-bue-1.spbg.sc.charter.com [96.34.0.4 2] 8 * 481 ms 839 ms bbr02atlnga-bue-4.atln.ga.charter.com [96.34.0.4 0] 9 1068 ms 1148 ms 973 ms prr01atlnga-bue-3.atln.ga.charter.com [96.34.3.1 9] 10 991 ms 1003 ms 1205 ms 72.14.220.17 11 1117 ms 1195 ms 1118 ms 209.85.243.239 12 * 1105 ms 1269 ms 66.249.95.97 13 967 ms 1125 ms 1224 ms google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8] Trace complete. so <1ms to R1, <1ms [and some loss] to modem [192.168.100.1], LOTS of delay to google.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 that was from the computer with utorrent. checking some other devices now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 download hit 2.0mB/s, all other devices lost connection. i had to lower it to 500kB/s to bring other devices back online here is the test from another machine Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601] Copyright © 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. downloads not running. C:\>ping 8.8.8.8 Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=55 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 23ms, Average = 20ms downloads running: C:\>ping 8.8.8.8 Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data: Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss), C:\>ping 192.168.0.1 Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms C:\>ping 192.168.100.1 Pinging 192.168.100.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Ping statistics for 192.168.100.1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms C:\> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 here is a tracert with the downloads throttled to 500kB/s Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601] Copyright © 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. C:\>tracert 8.8.8.8 Tracing route to google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms R1.lan [192.168.0.1] 2 * * * Request timed out. 3 270 ms 255 ms 230 ms dtr01ahvlnc-tge-0-1-0-3.ahvl.nc.charter.com [96. 34.67.49] 4 87 ms 51 ms 44 ms crr01ahvlnc-bue-20.ahvl.nc.charter.com [96.34.93 .250] 5 325 ms 377 ms 298 ms crr11gnvlsc-bue-10.gnvl.sc.charter.com [96.34.93 .243] 6 57 ms 68 ms 92 ms bbr01gnvlsc-bue-3.gnvl.sc.charter.com [96.34.2.1 12] 7 56 ms 31 ms 31 ms bbr01spbgsc-bue-1.spbg.sc.charter.com [96.34.0.4 2] 8 58 ms 39 ms 23 ms bbr02atlnga-bue-4.atln.ga.charter.com [96.34.0.4 0] 9 53 ms 58 ms 64 ms prr01atlnga-bue-3.atln.ga.charter.com [96.34.3.1 9] 10 123 ms 165 ms 179 ms 72.14.220.17 11 17 ms 37 ms 25 ms 209.85.243.239 12 72 ms 82 ms 76 ms 66.249.95.97 13 27 ms 18 ms 31 ms google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8] Trace complete. C:\> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 from router diagnostics Ping PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=0 ttl=56 time=17.013 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=1 ttl=56 time=18.283 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=2 ttl=56 time=16.573 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=3 ttl=56 time=17.598 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=4 ttl=56 time=15.918 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=5 ttl=56 time=17.706 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=6 ttl=56 time=18.532 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=7 ttl=56 time=17.247 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=8 ttl=56 time=18.122 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=9 ttl=56 time=16.251 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=10 ttl=56 time=23.962 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=11 ttl=56 time=17.135 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=12 ttl=56 time=17.476 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=13 ttl=56 time=18.566 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=14 ttl=56 time=19.953 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=15 ttl=56 time=18.448 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=16 ttl=56 time=16.208 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=17 ttl=56 time=17.487 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=18 ttl=56 time=16.887 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=19 ttl=56 time=16.987 ms --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 15.918/17.817/23.962 ms Trace traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 * * * 2 96.34.67.49 8.700 ms 9.052 ms 11.936 ms 3 96.34.93.250 9.592 ms 15.953 ms 9.617 ms 4 96.34.93.243 11.601 ms 13.071 ms 25.093 ms 5 96.34.2.112 31.454 ms 15.598 ms 15.772 ms 6 96.34.0.42 18.224 ms 15.828 ms 15.882 ms 7 96.34.0.40 20.662 ms 23.483 ms 23.592 ms 8 96.34.3.19 16.937 ms 17.039 ms 24.581 ms 9 72.14.220.17 17.494 ms 17.094 ms 18.311 ms 10 209.85.243.239 18.480 ms 72.14.235.193 19.134 ms 209.85.240.239 15.578 ms 11 66.249.94.151 20.401 ms 66.249.95.101 33.747 ms 18.479 ms 12 8.8.8.8 16.732 ms 18.166 ms 15.519 ms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 oh, i had changed my router IP to 192.168.0.1 instead of 88, i assumed you meant for me to ping the router with the changed IP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 so at 2mB/s i am using 25% of my network download. that brings everything down unable to connect or load a page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Silly question time but you sure your ISP isn't throttling you once torrents kick in? I've seen it happen before so only a guess as it's not the router going to a standstill it's your connection being saturated it looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zennon Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 What do you see when you just use your isp modem/router on its own, no duma inline and test using torrents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 What do you see when you just use your isp modem/router on its own, no duma inline and test using torrents?Good idea Zennon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zennon Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Brought on by your question Buds . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Netduma Iain Posted June 10, 2015 Administrators Share Posted June 10, 2015 this sounds very much like the dodgy modem bug. Can you message a member from Cox called odog here. Out of the kindess of his own heart he investigated a similar problem and found that the modem had a bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 What do you see when you just use your isp modem/router on its own, no duma inline and test using torrents? i only have standalone modem, my other routers [cisco and netgear] work fine even when running 4mB/s on the torrents. i cant imagine that my ISP throttles as they say they dont. as of right now, i have to throttle my utorrent client to 500kB/s for internet to stay up. i have never had to do that before. so i know its not the modem itself. its something between the modem and the R1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 the only other thing i can think of which i dont really want to do is put the R1 onto another router that i have and connect my media center to that router and the rest onto the R1. but honestly, the R1 should just work without the need to cascade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 Silly question time but you sure your ISP isn't throttling you once torrents kick in? I've seen it happen before so only a guess as it's not the router going to a standstill it's your connection being saturated it looks like. 25% of my network load shouldnt saturate the connection... and at that point my congestion controls should kick in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Netduma Iain Posted June 10, 2015 Administrators Share Posted June 10, 2015 Hi pro, believe me the bug is confusing & very annoying but its 100% a bug with the modem odog confirmed it. He hasn't explained to me exactly what the bug so I can't explain it either. I assume he's under an NDA with Motorola/Cisco. But please try contact him and he will hopefully push out upgrade to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 Unfortunately if the 2 other routers I own work perfectly fine, also the issue in the other thread isn't my problem... I can run 4+ HD streams as the same time with no slowdown. Something else is at play here. If I can use my Cisco and netgear in same setup and I don't experience the slowdown it seems it would be the R1 and not my modem. Also it is not the same model in the other thread, however the modem I use is probably one of the most used cable modems in US. Is there any other troubleshooting I can do? I have "special tools" I can monitor my network with but would need to know what to look for if anyone can help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Netduma Iain Posted June 11, 2015 Administrators Share Posted June 11, 2015 Hi Procreate, Firstly its hard to communicate tone, I'm not being defensive here I've just addressed this annoying problem before. Having said that I'll continue, I fully understand your logic because I found it very confusing myself, but here are the key points ( number 1 being the most important ): The ping rises at the modem no where else The netduma works on many many modems worldwide Internet network nodes are meant to be compliant with each other to the standards specified in RFCs For some reason those modems have a bug in them that odog found that makes the ping go erratic & the throughput drop. Did you try contact odog? He will send you the fix. Believe me I understand where you're coming from but the facts of the matter is we've already identified this issue and found the problem, the aforementioned bug in the firmware of those modems. I'm going to get Alex & Scott two other people with this issue to reply here as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex49H Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Hello Pro My ISP is Cox and back in December I upgraded my Astros/ Motorola SB6141 to the SB6183. I thought this would be best for the service I am paying for Ultimate. About the end of Feb while watching Netflix it began to buffer mid movie. I rebooted everything: Modem, Netgear Router, R1 and Xbox One. Everything back to normal. But a month later it started happening more frequently and not even rebooting helped at times. Per Iain and Odog it is a bug in the Motorola modem so Odog sent me a different modem from Netgear to use until they can patch the bug. So thanks to Odog, Scott and Iain for helping me out. I haven't encountered that problem since I started using the Netgear Modem so it definitely is the Motorola. A Youtuber named Capp00 who is in networking said earlier this year that he dislikes Arris because their product always has problems. Hope this helps. Hope to hear from Odog too and see what he has been able to do or find out. He doesn't frequent the site much but his help and everyone else has been God sent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 You aren't coming across as defensive. Hope I am coming across as confused. Works fine on router A and B but not C... See my logic? I will try and get in touch with odog but I believe only ISP can push firmware to modems... At least I don't see anywhere in its panel to do so. I just want to figure this out so I don't have to cascade my setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilstone87 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Well guy's this problem from what I can see affects a couple different Motorola modem model's. As they use the same kind of chipset, some can bond more channel's, and such. However it's still the same brand of chipset being used within the modem's themselves. This issue is very tricky, and it's hard to get a hold of, and understanding of. But from the data I collected myself, the netduma router may send its data in a bit of a different pattern compared to other routers. However the modem itself should be able to handle it without issue. I'm not 100% on this, but I think the netduma router manages to cause a memory leak within the modem. So once that memory leak is exposed within the modem, guess what? Pings go to crap, as does your connection. Only way to resolve the issue, is to reboot your modem every time it happens. I troubleshooted this issue for over a month straight myself. I would disconnect the R1 once this issue started, direct connection to the modem, and the issue would continue to happen until a reboot of the modem was done. So the R1 does indeed cause the modem to go into this problematic state, however that doesn't mean the router itself is to blame. In this case, there is a bug within the firmware for some of these modems. I was able to send odog my R1 to troubleshoot with the same modem i'm currently using which is a Motorola SB6183. He was able to get the issue to occur, and sent the proper data back to Motorola to correct this problem in a future firmware build. The thing is, there is no real time table for a new firmware from Motorola. It could still be several months from this point in time. Then once they give the firmware over to the ISP's, it could be another month, or so of internal testing before they feel safe releasing it to there customers. Also odog only works for Cox, and if you're with another ISP with this same issue. You will have to take this up with them on getting it resolved. There is a little work around to this, and that would be connecting the R1 into your previous router, and only run your gaming consoles threw the R1, and keep them machines from using steady amounts of large data. The other option is buy another modem, that doesn't use this chipset as a lot of the motorola use the same one. I think odog sent me a Motorola SB6141, and I owned 3 other motorola modems. However only the SB6141 used a different chipset. All three of mine, used the same one, and all had this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Netduma Iain Posted June 11, 2015 Administrators Share Posted June 11, 2015 Sure believe me I'm very confused I wish odog would(or more likely could as its probably legal) tell me exactly what the bug is. As I agree with you the Netduma must obviously be doing something if the other routers don't do it BUT I think the modem handles the traffic incorrectly so its actually a bug with the modem that the Netduma makes visible. Hopefully Scott will come in here as he knows odog personally and introduces me to him personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 Well at least I am not having as bad a problem as the other thread. Mine is manageable, just not optimal. I wonder if it's the ddwrt platform it's built upon? I will do some more checking now that I am back home. My current firmware is SB_KOMODO-1.0.6.6-SCM00-NOSH now that I am able to access my network if that is of any use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 No. I don't have to reboot. I simply have to throttle back my download to 500kB/s and everything comes right back up to speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.