cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
939 Views
Message 31 of 42

Re: Noise Margin Reduced.

Go to solution

@RogerB wrote:
Don't shoot the messenger ... but there's an irony to all this. The implementation of G.INP for those that can have it only maybe a "bonus" in part. My thinking is this .... yes you may get to sync higher, at roughly 3mbits for every 20 mbits of "original" sync rate you previously had, but in real terms performance wise you'd not notice the difference in real terms. What's important is THROUGHPUT not sync speed rates. You can have a higher sync rate, but if the line can't sustain the data flow without DLM increasing the error correction rates to counterbalance the effects ... it means little, unless your line is in pristine condition with little or no added impulse noise or REIN. So what's the point? In my mind it serves only to give a minority an extra bit of performance from connections that are already high bandwidth capable, and to satisfy those who think the highest possible sync speed is the golden fleece ... when in fact that's not the case, and given the laws of physics, that cannot be changed and never will be. The prominent word is THROUGHPUT ... that's what counts most. High bandwidth data will only traverse copper wires with complex algorithms ... and you can never get something for nothing, unless of course you are willing to flood the backhaul with corrupted data and that'll not happen. The only real way of reducing error rates, increasing linespeed is by massive investment in national FTTP infrastructure, funded by government. Get rid of the wires and you get rid of the problems. Tiime for government to wake up to that fact.

I can't think of an appropriate comment at the moment, but totally agree with your post. Smiley Indifferent

If I said what I really think:..... I would be defrocked..

It's still the actual hardware and installation which takes priority .....nuts and bolts. There's no amount of software correction which can be a substitute.

Sometimes wish I had been a mechanical engineer, not electrical.

As for electrical noise compensation......well? ???

There's a lot of money to be made by some.

 

0 Ratings
Highlighted
Guru
937 Views
Message 32 of 42

Re: Noise Margin Reduced.

Go to solution

@licquorice wrote:

G.Inp will have absolutely no impact on a perfect line, it doesn't increase speed, it restores speed lost to error correction. Throughput will be improved if G.Inp is implemented on a bursty noisy line as the error correction will be performed at the physical layer as and when needed rather than continuously at the TCP layer as before.


Correct ... but in reality the same result ... software fixing hardware problems, and if it doesn't add overhead, it has to add latency, even though it's done at the physical layer.
0 Ratings
Highlighted
Expert
785 Views
Message 33 of 42

Re: Noise Margin Reduced.

Go to solution

A couple of questiions have sprung to mind about this.

1. There is mention of reboots every now and again, so does this mean that I need to have a BT Hub installed for this 'potential' change to occur.

2. Will the cabinet data be changed to reflect any increase in speed that may have been acheived.

 

David

 

0 Ratings
Highlighted
Aspiring Contributor
740 Views
Message 34 of 42

Re: Noise Margin Reduced.

Go to solution
Further to davids comment. I'm using a Vigor 130, do I need to use the HH6 to be able to drop to 3db or will this also work with the 130?
0 Ratings
Highlighted
Sage
734 Views
Message 35 of 42

Re: Noise Margin Reduced.

Go to solution

@krisscott1990 wrote:
Further to davids comment. I'm using a Vigor 130, do I need to use the HH6 to be able to drop to 3db or will this also work with the 130?

You should not need to do anything. SNR will only drop to 3dB if your line can support it. It matters not which router you use.

 

The same goes for @DavidCo

0 Ratings
Highlighted
Expert
710 Views
Message 36 of 42

Re: Noise Margin Reduced.

Go to solution

Thank you

My post was raised due to the mentiion of a 2 day reboot cycle, couldn't get my head round that one?

 

0 Ratings
Highlighted
Sage
704 Views
Message 37 of 42

Re: Noise Margin Reduced.

Go to solution

@DavidCo wrote:

Thank you

My post was raised due to the mentiion of a 2 day reboot cycle, couldn't get my head round that one?

 


That's an ISP supplied router problem. You won't experience that as such, you may wish to reboot to re-sync occasionally.

 

It's not necessary though.

0 Ratings
Highlighted
Expert
685 Views
Message 38 of 42

Re: Noise Margin Reduced.

Go to solution

Not looking forward to it though!

My download graph, atm, is a steep rise, smooth/flat and steep fall.

I don't want the 'jagged' stuffSmiley Sad

 

0 Ratings
Highlighted
670 Views
Message 39 of 42

Re: Noise Margin Reduced.

Go to solution

@DavidCo wrote:

Thank you

My post was raised due to the mentiion of a 2 day reboot cycle, couldn't get my head round that one?

 


The BT hub reboots every 2 days in the snr threshold reduction process. Mine took 3 days.

It reduces the threshold gradually.

Suspect that's the same for another router.

And .......if the router supports g.inp, it helps a bit, .............if it's enabled at your cabinet.

0 Ratings
Highlighted
Expert
662 Views
Message 40 of 42

Re: Noise Margin Reduced.

Go to solution

OK, I'm hooked.

How do I tell if the cabinet is g.inp my 3rd party is.

I think it's a H96? (Kitz photos)

 

 

0 Ratings