dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9663
share rss forum feed


CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA
kudos:77

Re: SB6120 1.0.2.4 Speed Concerns

It appears that Motorola has addressed a concern related to speeds over long distances with firmware version 1.0.2.4. At some point yet to be determined a new firmware revision should be made available.


lilstone87

join:2009-04-09
Portsmouth, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

Well this is nothing new lol. Every firmware they have released so far for this modem, has had its problems. It would be nice if they were alittle quicker to have these problems fixed. It will probably be a good month from now, before a newer firmware is released.



CoxTOC1

join:2007-05-15
Newport News, VA
kudos:9
reply to CoxTech1

Also because of the issues with the 1.0.2.4 (and 1.0.2.0) firmware we are no longer going to enforce it in all markets. Until the new firmware is ready for deployment we can downgrade the firmware to the 1.0.1.7 on a case by case basis. Please PM either myself or CoxTECH1 with your modems MAC address if you are interested in going back to the 1.0.1.7 firmware. But please remember that the 1.0.1.7 firmware does have it's own set of problems that the 1..0.2.4 (and 1.0.2.0) firmware fixes.


lilstone87

join:2009-04-09
Portsmouth, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

said by CoxTOC1:

Also because of the issues with the 1.0.2.4 (and 1.0.2.0) firmware we are no longer going to enforce it in all markets. Until the new firmware is ready for deployment we can downgrade the firmware to the 1.0.1.7 on a case by case basis. Please PM either myself or CoxTECH1 with your modems MAC address if you are interested in going back to the 1.0.1.7 firmware. But please remember that the 1.0.1.7 firmware does have it's own set of problems that the 1..0.2.4 (and 1.0.2.0) firmware fixes.
Well since we are on this subject, what kind of problems have been found when using the 1.0.1.7 firmware? It would be nice to know what problems people might deal with, with going back to that firmware.


CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA
kudos:77

1 edit

If I'm not mistaken the Motorola change log up to version 1.0.2.4 was leaked somewhere in the Comcast section but it appears to be written in Geek. Perhaps if you ask odog See Profile very nicely he can be persuaded to give up that information.


lilstone87

join:2009-04-09
Portsmouth, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

said by CoxTech1:

If I'm not mistaken the Motorola change log up to version 1.0.2.4 was leaked somewhere in the Comcast section but it appears to be written in Geek. Perhaps if you ask odog See Profile very nicely he can be persuaded to give up that information.
Well here is the link to the info about the 1.0.2.4 firmware. »New SB6120 firmware SB6120-1.0.2.4-SCM01-NOSH.NNDMN

m8trix

join:2003-12-24
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to CoxTech1

if i remember correctly 1.0.1.7 had reboot issues and excessive errors in the logs



odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:14

1.0.1.7 was less stable, but did not have the now verified speed issues of 1.0.2.4.



60373562

join:2004-04-13
Glendale, AZ

1 edit
reply to CoxTech1

lol @ CoxTech1. You won't release proprietary information. But you (as a representative of Cox) (who also has NDAs with Motorola) are encouraging users to obtain proprietary information.

Secondly...

Release Date
December 8, 2009 -- SB6120-1.0.2.4-SCM01

ROFL, 5 months later is better than never I guess.



jsimmons
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-24
Falls Church, VA
reply to m8trix

said by m8trix:

if i remember correctly 1.0.1.7 had reboot issues and excessive errors in the logs
At least for me, 1.0.1.7 is running just fine; I still have it. I seldom see any errors in the log.
--
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler."- Albert Einstein


BryanInPHX
Premium
join:2001-03-06
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

1 edit
reply to CoxTech1

Just downgraded to SB6120-1.0.1.7-SCM00-NOSH, for the second time and for me an Immediate noticeable improvement in speeds, especially for this time of day. Premiere HSI.
All three Firmware versions 1.0.1.7, 1.0.1.8 and 1.0.2.4 have been 100% stable for me. With no extra log entries, or reboots.



--
Cox Premier HSI, SB6120, DIR-628, XPSP3 Pro, Win7 Toshiba Satellite A505-S6973
SA8240HDC DVR, SARA v1.90.5.a113, My Moxi purchase on Hold for now due to SDV...
External eSATA DVR Expander, WD Caviar Black WD1001FALS, Direct Connection



CulDeSac

join:2007-12-01
Chandler, AZ
reply to CoxTech1

On SB6120-1.0.2.4-SCM01-NOSH

Speed looks good...


phxuser

join:2010-03-16
Scottsdale, AZ

Comcast is downloading the new firmware today!

Restarted and got a firmware update for my 6120 today, seems it was built out about a month ago.

Model Name: SB6120
Vendor Name: Motorola
Firmware Name: SB612X-1.0.3.0-SCM03-NOSH
Boot Version: PSPU-Boot 1.0.0.4m1
Hardware Version: 3.0
Serial Number:
Firmware Build Time: Apr 6 2010 16:34:56

Config file for Blast downloaded as normal

May 05 2010 19:02:00 6-Notice E102.0 SW Download INIT - Via Config file d11_m_sb6120_speedtier_c01.cm

Speed tests are still the same, no probs.


daveinpoway
Premium
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
kudos:2

After having been burned with the 1.0.2.0 and 1.0.2.4 versions, and having to exchange the updated modems at the store in order to return to 1.0.1.8, I will wait to see positive reports on the 1.0.3.0 firmware from a number of Cox forum members before I will take a chance on it.

I would be more willing to take a gamble on this new version if Motorola would provide the 1.0.1.8 firmware to Cox, so that the modem could easily be restored to that version. Having to drive over to the store and stand in the exchange line gets discouraging after awhile.



BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
reply to CoxTech1

I'll volunteer to test it. I should note that I haven't had any issues with 1.0.2.4 though, my speed is great, although we're still a DOCSIS 2.0 market.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition."
Beyond AM. Beyond FM. XM



BryanInPHX
Premium
join:2001-03-06
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

1 edit
reply to daveinpoway

said by daveinpoway:

After having been burned with the 1.0.2.0 and 1.0.2.4 versions, and having to exchange the updated modems at the store in order to return to 1.0.1.8, I will wait to see positive reports on the 1.0.3.0 firmware from a number of Cox forum members before I will take a chance on it.

I would be more willing to take a gamble on this new version if Motorola would provide the 1.0.1.8 firmware to Cox, so that the modem could easily be restored to that version. Having to drive over to the store and stand in the exchange line gets discouraging after awhile.
Dave, If you are still at 1.0.1.8, Stay there.

Otherwise, I think you will be pleased with the downgrade to 1.0.1.7, You should ask for it and give it a shot, if you are at 1.0.2.4.

It (1.0.1.7) restored most all the speed of 1.0.1.8.

And, so far I have had no reboots or connectivity issues with any of these three firmwares, 1.0.1.7, 1.0.1.8 and 1.0.2.4
--
Cox Premier HSI, SB6120, DIR-628, XPSP3 Pro, Win7 Toshiba Satellite A505-S6973
SA8240HDC DVR, SARA v1.90.5.a113, My Moxi purchase on Hold for now due to SDV...
External eSATA DVR Expander, WD Caviar Black WD1001FALS, Direct Connection

daveinpoway
Premium
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
kudos:2

I am presently using 1.0.1.8. The SB6120's which were updated to 1.0.2.0 and 1.0.2.4 have been returned to the store. As I indicated, if Cox had 1.0.1.8 available, I would have asked them to send this out to restore the updated modems to the as-shipped firmware.

If I see enough positive reports about 1.0.3.0, I will consider getting it. Right now, I am not yearning for it, as the firmware I have seems to be doing the job quite well.

The only possible thing that I can imagine 1.0.3.0 doing for me is solving a slowdown I have been having since April 22, when the local Cox system changed from 3 bonded downstream channels to (briefly) 1 channel, and then to 2 channels. I have been discussing this with SDKiwi. At this point, I do not know if the later firmware will even do anything regarding this issue, but it is possible that the newer firmware is more compatible with the modified system.


lilstone87

join:2009-04-09
Portsmouth, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

Well Motorola has released the 1.0.3.0, now its just a matter of time for cox to test it, and push it to us 6120 users. Here is alittle info on the firmware.

Model Name: SB6120
Vendor Name: Motorola
Firmware Name: SB612X-1.0.3.0-SCM03-NOSH
Boot Version: PSPU-Boot 1.0.0.4m1
Hardware Version: 3.0
Serial Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Firmware Build Time: Apr 6 2010 16:34:56


NeoMinder

join:2006-06-06
Phoenix, AZ
reply to CoxTech1

I hope we get an update on the Cox testing of this firmware. I'm looking forward to the slowdown issue being fixed.


lilstone87

join:2009-04-09
Portsmouth, VA
kudos:3

Well Odog said it would probably be a few weeks before it got released with them testing it. So if everything works out like it should, We should know something by the end of next week for sure.


chuckkk

join:2001-11-10
Warner Robins, GA
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

Cox (middle GA) is still at at 2.0 with no channel bonding--
I tested speeds with the older and newer SB 6120 loads and saw no speed differences that could be attributed to the versions. Instead, network behavior inside and outside the cox network seems to be the major factor. Not to mention that from midnight to early morning, the network has a pattern of instability, likely due to "tweak & Tune" going on. This morning at about 3:30 AM, the SB6120 went nuts, with multiple restarts, partial startup sequences that failed with the #4 LED flashing, than rebooting again. The initial indication when the sequence started was partial then complete loss of DNS service, followed by no connectivity to anything.


lilstone87

join:2009-04-09
Portsmouth, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

said by chuckkk:

Cox (middle GA) is still at at 2.0 with no channel bonding--
I tested speeds with the older and newer SB 6120 loads and saw no speed differences that could be attributed to the versions. Instead, network behavior inside and outside the cox network seems to be the major factor. Not to mention that from midnight to early morning, the network has a pattern of instability, likely due to "tweak & Tune" going on. This morning at about 3:30 AM, the SB6120 went nuts, with multiple restarts, partial startup sequences that failed with the #4 LED flashing, than rebooting again. The initial indication when the sequence started was partial then complete loss of DNS service, followed by no connectivity to anything.
Well from 12am to 6am is cox's time for doing whatever they want to there network. So yes what you seen is normal, and they were just making adjustments to something, possible adding stuff, and maybe to move to D3 sometime soon for you.


jasonrm

@cox.net
reply to CoxTech1

I'm really getting annoyed with 1.0.2.4… when I first setup the modem I didn't notice any issues like I'm having now which is constant (lasts a minute or two every 30/60 minutes) disconnects due to what seems to be T3 timeouts.
No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
TLV-11 - unrecognized OID;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
ToD request sent - No Response received;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Cable Modem Reboot due to T4 timeout ;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Missing Mandatory MDD TLV on primary DS Channel;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Unicast Maintenance Ranging attempted - No response - Retries exhausted;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Ranging Request Retries exhausted;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
TLV-11 - unrecognized OID;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
ToD request sent - No Response received;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Missing Mandatory MDD TLV on primary DS Channel;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Cable Modem Reboot due to MDD Loss ;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Lost MDD Timeout;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Loss of Sync;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
TLV-11 - unrecognized OID;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
ToD request sent - No Response received;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
Missing Mandatory MDD TLV on primary DS Channel;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
 

Pinging the Qwest DNS, though results are the same pinging the nearest Cox router, I experience complete packet loss during the times that the T3 errors are showing up in the log.
...
64 bytes from 205.171.2.65: icmp_seq=917 ttl=54 time=27.309 ms
64 bytes from 205.171.2.65: icmp_seq=918 ttl=54 time=27.606 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 919
Request timeout for icmp_seq 920
Request timeout for icmp_seq 921
Request timeout for icmp_seq 922
Request timeout for icmp_seq 923
Request timeout for icmp_seq 924
Request timeout for icmp_seq 925
Request timeout for icmp_seq 926
Request timeout for icmp_seq 927
Request timeout for icmp_seq 928
64 bytes from 205.171.2.65: icmp_seq=929 ttl=54 time=27.938 ms
64 bytes from 205.171.2.65: icmp_seq=930 ttl=54 time=31.946 ms
64 bytes from 205.171.2.65: icmp_seq=931 ttl=54 time=27.224 ms
64 bytes from 205.171.2.65: icmp_seq=932 ttl=54 time=27.041 ms
64 bytes from 205.171.2.65: icmp_seq=933 ttl=54 time=31.286 ms
64 bytes from 205.171.2.65: icmp_seq=934 ttl=54 time=27.316 ms
^C
--- 205.171.2.65 ping statistics ---
935 packets transmitted, 886 packets received, 5.2% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 25.548/28.086/241.361/7.310 ms
 

Signal looks fine… [click for larger], and I can make the upstream signal go up to 40-50 by inserting one, two or three Arcom step attenuators so it's not that which is causing problems.


I'm really hopeful that 1.0.3.0 or whatever will be pushed to my router soon as this is driving me crazy.

Firmware Name: SB6120-1.0.2.4-SCM01-NOSH
Boot Version: PSPU-Boot 1.0.0.4m1
 

m8trix

join:2003-12-24
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to CoxTech1

pm a tech here to down grade your firmware to a previous version


jasonrm

join:2010-05-15
Sierra Vista, AZ

1 edit

I'd rather not PM someone out of the blue… I'm sure they get enough of that as it is. Rather I'll wait till one of the techs asks for my MAC.


lilstone87

join:2009-04-09
Portsmouth, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

2 edits

said by jasonrm:

I'd rather not PM someone out of the blue… I'm sure they get enough of that as it is. Rather I'll wait till one of the techs asks for my MAC.
Well the techs on this site help because they want to, and they don't get paid to do this. So if you can't take the time to send one your mac address, I think thats a problem, that you need to fix. They have a page showing who to send that kind of info to, So its not like its hard to do.

Anyways back to the thread about this firmware, Hopefully Odog can give us a update by the end of the week, leting us know if things are going ok with the testing on this firmware.


CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA
kudos:77

It appears that 1.0.3.0 isn't going to be usable on our network. Turns out it will brick many of the 6120's being used depending on the configuration of our plant. Back to the firmware drawing board for the time being.


lilstone87

join:2009-04-09
Portsmouth, VA
kudos:3

Well this really isn't shocking with the way motorola has done most there firmwares for this modem. It will be probably another year before they get out another half way decent firmware.


daveinpoway
Premium
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
kudos:2
reply to CoxTech1

Strange that Motorola's in-house tests didn't discover this problem.



Ender3rd

join:2001-07-15
Connecticut
reply to CoxTech1

said by CoxTech1:

It appears that 1.0.3.0 isn't going to be usable on our network. Turns out it will brick many of the 6120's being used depending on the configuration of our plant. Back to the firmware drawing board for the time being.
I'm glad you guys are being careful about examining the firmware before pushing it out. My 6120 came with 1.0.1.8 which seems to work well, except for the log, which worked fine for several days after installing the modem, but now only displays one line from May 4th that never changes (shrug).
--
Politicians are afraid of anything they don't understand. Unfortunately, they don't understand anything...