|
[AZ] More Friday night node overload.....2012-01-27 19:06:40 6-Notice I401.0 TLV-11 - unrecognized OID 1970-01-01 00:01:59 4-Error D004.3 ToD request sent- No Response received 1970-01-01 00:01:56 3-Critical D003.0 DHCP WARNING - Non-critical field invalid in response. 1970-01-01 00:01:45 3-Critical R002.0 No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out (US 5) 1970-01-01 00:01:38 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:01:32 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:01:31 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:01:27 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:01:26 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:01:03 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:01:03 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:00:27 6-Notice M571.1 Ethernet link up - ready to pass packets 1970-01-01 00:00:27 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing |
|
|
Looks like your modem keeps losing SYNC whats your signal look like. |
|
|
Signal is good. Bad daily about 5 pm and worse, most symptomatic, on Friday nights starting about 5 pm. Then off and on during the weekend with it being okay early Saturday, early Sunday growing worse though the day.
Week days and early mornings its all good and quite fast actually.
I've been through several node splits and know what the run up to needing to be done looks like. It looks like what I posted.
Was hoping one of the Cox folks would actually take the initiative and get the thing done before it gets so bad the old lady down the street even notices and complains to Cox. Seems like Cox doesn't do anything until it gets to that point. |
|
jsmiddleton4 |
to jchambers28
By the way was told by one of the most wonderful and extremely helpful folks here I should just buy a new modem that can do channel bonding. That something about my expectation that Cox needs to address an overwhelmed node is unrealistic.
That person is wrong of course. As long as my modem is supported and "current" I shouldn't have to keep buying equipment to address Cox's lack of investment in the infrastructure that I help pay for every month. |
|
jsmiddleton4 |
to jchambers28
|
|
|
to jsmiddleton4
said by jsmiddleton4:By the way was told by one of the most wonderful and extremely helpful folks here I should just buy a new modem that can do channel bonding. That something about my expectation that Cox needs to address an overwhelmed node is unrealistic.
That person is wrong of course. As long as my modem is supported and "current" I shouldn't have to keep buying equipment to address Cox's lack of investment in the infrastructure that I help pay for every month. You are right, You shouldn't have to. But would you like to end all of this frustration? Sure you can wait for Cox to split the node (Months to do) Or go buy a new modem and end the frustration. Believe me, $85 is far less than the frustration I would have if I were in your situation! |
|
1 recommendation |
I'm not much for enabling dysfunctional behavior. I work in chemical dependency nursing. |
|
m8trix join:2003-12-24 Chandler, AZ |
m8trix
Member
2012-Jan-28 12:23 am
your modem losing sync and restarting has nothing to do with if a node needing to be split.when you modem loses sync usually its either a signal issue or modem issue. node capacity will effect speeds |
|
|
HossSauters A Walrus join:2000-10-05 Tulsa, OK |
to jsmiddleton4
The upstream power is whisper quiet, which might also be causing some issues. Typically, nominal levels for upstream are between 40 and 50 db, with 45 being preferred. 35 is incredibly low.
IIRC, anyway.
Oh, and M8trix is correct about the node overload. Wouldn't affect signal drop, just speed and latency, especially to the CMTS. |
|
|
to m8trix
Sorry m8... and IIRC but that is exactly the symptom that has been present for the last couple of node splits. Too much traffic to make connection and something in this area chokes. Node needs to be split.
Signal good and strong. Data flow choked during peak use times.
Only entry this morning.
2012-01-28 07:06:29 5-Warning D103.0 DHCP RENEW WARNING - Field invalid in response |
|
|
said by jsmiddleton4:Sorry m8... and IIRC but that is exactly the symptom that has been present for the last couple of node splits. Too much traffic to make connection and something in this area chokes. Node needs to be split.
Signal good and strong. Data flow choked during peak use times.
Only entry this morning.
2012-01-28 07:06:29 5-Warning D103.0 DHCP RENEW WARNING - Field invalid in response Well if you really feel this is the problem, you better be ready to stay on top of Cox's ass about having this fixed. Because you will be in a long wait for something like this to be done. I also suggest exchanging PM's on here with either one of the AZ techs' or CoxTech1 himself. Which I have a feeling there even gonna tell you your best bet is to just upgrade a D3 modem, and save yourself from more headaches. Also one of the techs could probably tell you a little more about them errors your modem is logging. |
|
|
to jsmiddleton4
said by jsmiddleton4:I'm not much for enabling dysfunctional behavior. I work in chemical dependency nursing. Then you'll understand why those of us who've advised you to get a D3 modem are now detaching with love. Best of luck! |
|
|
to jsmiddleton4
said by jsmiddleton4:That person is wrong of course. As long as my modem is supported and "current" I shouldn't have to keep buying equipment to address Cox's lack of investment in the infrastructure that I help pay for every month. You mean Cox's lack of investment in upgrading to support D3 modems to avoid having to do expensive node splits? You mean the 8 channel bonding that is now in place to ease contention issues during peak time? I find it insulting that you would blame Cox for not upgrading their infrastructure when in fact they have made major improvements to support D3, but you refuse to upgrade yours as well. Or the very fact that your modem is losing sync, has a quiet upstream power neither of which will be fixed by a node split. but I agree lets split the node because clearly that's the problem and there is no other option other in play other then to have Cox throw money down the drain. |
|
|
Slowing down starting about 3 and now this:
2012-01-28 17:11:54 6-Notice I401.0 TLV-11 - unrecognized OID 1970-01-01 00:02:09 4-Error D004.3 ToD request sent- No Response received 1970-01-01 00:02:07 3-Critical D003.0 DHCP WARNING - Non-critical field invalid in response. 1970-01-01 00:01:55 3-Critical R002.0 No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out (US 4) 1970-01-01 00:01:46 3-Critical R002.0 No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out (US 2) 1970-01-01 00:01:39 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:01:33 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:01:32 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:01:28 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:01:25 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:01:03 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:01:03 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:00:18 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:00:17 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:00:07 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:00:07 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing |
|
jsmiddleton4 |
Signals continue to be good. |
|
m8trix join:2003-12-24 Chandler, AZ |
m8trix
Member
2012-Jan-28 8:35 pm
no there not,your upstream power should be between 40-50 db with 45 being the sweet spot,you are at 36db |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2012-Jan-28 10:50 pm
said by m8trix:no there not,your upstream power should be between 40-50 db with 45 being the sweet spot,you are at 36db That downstream power is on the low side too. |
|
m8trix join:2003-12-24 Chandler, AZ |
m8trix
Member
2012-Jan-28 11:07 pm
downsteam is fine,the range is +10 to -10 so he has plenty of room |
|
pkuzma join:2010-11-24 Metairie, LA |
to jsmiddleton4
I can report that I had overloaded node problem very consistent. I was weary about upgrading to ultimate if my area was congested. But it was recommended because of the new channel bonding modem that is required for ultimate. I have not had any node overload issues with ultimate and my family lives on the internet. multiple xbox 360s with simultaneous netflix & bf3 or dual netflix + heavy laptop shopper and constant usenet. needless to say I notice immediately when I have a problem. I have not had that problem since upgrading to ultimate and new modem. so you can most likely end the overload node problem with channel bonding |
|
|
There are so many ways that we can sugar coat the topic, the OP needs to buy a new D3 modem and stop these constant stats and back-n-forth. We having been making the same recommendations for months. |
|
digiblur Premium Member join:2002-06-03 Louisiana |
to jsmiddleton4
I still don't believe in all this too low of an upstream. The CMTS and the modem decided they could hear one another at that power so it set it like that.
I once had a 25 or so on my upstream for a couple of weeks. Never had any issues with losing sync or things timing out. |
|
Dawgg1 join:2011-09-28 Chandler, AZ |
to jsmiddleton4
When are we going to be getting 4 Upstream instead of 1?
Upstream Channels Power Level Channel 1: 49.5 dBmv Channel 2: 0.0 dBmv Channel 3: 0.0 dBmv Channel 4: 0.0 dBmv |
|
|
said by Dawgg1:When are we going to be getting 4 Upstream instead of 1?
Upstream Channels Power Level Channel 1: 49.5 dBmv Channel 2: 0.0 dBmv Channel 3: 0.0 dBmv Channel 4: 0.0 dBmv
When the main people running things for cox in your market decide to put it to use. Most likely sometime this year, but I wouldn't expect to see much of this happening till around mid year or so. But we will see since everything is more of a guess, because this kind of info is kept in the dark until it goes live. Cox isn't one for letting info out regarding such until it goes live, and by then you will notice it yourself. |
|
|
AnonPhx to digiblur
Anon
2012-Jan-30 3:45 pm
to digiblur
said by digiblur:I still don't believe in all this too low of an upstream. The CMTS and the modem decided they could hear one another at that power so it set it like that.
I once had a 25 or so on my upstream for a couple of weeks. Never had any issues with losing sync or things timing out. While I wouldn't disagree with that, having a quiet upstream does mean your modem is transmitting softly and can be disrupted more easily by noise on the return path. It's not "bad" but it's something to consider(along with a D3 modem upgrade) before we're talking about node splits here. |
|
kv2009 join:2009-09-14 Kenner, LA ·Cox HSI
|
to anonn123
said by anonn123 :said by jsmiddleton4:That person is wrong of course. As long as my modem is supported and "current" I shouldn't have to keep buying equipment to address Cox's lack of investment in the infrastructure that I help pay for every month. You mean Cox's lack of investment in upgrading to support D3 modems to avoid having to do expensive node splits? You mean the 8 channel bonding that is now in place to ease contention issues during peak time? I find it insulting that you would blame Cox for not upgrading their infrastructure when in fact they have made major improvements to support D3, but you refuse to upgrade yours as well. Or the very fact that your modem is losing sync, has a quiet upstream power neither of which will be fixed by a node split. but I agree lets split the node because clearly that's the problem and there is no other option other in play other then to have Cox throw money down the drain. Actually, in the process of splitting a node, power levels ARE adjusted so this could fix that problem. The reality is that Cox invested in a D3 network for a reason. As bandwidth requirements rise, the best way for a cable provider to adjust to this demand is to increase the amount of frequencies they broadcast on the plant and let users spread their bandwidth across those frequencies. If they keep splitting nodes, eventually you'll need one node per 5 houses. There's a LOT of cost involved in splitting a node. So this is the way their network is set up, ie channel bonding. It isn't a DOCSIS 2 network any longer and the maintenance requirements reflect that change. The best solution is to get a D3 modem so you're up to date with their network infrastructure. If you have bandwidth issues at that point, then I'd be complaining. But make sure you're up to date first. |
|
|
Question123 to anonn123
Anon
2012-Feb-2 4:50 pm
to anonn123
said by anonn123 :said by jsmiddleton4:That person is wrong of course. As long as my modem is supported and "current" I shouldn't have to keep buying equipment to address Cox's lack of investment in the infrastructure that I help pay for every month. You mean Cox's lack of investment in upgrading to support D3 modems to avoid having to do expensive node splits? You mean the 8 channel bonding that is now in place to ease contention issues during peak time? I find it insulting that you would blame Cox for not upgrading their infrastructure when in fact they have made major improvements to support D3, but you refuse to upgrade yours as well. Or the very fact that your modem is losing sync, has a quiet upstream power neither of which will be fixed by a node split. but I agree lets split the node because clearly that's the problem and there is no other option other in play other then to have Cox throw money down the drain. What happens when everyone on the node has a D3? Wouln't that put him back at square one? |
|
|
Good question.
DOCSIS 3 isn't a fix for an area being completely saturated, but it simply takes advantage of all available bandwidth.
Freeway analogy:
You're stuck in a single lane with D2. If traffic is light, you're cruising. If it's heavy, you're stop & go and can't change lanes. With D3, you can use all of the lanes. (The analog breaks down a bit here since you can't use the lanes concurrently.) But, as anyone who commutes in Southern California can tell you, eight lanes won't matter if they're all full.
I was in a similar situation a few months ago. Cox had only two channels in the area. One was slammed (the one I was on). Switching to the other helped, but not a lot. Moving to D3 helped more, but since one channel had little reserve capacity it took them adding a third channel for me to get consistently decent speeds.
Each market and scenario is different, but with 4 or more channels available, it's far less likely that the OP would be in the same spot. |
|
m8trix join:2003-12-24 Chandler, AZ |
m8trix
Member
2012-Feb-2 5:15 pm
you can also look at it as a virtual node split with the added channels |
|
|
Missed last night's log. Here's tonights:
2012-02-04 17:45:23 6-Notice I401.0 TLV-11 - unrecognized OID 1970-01-01 00:02:02 4-Error D004.3 ToD request sent- No Response received 1970-01-01 00:02:00 3-Critical D003.0 DHCP WARNING - Non-critical field invalid in response. 1970-01-01 00:01:44 3-Critical R002.0 No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out (US 4) 1970-01-01 00:01:38 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:01:32 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:01:31 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:01:27 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:01:26 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:01:03 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:01:03 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:00:27 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:00:27 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:00:18 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:00:17 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:00:07 3-Critical T002.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire FEC framing 1970-01-01 00:00:07 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 1970-01-01 00:00:03 6-Notice M571.1 Ethernet link up - ready to pass packets 1970-01-01 00:00:03 3-Critical T001.0 SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing 2012-02-04 17:42:18 6-Notice M573.0 Modem Is Shutting Down and Rebooting... |
|
jsmiddleton4 |
"What happens when everyone has a D3..."
Great question.
Non D3 modems are still supported and part of the system. Cox needs to split this node. The consistency of being over loaded as the week goes by becoming worse on Friday evening and Saturday evening. Sunday not as bad, then Monday through Thursday its fine.
I don't trust Cox's tools they use from "out there" some where. I've had personal experience with needing to have a truck come out here and tap in to this node and do the real time on-site monitoring to get accurate figures.
Seems with the Cox folks here and the stated commitment to customer service AND the previous experience with node saturation it would be an easy sell to get someone out here to fix this congestion.
But I guess that's not the case. |
|