Sync Rate

Support forum for routers of all shapes and sizes. As long as it's router based and doesn't fall into the other categories, this is the place to ask your questions.
Post Reply
tommy_boi
Novice
Novice
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:56 pm

Sync Rate

Post by tommy_boi » Mon May 01, 2006 12:59 am

Has anyone noticed that routers with the conexant chipset doesn't sync as high as other routers, i've got a BT Voyager USB modem here and on my MAX ADSL line i get a sync of 4700, but with my Origo 8400 router i get a sync of 3800 with exactly the same line stats, actually the line attenuation goes down by about 8 with the USB modem compared to the router, but the SNR remains the same.
User avatar
Kieran
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:30 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Kieran » Mon May 01, 2006 1:10 am

It is well talked about that connexant routers and not able to tollerate poor line conditions as well as ones with an alcatel chipset, but it shouldn't affect the sync speed of your router, especially as you don't have any problem connecting with either device. Does the possible throughput change when the sync rate does according to a speed test?
Kieran
"Indeed!"
Invaluable links: Forum Rules | Networking Guides | FAQ | Site Search | Forum Search <-- Use it or feel my wrath!
No support via PM, please ask your questions in the forum!
tommy_boi
Novice
Novice
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:56 pm

Post by tommy_boi » Mon May 01, 2006 1:12 am

It does affect the line speed though, as my Origo router connects at 3900, which is around 3Mb on MAX ADSL, and the BT Voyager USB modem i tryed syncs at 4700, which is around 4Mb, so i'm losing a full Mb really, looks like i'm gonna have to look for a better chipset unless there's a fix for this.?
User avatar
Kieran
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:30 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Kieran » Mon May 01, 2006 1:20 am

See, thats the thing. That reported speed is the speed you connect at, not the throughput (upload/download rate) you actually get.

Do a speed test on both modems/routers and then post back and let us know which, if any came up top on the speed test. If they both come out the same then the connection rate is a red herring (with the lower speed obviously being the correct one). If the speeds differ, then reasons for this can start to be addressed :)
Kieran
"Indeed!"
Invaluable links: Forum Rules | Networking Guides | FAQ | Site Search | Forum Search <-- Use it or feel my wrath!
No support via PM, please ask your questions in the forum!
tommy_boi
Novice
Novice
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:56 pm

Post by tommy_boi » Mon May 01, 2006 1:27 am

I cant actually test the speeds on both of the devices as my MAX isn't up and running yet, i'm still waiting to be lifted from the stuck 2Mb profile thing, but its gotta be true, if i'm connecting at 3900kbps with the Origo router then that drops me into the 3Mb throughput range, when i connect with the BT Voyager modem which is obviously better at handling noisy lines i connect at 4700kbps, which drops me into the 4Mb range, and yes thats throughput, all is explained in the below link.


http://www.adslguide.org/newsarchive.asp?item=2622
User avatar
Kieran
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:30 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Kieran » Mon May 01, 2006 1:52 am

tommy_boi wrote:I cant actually test the speeds on both of the devices as my MAX isn't up and running yet, i'm still waiting to be lifted from the stuck 2Mb profile thing, but its gotta be true, if i'm connecting at 3900kbps with the Origo router then that drops me into the 3Mb throughput range, when i connect with the BT Voyager modem which is obviously better at handling noisy lines i connect at 4700kbps, which drops me into the 4Mb range, and yes thats throughput, all is explained in the below link.


http://www.adslguide.org/newsarchive.asp?item=2622
There is truth in the link you post, and the statement that your voyager is better at handling noisy lines may also be true.

What is not a dead cert. however is that you will get the full potential throughput of the 4700kbps sync rate, and the only way of finding this out will be to wait until the MAX is fully setup and you can do a speed test. If the speed test on the voyager then does in fact come out faster than the origo statistically, then your differences are valid (in which case we can investigate reasons why and possible fixes here), if not then they are not.

Just because you have a certain sync rate, doesn't mean you will get the maximum throughput that rate can support. While it is true you will not get higher than it, you CAN get lower, and in many cases do, especially where max is concerned. Your own link provided such information towards the bottom; note "Performance threshold". As you will see, even with your two different sync rates, there is a speed range that crosses both thresholds, and my guess is that this is the speed range you would get in a test.
Kieran
"Indeed!"
Invaluable links: Forum Rules | Networking Guides | FAQ | Site Search | Forum Search <-- Use it or feel my wrath!
No support via PM, please ask your questions in the forum!
tommy_boi
Novice
Novice
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:56 pm

Post by tommy_boi » Mon May 01, 2006 1:56 am

I think my figures are right, its because the conexant chipset is rubbish at handling noisy lines, i'm gonna get a new router soon anyways with a better chipset, as my mate down the road has this router, and we both had the same line stats before we got MAX, well mine was 2 lower than his on the SNR, but he has 2Mb higher than me. :shock:


Thanks for the help though.
User avatar
Kieran
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:30 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Kieran » Mon May 01, 2006 2:05 am

No problem; if you are looking for a router that is better at handling noisier lines, try to get one with an alcatel chipset - they are reported to be *much* better at holding the connection etc :)
Kieran
"Indeed!"
Invaluable links: Forum Rules | Networking Guides | FAQ | Site Search | Forum Search <-- Use it or feel my wrath!
No support via PM, please ask your questions in the forum!
User avatar
Neo
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:09 pm
Contact:

Post by Neo » Mon May 01, 2006 2:09 am

See kb.php?mode=article&k=31 for more info on the different types of router ;)
RouterTech Team and Founding Member
Image
RouterTech Merchandise (UK)
No support via PM, please ask your questions on the forum!
tommy_boi
Novice
Novice
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:56 pm

Post by tommy_boi » Mon May 01, 2006 2:15 am

Think i'm gonna get a Belkin router with a (Broadcom BCM6348 chipset), there suppose to be good.
suppsh
Novice
Novice
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:04 am
Location: Pakistan
Contact:

Post by suppsh » Mon May 01, 2006 5:17 pm

Well SWART2-54125 from safecom is not a bad choice. Currently i am using it and i am happy with it 8)
User avatar
Kieran
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:30 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Kieran » Mon May 01, 2006 6:28 pm

suppsh wrote:Well SWART2-54125 from safecom is not a bad choice. Currently i am using it and i am happy with it 8)
suppsh, the OP wanted to move away from origo/safecom due to the sync problems experienced with his current router (an origo) on a line with marginal SNR.

If you could provide some statistical reasons why your suggested router would be particularly good for marginal line conditions I'm sure it would be appreciated.
Kieran
"Indeed!"
Invaluable links: Forum Rules | Networking Guides | FAQ | Site Search | Forum Search <-- Use it or feel my wrath!
No support via PM, please ask your questions in the forum!
User avatar
thechief
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 12068
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: England, the Centre of Africa
Contact:

Post by thechief » Mon May 01, 2006 7:21 pm

suppsh wrote:Well SWART2-54125 from safecom is not a bad choice. Currently i am using it and i am happy with it 8)
Of course you are, since you are a Safecom employee. :roll:
The Chief: :afro: Be sure to read the Firmware FAQ and do a Forum Search before posting!
No support via PM. Ask all questions on the open forum.
User avatar
biro
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 1274
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Letchworth Garden City, ENGLAND
Contact:

Post by biro » Mon May 01, 2006 7:46 pm

suppsh wrote:Well SWART2-54125 from safecom is not a bad choice. Currently i am using it and i am happy with it 8)
Are you actually using it with ADSL Max, Thought the Max service was peculiar to BT run networks !
ImageImageImage
All my posts on RouterTech.org are Copyright RouterTech.org
G'Day Laura
Post Reply