Opinion on DG834 v4 wired Modem Router

[davej99]

Sorry to bore you all to death with my adsl modem machinations, but I would value your opinion of the DG834 v4 wired Modem Router (Broadcom chipset). We are hard wired and use Homeplugs because the house has weird corners. So we do not need wireless, especially N and the cost of say a Draytek. Objective is just to get a good ADSL connection on a longish now noisy interleaved line. Hoping the v4 will oblige with s=1/2 mode and secure a maximum 8128 which it seemed the v5 family did not. The wired DG834 is still shipping in v4. What do you think? (If anyone has a v4 box to trade pm me).
in advance, Dave

[Rik]

Hi Dave

Thee v4 generally seems to have been better received than the v5. I don't know, thought whether it supports s==1/2.

[Steve]

I know I got a full sync with interleave on with the DG834N which has a slightly quicker Broadcom chipset than the dg834, but to be honest I'm not sure in terms of throughput I'm any different even though the resulting IP profile is higher.

[davej99]

Thx, Rik Steve. That is encouraging. It might say on your box if it is v4 and therefore suggest that the plain 834 will be similar. To be honest I am not sure if the Broadcom chip set runs the modem and the wireless or just the wireless. I can say on an interleaved profile of 7150 I got up to 6885 on v3, which is better than I got on the v5 interleaved profile of 6500 probably without s=1/2.

[Rik]

It's the modem chip, Dave.

[armadillo]

but I would value your opinion of the DG834 v4 wired Modem Router (Broadcom chipset). ... Hoping the v4 will oblige with s=1/2 mode

Seeing as my router is DG834v4, if you can tell me how on earth one would find out if it can support s=1/2 mode, I would be happy to look at mine. Provided I can do so without messing with my connection or immersing the router in boiling oil. i.e. if a piece of software can ask it, fine.

I have the box for mine but I am keeping it as I always keep all boxes (my attic has a lot of boxes in it!). It says nothing about version numbers on the box. Just DG834. But on the label on the back of the router it says DG834v4.

Firmware is V5.01.16

I shall probably be buying a second one as a spare too.

[Rik]

My attic has 24 years worth of boxes in it. Moving is going to be hell!

[armadillo]

26 years in mine. Should be a great job for whoever clears it out when I am dead. With any luck, by that time, the boxes will more than double.

[dieselglider]

The DG834Gv4 (currently on f/w v5.01.19) is my router of choice on my broadband connection, even though the dslam is by Texas Instruments.

This, from a choice of V2, V3 versions, BT2700HGV, and a Speedtouch 585v6 (which would be my 2nd choice).

Currently 48dB att'n, 9dB Target SNR, and 4704 kbps stats.  The Target SNR rose to 9dB just recently when the BT2700 re-synced a few times.  I think there may have been a line issue, so I'm using routerstats along with the Netgear to check for a problem.

[Rik]

26 years in mine. Should be a great job for whoever clears it out when I am dead. With any luck, by that time, the boxes will more than double.

We think alike.

[davej99]

Gentlemen, please, your forum needs you. May the only coil you slip off be in a dodgy filter.

[Rik]

 

I'm in no rush, Dave. Just planning. 

[armadillo]

Your concern is heart-warming, Dave. Like Rik, I propose keeping all coils for many years yet.

[davej99]

I am with you on that, Rik & 'dillo, but, "the best laid schemes of mice... " - well you know the rest. And agly is my scheme to get a decent router, as I debate whether BT or Netgear is the most hapless sleekit endeavour known to man or mouse.

Note to management: please can we get "agly" and "sleekit" added to the spell checker!

[Rik]

No. 

It's actually impossible, afaik, to add words to the SMF dictionary, Dave.

[pctech]

'I'm sorry Dave, but I can't do that'

[davej99]

Mmm, this might be a breach of the human rights act, denying persons writing in the Scots tongue access to a sperl chocher.

[davej99]

'I'm sorry Dave, but I can't do that'

[Ray]

 

[armadillo]

Oh, why did I ever mention death?

So Dave, can I assume that this s=1/2 thing is something the router decides on all by itself when it feels the need? i.e. there is nothing I can interrogate on mine to let you know if it can?

[pctech]

 

[davej99]

The Netgear DGN2200 has just come up as an option, its Broadcom chipset and N. At £9 more than the DG834v4 wired, is it any good does anyone know? Thx

(Did not want to start yet another modem router topic)

[Lance]

I've been using it for a few weeks and not had any problems. That said, the noise margin does fluctuate more than then my old 2wire but fortunately it doesn't impact on my line.

[pctech]

Oh, why did I ever mention death?

You called?

[Ray]

 

[Rik]

 

[pctech]

 

[Lance]

Its nice of Lona to pay a flying visit to the thread! 

[Rik]

 

[armadillo]

You called?

[davej99]

I've been using it for a few weeks and not had any problems. That said, the noise margin does fluctuate more than then my old 2wire but fortunately it doesn't impact on my line.

Thanks, Lance. I found the DG834v3 showed larger fluction than the v5, but the latter dropped sync and the former did not. Think I will chance the 2200
And thanks to everyone else for being thoroughly and entertainingly silly. Life's to short to be serious.

Ed: Thanks for Correction 'dillo.

[armadillo]

Thanks, Lance. I found the DG834v5 showed larger fluction than the v5

Is that silly? 

I think you probably meant "than the v3"

BTW, I did not know it was even possible to get a wired v5. I thought you could only get v5 on the DG834G. I went out and bought a spare DG834v4 today. Opened the box in the shop to check it said v4 on the label just like the one I already have. I will try it out regarding my issue tomorrow morning. Too risky to disconnect and reconnect in the evenings.

You're right about too short to be serious. Never understood how some people get so worked up and abusive over bits and bytes and chips.

[Rik]

I always get worked up about chips - it's hard to decide what to have them with. 

[armadillo]

You're right there. Rik. I must log out and go and give some serious thought to what I am going to eat before my stomach obliterates my noise margin.

[davej99]

Is that silly? 

I think you probably meant "than the v3"

Thx for correction 'dillo

[Rik]

You're right there. Rik. I must log out and go and give some serious thought to what I am going to eat before my stomach obliterates my noise margin.

I've already been told. I'm just thinking about the snack for later.

[pctech]

I used to love chips cooked in beef dripping but they make me feel quite ill now.

[Rik]

I grew up on them, haven't tried one in years, Mitch, but I suspect I'd feel the same.

[davej99]

So Dave, can I assume that this s=1/2 thing is something the router decides on all by itself when it feels the need? i.e. there is nothing I can interrogate on mine to let you know if it can?

Sorry, I missed your question. This is ANSI T1.413-1998. It allows a max sync on an interleaved line. An interleaved sync in excess of 7616 is the only way I know how to tell. Can say DG834G series v3 supported it. Steve has confirmed DG834N supported it. That's about all I know.

[armadillo]

Sorry, I missed your question.

Thanks Dave. I thought I must have asked something that breached national security 

An interleaved sync in excess of 7616 is the only way I know how to tell.

Ah good. I can forget trying to ask the router then! I have had 7616 for over a month now on my DG834v4 with interleaving. So perhaps this router does not do s=1/2. I am not sure how long it would take before a resync would go higher than 7616, if it did support it. I resynced this morning at 10dB noise margin but 7616. With a target noise margin of 9dB, you would think it would try a bit more than 7616 if it could.

[davej99]

I have had 7616 for over a month now on my DG834v4 with interleaving. So perhaps this router does not do s=1/2.

If you have a low error count and ask for interleaving to be taken off and the sync rises, then you have s=1/2 so far as I can tell. If it does not rise then that is the best your line will do and it does not matter.

Update: DG834 Spec seems to confirm T1.413 spec.

[Steve]

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/demon/3262870-interleaving-is-router-dependant.html#Post3262901


Although the heading is incorrect the post shows a dg834 with a full sync and interleave on (FEC=20) Question is which version? It can't be a 5

Edit : looking at the telnet command it's prior to v4

[davej99]

Edit : looking at the telnet command it's prior to v4

Perhaps its the DG834v3 with TI AR7 chipset, Steve.

I can confirm DG834Gv3 does max sync in interleave. But so far have no user confirmation for v5 (have just sent mine back under distance selling rules)  Have found tech spec for DG834v5 and DG 838v4 showing ANSI T1.413 compliance, which should provided the max interleave sync --- I think --- er, well --- not sure I know what I am talking about, really.

Thanks for your help.

[armadillo]

If you have a low error count and ask for interleaving to be taken off and the sync rises, then you have s=1/2 so far as I can tell.

  I thought your point about s=1/2 was that it achieves full sync with interleaving on.

If it does not rise then that is the best your line will do and it does not matter.

The only reason I was asking about s=1/2 was to help you find out if DG834v4 supports it, which you now appear to have done.

DG834 Spec seems to confirm T1.413 spec.

What a lot of info is contained in that little "T1.413" when you know what it means!

For me, I have no problem with 7616 sync and interleaving on. I am not a gamer, so latency does not matter to me. All I would achieve with 8128 is a possible rise in profile from 6500 to 7150. A possible 10% increase in throughput does not justify possible loss of stability of connection. YMMV.

[wecpcs]

Update: DG834 Spec seems to confirm T1.413 spec.

I still have DG834Gv4 as a spare which does support the max sync of 8128 that I used to get, when I previously had interleaving on. When I then switched afterwards to a Billion (very briefly) that did also but it was terrible to setup and I had to resort to their forum for instructions as the firmware was terrible to understand. Then the Billion router packed up and I got an RMA for it and bought a Netgear DGND3300 which I find perfectly OK with the full sync of 8128 with interleaving on or off as it presently is.

Colin

[Steve]

Thanks Colin

[armadillo]

I still have DG834Gv4 as a spare which does support the max sync of 8128 that I used to get.....Netgear DGND3300 which I find perfectly OK with the full sync of 8128 with interleaving on or off as it presently is.
Colin

OK, those are both wireless modem routers. Have you come across a wired one which will achieve this?

[pctech]

'dillo could you not just use the ethernet ports on the router.

[davej99]

I still have DG834Gv4 as a spare which does support the max sync of 8128 that I used to get, when I previously had interleaving on. When I then switched afterwards to a Billion (very briefly) that did also but it was terrible to setup and I had to resort to their forum for instructions as the firmware was terrible to understand. Then the Billion router packed up and I got an RMA for it and bought a Netgear DGND3300 which I find perfectly OK with the full sync of 8128 with interleaving on or off as it presently is.

Thanks, Colin, for confirmation of v4 max sync on interleave.

Thanks also for your input on Billion. On paper its looks amazing, but your experience will ensure others do not get caught with the clanky interface.

Finally, thanks for your findings on the dual band DGND3300, which, with the input we have from Lance on the 2200 gives us a good picture of Netgear's latest N offering.

All in all we are getting some great feedback on current adsl router options. Just wish I understood it

Thanks everyone.

[armadillo]

'dillo could you not just use the ethernet ports on the router.

Yes indeed. Apart from generating a wireless signal that I don't need, there are probably no drawbacks to that. If I ever buy a third router (!!!) I might get a wireless one and try that. Depends on how well the router holds onto the connection when there are noise bursts. DG834v4 (not wireless) has a good reputation, which is why I chose that one. As I said, I am perfectly happy with wired 7616 max interleaved sync and a 6500 profile. Stability is more important for me than 10% more throughput.

[Lance]

You could of course just turn the wireless off.

[armadillo]

True, at least on those routers that allow you to do that. Don't know if they all do. In Dave's OP, he said he did not need wireless, just a stable connection on a longish line. I feel that way too.

[Steve]

Must have had a long day

[Rik]

[davej99]

Must have had a long day

This is BTs backhaul from Scotland!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rik]

After repairs.

[armadillo]

Is that custom designed or off-the-peg?

[Rik]

[arobertson676]

I am just about to take back a Netgear DG834v4. It couldn't hold the connection at all. I am currently testing a Netgear DGN2000 which seems to be doing better. I'll let you know if it holds the connection

[Rik]