Hi TDComm, if you are referring to PepVPN w/ SpeedFusion, I think the “cut-off latency” feature will worth a try. You can configure the cut-off latency for each WAN to may be 500ms (or other value that fits your environment), so when it switch to 3G network, latency usually will go up and when it reaches the threshold (500ms in this case), the specific tunnel will be suspended, and return active when latency drop.
Actually we have think about allow user to change the SpeedFusion WAN priority according to the Cellular WAN network type (3G or LTE), however this is not finalized yet so you didn’t see this in firmware 6.2, but if we found it’s useful it will for sure available in future firmware release.
Please share your thought with us if the “cut-off latency” can help your situation, and please feel free to let us know if there is any problem, thank you.
Hi streamevents, looks like you are talking about SpeedFusion VPN but Platts is actually referring to the Outbound Policy rule - lowest latency, which is a different thing.
For your case, as we have replied to you in the supporting ticket, the point-to-point Latency between your PepVPN pair fluctuate seriously from 130ms to 1190ms, and also the throughput of each WAN gives about 0.1 to 0.5 Mbps and keeps fluctuating, sometimes we even sees a complete 0 bandwidth from the modems at a short period of time. This is an extremely harsh environment to have a good bonding experience.
I have had my MaxHD2 for almost a year now and wish that i had never spent the god awful amount of money on it because it has never worked right from day one with the speed fusion. It does exactly what you all have said and streaming live HD video works better using my 1 Verizon hotspot which we usually ended up switching to in middle stream. I have been blown away by the poor performance even though the website and sales person who sold it to me said it will do exactly what I was wanting. I have left my unit on for countless nights and had tech support from where ever they are from remote in and “fix” it…never has worked right. Just like the bug they have “never” seen before that my unit has where I can’t use Wifi WAN connections or the unit will reboot continuously. I’m done ranting for now but I wanted to say I feel your frustrations also.
I guess this is the reson why they don’t have trial licenses for speedfusion. They need to rewrite the speedfusion from beginning. For me it’s not working.
Based on your last response from the ticket, the bonding speed is getting very good performance. Please help respond to the ticket if you facing same issue. Our support will follow up from there.
This is something they support in firmware 6.2.0. The only thing it’s missing is adjustable interval between the latency checks. Currently it checks every 5 seconds which is OK for stationary untis but is too long for mobile units.
I cant seem to get the bonding to work either. This a stationary vheichle with a HD4 connecting to a 1350 Balance in our data centre. I get almost no performance gains at all using 2 sims cards versus 1. Even though they both have great coverage and get great speeds individually.
Outbund rules are set to Priority on the VPN on both ends.
Funny thing is we were thinking of building our whole ambulance fleet with HD2 & HD4 units thats upwards of 100, probably not going to happen with this hardware.
You really have a good cellular network coverage and >17Mbps upload speed on a single SIM is really nice. Would you please let us know what is the ISP of Cellular 1 and Cellular 2? We definitely want to take a deeper look about this issue, if possible, please create a support ticket here: http://cs.peplink.com/contact/support/ , send us your device’s Serial Number and turn on Remote Assistance (Peplink | Pepwave - Forum) then we will be able to get in and find out what’s happening.
In case if the two SIMs are using the same ISP, this will very probably having the same behavior as yours. This can be because there isn’t enough backhaul bandwidth at a cell tower, one SIM is already consuming all of the available bandwidth and therefore even two SIMs connected, they can only share half of the total bandwidth of a cell tower, you can find a more detailed explanation on page 9 and 10 of the “SpeedFusion: Best Practices” document which can be downloaded here: http://download.peplink.com/partner/SpeedFusion_Best_Practices.pdf
My experience is that Speedfusion simply doesn’t work. Rarely it can give you some speed benefit compared to a single line but most of the time it will drag the performance. There is always a technical explanation why this happens but unfortunately it is useless in real life situations.
Hopefully it will be resolved in future firmware releases.
I was using 2 simcards from the same courier on the last screenshots.
This is one of my other routers a HD2. With 2 different carriers both on LTE the “3” connection usually gets about 16 mbit upload but now its about 10 and the other one is off the charts as you see. Bonding those 2 gives bad performance also.
I have responded your ticket to request serial number and Remote Assistance. I need to access to this HD2 and the remote unit for further diagnose of the bonding issue.
May I know how you get 16Mbps upload bandwidth? By Speedtest.net?
Fyi, Speedtest.net will always choose the nearest server which is fast and having low latency as they have servers deployed all over the world. I suggest you test with the Speedtest.net server which closer to your remote peer.
After extensive testing in my area, I thought I’d add to the discussion with my findings- In only 20% of the test cases I’ve run in this area have I seen advertised ‘speed benefits’ from bonding two cellular carriers. By this, I mean Speedfusion performance = Carrier 1 speed + Carrier 2 speed (minus 15% overhead for bonding). As specified in speedfusion documentation, in areas where the cellular network performance between the two carriers is very similar in latency and performance, bonding does in fact work as advertised.
In areas where the performance of the networks differs significantly (which is realistically almost everywhere) I have seen aggregage Speedfusion bonded networks significantly slower than the fastest mobile network being bonded.
Does this mean that it doesn’t work? In my estimation, it depends on what you mean by ‘work’. If this criteria is that the networks speed must be additive, so that 5MB on one, and 5MB
on another should give you 8.75MB, then Speedfusion probably fails by this criteria more often than it succeeds. However, if you define ‘work’ by being able utilize available cellular networks to connect in most any location the unit is deployed, then I would say the success I’ve seen is promising.
That said, I’d like to see a bit more versatility built into the Speedfusion algorithm. For instance, when the data stream from the mobile unit is sequenced and sent out over the different cellular networks, it would be nice if Speedfusion was able to send proportionally more data over the higher performing network, and less over the slower network. If this were possible, the Balance wouldn’t be ‘waiting’ for data to arrive over the slower network so it could rebuild the data stream. Without some flexibility built into the methodology in which Speedfusion segments data over different carriers of different performance levels, your slowest carrier is always going to be the bottleneck that ‘degrades’ performance of Speedfusion.
Thank you so much for your feedback. The new feature “WAN Smoothing” which will be available in firmware 6.2 is what we are doing to help the situation you have described. The concept of WAN Smoothing is to utilize multiple WAN links in SpeedFusion to get the lowest possible latency and reduce the impact of packet loss, at the expense of extra bandwidth consumption. If you have a chance to test it out, please don’t hesitate to let us know your comments. This feature is only the first step, our team is still working hard to improve the algorithm in the backend, for a better result in different scenarios.
Believe you are using earlier beta version. You may reboot to previous GA version then upgrade to v6.2.0b03. By doing this you still can remain your previous GA firmware after upgraded to v6.2b03.
