[37963] in Resnet-Forum
Re: New Stratagies to Meet Higher Bandwidther Requirements in the HD Video World
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Davis)
Tue Feb 12 13:08:18 2013
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <AFF7E56B606814458FDD737933223349360A82B0@SV-EXCMB-01.principia.local>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:53:19 +0000
Reply-To: Resnet Forum <RESNET-L@LISTSERV.ND.EDU>
From: Chris Davis <Chris.Davis@PRIN.EDU>
To: RESNET-L@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
In-Reply-To: <511A79D4.2080302@calfrye.com>
I did some research on this a while back, and it seemed that the sweetest spot was somewhere around 4:1 in users to megabytes. It seemed things were also really good through 10:1 as well. I even had someone at 20:1 without problems (he had a small resident campus but a larger number of non-campus resident students). But all of them were using some kind of bandwidth control. What we found was that even with Bandwidth control, there is a certain level at which nothing can help. So we now aim ourselves at the 4:1 ratio. The bad thing is that the next killer app will likely change that ratio, so we still have to keep our eyes on things. My two sites are at 6:1 and 9:1 and doing well.
I was looking at a very expensive upgrade on my dpi based shapers. At the time (last spring), we were also evolving what we were trying to accomplish. We wanted to get out of the dpi based approach, as encryption was making it less of a good investment for us. We wanted to just share the available bandwidth as equitably as possible with the folks on campus. There were some locations we wanted to protect as well. I'm a NetEqualizer convert too. But do understand that some folks want and need the dpi based solution.
Chris
Chris Davis - The Principia - School and College
-----Original Message-----
From: Resnet Forum [mailto:RESNET-L@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Cal Frye
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:20 AM
To: RESNET-L@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: New Stratagies to Meet Higher Bandwidther Requirements in the HD Video World
I second Frank's observation. Demand will always increase to fill the supply, but there is no substitute for more bandwidth. Management is what you do when the demand catches up with you.
We have 600Mb/s available and 2900 students at Oberlin, and the ResNet partition (250Mb/s but can borrow from the academic side up to a total of 400Mb/s - still on the low side of Frank's statistic at 138kbps/FTE) runs flat-out most evenings. We block P2P generally, permitting it to specific hosts on request. Not many have actually requested P2P access, actually. It's mostly streaming media.
It looks like Saint Mary's isn't using much of the DPI capability of your Packetshaper. You may find another management approach altogether could suit your needs, but I'd still begin by obtaining more bandwidth if you can.
- Cal Frye, Oberlin College.
On 2/12/13 10:17 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> It's my assessment that you're short on bandwidth - most schools have
> 100 to 200 kbps/FTE, so even if you look at just the residences you
> should be at 240 Mbps.
>
> *From:*Resnet Forum [mailto:RESNET-L@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] *On Behalf Of
> *Glenn Sutherland
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:42 AM
>
> I am curious if there have been any new approaches being used to
> better manage the bandwidth requirements of our students today?
>
> Saint Mary's University has approx. 6000 FTE's, with 1,200 in
> residence. We have a BlueCoat Packetshaper 10000 which has served us
> very well. We are facing higher bandwidth demands as our students
> have on average 4-6 devices demanding bandwidth for streaming HD video
> and voice. I am sure we are not alone in this situation.
>
> Our campus has a 200M commercial internet connection which is where
> most internet traffic passes, (except Facebook, Netflix, Google, and a couple
> others), and this 200M link is managed by our PacketShaper. In our
> PacketShaper we assign 150M (of the 200) to student traffic, and allow
> it to burst to 175M, needless to say it is always running at 175M. We
> are using the PS Dynamic Sub partitioning to divide the bandwidth
> evenly between active users, and we do not classify based on traffic type (eg.
> Bittorrent, Netflix, etc).
>
> How are you dealing with the increased demand? Are you restricting
> more what users are doing? (Something that would not fly well here).
> Increasing available bandwidth?
>
--
Best Regards,
-- Cal Frye, Network Administrator, Oberlin College
Mudd Library, x.56930 -- CIT will NEVER ask you for your password!
www.calfrye.com, www.oberlin.edu/cit/ '
"Any truth creates a scandal. --Marguerite Yourcenar.
___________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the ResNet-L mailing list.
To subscribe, unsubscribe or search the archives, go to http://LISTSERV.ND.EDU/archives/resnet-l.html
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the ResNet-L mailing list.
To subscribe, unsubscribe or search the archives,
go to http://LISTSERV.ND.EDU/archives/resnet-l.html
___________________________________________________
