[26773] in resnet
Re: Bandwidth Management - Dynamic Allocation?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doughty, Marc)
Mon Sep 26 11:00:03 2011
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5215f3910ea4504add95fed
Message-ID: <CAEPWjztq2e-RmXWh-kNkvJDLuc3ush8x6_mkcT2JNshLOmJgSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:57:01 -0400
Reply-To: Resnet Forum <RESNET-L@listserv.nd.edu>
From: "Doughty, Marc" <marc_doughty@brown.edu>
To: RESNET-L@listserv.nd.edu
In-Reply-To: <001a01cc7a3d$7932fc40$6b98f4c0$@edu>
--bcaec5215f3910ea4504add95fed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
"a simple solution out there that basically just takes all the devices
online, and carves up the available bandwidth equally."
Theoretically, doesn't IP itself (e.g., no shaper) have pretty fair
allocation? If you're looking to do something like take a 100mbit pipe and
cap each of 100 users at 1mbit, that would slow everyone down and prevent
you from getting anywhere near the value you're paying for on the pipe. If
you're paying for bandwidth but not actual traffic, doesn't it make sense to
'unshape' as much as possible so you get the most utilization of your pipe,
then shape only to mitigate specific performance issues?
I'll admit that my experience with large-scale shaping is lacking, but at a
small business I work for, we had remote file transfers eating into
'interactive' stuff, so I simply set priorities like this:
high: Anything interactive (RDP, SSH, chat, ICMP, gaming)
medium: HTTP and HTTPS, IMAP, SMTP
low: P2P, RTSP, video protocols, FTP
It worked like a charm, and the ruleset was so simple that a cheap DD-WRT
based router was able to handle the 30Mbit uplink without breaking a
sweat.I'm not suggesting you should attempt to manage 4000 users on a 1Gbit
pipe with a DD-WRT unit, but have you considered refactoring your current
packet shaper's rules to tax the CPU less, or moving some departments
outside the shaper? Also, a SQUID proxy (or other content caching box) on
the inside of the traffic shaper might be particularly useful out there in
the middle of the pacific, I imagine your pings to most 'top talkers' are
rather longer than those of us on the mainland.
- Marc Doughty
"If you aren't sure who is the give-way vessel, you are the give-way
vessel."
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Randall Watanabe <randallw@hawaii.edu>wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> We currently have a Packetshaper that is at the limits of its capabilities
> and we are looking to upgrade. I've searched through this and various
> other
> lists for information on solutions from Procera, Exinda, and the
> NetEqualizer, but was wondering if there is a simple solution out there
> that
> basically just takes all the devices online, and carves up the available
> bandwidth equally.
>
> We currently use our Packetshaper in this manner via dynamic partitioning
> and if there is a low cost solution that manages bandwidth in this way
> without doing the layer7 application analysis, that would be very tempting.
>
> I had originally hoped that the NetEqualizer took this approach, but my
> understanding is that it allocates the bandwidth equally based on flow, not
> device (IP). It seems to me that that approach would favor P2P type
> applications that open up a bunch of connections at relatively low
> bitrates.
>
>
> We have ~4000 users and anticipate managing somewhere around 1Gbps in
> bandwidth within a few , so any solution we look at would have to be able
> to
> manage those kinds of numbers.
>
> Thanks in advance for any responses.
>
> Randall Watanabe
> ResNet Computer Specialist
> UH Student Housing Services
>
> ___________________________________________________
> 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
___________________________________________________
--bcaec5215f3910ea4504add95fed
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"color: rgb(68, 68, 68); fon=
t-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 25=
5, 255); ">a simple solution out there that=A0basically just takes all the =
devices online, and carves up the available=A0bandwidth equally."</spa=
n><br clear=3D"all">
<br>Theoretically, doesn't IP itself (e.g., no shaper) have pretty fair=
allocation? If you're looking to do something like take a 100mbit pipe=
and cap each of 100 users at 1mbit, that would slow everyone down and prev=
ent you from getting anywhere near the value you're paying for on the p=
ipe. If you're paying for bandwidth but not actual traffic, doesn't=
it make sense to 'unshape' as much as possible so you get the most=
utilization of your pipe, then shape only to mitigate specific performance=
issues?<div>
<br></div><div>I'll admit that my experience with large-scale shaping i=
s lacking, but at a small business I work for, we had remote file transfers=
eating into 'interactive' stuff, so I simply set priorities like t=
his:</div>
<div><br></div><div>high: Anything interactive (RDP, SSH, chat, ICMP, gamin=
g)<br><div>medium: HTTP and HTTPS, IMAP, SMTP</div><div>low: P2P, RTSP, vid=
eo protocols, FTP</div><div><br></div><div>It worked like a charm, and the =
ruleset was so simple that a cheap DD-WRT based router was able to handle t=
he 30Mbit uplink without breaking a sweat.I'm not suggesting you should=
attempt to manage 4000 users on a 1Gbit pipe with a DD-WRT unit, but have =
you considered refactoring your current packet shaper's rules to tax th=
e CPU less, or moving some departments outside the shaper? Also, a SQUID pr=
oxy (or other content caching box) on the inside of the traffic shaper migh=
t be particularly useful out there in the middle of the pacific, I imagine =
your pings to most 'top talkers' are rather longer than those of us=
on the mainland.</div>
<div><br>- Marc Doughty<br>"If you aren't sure who is the give-way=
vessel, you are the give-way vessel."<br>
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Randall=
Watanabe <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:randallw@hawaii.edu">rand=
allw@hawaii.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hello All,<br>
<br>
We currently have a Packetshaper that is at the limits of its capabilities<=
br>
and we are looking to upgrade. =A0I've searched through this and variou=
s other<br>
lists for information on solutions from Procera, Exinda, and the<br>
NetEqualizer, but was wondering if there is a simple solution out there tha=
t<br>
basically just takes all the devices online, and carves up the available<br=
>
bandwidth equally.<br>
<br>
We currently use our Packetshaper in this manner via dynamic partitioning<b=
r>
and if there is a low cost solution that manages bandwidth in this way<br>
without doing the layer7 application analysis, that would be very tempting.=
<br>
<br>
I had originally hoped that the NetEqualizer took this approach, but my<br>
understanding is that it allocates the bandwidth equally based on flow, not=
<br>
device (IP). =A0It seems to me that that approach would favor P2P type<br>
applications that open up a bunch of connections at relatively low bitrates=
.<br>
<br>
<br>
We have ~4000 users and anticipate managing somewhere around 1Gbps in<br>
bandwidth within a few , so any solution we look at would have to be able t=
o<br>
manage those kinds of numbers.<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance for any responses.<br>
<br>
Randall Watanabe<br>
ResNet Computer Specialist<br>
UH Student Housing Services<br>
<br>
___________________________________________________<br>
You are subscribed to the ResNet-L mailing list.<br>
<br>
To subscribe, unsubscribe or search the archives,<br>
go to <a href=3D"http://LISTSERV.ND.EDU/archives/resnet-l.html" target=3D"_=
blank">http://LISTSERV.ND.EDU/archives/resnet-l.html</a><br>
___________________________________________________<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
___________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the ResNet-L mailing list.
<p>
To subscribe, unsubscribe or search the archives,
go to http://LISTSERV.ND.EDU/archives/resnet-l.html
___________________________________________________
--bcaec5215f3910ea4504add95fed--
