[26776] in resnet
Re: Bandwidth Management - Dynamic Allocation?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Briggs)
Tue Sep 27 14:20:44 2011
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e65503aeeece1f04adf045b7
Message-ID: <CAOAqwrdnGTUyWqZ4rE7xLUGseDnGu4FLfBFrO8BTr+r_fSXiYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:16:23 -0700
Reply-To: Resnet Forum <RESNET-L@listserv.nd.edu>
From: Greg Briggs <briggsgb@PLU.EDU>
To: RESNET-L@listserv.nd.edu
In-Reply-To: <001a01cc7a3d$7932fc40$6b98f4c0$@edu>
--0016e65503aeeece1f04adf045b7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
You have stated your reservations, but I am still going to have
to recommend the NetEqualizer. Carving up the bandwidth equally will mean
that the user perception of the internet connection will be poor even when
you have bandwidth to spare. It makes more sense to have a device that can
maximise the users perception of a connection. Here are some example
scenarios.
NetEQ when utilization is low, and it is not doing anything:
User perception of Skype like services: Good
User perception of Netflix like services: Good
User perception of large file downloads: Good
User perception of "ajaxie" webpages that constantly update some doodad on
the page:Good
User Perception of games: Good
Equally allocated bandwidth when utilization is low:
User perception of Skype like services: OK as long as the user is not doing
anything else.
User perception of Netflix like services: OK as long as long as the user is
not doing anything else.
User perception of large file downloads: Slow all of the time regardless of
where the user is downloading the file from.
User perception of "ajaxie" webpages that constantly update some doodad on
the page: OK
User perception of games: OK as long as the user is not doing anything
else. That is until the game needs to download custom content from a server,
then the user has to wait to enter the next round because of the hard rate
limit.
NetEQ when utilization is high and penalizing the top flows:
User perception of Skype like services: Good
User perception of Netflix like services: Good - The caching bar at the
bottom should be slightly delayed, but the video shouldn't skip. The user
is unlikely to notice.
User perception of large file downloads: Good - The file is delayed a bit,
but will still download relatively quickly compared to a hard bandwidth cap.
The user is unlikely to notice.
User perception of "ajaxie" webpages that constantly update some doodad on
the page: Good
User perception of games: Good downloading content between rounds might be a
tiny bit slower, but fast compared to a hard rate limit.
Equally allocated bandwidth when utilization is high:
User perception of Skype like services: OK as long as the user is not doing
anything else.
User perception of Netflix like services: OK as long as long as the user is
not doing anything else.
User perception of large file downloads: Slow all of the time regardless of
where the user is downloading the file from.
User perception of "ajaxie" webpages that constantly update some doodad on
the page: OK as long as the user is not doing anything else.
User perception of games: OK as long as the user is not doing anything
else. That is until the game needs to download custom content from a server,
then the user has to wait to enter the next round because of the hard rate
limit.
As far as the P2P thing is concerned. While I too realized that
theoretically P2P would be favored, in practice it wasn't really noticeable.
If you wish, you can use connection limits to deal with this.
On last thing to note: On Obama's inauguration day, the NetEQ at PLU was
able to tame the ridiculous number of live streams of the event without
me intervening to change settings. The only problems reported turned out to
be bandwidth problems on the other end.
I hope you find this useful.
Greg Briggs
Network Engineer
Information & Technology Services
Pacific Lutheran University
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:09 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
___________________________________________________
--0016e65503aeeece1f04adf045b7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You have stated your reservations, but I am still going to have to=A0recomm=
end=A0the NetEqualizer. =A0Carving up the bandwidth equally will mean that =
the user perception of the internet connection will be poor even when you h=
ave bandwidth to spare. =A0It makes more sense to have a device that can ma=
ximise the users perception of a connection. =A0Here are some example scena=
rios.<div>
<br></div><div>NetEQ when utilization is low, and it is not doing anything:=
</div><div>User perception of Skype like services: Good</div><div>User perc=
eption of Netflix like services: Good</div><div>User perception of large fi=
le downloads: Good</div>
<div>User perception of "ajaxie" webpages that=A0constantly=A0upd=
ate some doodad on the page:Good</div><div>User Perception of games: Good</=
div><div><br></div><div>Equally=A0allocated bandwidth when utilization is l=
ow:</div>
<div><div>User perception of Skype like services: OK as long as the user is=
not doing anything else.</div><div>User perception of Netflix like service=
s: OK as long as long as the user is not doing anything else.</div><div>
User perception of large file downloads: Slow all of the time=A0regardless=
=A0of where the user is downloading the file from.</div><div>User perceptio=
n of "ajaxie" webpages that=A0constantly=A0update some doodad on =
the page: OK</div>
</div><div>User perception of games:=A0OK as long as the user is not doing =
anything else.=A0That is until the game needs to download custom content fr=
om a server, then the user has to wait to enter the next round because of t=
he hard rate limit.</div>
<div><br></div><div>NetEQ when utilization is high and penalizing the top f=
lows:</div><div><div>User perception of Skype like services: Good</div><div=
>User perception of Netflix like services: Good - The caching bar at the bo=
ttom should be slightly delayed, but the video shouldn't skip. =A0The u=
ser is unlikely to notice.=A0</div>
<div>User perception of large file downloads: Good - The file is delayed a =
bit, but will still download relatively quickly compared to a hard bandwidt=
h cap. =A0The user is unlikely to notice.=A0</div><div>User perception of &=
quot;ajaxie" webpages that=A0constantly=A0update some doodad on the pa=
ge: Good</div>
</div><div>User perception of games:=A0Good downloading content between rou=
nds might be a tiny bit slower, but fast compared to a hard rate limit.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>Equally allocated bandwidth when utilization is high:=
</div>
<div><div><div>User perception of Skype like services: OK as long as the us=
er is not doing anything else.</div><div>User perception of Netflix like se=
rvices: OK as long as long as the user is not doing anything else.</div>
<div>User perception of large file downloads: Slow all of the time=A0regard=
less=A0of where the user is downloading the file from.</div><div>User perce=
ption of "ajaxie" webpages that=A0constantly=A0update some doodad=
on the page: OK=A0as long as the user is not doing anything else.</div>
</div></div><div>User perception of games:=A0OK as long as the user is not =
doing anything else.=A0That is until the game needs to download custom cont=
ent from a server, then the user has to wait to enter the next round becaus=
e of the hard rate limit.</div>
<div><br></div><div>As far as the P2P thing is concerned. =A0While I too re=
alized that theoretically P2P would be favored, in practice it wasn't r=
eally noticeable. =A0If you wish, you can use connection limits to deal wit=
h this. =A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>On last thing to note: =A0On Obama's=A0inauguration=
=A0day, the NetEQ at PLU was able to tame the=A0ridiculous=A0number of live=
streams of the event without me=A0intervening=A0to change settings. =A0The=
only problems reported turned out to be bandwidth problems on the other en=
d. =A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>I hope you find this=A0useful.</div><div><br></div><div=
>Greg Briggs</div><div>Network Engineer</div><div>Information & Technol=
ogy Services</div><div>Pacific Lutheran University</div><div><br></div><div=
>
<br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Randall Watanab=
e <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:randallw@hawaii.edu" target=3D"_b=
lank">randallw@hawaii.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t: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>
___________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________
--0016e65503aeeece1f04adf045b7--
