Messages

511

Installation / Update Process

« on: September 13, 2014, 04:25:21 PM »

This post may be outdated. Please refer to the Update Process Documentation

v.2.6.2 or later update to 3.2.3
It is recommended to create a snapshot vm/img if it's in production in case things go wrong.
Update will create a restore point, but don't count on it.
Update will retain basic settings e.g. IP, Gateway, Datastore, SSH, Hostname, Deployment mode, Virt_lan0, MAC wan0 & lan0 mappings.
Traffic policies, MultiSite, PortObjects and Groupobjects are migrated.
Some settings may be set to defaults.
Most stats will reset.
It is recommended to add a default bypass rule during the update.
Update is not backward compatible, hence please update all devices.
It is strongly recommended to test the upgrade in a test lab offline first a couple of times.

Howto:
If the device has access to the internet:
wget http://wanos.org/updateinfo/update-3.2.3.sh
wget http://wanos.org/updateinfo/update-3.2.3.tar.gz
bash update-3.2.3.sh update

Update script works on:
2.6.2 and later

Please leave a reply here if there is a problem with the upgrade.
And remember versions are not backwards compatible. Update all sites.

512

Troubleshooting / Re: wanos throughput on kvm

« on: September 12, 2014, 10:17:52 AM »

Excellent, thanks Peter, that is quite comprehensive. I'll add it to the wiki as well.

I am curious what throughput you are getting in KVM? e.g. just a single device without optimization, edge and core. Earlier you mentioned very low numbers in the Kbps range. Has this improved?

Netmap support will be included soon for a little more efficiency. It would be interesting to see whether netmap makes a noticeable difference in the kvm scenario.

Thanks for taking the time to write and submit the kvm howto guide. Appreciate it.

513

Troubleshooting / Re: wanos throughput on kvm

« on: September 02, 2014, 10:28:30 AM »

Hi Peter,

Ok, great to hear that wanos is working on kvm. What throughput are you getting?

The test commands are just that, tests, to see the different throughput. Another method will be available soon as well.

Do you perhaps have a short guide or list of steps to get a basic wanos on kvm setup going?

What is the kvm end goal though? E.g. min/max optimization at x Mbps.

514

Deployment / Re: Simple case deployment

« on: September 01, 2014, 01:58:59 PM »

Hi,

Ok, best case examples:

If wanos is placed between the mikrotik and the base station:
1) The max backhaul traffic one user can consume is 2 Mbps. One user will never use more than 2 mbps on the backhaul.
2) Wanos at the BS will convert the 2 Mbps to 20 Mbps, send it on to the client radio. Cache/Internet at the HO needs to be able to send at 20 Mbps.

If wanos is placed on the ISP side of the mikrotik at the BS:
1) The max traffic one user can use over the backhaul is 2 mbps. When traffic is optimized well, the user receives 2 Mbps, but the traffic on the backhaul will be reduced to 200 kbps.
2) The end user never sees more than 2 Mbps, but the backhaul load is reduced.
 

515

Deployment / Re: Simple case deployment

« on: September 01, 2014, 12:56:37 PM »

Hi,

To accurately answer this, it depends on where the 2 mbps limit is applied?

1) If configured on the last mile base station then no. The 2 mbps bottleneck is between the client radio and the base station.

2) If the rate limit is applied at the central site, but the client radio syncs at say 10 mbps, the yes. You can then provide that client with 2 mbps, upto 10 mbps.

A quick check, if two users connected to the same base station share a file, what throughput do they get? If radio speed, then yes, if 2 mbps, then no.

Are inter-client traffic tunneled/routed via a central server?

516

Troubleshooting / Re: Network disconnect after sometime

« on: August 31, 2014, 07:29:45 PM »

Thanks for the link. I see Jens also responded. If I recall correctly he was using Wanos on Axiomtek based Riverbed appliances, but could not get the required throughput (150-200 Mbps). The options were to reduce optimization levels or throw resources at it. Tough nut to crack in the ISP space.

517

General Discussion / Re: Re: ARM Version

« on: August 31, 2014, 04:24:42 PM »

On and off there are interest in the ARM version. For those interested I have prepared some bench marks

Raspberry Pi at 90-100% utilization:
1) LZ low: 47 Mbps
2) LZ high: 20 Mbps
3) LZ high decompress + Reduplication: 10 Mbps
4) LZ low + Deduplication: 4 Mbps
5) LZ high + Deduplication: 3.5 Mbps
6) Dedup only: 4 Mbps

Note in production the utilization needs to be significantly lower than this 90%+ best case scenario. Realistically I would rate the Pi good for 512 Kbps (High/Core) and 5 Mbps (Low/Edge).

518

Troubleshooting / Re: Network disconnect after sometime

« on: August 31, 2014, 03:53:27 PM »

Hi,

Since the devices were on the same lan segment without any vlans and there probably would've been other devices on the same L2 & L3 in between the wanop devices, I suspect the config needed to looks something like the attached.

I don't have any info on the tests other than this thread so cannot comment. If the objective was to test on the lan with a wan emulator/simulator in the middle, then as a POC it should have worked. If the objective was to increase LAN speeds e.g. 100-1GbE then it is most likely that throughput would have decreased. Often users have some other type of network issue e.g. TCP Window scaling failing and look at wanos as a patch.

That said we have test benched Wanos at 2 Gbps on a 2x Xeon E5310 appliance at about 35% utilization. The drawback on this high throughput rates is that optimization ratio's suffer and in this particular case 10% reduction on generic internet traffic and 90% on compressible data. This is something that we can reintroduce at any time.

Also on the subject of throughput, the terms Core and Edge will fall away and be replaced with Optimization level: High, Low. Perhaps its an option to re-enable the max throughput optimization and make the terms High, Medium, Low or a scale e.g. 1-5. Then this enables the designer to select the balance between optimization and throughput.

519

General Discussion / Re: Re: ARM Version

« on: August 29, 2014, 10:01:51 AM »

Hi,

Yes, the ARM support does sound like a good idea. For a while Wanos was developed on this platform. A number of benchmarks on the site is based on Raspberry Pi.

The deal breaker for ARM and why I think not more ARM based network appliances are available is that once a full functional system is built, or in other words everything else but the CPU, then the cost saving is marginal. e.g APU board http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm is about $136

If there is a full ARM system, with 2GB RAM, >=32GB and two Ethernet ports (e.g. Utilite Pro) for $100 then it could work. Above that mark the AMD G series and Atom based systems become a better option.

520

General Discussion / Re: Can Wanos support SSL cache/offload?

« on: August 29, 2014, 09:39:08 AM »

Hi,

Not yet, but you are right, the trend is that https traffic will increase and for that reason it's on the roadmap.

521

Installation / Re: Firewalls

« on: August 28, 2014, 08:06:31 PM »

Wanos as a WAN accelerator is deployed in WAN environments where typically a Firewall might also be found.

In this case the topology would be similar to:
         Site 1 Switch
                  |
             Wanos 1
                  |
        ASA/PIX Firewall 1
                  |
               WAN
                  |
        ASA/PIX Firewall 2
                  |
             Wanos 2
                  |
            Site 2 Switch
 
Wanos uses the TCP option 76 only in SYN and SYN-ACK packets of each TCP connection. This is used for autodiscovery.

Since the Cisco ASA/PIX is a firewall after all, the device might require a specific configuration to permit TCP option 76 for Wanos auto discovery to be operational. This is only needed if the firewall is in the path between Wanos devices.

The following sample configuration can be use on Cisco ASA/PIX version 7.0 or above:

access-list TCP_Option_76 extended permit tcp any any log
tcp-map TCP_Option_76_Tmap
tcp-options range 76 76 allow
class-map TCP_Option_76_Cmap
match access-list TCP_Option_76
policy-map global_policy
class TCP_Option_76_Cmap
set connection advanced-options TCP_Option_76_Tmap


*Note, please post a sample config if you use a different firewall and had to configure a similar policy.

522

Deployment / Re: Simple case deployment

« on: August 27, 2014, 12:06:17 PM »

Hi,

Ok, I understand the topology better now.
In this scenario with a Wanos device at the client site it would work to improve throughput from the central site to the remote sites. For example if the effective throughput of the ptp wifi links are 1-2 Mbps (due to signal or contention), then throughput could increase to 10-20 Mbps under good conditions. If the internet throughput is 1 Mbps and the ptp wifi links are 20 Mbps with no congestion on the base station, then the clients are unlikely to see any benefit. What we can also do is enable transparent web caching at each remote client side.

The Sat link would normally be the best location though, but understand that it is a bit of a challenge.

523

Troubleshooting / Re: Network disconnect after sometime

« on: August 27, 2014, 11:26:13 AM »

It is really going to depend on the application:

Yes, when:
1) streaming the same content multiple times, e.g. info/billboards or a training center
2) if the codec can be further compressed

No, when the stream is always new e.g. a live feed and the codec cannot be further compressed.

524

Troubleshooting / Re: Network disconnect after sometime

« on: August 26, 2014, 09:53:19 AM »

Hoyin,

Do I understand all aspects correctly:
This is a lab test (both connected to the same switch).
Only wan0 is connected to the same switch i.e. lan0 is connected directly to the PC's.
No VM's or virtual switches are used.

To do:
Create the most basic traffic rule to only optimize traffic between the two PC's e.g.
src: 192.168.10.50/32 dst: 192.168.10.51/32
on the other end
src: 192.168.10.51/32 dst: 192.168.10.50/32

If the problem still occurs, please also attach the log.

525

Deployment / Re: Simple case deployment

« on: August 25, 2014, 11:43:12 AM »

Hi,

It is not always a problem for the providers since they are familiar with Riverbed and Silver-peak who have been providing this option for a long time.

What others are doing where the provider aren't willing to help, is to create a VPN from a hosting platform to the remote site e.g.
Internet/Intranet -> Wanos -> VPN--SAT--VPN -> Wanos -> Users

Update: I notice the resell model late: Could it work in your favor by providing Wanos as a service?