Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Spiffster

Pages: [1] 2 3
General Discussion / Re: Latest Version
« on: July 21, 2017, 03:44:06 PM »
Update steps as per usual instructions as on Software Update

bash update

We are currently on version 3.1.4. I assume running these commands will get us on version 4.1.3 without issue? Thanks!

General Discussion / Re: Version 2.6.x
« on: September 16, 2015, 01:52:31 PM »
Installed this last weekend. So far we are seeing around a 20% improvement in performance on our high speed links! The engineers at our remote offices are loving the speed bump. Throughput is very consistent too, where before we saw things taper off near the end of a transfer. The web GUI just keeps getting more useful too. Nice job guys!

General Discussion / Re: Version 2.6.x
« on: August 27, 2015, 01:51:13 PM »
We will definitely be giving the new version a go this weekend. The last version has been running 100% rock solid over the last few months. Looking forward to these new features... especially interested in Packet Loss Recovery since our connections tend to get lossy at times.

Deployment / Peering Between Multiple Remote Sites?
« on: May 27, 2015, 01:55:43 PM »
Do remote sites need to be setup as peers to one another, like a mesh setup vs hub and spoke? There will occasionally be direct data transfers between one remote site to another remote site. The firewalls here have a VPN setup that is hub and spoke topology, but data transferred between remote sites will not traverse the wanos box at the main site since the firewall will just pass (route) the data on to the other remote site.

Hardware / Re: Identifying System Bottlenecks
« on: May 13, 2015, 05:20:06 PM »
OK so I have iperf loaded on a few endpoints and have played around with it a bit... very nice tool to have. I will probably need to run some tests during lunchtime to get accurate measurements when bandwidth utilization will be low.

I have a server at each location that can be bypassed in traffic policies so can test with and without optimization.

What flags would you like me to use to test? Thanks.

Hardware / Re: Identifying System Bottlenecks
« on: May 13, 2015, 02:05:22 PM »
While im vaguely familiar with iperf and what its used for, I am not familiar with this TCP window scaling... not sure if it has any bearing but I can confirm that MTU size is default of 1500 across the board.

The setup is pretty simple:

LAN <--> wanos <--> GW <--> VPN <--> GW <--> wanos <--> LAN

Potentially stupid question:Will I need to install iperf on the wanos box or a windows machine?

Hardware / Re: Identifying System Bottlenecks
« on: May 12, 2015, 02:11:53 PM »
OK so everything is up and running and I even have wanos loaded onto an Intel 750 Series SSD! Same transfer speeds and optimization, so SSD isnt a limiting factor. I noticed that I get a fairly consistent 3x optimization on revit files and anywhere from 3x to 12x on other files. Im pretty happy with the performance but still think the 100Mb connections could get better throughput. Again seeing about 105Mb throughput on the 100Mb connection with 3x optimization... where on the upload side of things im seeing 3x or more on both optimization and throughput. So optimization is good but there seems to be a bottle neck on throughput at the higher speeds... if that makes sense.

Hardware / Re: Identifying System Bottlenecks
« on: May 04, 2015, 02:32:54 PM »
Thats good news, thanks!

One other thing I should point out is that we are indeed getting between 3 and 5 to 1 optimization in both directions despite the limit in transfer speeds, so we are seeing huge benefit in bandwidth utilization, just not transfer speed on the 100Mb connection. Very happy with both metrics on the 20Mb upload side of things.

Hardware / Re: Identifying System Bottlenecks
« on: May 04, 2015, 02:14:09 PM »
I have done some testing with SSDs on both ends. With hot transfers, when transferring using the 100Mb pipe I get around 105Mb, so very little optimization. Going the other way on the 20Mb pipe I get around 55Mb so almost 300% optimization.

(These numbers are calculated simply by dividing transfer time by the file size of a test (uncompressed) Revit file.)

Im not sure what is limiting the 100Mb pipe, but it almost seems like it bursts to 200% then tapers off quickly, but that may be windows reporting transfer speeds inconsistently. Again this is with an E3-1245 processor sending on the fast pipe and a X5450 receiving, so pretty fast processing on both ends. The "top" interface doesnt show an IO or CPU bottleneck, but I am only running a single MX100 128Gb on both ends... for these speeds, Riverbed and Silverpeak recommend 4-6 SSD drives!

BTW, ESXi introduces almost no IO overhead... maybe 3-5% at most from testing I have done.

That said, I have ordered one of these:

If that doesnt eliminate IO as a possible bottleneck, I dont know what will. :)

I will report back after installing on the new SSD and testing transfer speeds.

Hardware / Re: Identifying System Bottlenecks
« on: March 20, 2015, 04:41:02 PM »
OK I tested last night again and saw a slight improvement in performance in both directions. This was after making the CLICK=false edit in /tce/etc/wanos/wanos.conf

Perhaps latency is another factor? Latency is pretty low between these sites though. Pings over the VPN from firewall to firewall are around 15ms.

Hardware / Re: Identifying System Bottlenecks
« on: March 19, 2015, 02:43:05 PM »
Another useful feature I think we need to add is a Diagnostics > Benchmark page to provide some insight into what is possible on the hardware.

That would be great to have!

Hardware / Re: Identifying System Bottlenecks
« on: March 19, 2015, 02:33:06 PM »
Dont worry, I realize the difference between Mb / 8 = MB
The testing I was doing was last night around midnight and online speed tests were showing full bandwidth was available on both ends, so bandwidth contention should not be an issue. I do see that when file transfers start they burst to higher speeds then taper off to the numbers I provided... so they are probably conservative. Thing is, when I see that wanos is capable of 300% increase, I am trying to find if I can see similar improvements on the other side.

Im not complaining by any means, wanos is performing quite well, im just being a bit greedy now :)

I will try CLICK=false option as we have oodles of memory available on both ends (12GB).

Hardware / Identifying System Bottlenecks
« on: March 19, 2015, 01:26:09 PM »
We have 2.0.4 setup in production between two offices:

HQ: 1Gb/1Gb
Remote: 50Mb/10Mb

Hot transfers to the remote site we are seeing 25% improvement over that 50Mb link while we are seeing over 300% improvement on the 10Mb link. So effectively things are operating at 60Mb/30Mb which is very impressive but I cant help but think we could do even better on that 50Mb link. During file transfer I dont see one thread go over 40% utilization on an E3-1245. That system is running a single SSD (Crucial MX100 128GB).

Can we squeeze even more performance out of wanos than this setup will allow? If so, is there a reliable method to determine where the bottleneck may be? I would imagine it would have to be IO, right?

General Discussion / Re: Version 2.0.2
« on: March 04, 2015, 06:16:39 PM »
Thats great!! Thanks!

Hi Jeremy,

Thanks for the awesome feedback. I agree on the initial trial. We have actually already decided to go that route and enable Express/Plus after the trial. We are on it.

We think there are many companies out there that could benefit from WanOp, but just not interested due to the price tags. Maybe there is an untapped market here. If we can get more companies interested, I think Silver-Peak and Riverbed would actually benefit from having a low end product around.

I agree on the marketing... working on it.

I honestly dont see wanos being "low end". The performance, reliability, and the level of refinement are far greater than one would expect out of a product from a relatively small company. Getting the right people to take a look is the challenge. Spiceworks would be a nice place to be popular.

BTW, if wanos were available for review on Spiceworks, I would be happy to post a review.

General Discussion / Re: Version 2.0.2
« on: March 04, 2015, 05:45:44 PM »
From my experience using wanos in a production environment for the last three months I can say that you guys have a fantastic product! It has exceeded my expectations in just about every way. I think the pricing structure in place is fair too, especially considering what Riverbed and Silverpeak charge.

That said, with the limits on the free edition being 6/60 it may be a hard sell for IT to convince management to invest in the plus version with no unrestricted performance data to sell them on. Perhaps the free version can be setup to initially run without limits for a short amount of time... a month perhaps? 30 days is more than enough to give people an idea of how wanos plus will perform in their environment.

With a proper marketing strategy, I can see you guys taking a huge chunk of the WAN optimization market from Riverbed and Silverpeak.

Pages: [1] 2 3