North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Xedia vs Packeteer Comparsion

  • From: Jonathan A. Zdziarski
  • Date: Mon Nov 02 15:03:51 1998

We had similar problems like this.  While our problems haven't gone
entirely away, support at packeteer gave us some suggestions which
dramatically fixed some of the problems...

- Upgrade to the latest code (3.1.3g I believe)
- Make sure your available bandwidth is set to 45MB not 100MB.  
- Make sure both NIC cards are set the same (if you do a 'net nic 0' and
'net nic 1' in the CLI, it will show you whether or not they're both
running at full duplex, half, or a combination of both).  If they're set
differently (e.g. we had one set to 100 Half and the other 100 Full), it
will think it's got more bandwidth available than it actually does (so I'm
told)

One of the main problems we're dealing with now is incoming traffic.  If
you upload something (ftp) over the physical LAN, it will use most if not
all available bandwidth, however if you upload something over a T1, etc,
that 20K you might get over ethernet becomes 4K (we've cancelled out the
possibility of it being the network it's going through).  I think this may
have something to do with the shaper sending certain TCP retries or
sending back packets in way that a 100MB ethernet link can recover
quickly, but the general internet cannot.  

Another issue (which is likely related to the first), is if you reach a
customer's peak burstable rate, transfers freeze up for 3-5 seconds, as if
it's stopping all packets going to through the partition rather than
allowing the peak amount through.  This isn't a big deal for customers
using 50% of their bandwidth, but for 256k or 512k partitions it presents
a problem.

packeteer is looking into this.

 On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, matthew zeier wrote:

> 
> I've been using the Packetshapper 4000 and have been having terrible
> performance when I consistantly push out 20Mbps+.  The pshaper4k sits
> between my edge router and my backbone FE switch (so all traffic goes
> through it).
> 
> Withouth going into too much detail, when the box inline with power on
> (and shaping on or off), I get about 10% packet drop and anywhere from
> 20ms-1000ms delay going through that box.  If I power it off or take it
> out of the picture, problem goes away.  
> 
> I've hit some limits because before I was consistantly above 20Mbps, the
> box worked very well.  I've had the tech guys take a look at it and they
> did mention I was hitting some hard limits.
> 
> - mz
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 09:25:16AM -0800, bcurnow wrote:
> > 
> > I'm doing such a comparison right now..
> > 
> > Here are the things I am concerned about:
> > 
> > Xedia:  Does T3/ATM interfaces and routes
> > Packeteer: Bridge Ethernet only.
> > 
> > Xedia: 600 individual profiles
> > Packeteer: 4096 (I think, double checking that with them)
> > 
> > Xedia: Doesn't need two routers
> > Packeteer: Since it only bridges, it has to be between two intelligent
> > devices.  I don't think looping it out and back to the same Cisco would
> > work.
> > 
> > Since I need more profiles, I am leaning toward a Packeteer.
> > 
> > If anyone else has notes, I would like to hear them. 
> > 
> > ----------------- Brian  Curnow ----------------
> > 
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Michael Gibson wrote:
> > 
> > > I wonder if anybody one there has had experience with both xedia and
> > > packeteer and would let me know what the strengths and weaknesses was of
> > > each
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Michael Gibson
> > > Team Leader, Network Operations - Netcom Canada
> > > Telephone: 416-341-5751  Fax: 416-341-5725
> > > [email protected]
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> matthew zeier -  "Chance is irrelevant - we will succeed." - 7 of 9
> 

Thank you,

Jonathan A. Zdziarski
Sr. Systems Administrator
Netrail, inc. 
888.NET.RAIL x240