Editors note:
The quote by the Adams State administrator sums it up.
"The price is fair, the best value in the product space"
This is a re-post of the Adams state blog, the details are a bit technical which don’t reflect the actual simplicity of a basic setup. From box to Network it is usually under an hour, without little or no recurring maintenance.
http://faculty.adams.edu/~cdmiller/?TrafficShaping
Also note NTOP reporting issues were remedied shortly after this original post back in 2006.
———————————————————————————————————-
In May 2006 we switched bandwidth management products. We moved from traditional layer 7 traffic shaping to bandwidth arbitration. We looked at upgrading our current product and 3 other solutions.
I am convinced protocol and layer 7 based filtering is dead. I expect P2P products to use SSL or TLS bypassing layer 7 filters. Ethically layer 7 filtering smells like content filtering, big brother, evil.
Bandwidth arbitration keeps things simple. When the Internet connection reaches a tuneable level of utilization the arbitrator slows down longer lived higher usage data transfers based on the number of connections and their utilization. Per host connection limiting keeps P2P playing nicely.
The chosen product? Net Equalizer.
Based on the open source Bandwidth Arbitrator, it is easy to configure and highly customizable. Support has been excellent.
With the netequalizer link size at ~20% below our average utilization our pipe remained completely usable. Interactive applications responded well while large transfers continued to function. The connection limits appear to keep bittorrent and gnutella functional and in control.
- Qualitative Results 2006-06-23
Downloads are faster, latency is at pre layer 7 filtering levels (9ms vs 300ms), P2P protocols are usable again, and we no longer police content, we manage bandwidth. Support has been excellent with technicians responding directly to my emails with all technical levels of questions answered, good, silly, and questions about the inner workings of the appliance. I was instructed on cautions to take withe any attempt at customization, and given the go ahead for some minor custom configuration without voiding the warranty.
We have run the Netequalizer for 6 months. Results are phenomenal compared with our last product. Our Netequalizer box has been up for 116 days with no configuration changes from the start of the semester. I look at my Cacti graphs and the custom CGI reports for solace, as if I’m disappointed the appliance doesn’t need more care and feeding.
For our 21Mb link, we set 3 basic parameters:
RATIO 75
BRAIN_SIZE 2500
CONNECTION LIMIT 40
The ratio is the amount of of our pipe in use before any shaping (arbitration) takes place. The brain_size is the number of connections for the equalizer to track and act upon, I have seen this number reached only once on our system. The connection limit means we allow 20 incoming and 20 outgoing connections maximum for every host on our network. We had to set every one or our servers as an exception to this rule, allowing 50,000 incoming and outgoing connections for those. We also had to specify our link size. That’s it end of configuration.
We did very simple things to appease ourselves of the performance of the box. First, we placed an SNMP daemon on it. I used a stock snmpd from a Mandriva 2006 server, from net-snmp 5.2.1.2. I was going to static compile one, but it turned out the dynamic libraries were all in place, here is the ldd output:
ldd /usr/local/snmp/sbin/snmpd
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/tls/libdl.so.2 (0x4001b000)
libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x4001f000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x40031000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x40057000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
I put the daemon in /usr/local/snmp/sbin/ and the mibs and snmpd.conf in /usr/local/snmp/share/snmp/.
We created 2 custom CGI scripts. One script shows the complete current logfile on demand rather than the last however many lines the web interface shows. The other script shows total current connections, followed by a list of hosts with more than 3 connections, sorted by total outgoing and incoming connections. I modified some of the scripts provided in the /art directory to produce those results. Someone with more familiarity with the Linux bridge utilities could probably do better.
Here is the showlog.cgi script I placed in the /var/www/cgi-bin/arbi directory:
#!/bin/perl
print "Content-type: text/html\n\n";
print "<html><head></head><body><pre>";
system("cat /tmp/arblog.bak");
system("cat /tmp/arblog");
print "</pre></body></html>";
Here are some lines from the showlog output, catching the arbitrator slowing someone down with .05 second delays (the DELAY portion):
11/06/06 08:39:32 PENALTY IP : 147.124.8.230 192.156.134.2 POOL: 0 WAVG: 133212 BUFF: 102 DELAY: 5
11/06/06 08:39:32 INCREASE PENALTY IP: 147.124.8.230 192.156.134.2 POOL: 0 BUFF: 102 DELAY: 10
11/06/06 08:39:44 Traffic up: 575430 Traffic down: 962330 POOL 0
PENALTY THRESHOLD pool 0 up 2688000 down 2688000
11/06/06 08:39:47 PENALTY DECREASE: 147.124.8.230 192.156.134.2 to 5 POOL: 0
11/06/06 08:39:51 PENALTY REMOVE: 147.124.8.230 192.156.134.2 POOL: 0
Here is some output from our connections script with the top 5 out and in hosts:
Total Connections: 2074
More than 3 Outgoing Connections:
192.156.134.15 76
192.156.134.2 61
72.166.201.218 58
192.156.134.16 36
72.166.205.159 21
More than 3 Incoming Connections:
72.166.205.159 88
192.156.134.15 76
72.166.201.110 57
192.156.134.2 56
72.166.201.218 51
Notice the hosts with more than 20 connections. Some of these are exempt servers, but others are workstations. Our firewall disallows non related incoming connections campus workstations, Netequalizer is in front of the firewall. I have examined some of these cases and many are P2P connection attempts that never truly connect to transfer data or are very short lived. We typically see about 20 to 30 hosts at or above the connection limit and about 100 hosts with more than 3 incmoing or outgoing connections, including all of our Internet servers.
We have an out of band PC using Ntop to track what hosts on the network are doing. I have verified the output of the Netequalizer against our Ntop machine many times in the last few months. I have also on occasion initiated a large download from a fast Internet site when I notice one or two folks getting high data rates. At those times I have observed Netequalizer start to arbitrate, creating head room on the pipe to keep bursty interactive traffic responsive.
The user interface is spartan, strictly functional
Ntop is not really usable on the appliance
Editors note: ( NTOP has been updated and supported in later versions since this comment was posted)
An SNMP daemon should be included
More logging should be available
Performance is as advertised, if not better
Minimal configuration is required
Maintenance is minimal
User manual has some typos
User manual requires a full read
User manual is only 36 pages, reflects minimal configuration required
Some level of customization is allowed without voiding the warranty
Support is excellent
The price is fair, the best value in the product space
Created by APconnections, the NetEqualizer is a plug-and-play bandwidth control and WAN/Internet optimization appliance that is flexible and scalable. When the network is congested, NetEqualizer’s unique “behavior shaping” technology dynamically and automatically gives priority to latency sensitive applications, such as VoIP and email. Click here for a full price list.
Failover and NetEqualizer: The Whys and Why Nots
April 9, 2008 — netequalizerDo you want failover on your NetEqualizer or wondered why it’s not available? Let me share a story with you that has developed our philosophy on failover.
A long time ago, back in 1993 or so, I was the Unix and operating system point person for the popular AT&T (i.e. Lucent and Avaya) voice messaging product called Audix. It was my job to make sure that the Unix operating system was bug free and to trouble shoot any issues.
At the time, Audix sales accounted for about $300 million in business and included many Fortune 500 companies around the world. One of the features which I investigated, tested, and certified was our RAID technology. The data on our systems consisted of the archives of all those saved messages that were so important, even more so before e-mail became the standard.
I had a lab setup with all sorts of disk arrays and would routinely yank one from the rack while an Audix system was running. The RAID software we’d integrated worked flawlessly in every test. We were one of the largest companies in the world and we spared no expense to ensure quality in our equipment, and we also charged a premium for everything we sold. If the RAID line item feature was included with an Audix system, it could run as high as $100,000.
Flash forward to the future. We get a call that a customer has lost all their data. A RAID system had failed. It was a well-known insurance company in the Northeast. Needless to say, they were not pleased that their 100 K insurance policy against disk failure did not pan out.
I had certified this mechanism and stood behind it. So, I called together the RAID manufacturer and several Unix kernel experts to do a postmortem. After several days locked in a room, we found was that the real world failure did not follow the lab testing where we had pulled live disk drives in our lab. In fact, it failed in such a way as to slowly corrupt the customer data on all disk drives rendering it useless.
I did some follow up research on failover strategies over the years and discovered that many people implement them for political reasons to cover their asses. I do not mean to demean people covering their asses, it is an important part of business, but the problem is the real cost of testing and validating failover is not practical for most manufacturers.
Many customers ask, “If a NetEqualizer fails, will the LAN cards still pass data?” The answer is, we could certainly engineer our product this way, but there is no guarantee for fail safe systems.
Here are the pros and cons of such a technology:
1) Just like my disk drive failure experience, a system can fail many different ways and the failover mechanism is likely not foolproof. So, I don’t want to recreate history for something we cannot (nor can anybody) reliably real-world test.
2) NetEqualizer’s failure rate is about two percent over two years, which is mostly attributed to harsh operating conditions. That means you have a 1 in 50 chance of having a failure over a two-year period. Put simply, the odds are against this happening.
3) If a NetEqualizer fails, it is usually a matter of moving a cable, which can be easily fixed. So, if you, or anyone with access to the NetEqualizer, are within an hour of your facility, that means you have a 1 in 50 chance of your network being down for one hour every two years because of a NetEqualizer.
4) Customers that really need a fully redundant failover for their operation duplicate their entire infrastructure and purchase two NetEqualizers. These customers are typically brokerage houses where large revenue could be lost. Since they already have a fully tested strategy at the macro level, a failover card on the NetEqualizer is not needed.
5) For customer that is just starting to dabble, they have gone to Cisco spanning tree protocol. Cisco has many years and billions of dollars invested in their switching technology and is rock solid.
6) Putting LAN failover cards in our product would likely raise our base price by about $1000. That would be a significant price increase for most customers, and one that would most likely not be worth paying for.
7) Most equipment failures are software or system related. We take pride in the fact that our boxes run forever and don’t lock up or need rebooting. A failover LAN card does not typically protect against system-type failures.
So, yes, we could sell our system as failsafe with a failover LAN card, but we would rather educate than exploit fears and misunderstandings. Hopefully we’ve accomplished that here.
Share this: