cisco file Engine WAFS experience

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by anybody43@hotmail.com, Oct 17, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Hello,

    Anyone have any positive (or negative) experience of
    Cisco Wide Area File Systems (File Engine products)
    or any similar equipemnt.

    I am particularly interested in experience with
    Long Fat Pipes and CIFS (SMB) (Windows shares) and
    MS Office applications and file "Exploring" however
    any field reports at all would be very useful.

    Long and Fat in this context are 80ms RTT and 45 and 100Mbps.

    The critical factors are:-
    1.Windows CIFS transfer at MOST 64k Bytes each
    RTT (max read/write size is 64kB and it
    waits for completion before it requests {or sends}
    another block) and in practise (for read) I see an
    average of 32k per RTT (60kB-then-4kB or 32kB-then-32kB).

    2.
    Windows needs about 6 RTTs to read the first byte
    of a file. The dance goes something like this
    - Hello do you have a file called something like...
    - Well then let me make sure I can open it
    - Now close it
    - Now open it (for real)
    - Read first bloc.

    I only seem to have 5. Above is an approximation.

    The File Engines claim to be a Band Aid which
    improves on these matters.
     
    , Oct 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dan Jones Guest

    >
    > Long and Fat in this context are 80ms RTT and 45 and 100Mbps.
    >
    > The critical factors are:-
    > 1.Windows CIFS transfer at MOST 64k Bytes each
    > RTT (max read/write size is 64kB and it
    > waits for completion before it requests {or sends}
    > another block) and in practise (for read) I see an
    > average of 32k per RTT (60kB-then-4kB or 32kB-then-32kB).
    >
    > 2.
    > Windows needs about 6 RTTs to read the first byte
    > of a file. The dance goes something like this
    > - Hello do you have a file called something like...
    > - Well then let me make sure I can open it
    > - Now close it
    > - Now open it (for real)
    > - Read first bloc.
    >
    > I only seem to have 5. Above is an approximation.
    >
    > The File Engines claim to be a Band Aid which
    > improves on these matters.
    >


    We evaled all products in this marketspace in my company, in real world
    test terms on WAN links with high bandwidth (4Mbit+), but 180-220ms
    latency (speed of light to datacentre due to location).

    3 final contenders, Riverbed, Cisco, and another which I forget.

    Cisco was the weakest in terms of features, and we went with the Riverbed..

    Riverbed is great technology - if you havn't looked at them, you need
    to. Works differently to the Cisco in that it doesn't cache whole
    files/directories, but chunks of data.

    Ie, you download a 1Mb file using CIFS and alter 8Kb of that file, only
    8Kb is reuploaded to the server upon Save. If someone subequently
    accesses the file, only the lock info is passed to the central server.
    Also the chunking technique means that once someone has a file it is
    protocol independant, so if someone works on a file using CIFS, and
    someone else on HTTP/FTP its still cached! Riverbed also has a nice
    cache "starter" tool, so you can push out things like a patch overmight
    to "warm" the cache.

    The Cisco product (when trialled 3 months ago) had numerous problems...
    Speed on accessing multi-user sheets, and locking of same databases,
    full file was fully reuploaded on change.

    So in short from my personal experience the Riverbed currently beats all
    the players in this field. HP now license it, so you have big vendor
    support (which is what we use). If you want more info, email me, and
    I'll go in depth on what we're seeing in the real world, problems etc..
    The long pipes being improved, are our main UK and US offices to
    regionals in Singapore/Japan.

    Cheers

    Dan
     
    Dan Jones, Oct 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. PS2 gamer
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    736
    AnyBody43
    Jun 1, 2004
  2. jo

    Cisco WAFS

    jo, May 21, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    608
  3. sphealey

    566 Content Engine - experience?

    sphealey, Sep 26, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    521
    James
    Sep 27, 2006
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    516
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    457
Loading...

Share This Page