The reason the company won't increase the bandwidth is pretty obvious. They don't want to spend the money. If they can get away with it then they will. When they rolled out MPLS, they also halved the bandwidth to every remote site.
Edgesight will be used as purely a monitoring tool, and will hopefully save a great deal of time and effort in trying to establish where the problem lies in the first place.
As with anything in the company that I work for, cost is the most important factor. It is impossible to make an argument that doesn't come back with the same question; How much will it cost?
It is a pity that middle and senior management are so short sighted.
If your a multimedia company why don't you have bigger pipes? I mean considering the nature of the business and the nature of the type of files your working with, it would seem to be the prudent thing to do.
packeteer would help, edgesight won't help from the aspect of controlling the traffic.
Jeff Pitsch Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server Provision Networks VIP
Forums not enough? Get support from the experts at your business http://jeffpitschconsulting.com
On 9/19/06, Toby <toby.percival@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks for the advice Mark. Going to evaluate Packeteer and > Edgesight.....see if they can improve the oversall setup. I am sure they > can, but at what cost > > > Toby > > > On 9/19/06, Mark CALLEJA <Mark.CALLEJA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote: > > > > Toby > > > > If you have separate servers for your applications (in particular the > > multi media app server) you may be able to create policies to restrict > > > > the amount of bandwidth. However I personally would stay away from > > restricting them to much as the flexibility of the session > > restrictions > > is fairly limited compared to a dedicated WAN device. > > > > I was thinking that several policies could be created and associated > > to > > the particular servers. Thus the resultant policy would determine the > > bandwidth allocation. If the multimedia server has a couple > > concurrent > > users per site then the bandwidth could be the 200k you want, as the > > others will be restricted to 40 or so k. If you are over subscribing > > the link then I would suggest you look at increasing the link (if you > > can afford it). Alternatively , educate your users on the issues of > > buying bandwidth versus performance etc. > > > > Just a thought > > Mk > > > > Mark Calleja > > A/Manager Infrastructure Services > > Dept Housing and Works > > (08) 9222 4941 > > mark.calleja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > >>> toby.percival@xxxxxxxxx 19/09/2006 15:08 pm >>> > > Hi List, > > > > We have a number of branches connecting via a 1mb MPLS link to our > > head > > office. There are approximately 10 users on each site. Due to the > > nature of > > out business (multimedia), we use an application that involves images, > > > > and > > in particular, scrolling up and down, which in turn causes the network > > to > > slow down resulting in poor performance. > > > > The application that consumes the majority of the bandwidth is not > > used > > by > > everyone all the time. With this in mind, I set a 200k bandwidth limit > > > > on > > all sessions within each site. I originally started with 40k and > > worked > > up > > to what I believe to be workable limit. > > > > > > I have come up with two options, but neither seem to be right; > > > > Option 1. > > > > Limit 10 users to 100k per session. If this is done and only 5 users > > use the > > 100k, and the other 5 only 50k each, we are wasting 250k. > > > > > > Option 2. > > > > Limit 10 users to 200k per session. If this is done and the first five > > > > users > > use 200k, the other 5 users will have little to no bandwidth. > > > > Option 3. > > > > Any ideas? > > > > > > Any help appriciated. > > > > Kind regards > > ************************************************ > > For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or > > set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link: > > //www.freelists.org/list/thin > > ************************************************ > > > >