[THIN] Re: WAN bandwidth management/performance
- From: "Tim Mangan" <tmangan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:13:47 -0500
Timely, Network Computing (Nov 25, 2004 issue) does a review in this area.
That call the market "WAN Accelerators" and it includes both shaping and
caching. In it, they review the following:
Peribit Networks SM-500
Expand Networks Accelerator 4820/6810
Packeteer Packet Shaper 6500/2500 Xpress
Swan Labs NetCelera Model T
The article should be available online at www.networkcomputing.com
<http://www.networkcomputing.com/>
Tim Mangan
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of BRUTON, Malcolm, FM
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 6:02 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: WAN bandwidth management/performance
Your also talking about two different types of devices. Packeteer is packet
shaping and restriction of protocols etc to certain rules. Expand boxes are
WAN caching devices (kinda like a proxy server but for all traffic across a
WAN). I believe you can use the two together though to get best
performance. Personally if money was an issue I'd go for packet shaping
over WAN caching.
Malcolm
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Evan Mann
Sent: 30 November 2004 23:11
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: WAN bandwidth management/performance
We have a box from Allot (NetEnfrocer) which we will be testing and is
extremely similar to Packeteer but cheaper. We havn't got it in production
yet but plan to in the next few days. I always see Packeteer and Allot's
name come out when it comes to bandwidth management.
Packeteer is the biggest name because they were one of the first (the
first?) to do bandwidth management on large and enterprise scales and be
dedicated to ONLY that purpose, and I think you end up paying a little extra
for name because of it.
None of these products are cheap, by any means, and for a small branch
office with 50 users, you may find it to not be cost effective, but I guess
it depends on how much the hardware/maintenance cost compare to getting a
smaller pipe and squeezing more from it.
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Chris Grecsek
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:43 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] WAN bandwidth management/performance
We are setting up 2 branch offices with about 50 users each to access our
central office/server farm via Citrix. We are delivering full desktop
sessions (including printing and surfing) to those offices and we're
evaluating products to manage our WAN bandwidth/performance. Currently we're
looking at products from Packeteer and Expand Networks but wanted to bounce
it off the list to see what others are using for this as this will be
critical to ensuring that our users are getting the performance they're
expecting. I see that some of the big Citrix consulting firms are
recommending Packeteer but from what I've looked at it seems like the
equipment from Expand might be a better option?
Our goal is to have as little equipment as possible at the branch office.
Ideally all we'd like at each site would be the router, bandwidth management
device, firewall, switch and then thin clients/dumbed down desktops.
Any advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Chris Grecsek
****************************************************************************
*******
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc. Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered
Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB.
Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the
addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other
than the addressee, please return the message to the sender
by replying to it and then delete the message from your
computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The
Royal Bank of Scotland plc does not accept responsibility for
changes made to this message after it was sent.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the
transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this
message and any attachments will not adversely affect its
systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by The Royal
Bank of Scotland plc in this regard and the recipient should carry
out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
Visit our websites at:
http://www.rbs.co.uk/CBFM
http://www.rbsmarkets.com
****************************************************************************
****
Other related posts:
