[TriLUG] Tuning WAN links
jeremyp at pobox.com
Fri Nov 2 00:42:04 EDT 2007
Shawn Hood wrote:
> Thanks for the response, guys.
> I'm mostly satisfied with the local network performance on both ends. What
> could be done to increase the performance without modifying settings on each
> box involved. Could a box at each end be used to shape the traffic in a way
> that would optimize this link, or do we really need to try to tune each box?
Well your question was a bit academic without explaining the end goal...
is transferring data between these two "boxes" the primary purpose of
this WAN link? Or are you just using those boxes in order to test the
link for use by other purposes? As Aaron alluded to (I'm sure you read
his whole message, right?), typically links of this size would be used
for lots of "smaller" connections (many computers talking to many other
computers) rather than transferring of large amounts of data between
only two hosts.
Either way, I don't see what kind of "tuning" you're after if you don't
want to modify the settings on the boxes involved. (Isn't "tuning"
primarily "modifying settings"?) If there only two of them and this
link is dedicated to them, why is this a problem? And as Aaron pointed
out, if the issue is network buffer sizes, you can't get around that by
adding more hosts.
If there are really more than two boxes, you haven't really accurately
described the scenario - and there is no fundamental reason to assume
that the default settings of the routers and switches aren't adequate to
serve a "normal" load of many connections.
I really like Aaron's suggestion of "lab testing" things with a third
host to simulate the WAN link by adding latency artificially. Though
personally I would completely avoid any *BSD if at all possible. *grin*
More information about the TriLUG