cisco file Engine WAFS experience

Oct 17, 2005 1 Replies

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).


  1. 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

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required