Main Nav

We have been very happy with our switch from Packeteer to Procera.  I believe we've been using Procera now for 4-5 years.

Comments

We only have one external circuit routing through a NetEquilizer. The NetEqualizer is virtually maintenance free. I like the way it levels the bandwidth usage without respect to protocol. We have had a NetEqualizer since 2008.

 

 

Adrian Smith

adrian.smith@ni.edu

 

Director of Technology

Northland Mission, Inc.

- Northland International University

- Northland Camp & Conference Center

 

 

 

From: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jamie Arnold
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:43 PM
To: CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [CIO] Packetshaper or NOT

 

We have been very happy with our switch from Packeteer to Procera.  I believe we've been using Procera now for 4-5 years.

We went a totally different route back in 2007 and wrote our own system we called TMS.

The Traffic Management System (TMS) uses a consistent and fair (no pre-defined

“class” of user) processes to provide bandwidth (Internet) management. The processes do

not perform content management (policy based on packet data). Instead of analyzing

packet content, the system analyzes aggregate and individual traffic metrics. The system

then makes queuing changes to control Internet bandwidth levels, while still maintaining

quality of service for time sensitive services, such as voice and video, which are used for

distance education. The system’s analysis and queuing processes are performed numerous

times per minute. This system provides, comparatively, a hands off (no manual

involvement) means of controlling Internet bandwidth and preventing bandwidth

contention.

The TMS provides the university community the highest level of Internet usage and

fair individual access to the university’s Internet resources. As well, Internet service

provider price models are based on bandwidth size and not bandwidth usage, which

equates to a use it or lose it type resource. The TMS thus maximizes use of the (already)

paid for Internet service levels by not pre-allocating bandwidth for specific services.

As an alternative, a very frequently implemented solution for bandwidth

management involves content management appliances. Content management based

appliances apply (often proprietary) signatures and heuristics to packet data, which the

appliance then applies various manually defined policy to packets, such as: discarding,

queuing, or classification. These appliances require frequent updates in order to stay

current with the ever changing dynamics of applications used over the Internet.

To implement a content management system at the University of Wisconsin – Eau

Claire, it would involve an initial hardware investment, vendor support, and training costs

totaling over $100,000. As well, there would be annual residual vendor support costs of

$23,000 and an estimated $25,000 in employee costs for management (based on other

campus information).

The current TMS system was developed in house and was implemented on less than

$4,000 worth of hardware and requires comparatively no residual support costs.

Chip

Chip Eckardt
CIO
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
105 Garfield Ave.
Eau Claire, WI 54701
Phone 715-836-4636 ext. 362381
eckardpp@uwec.edu

 

 

 

 

Message from mike.cunningham@pct.edu

You should make this open source J

 

Hi, Mike.  We have a NetEqualizer, too.  Are you using 30 as the total connection limit or 30 in/out for a total of 60?  I agree with everything you say about the “set it and forget it” config on this thing.  Running our old Packeteer was like having another part time job.  I’m sure they have improved over the years since I last touched one but it felt like playing whack-a-mole with ever changing patterns of traffic.  We go for many months at a time without touching the NetEqualizer.

 

Cheers,

Charlie

 

Charlie Prothero

Chief Information Officer

 

Keystone College

Information Technology Building

One College Green

P.O. Box 50 • La Plume, PA 18440-0200

 

 

Message from mike.cunningham@pct.edu

Penn College uses http://www.exinda.com/  The newest we just deployed today has caching built in. We are hoping that is going to provide some relief on utilization.

 

At Dickinson College we use PacketLogic, but since we moved to a 1 gig connection we have not paid as much attention to shaping as we had in the past. For context we have a student body of 2300. Robert E. Renaud Vice President and CIO │ Dickinson College P.O. Box 1773, Carlisle, PA 17013 717.245.1072 │ renaudr@dickinson.edu
We have been able to get all of the packet shaping functionality we need out of our firewalls. We have Fortigate 1000as.  We have a 300 Mbs connection.  On the student side we set aside 20 Mbs for Gaming and set the priority to high.  We have a basic web browsing rule and give it 180 Mbs and set the priority to medium.  The 3rd traffic type we call "Swill" and we give it something like 1 Mb.  

We have a gaming policy and procedure that states that we will prioritize gaming traffic on a best effort basis and that students can email us at gaming@utica.edu to request access to online games.  We have setup the games as services in the firewall and apply them to a service group that is associated with the high priority rule.

The remaining 100 Mbs is for the academic side.  We do not do any prioritization there.

This works pretty well.  The maintenance is not bad.  We get a couple of requests for games every semester but it is pretty easy to deal with.

The other part is that we have two internet connections.  So if you get into being fully redundant then you have to buy two Packeteers or Netequalizers.  It gets pretty expensive especially when looking at 5 yr TCO.

We did a POC of the Netequalizer and liked it a lot.  The support was fantastic.  They really bent over backwards for us.  However, at the end of the day, I couldn't justify the cost, especially when considering the fully redundant configuration and that our firewalls were able to do all that we needed.

John

An interesting article from May indicates SETDA is recommending 100MB per 1,000 users by 2014, and bandwidth should increase to 1GB per 1,000 users by 2017.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227379/Education_group_Schools_need_100Mbps_per_1_000_broadband_users


On 2/1/2013 12:45 PM, Mike Cunningham wrote:
Robert, how many of these 2,300 live on campus? We have found that resident students use much more bandwidth then commuters or off campus students. We have close to 6,000 students but only 1,400 residents and have only 350Mb of bandwidth. That is barely enough and it would be nice to have a reference number like "number of residents x ???Mb = bandwidth required"

The article is based off of a report that addresses K-12.

http://www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=353&name=DLFE-1517.pdf

 

100MB per 1,000 users is probably a starting point for Higher Ed, but shouldn’t be the target.

 

Adrian Smith

 

 

From: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Dave Koontz
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 12:02 PM
To: CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [CIO] Packetshaper or NOT

 

An interesting article from May indicates SETDA is recommending 100MB per 1,000 users by 2014, and bandwidth should increase to 1GB per 1,000 users by 2017.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227379/Education_group_Schools_need_100Mbps_per_1_000_broadband_users

On 2/1/2013 12:45 PM, Mike Cunningham wrote:

Robert, how many of these 2,300 live on campus? We have found that resident students use much more bandwidth then commuters or off campus students. We have close to 6,000 students but only 1,400 residents and have only 350Mb of bandwidth. That is barely enough and it would be nice to have a reference number like "number of residents x ???Mb = bandwidth required"  
Message from mike.cunningham@pct.edu

Interesting but this is talking about K-12 where they have much more control over usage and don’t have resident students spending hours at night watching movies, and tv shows and online gaming and skype and facetime and Pandora

 

From: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Dave Koontz
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 1:02 PM
To: CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [CIO] Packetshaper or NOT

 

An interesting article from May indicates SETDA is recommending 100MB per 1,000 users by 2014, and bandwidth should increase to 1GB per 1,000 users by 2017.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227379/Education_group_Schools_need_100Mbps_per_1_000_broadband_users

On 2/1/2013 12:45 PM, Mike Cunningham wrote:

Robert, how many of these 2,300 live on campus? We have found that resident students use much more bandwidth then commuters or off campus students. We have close to 6,000 students but only 1,400 residents and have only 350Mb of bandwidth. That is barely enough and it would be nice to have a reference number like "number of residents x ???Mb = bandwidth required"  
    Our number for a campus of 10,000 ugrads with 5000 students living on campus is about 300Mb per 1,000 students at night (peak load).  We are not pegging the meters (still have unused capacity).  Usage grows about 20% per semester.
   
    Interesting and informative discussion.

David


On 2/1/13 1:02 PM, Dave Koontz wrote:
An interesting article from May indicates SETDA is recommending 100MB per 1,000 users by 2014, and bandwidth should increase to 1GB per 1,000 users by 2017.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227379/Education_group_Schools_need_100Mbps_per_1_000_broadband_users


On 2/1/2013 12:45 PM, Mike Cunningham wrote:
Robert, how many of these 2,300 live on campus? We have found that resident students use much more bandwidth then commuters or off campus students. We have close to 6,000 students but only 1,400 residents and have only 350Mb of bandwidth. That is barely enough and it would be nice to have a reference number like "number of residents x ???Mb = bandwidth required"
Thanks for a very helpful discussion: we just turned on NetEqualizer this month and so far so good.  We will be increasing our bandwidth for our school of 1300 from 150mbps to 240 mpbs this month.  Most of the funding for the increase is coming from the money we'll save with NetEqualizer.

One question I have regarding bandwidth needs has to do with the role of cable TV in residence halls. 

We are a residential campus but do not have cable in each room: with the rise of Netflix and Hulu our bandwidth, not surprisingly, really started getting hammered.  Have those with cable in their residence halls seen as marked an increase in pressure on bandwidth? Are students ignoring their cable options in favor of streaming?? 

Megan

Megan Fitch
CIO
Beloit College



Close
Close


Annual Conference
September 29–October 2
Register Now!

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

Digital Badges
Member recognition effort
Earn yours >

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.