Subject: Re: HTTP performance issues

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:08:11 +0100

Hi

The plan is to us proxies on each remote and one on the VSAT HUB.  We are now
testing Satbooster and Venturi, do you know similar products like this ?

Guy

Please respond to Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>

To:   Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
cc:   Guy Raymakers@EDSBELGIUM, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: HTTP performance issues

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Joe Touch wrote:

>>> Hi ,
>>>
>>> We are now in the process of rolling-out web based applications to a number
of
>>> remote VSAT connected sites. With the tests we did, I have to conclude that
the
>>> performance of HTTP is rather poor.

end-to-end performance of HTTP is always poor. That's why we have
proxy caches. Are you using proxy caches, and if so where are they
located?

(And if not, why not? http://ircache.nlanr.net/ etc.)

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: [email-masked] (John Bourke)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:38:11 GMT

Hello,

Does anyone have information on Satbooster, a Web site mabye ?

Thanks

john

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:10:45 +0000 (GMT)

> Does anyone have information on Satbooster, a Web site mabye ?

http://www.google.com/search?q=satbooster

L.

---

From: DC Palter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:38:42 -0800

>testing Satbooster and Venturi, do you know similar products like this ?

The Mentat SkyX Gateway XR10.  See http://www.mentat.com/skyx/xr10.html.

DC

---

From: Andreas Voigt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 21:37:35 +0100

Try the Mentat solution as well! Some companys who will be one of the
global players in the future uses it for SatIP... :-)

---

From: "Barry Raveendran Greene" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:08:02 -0800

Hello Guy,

> testing Satbooster and Venturi, do you know similar products like this ?

Several people have worked this with Squid. Other WWW Cache products are
doing this as part of a TCP Stack modification or integrated into the
product. For example, we've got the following going into the latest version
of the Cache Engine (2.0):

+ TCP slow start
+ Congestion avoidance
+ Fast retransmit / fast recovery algorithms
+ No delayed-ACK in the TCP establish phase
+ Reduced the initial smooth threshold value to avoid the slow start process
ramp up too quickly to cause network congestion (based on Janey C. Hoe's
work)
+ No re-start the slow start when the connection has been idle
+ Better TCP timers mechanism to cut the TCP timers process times
+ Window scale option (RFC 1323). It can go as high as 1,073,725,440 bytes
(64k x 2 power of 14)
+ SACK/PMTU and Path MTU Discovery will be in version  2.1.

All of this is common sense for a WWW Cache manufacturer - we keep up with
the research, IDs, and RFCs to work the features into make friendlier to
satellite links. Just working through RFC1223 and RFC2488/BCP28 provides a
lot of information.

The parallel step would be to work more of the http 1.1 compliance into the
WWW Cache Software. It's not just http 1.1 persistent connection. For
example, IMS (If-Modified-Sense) also has a role to play in the performance
optimization over a satellite link.

Barry