On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Bill Marquette
wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Sean Cavanaugh
> wrote:
>> Bill
>>
>> he USED to have 2 bonded T1's but they reduced to a single T1 connection to
>> save money.
>>
>> -Sean
>
> Yes, I'm referring to the old circuit intentionally. I didn't
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Sean Cavanaugh
wrote:
> Bill
>
> he USED to have 2 bonded T1's but they reduced to a single T1 connection to
> save money.
>
> -Sean
Yes, I'm referring to the old circuit intentionally. I didn't get
bonded out of "The current connection is 3Mbit/3Mbit, works", he
Bill
he USED to have 2 bonded T1's but they reduced to a single T1 connection to
save money.
-Sean
EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
Join me
> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 07:09:33 -0500
> From: bill.marque...@gmail.com
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support]
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
>> Slowing down considerably when under full load is normal, slowing to
>> the point that sites don't load anymore when you're just running a few
>> Windows updates is definitely not.
Chuck Mariotti wrote:
> Thanks… I am going to follow up with AllStream. The bytes/sec are the
> Max and Average. I think their reporting system is broken. RRD reported
> 1.5Mb/s, it was just a table top sitting there until we cancelled the
> windows updates. Then it dropped right back down.
have
[mailto:jol...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:39 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update kills the
connection... ??
> WHY would you want to shape your downstream channel? that kind of defeats the
> purpose of having the bandwidth th
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
> Slowing down considerably when under full load is normal, slowing to
> the point that sites don't load anymore when you're just running a few
> Windows updates is definitely not. Sounds like there's something wrong
> with the T1, or the CPE
> WHY would you want to shape your downstream channel? that kind of defeats
the purpose of having the bandwidth there in the firstplace.
For example if you have a fast connection to a building, and it is being
shared between tenants.
Without restricting the downstream, user A can severely impact th
Sorry, those pairs are Max / Average number to clarify.
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Mariotti [mailto:cmario...@xunity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:31 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update kills the
connection... ??
Great
WHY would you want to shape your downstream channel? that kind of defeats the
purpose of having the bandwidth there in the firstplace.
-Sean
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:21:39 -0700
From: jol...@gmail.com
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update
t: Re: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update kills the
connection... ??
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Chuck Mariotti wrote:
> To clarify further...
>
> In this situation, we are downgrading to a T1 (1.5Mbit/1.5Mbit) connection
> from a new service provider. The curr
> It should just get slower and divide the bandwidth evenly since there are> no
rules to shape it.
Thats basically what should happen.
Of course things get all out of whack when the connection isn't symmetric
(like most consumer connections). On those, you will see severe degradation
in speed on t
> Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 09:57:32 -0600
> From: aoz@gmail.com
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update kills the
> connection... ??
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 09:53, Chuck Mariotti wrote:
> > I used cheapo
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
> Slowing down considerably when under full load is normal, slowing to
> the point that sites don't load anymore when you're just running a few
> Windows updates is definitely not. Sounds like there's something wrong
> with the T1, or the CPE
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 09:53, Chuck Mariotti wrote:
> I used cheapo DLink 10/100 Network cards to build the server. But I'm
> doubting that would be the cause. The only other oddity is that I threw a
> little DLink 8 Port Gigabit Switch between the router and firewall, simply
> because I didn'
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Chuck Mariotti wrote:
> To clarify further...
>
> In this situation, we are downgrading to a T1 (1.5Mbit/1.5Mbit) connection
> from a new service provider. The current connection is 3Mbit/3Mbit, works,
> but is insanely expensive (way more than twice the price).
Riglin [mailto:michael.rig...@shaw.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:32 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update kills the
connection... ??
Normally, the packages sent out from the Windows Update service are quite
small in size and the BITS service
ssues here, and only testing and
verification will the root cause to light.
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Mariotti [mailto:cmario...@xunity.com]
Sent: May-13-09 8:20 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update kills the
connection... ??
Øland [mailto:jol...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:28 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update kills the
connection... ??
During this new firewall installation, someone decided to run Windows Updates
on a four computers. Previously
upport@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update kills the
connection... ??
put in a big squid proxy with a large disk cache, and or set up windows
clients to auto-download updates during the night so at least congestion
happens outside critical times
if you're
, 13 May 2009 03:43:31 -0400
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update kills the
connection... ??
It did not happen with the other connection. But the previous
firewall didn’t allow me to look at nice graphs and see it maxing out, etc… It
just worked. It
Rob Pickerill schrieb:
> havent been following this one, so dont know if its been mentioned
> before, but have you looked at WSUS?
>
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/wsus/default.aspx
>
> let that collect the updates - preferably overnight - and distribute
> them to your workstations/servers
>
havent been following this one, so dont know if its been mentioned before,
but have you looked at WSUS?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/wsus/default.aspx
let that collect the updates - preferably overnight - and distribute them to
your workstations/servers
2009/5/13 Paul Mansfield
> put in
put in a big squid proxy with a large disk cache, and or set up windows
clients to auto-download updates during the night so at least congestion
happens outside critical times
if you're using managed switches, can you throttle
back individual ports?
otherwise, traffic shaping may be your friend
ing the same
> sites (except in this exception of windows update).
>
> Regards,
> ChuckM
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Glenn Kelley [mailto:gl...@typo3usa.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:58 AM
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Suppo
: Glenn Kelley [mailto:gl...@typo3usa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:58 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update kills the
connection... ??
I would suggest placing in a bandwidth shaper.
There are some open source alternatives out there - just
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] RE: T1 Saturating - Windows update kills the
connection... ??
During this new firewall installation, someone decided to run Windows Updates
on a four computers. Previously, this would not have choked the network, but
with the new firewall
>
> During this new firewall installation, someone decided to run Windows
> Updates on a four computers. Previously, this would not have choked the
> network, but with the new firewall (and new T1), it is choking it. Choking
> it dead. The four machines appear to contend for connectivity but after
I would suggest placing in a bandwidth shaper.
There are some open source alternatives out there - just do some
research as to what will fit best for you -
ie - do you know freebsd / linux / or stuck in windows ?
I would suggest the shaping to be done per protocol.
You may also want to place
29 matches
Mail list logo
