Kazaa killer or broadband filler? 2 Packet shapers tested
How we tested
| |||||
We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.
The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.
We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.
The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.
Interoperability
Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?
Futureproofing
Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?
ROI
The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.
Service
What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?
- Company: Burrell's Storage
This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.
Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.
Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.
- Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants
The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.
Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.
Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.
This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
Click here for subscription information.
How we tested
| |||||
We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.
The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.
We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.
The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.
Interoperability
Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?
Futureproofing
Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?
ROI
The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.
Service
What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?
- Company: Burrell's Storage
This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.
Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.
Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.
- Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants
The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.
Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.
Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.
This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
Click here for subscription information.
How we tested
| |||||
We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.
The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.
We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.
The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.
Interoperability
Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?
Futureproofing
Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?
ROI
The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.
Service
What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?
- Company: Burrell's Storage
This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.
Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.
Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.
- Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants
The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.
Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.
Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.
This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
Click here for subscription information.
How we tested
| |||||
We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.
The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.
We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.
The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.
Interoperability
Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?
Futureproofing
Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?
ROI
The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.
Service
What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?
- Company: Burrell's Storage
This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.
Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.
Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.
- Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants
The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.
Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.
Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.
This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
Click here for subscription information.
How we tested
| |||||
We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.
The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.
We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.
The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.
Interoperability
Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?
Futureproofing
Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?
ROI
The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.
Service
What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?
- Company: Burrell's Storage
This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.
Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.
Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.
- Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants
The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.
Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.
Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.
This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
Click here for subscription information.
How we tested
| |||||
We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.
The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.
We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.
The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.
Interoperability
Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?
Futureproofing
Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?
ROI
The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.
Service
What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?
- Company: Burrell's Storage
This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.
Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.
Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.
- Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants
The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.
Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.
Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.
This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
Click here for subscription information.
How we tested
| |||||
We didn't have access to RMIT's external router where you would typically deploy a packet shaper.
The Peribit SR-80 on the other hand was plugged into a hub. This way the Peribit would examine all the traffic coming in and out of the hub.
We had clients attached to both the switch and hub. We preloaded clients with applications like Kazaa and ran services like GroupWise and FTP.
The scope of the testing was to see how easy it would be to get up and running as well as how each Packet shaper performed in the areas of classification, setting up policies/ rules, and reporting.
Interoperability
Does the packet shaper support a variety of network interfaces and enough bandwidth?
Futureproofing
Does the unit offer expandability and is there a reasonable upgrade path?
ROI
The age-old comparison of price, performance, and features.
Service
What warranties and service contracts are available? Can you get prompt service at a reasonable price?
- Company: Burrell's Storage
This company's Internet bills are skyrocketing and suspects that staff are using file sharing software, and other inappropriate content. It requires a device to allow it to block out unwanted Internet traffic.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as the product pays for itself.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a network of up to 500 users.
Concerns: The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules for blocking or allowing content is the key concern. If possible, the devices should be able to work in parallel for maximum availability.
Best solution: The Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better choice here with its ease of classifying and monitoring different types of traffic.
- Company: Hewitt CAD Consultants
The company is introducing Voice over IP on its WAN links and needs to make sure both the VoIP and other important applications such as thin clients can operate efficiently.
Approximate budget: Open, as long as voice quality is improved.
Requires: One packet shaping device suitable for a 1Mbps WAN link.
Concerns: Being able to manage the performance of key applications such as VoIP is the major issue at stake. The ability to easily manage the device and configure rules will also be a big consideration.
Best solution: Once again the Packeteer PacketShaper 1500 is the better option. Its quality-of-service features clearly outshone the Netintact.
This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
Click here for subscription information.