@Pete-S said in VPN File Transfer Problems:
Just as an example I had a problem with one VPN link that turned out to be a LACP problem on the switch.
Do you recall what the LACP issue was? It's in-play in a couple of points along the path in the data-center.
Appreciate the insights and advice, but just to be clear, my main point of concern is that I can get up to 10x the speed traversing the same VPN / ISP and network infrastructure when the server is on a 1G copper link in the data center as opposed to when the server is on a 10G fiber link in the data center. I'm fine with disparity from site to site and it's of course to be expected given different ISPs, network conditions and workloads at the different locations.
I've done some iperf based testing on the issue already and have shown that raw wan speeds are acceptable and that I can get substantially more speed on iperf than with file transfer. I've also have seen that iperf on windows is garbage, the speeds are nowhere near what I'm getting on as close as I can get to a like for like comparison with linux.
@valentina Being out of coffee on a Monday morning? sounds like hell
@dafyre said in [VPN File Transfer Problems](/post/
enabled anything at all, you'd take a performance hit.
Can you elaborate on the "anything at all"?
We've got a couple of prioritization rules in play for SIP, but everything else over the VPN link is disabled.
@scottalanmiller Exactly..... I think my next step is going to be to connect to a unused 1G port on the 501E to see if it's the FG all on it's own that's messing with things.
@dafyre Yes. Fortigate 501E HA pair at the datacenter / main office, a 101E at the largest US site, 81E everywhere else. All on FW 6.0.4....
My current theory is that when the data hits the 501E @ 10G there's something that comes into play to slow things down for the VPN tunnel and it's "throttling" too aggressively. I could understand if I was getting the same results for all DC servers at the remote sites, but that the 10G servers are roughly 10% of the speed consistently over the tunnels...
@Pete-S remote sites are scattered across Canada and the US. Different ISPs, variety of speeds, same / similar results proportional to the site's connection.
Looking for ideas with file transfers over the VPN to our remote sites.
The roles of "Server A" and "Server B" can be done by any server in the main datacenter, physical install or VM doesn't matter. Server and client roles have been tested on Server 2012, 2016 and a couple of different flavors of Linux all with the same / similar results. The remote site file transfer results are best case, right now before anyone's in. Typically during the day I'm getting 500K against Server A
Looped in vendor support for the firewalls and they aren't seeing any drops, errors or issues with the VPN connection.
I'm seriously at my wit's end on this one..... I've tried with and without flow control on the server side of things with no change, tried playing with driver settings for the servers on the windows side of things all for nothing.
The 10G NICs are Intel x520 if it makes a difference. From server to server across the fiber links we're able to get approx 500MB/s during business hours, didn't connect over the weekend to do any baselines with mother's day and having done OT the last 2 weekends on our VDI servers.
@WrCombs said in Windows 10 Reboots:
@scotth said in Windows 10 Reboots:
@notverypunny said in Windows 10 Reboots:
Could it be overheating and then going to various levels of power management / throttling to manage the thermal load?
If this is counter in a restaurant, I'd bet good money that it's covered by bags or napkins or some kind of advertisement. Our POS systems use separate power bricks and the are constantly covered up and they cook nicely.
Lol I've seen this happen as well.
But this is the Server that's having the issues.
<air quotes>Server</air quotes> in this case is running W10 right? So likely just a PC in the manager's office that could equally be covered in stuff or otherwise be suffocating / overheating.
Could it be overheating and then going to various levels of power management / throttling to manage the thermal load?
@Pete-S If I'm not mistaken, what you've described is expected behaviour for a typically configured switchport and NIC.... If a NIC were configured in promiscuous mode on a hub (ick) I would expect it to see all traffic on the hub... not sure if this is along the lines of what you're looking for but it's the only gotcha I can think of based on your query... mind you the 3yo woke me up to watch Paw Patrol at some ungodly hour this morning so I might not be the sharpest at the moment
New or used? Purpose? Budget?
I'm partial to Paradigm but that's mainly because I managed to score 2 sets of Monitor 3 v2 speakers when an independent record store closed where I was living a few years ago....
Anyways, bang for the buck I'd shop craigslist or kijiji for used Paradigm of the same vintage. The newer stuff seems gimmicky but I can't find any fault with any of their gear that I've had the pleasure to enjoy.
3 monitors + lappy screen at work. Typically just a laptop on the recliner or couch at home, I've got a desk with an E-Dock and 2 monitors in the basement if I really need to work on something (generally try to avoid it though).
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
"Planning" along these lines is the only reason I can think of the veeam agent being a hard requirement
NONE of this is based on planning, at all. This is 100% politics and the OP has no say in it. It is a non-technical mandate from powers on high that are not considering any business need or ramifications.
Agree 100%... The road to hell is paved with good intentions; wanting backups is never a bad thing, trying to do them like this is just asking for trouble.
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
I think UrBackup is better there, but that's beside the point. Veeam Windows Agent is a requirement that can't be reconsidered. So it is what it is.
It is? I must've missed that in this conversation.
Better than Zmanda? Definitely.
Nothing to miss, we never discuss it.
I mean, Veeam free being a requirement.
Yes, you must have missed it. Veeam AGENT Free is a requirement.
My takeaway was that the free agent was the proposed solution, not necessarily a requirement....
.... going back to the "planning" that got us here, either I'm underestimating the capabilities of the 2020 introduction of a veeam server or someone thinks that they'll be able to fire up a server in a year's time and point it at the existing backups and say "these are yours to manage now".... which seriously defeats the point of putting something like a "real" veeam server in play that takes backups at the hypervisor level even if it can ingest the existing data and take over managing the backups.... "Planning" along these lines is the only reason I can think of the veeam agent being a hard requirement
... OK you found the required part while I was typing this up
So, disregarding the fact that this seems to be a bit of a fool's errand or a case of being set up for failure..... something like this might work from a hw perspective https://www.45drives.com/products/storinator-q30-configurations.php
I gave up on reading all of the comments after a while, but has anyone touched on the target getting bogged down with all of the simultaneous backup sessions running?
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
Folding laundry and drinking a beer while curry simmers on the stove.
@gjacobse said in Digital Signage Display Recommendations?:
might take a look at
IIRC pisignage is what we're using to display social committee stuff in a couple of locations around the office.
There's also https://screenhub.com/ which we've looked at and seems pretty cool.
Counting down the last 16 minutes until the weekend and trying not to think about the subnet move that we're going to have to tackle at one of our sites