- BlackBerry Storm vs. the iPhone
- Digg's Kevin Rose: "We have to do better"
- Blogger warns: "Nortel doesn't make it out alive"
- Financial quagmire bringing out the scammers
- Verizon plays with the wrong e-mail addresses
Newsletters | Podcasts | Chats | Opinions | RSS Feeds | This Week In Print | IT Careers | Community | Reports | Downloads | Slideshows | New Data Center
Partner Sites:Application Performance Solutions | App Performance | Networking Solution | SafeGuard Enterprise Solution Center | SOA | Test your Web Filter | Value of WDS
WAN experts Steve Taylor and Jim Metzler analyze and share best practices on WAN issues from optimization to management.
All too often, today's products for application acceleration as assumed to run on FM (Fudging Magic), and, in fact, resources to determine the fundamental difference between products are too few and far between. However, the title of the paper "The Benefits of Byte-Level WAN Deduplication" belies its fundamental usefulness as an opportunity to look at two different methods for sending "symbols" across the network in order to reduce the total amount of data sent.
As explained in the paper, there are two ways of avoiding resending the same data repeatedly - “token-based” and “instruction-based.” And each has its advantages depending on the type of data that is predominantly being transmitted.
In a token-based method, a particular bit sequence (token) is used to represent a “chunk” of data (to use the technical term). If the chunk of data that is represented by the token is very large, then you get quite significant data reduction. For instance. if the token is a 16-byte token and it’s representing 10,000 bytes, you’re getting a data reduction of 625:1. On the other hand, if the chunk of data is only 100 bytes and you’re still using a 16-byte token, the reduction is only about 6:1.
By contrast, “instruction-based” systems use tokens to indicate where changes in the data occur as compared with a prior instance. For example, if a file is sent a second time and there are only minor changes, then the capability to send only the changes and not to retransmit large amounts of unchanged data becomes much more efficient.
The bottom line is that when you’re evaluating application acceleration appliances, it’s worth a detailed look under the hood to see exactly how the amount of data to be sent across the network is reduced. Depending on the types of changes that are sent in your most common applications, this can make a tremendous difference in the amount of acceleration that’s realized.
(Check out Network World's Buyer's Guides to compare Application Acceleration and WAN Traffic Optimization products.)
Steve Taylor is president of Distributed Networking Associates and publisher/editor-in-chief of Webtorials. Jim Metzler is vice president of Ashton, Metzler & Associates.
Partner Content
Simplify Your Branch Infrastructure
Learn how to simplify your branch infrastructure while dramatically increasing app performance with Citrix Branch Repeater.
Download the Free Info Kit
Next-Gen Load Balancing
Free Guide: "Next Gen Load Balancing: 8 Things You Need to Handle Today's Network Traffic" shows you the functionality needed in your next load balancer.
Download the Free Guide
Accelerate Your Web Apps by up to 5x
Free Guide: "The Secret to Getting Maximum Speed from your Web Applications." Learn how you can deliver Web apps up to 5x faster.
Download the Free Guide
Comments (1)
Marketure vs. a better way to find the best WAN optimization solutionBy Steve Evans on June 16, 2008, 8:57 amIt's clear after reading the referenced paper that it is simply Silverpeak's jab at Riverbed. It oversimplifies token-based data reduction. It's never that simple....
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments