HyperIP boosts data-replication efficiency

For my testing, I used the Shunra WAN Emulator to create a simulated WAN connection between two subnets. I then routed both iSCSI and FC over IP storage traffic across the connection, first across the raw connection, and then through the two HyperIP boxes, one on each end of the WAN connection. In each case, I impaired the WAN link by gradually increasing latency from 40 milliseconds to 1,200 milliseconds, increasing jitter and bit error rate from zero to levels simulating a poor WAN connection, and changing the middle of a three-step connection from 10Mbps to 768Kbps — all conditions that might arise in the real world.

Free IT resource TechNet: More ways to know it, share it, and keep it running. Sponsored by Microsoft Free IT resource Attend the SOA Executive Forum: Breaking SOA Bottlenecks SOAExecForum.com/may2007 Sponsored by InfoWorld NetEx HyperIP R5 Network Executive Software, netex.com Excellent  8.9 criteria score weight Administration 9 20% Expandability 9 20% Security 9 20% Setup 9 20% Interoperability 9 10% Value 8 10% Cost: Starting at $19,750 for a 10Mbps system Bottom Line: The HyperIP is a specialized, easy-to-administer appliance that accelerates and improves the flow of storage traffic across an IP WAN connection. Companies using TCP/IP WAN connections with storage applications at any rate higher than a T1 connection should investigate this solution. About our Reviews and Scoring Methodology

Traffic conditions

With the highest levels of latency, jitter, and bit errors, the HyperIP’s throughput was about 10 times faster than the raw connection. When I enabled compression, I saw a maximum of about 18 times the throughput, although this was dependent on how compressible the data being moved was; text and XML files, for instance, are very compressible, whereas many graphics files are already compressed and can’t be reduced much further.

These numbers are somewhat deceptive. Disregarding compression, The HyperIP did not achieve any greater throughput than would have been available over a clean connection. Instead it ameliorated the effects of a bad connection, to the point where there was very little difference between the traffic flows over the impaired and clean links. This is great news for IT managers looking to use the Internet for replication. However, for those using private leased lines, the benefits may not be as great.

One interesting feature is that the appliance’s bandwidth capacity can be purchased in increments. The hardware is the same, but the box can be upgraded from 10Mbps to 480Mbps of throughput without lifting a finger. The appliances I tested had no problem handling the full 480Mbps of traffic. Each box handles as many as 118 TCP connections; anything more will require additional units, and applications that tend to use multiple connections will need to be modified. Traffic from each application can be throttled individually.

Security features include a separate Ethernet interface for management, so that control of the system cannot be subverted across the WAN connection, if requirements dictate. Management across the WAN port can also be enabled, for instance, for a remote office.

If you have a clean leased line with low latency and few bit errors, you won’t see much improvement with the HyperIP. On the other hand, if you have a dirty line, or are tunneling through the Internet with an SSL or other tunneling connection, you should see substantial improvements, more than enough to justify the price of the units.

Correction:
In this review, HyperIP should have been characterized as mitigating the effects of latency, jitter, bit error rate, and bandwidth variation for all types of TCP/IP traffic. The error has been corrected.