From ngourlay at gmail.com Sun May 3 06:37:16 2009 From: ngourlay at gmail.com (Nigel Gourlay) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 16:37:16 +0300 Subject: [Qatar-pm] Does the Qtel filter affect web speed? Message-ID: <2379a820905030637u46148ea5mf51a2ea14b35b892@mail.gmail.com> I'm ambivalent about posting this mail, but the figures probably don't lie. The Qtel filter acts as both a censor and as a webcache. At a recent Qatar GNU Linux User Group meeting, I suggested it would be interesting to see how the filter affected download speeds. Tested using 1024kbps ADSL, contacting a US-located webserver bound to ports 80 and 92. Port 80 traffic is intercepted by Qtel's filter. Port 92 traffic is ignore by Qtel. Static requests are HTTP GET requests for zero-byte and 100KB binary files. The responses should be cacheable by a webcache. Dynamic requests are HTTP GET requests to randomly generated URLs. The responses should not be cacheable. ICMP ping round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 277.523/280.222/286.745/1.863 ms Zero-byte static requests Port 80: min/avg/max/stddev 60.673/68.117/198.970/18.626 ms Port 92: min/avg/max/stddev 581.702/598.875/1497.643/90.853 ms 100KB static requests Port 80: min/avg/max/stddev 1179.798/1446.170/1791.680/113.822 ms Port 92: min/avg/max/stddev 3745.255/4205.562/6069.717/563.729 ms Zero-byte dynamic requests Port 80: min/avg/max/stddev 323.830/382.158/1627.435/173.142 ms Port 92: min/avg/max/stddev 584.414/626.839/1716.627/130.719 ms 100KB dynamic requests Port 80: min/avg/max/stddev 1882.814/1914.729/2000.469/28.852 ms Port 92: min/avg/max/stddev 2450.092/2491.407/2530.966/17.465 ms Qtel's filter improves speeds for both static and dynamic requests. --nigel From kosala.atapattu at gmail.com Sun May 3 21:01:58 2009 From: kosala.atapattu at gmail.com (Kosala Atapattu) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 07:01:58 +0300 Subject: [Qatar-pm] [List] Does the Qtel filter affect web speed? In-Reply-To: <2379a820905030637u46148ea5mf51a2ea14b35b892@mail.gmail.com> References: <2379a820905030637u46148ea5mf51a2ea14b35b892@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <966e88ae0905032101t1fdb7316l48f630af322d3b16@mail.gmail.com> Interesting finding NIgel :). I thought this is common within ISPs to cache internet traffic. This functionality of Transparent Proxying is possible even with Squid. Some time back this was a cool method to reduce the tier 1 bandwidth usage (most of the big guys were talking ab it). For most of the countries (unlike Korea and Japan... etc.) where internet traffic is not local, this was a must, including SL. Well most probably they use a commercial tool to do that :). Nigel, It would be interesting to trace the network path it takes over port 80. I'm stuck with a Windows box, can you give a try with hping on port 80 to do a path trace. # hping3 -S -t 0 -z -u 1 [IP Address] -p 80 You can use CTRL+z to increase the TTL. Or send me the IP address of the server you tested, so I can play with it once I go home SInce we got in to the subject of caching... people who still haven't looked at Varnish, I suggest have a look. It was quite interesting. Kosala On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Nigel Gourlay wrote: > I'm ambivalent about posting this mail, but the figures probably don't lie. > > The Qtel filter acts as both a censor and as a webcache. At a recent > Qatar GNU Linux User Group meeting, I suggested it would be > interesting to see how the filter affected download speeds. > > Tested using 1024kbps ADSL, contacting a US-located webserver bound to > ports 80 and 92. Port 80 traffic is intercepted by Qtel's filter. Port > 92 traffic is ignore by Qtel. > > Static requests are HTTP GET requests for zero-byte and 100KB binary > files. The responses should be cacheable by a webcache. > > Dynamic requests are HTTP GET requests to randomly generated URLs. The > responses should not be cacheable. > > ICMP ping > round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 277.523/280.222/286.745/1.863 ms > > Zero-byte static requests > Port 80: min/avg/max/stddev 60.673/68.117/198.970/18.626 ms > Port 92: min/avg/max/stddev 581.702/598.875/1497.643/90.853 ms > > 100KB static requests > Port 80: min/avg/max/stddev 1179.798/1446.170/1791.680/113.822 ms > Port 92: min/avg/max/stddev 3745.255/4205.562/6069.717/563.729 ms > > Zero-byte dynamic requests > Port 80: min/avg/max/stddev 323.830/382.158/1627.435/173.142 ms > Port 92: min/avg/max/stddev 584.414/626.839/1716.627/130.719 ms > > 100KB dynamic requests > Port 80: min/avg/max/stddev 1882.814/1914.729/2000.469/28.852 ms > Port 92: min/avg/max/stddev 2450.092/2491.407/2530.966/17.465 ms > > > Qtel's filter improves speeds for both static and dynamic requests. > > --nigel > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > List at qglug.org > http://lists.qglug.org/mailman/listinfo/list > -- Kosala -------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: Views expressed in this mail are my personal views and they would not reflect views of the employer. -------------------------------------------- blog.kosala.net www.linux.lk/~kosala/ www.kosala.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: