TOFFEEプロジェクト
ホームドキュメンテーション更新ビデオ研究ダウンロードスポンサー接触


DOCUMENTATION 》 TEST CASES :: TEST RESULTS :: Raspberry Pi WAN Emulator TOFFEE-Mocha-1.0.14-1-rpi2

Here are my test cases and test results of Raspberry Pi TOFFEE-Mocha (version: TOFFEE-Mocha-1.0.14-1-rpi2) WAN Emulator build. I have connected two laptops as shown below via TOFFEE-Mocha Raspberry Pi2 device. I did these test cases to assess TOFFEE-Mocha, test its existing features, find and fix bugs if any, as well as a part of my routine research and analysis. It is connected via 100Mbps network since the Raspberry Pi2 supports only 100Mbps Ethernet as well my other USB2 to 100Mbps Ethernet adapter connected to it.
Raspberry Pi WAN Emulator TOFFEE-Mocha-1.0.14-1-rpi2 test setup

The DELL Laptop is installed with Apache2 web-server. And in the /var/www/html/videos/xaa file is copied. Which is a fragment of video file of size exactly 500MB.

Basic Test criteria:
The intent of all the test cases is to do few ping tests from HP Laptop to DELL Laptop via Raspberry Pi TOFFEE-Mocha device. And followed by a wget copy/download (via HTTP Protocol) of the xaa file from DELL Laptop via Raspberry Pi TOFFEE-Mocha device. And in each test case the same two tests are repeated while enabling various WAN emulation features supported in TOFFEE-Mocha (TOFFEE-Mocha-1.0.14-1-rpi2). Finally compare all test cases with the first test case (Test case1). Test case 1 is the reference test case in which no TOFFEE-Mocha WAN Emulation features are enabled in the TOFFEE-Mocha Raspberry Pi device.

Test case1 :: All TOFFEE-Mocha WAN Emulation features are disabled:
This is the first case in which all the TOFFEE-Mocha WAN Emulation features are disabled. Only Linux Kernel network bridging is created via TOFFEE-Mocha to facilitate to-and-fro packet flow between my HP and DELL laptops.

[email protected]:~/temp$ ping 192.168.0.100 -s 1200
PING 192.168.0.100 (192.168.0.100) 1200(1228) bytes of data.
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=2.19 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.70 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.71 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.64 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.72 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.67 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=1.72 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.71 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.68 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=1.72 ms
^C
--- 192.168.0.100 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9015ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.647/1.752/2.199/0.159 ms
[email protected]:~/temp$
[email protected]:~/temp$ wget http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
--2016-06-27 10:59:20--  http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
Connecting to 192.168.0.100:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 524288000 (500M)
Saving to: ‘xaa’

xaa                                  100%[===================================================================>] 500.00M  4.90MB/s    in 72s     


2016-06-27 11:00:32 (6.90 MB/s) - ‘xaa’ saved [524288000/524288000]

[email protected]P-ENVY-15:~/temp$

Here is the screenshot of the System Monitor Networking stats captured in my HP Laptop. Notice the blue curve (Network History) in the graph which denotes constant flow of packets with few glitches here and there.
Raspberry Pi WAN Emulator TOFFEE-Mocha-1.0.14-1-rpi2 Test case1

Test case2:
Constant packet delay: 1-millisecond and 0-microseconds
Dynamic packet delay disabled. Random packet drop disabled
This is a constant 1-millisecond packet delay. As you can see below there is a performance drop in both ping tests as well in the xaa wget file download.

[email protected]:~/temp$ ping 192.168.0.100 -s 1200
PING 192.168.0.100 (192.168.0.100) 1200(1228) bytes of data.
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.73 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=3.63 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=3.65 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=3.71 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=3.70 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=3.90 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=3.56 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=3.69 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=3.74 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=3.67 ms
^C
--- 192.168.0.100 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9014ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 3.562/3.702/3.902/0.099 ms
[email protected]:~/temp$
[email protected]:~/temp$ wget http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
--2016-06-27 11:06:33--  http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
Connecting to 192.168.0.100:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 524288000 (500M)
Saving to: ‘xaa’

xaa                                  100%[===================================================================>] 500.00M   889KB/s    in 9m 37s  

2016-06-27 11:16:10 (887 KB/s) - ‘xaa’ saved [524288000/524288000]

[email protected]:~/temp$

Notice the blue curve(Network History). The overall performance dropped to around 800KB/s.
Raspberry Pi WAN Emulator TOFFEE-Mocha-1.0.14-1-rpi2 Test case2

Test case3:
Constant packet delay: 1-millisecond and 500-microseconds
Dynamic packet delay disabled. Random packet drop disabled
This is a constant 1-millisecond and 500-microseconds (which is 1.5millisecond) packet delay. As you can see below there is a performance drop in both ping tests as well in the xaa wget file download.

[email protected]:~/temp$ ping 192.168.0.100 -s 1200
PING 192.168.0.100 (192.168.0.100) 1200(1228) bytes of data.
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=4.66 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=4.70 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=4.69 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=4.60 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=4.69 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=4.72 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=4.73 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=4.81 ms
^C
--- 192.168.0.100 ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 received, 0% packet loss, time 7012ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 4.605/4.705/4.813/0.073 ms
[email protected]:~/temp$ 
[email protected]:~/temp$ wget http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
--2016-06-27 11:17:54--  http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
Connecting to 192.168.0.100:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 524288000 (500M)
Saving to: ‘xaa’

xaa                                  100%[===================================================================>] 500.00M   602KB/s    in 14m 16s 

2016-06-27 11:32:10 (598 KB/s) - ‘xaa’ saved [524288000/524288000]

[email protected]:~/temp$

Test case4:
Constant packet delay: 0-millisecond and 0-microsecond
Dynamic packet delay enabled (factor 1). Random packet drops disabled
In this case constant packet delay is disabled and dynamic packet delay is enabled with dynamic delay factor 1. If the dynamic delay factor is 1 then the dynamic delay is more proportional to the size of the packet. Hence you can see there is a huge performance drop in the ping packets. As well stable performance drop in the wget xaa file download. Since it is a large 500MB file download, so the performance drop is fairly constant without much fluctuations. But in real world scenario, assume you are doing casual browsing and large folder with 100s of small file downloads, in those cases you may experience burst-like network performance. Since small packets are transferred without any significant delay and large near MTU sized packets are proportionally delayed.

[email protected]:~/temp$ ping 192.168.0.100 -s 1200
PING 192.168.0.100 (192.168.0.100) 1200(1228) bytes of data.
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=4.09 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=4.17 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=4.15 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=4.09 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=4.13 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=4.19 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=4.19 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=4.29 ms
^C
--- 192.168.0.100 ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 received, 0% packet loss, time 7008ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 4.091/4.167/4.295/0.061 ms
[email protected]:~/temp$
[email protected]:~/temp$ wget http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
--2016-06-27 11:35:32--  http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
Connecting to 192.168.0.100:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 524288000 (500M)
Saving to: ‘xaa’

xaa                                  100%[===================================================================>] 500.00M   887KB/s    in 9m 39s  

2016-06-27 11:45:11 (884 KB/s) - ‘xaa’ saved [524288000/524288000]

[email protected]:~/temp$

Test case5:
Constant packet delay: 0-millisecond and 0-microsecond
Dynamic packet delay enabled (factor 2). Random packet drops disabled
Same test case as above (i.e Test case 4) but with dynamic delay factor 2. This cuts down the exponential dynamic delay proportional to the packet size. And hence there is better network performance compared with test case 4. But in general you may experience similar network performance characteristics dynamically as test-case 4, but in this case little less significant.

[email protected]:~/temp$ ping 192.168.0.100 -s 1200
PING 192.168.0.100 (192.168.0.100) 1200(1228) bytes of data.
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=2.86 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.88 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=2.96 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=2.91 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=2.88 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=2.85 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=2.92 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=2.89 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=2.89 ms
^C
--- 192.168.0.100 ping statistics ---
9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 8014ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.858/2.898/2.967/0.059 ms
[email protected]:~/temp$
[email protected]:~/temp$ wget http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
--2016-06-27 11:46:47--  http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
Connecting to 192.168.0.100:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 524288000 (500M)
Saving to: ‘xaa’

xaa                                  100%[===================================================================>] 500.00M  1.67MB/s    in 5m 2s   

2016-06-27 11:51:49 (1.66 MB/s) - ‘xaa’ saved [524288000/524288000]

[email protected]:~/temp$

Test case6:
Constant packet delay: 0-millisecond and 0-microsecond
Dynamic packet delay disabled. Random packet drop enabled (factor 1)
In this case both dynamic and constant delay features are disabled and random packet drop is enabled with random drop factor 1 option. With this setting you may not notice much issues in ping performance as you can see below. This ping performance is almost the same as Test case 1 (i.e no WAN Emulation settings enabled in TOFFEE-Mocha). But you may notice a drastic file download performance degrade. You can control this via drop factor variable. In this case it is value 1. So there is excess packet loss. This will add confusion in TCP connection(s) and hence you will get extremely unpredictable dynamic performance.

[email protected]:~/temp$ ping 192.168.0.100 -s 1200
PING 192.168.0.100 (192.168.0.100) 1200(1228) bytes of data.
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.69 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.74 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.97 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.79 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.71 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=1.74 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.73 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.70 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=1.71 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=1.66 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=1.71 ms
^C
--- 192.168.0.100 ping statistics ---
13 packets transmitted, 11 received, 15% packet loss, time 12015ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.661/1.745/1.970/0.077 ms
[email protected]:~/temp$
[email protected]:~/temp$ wget http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
--2016-06-27 11:54:40--  http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
Connecting to 192.168.0.100:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 524288000 (500M)
Saving to: ‘xaa’

xaa                                  100%[===================================================================>] 500.00M   663KB/s    in 12m 25s 

2016-06-27 12:07:04 (687 KB/s) - ‘xaa’ saved [524288000/524288000]

[email protected]:~/temp$

Notice the blue curve (Network History) which is completely fluctuating. You get extremely bad and unpredictable performance. Notice the second screenshot, where it sometimes halts the packet transfer due to the confusion caused by random packet drop.
Raspberry Pi WAN Emulator TOFFEE-Mocha-1.0.14-1-rpi2 Test case6_1
Raspberry Pi WAN Emulator TOFFEE-Mocha-1.0.14-1-rpi2 Test case6_2

Test case7:
Constant packet delay: 0-millisecond and 0-microsecond
Dynamic packet delay disabled. Random packet drop enabled (factor 2)
Same as Test case 6, but in this case the random packet drop factor is value 2. This means the probability of packet drop (packet loss) is lesser than drop factor 1. So similar to Test case 6, you may not notice any significant ping performance issues. But in the wget xaa file download, you may notice now it is somewhat better than test case 6. There is less confusion in the link/connectivity, and hence better network performance and so less turbulence.

[email protected]:~/temp$ ping 192.168.0.100 -s 1200
PING 192.168.0.100 (192.168.0.100) 1200(1228) bytes of data.
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.66 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.71 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.77 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.78 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.78 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.62 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=1.66 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.73 ms
1208 bytes from 192.168.0.100: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.71 ms
^C
--- 192.168.0.100 ping statistics ---
9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 8014ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.629/1.717/1.781/0.060 ms
[email protected]:~/temp$
[email protected]:~/temp$ wget http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
--2016-06-27 12:10:13--  http://192.168.0.100/videos/xaa
Connecting to 192.168.0.100:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 524288000 (500M)
Saving to: ‘xaa’

xaa                                  100%[===================================================================>] 500.00M  5.96MB/s    in 95s     

2016-06-27 12:11:48 (5.28 MB/s) - ‘xaa’ saved [524288000/524288000]

[email protected]:~/temp$

Notice the blue curve (Network History), the network performance is now improved compared to the test case 6. You can notice due to still existing random packet drop (although less compared to test case 6), there is a dynamic network fluctuating performance.

Raspberry Pi WAN Emulator TOFFEE-Mocha-1.0.14-1-rpi2 Test case7

So these are the various test cases I tested casually. The intent is not to try all combinations of TOFFEE-Mocha features. But the intent is to test how far these features are going to affect the real-time simulated WAN network performance. And as well to understand which combination of settings need to be set for any given WAN network simulation, such as Mobile networks, Satellite networks, inflight WiFi and so on.



Suggested Topics:


TOFFEE-Mocha - WAN Emulator


Categories

💎 TOFFEE-MOCHA new bootable ISO: Download
💎 TOFFEE Data-Center Big picture and Overview: Download PDF


おすすめトピック:

CDN Hosting ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020
It is quite interesting that there are few web hosting firms are offering direct CDN based hosting services. Since it is a direct CDN based hosting, it is cheap, extremely easy or transparent CDN service. It is transparent, since each time you publish your content in the hosting web-server (origin server), it is immediately is in sync automatically in the user-serving CDN caching machines. Since the hosting vendor and the CDN vendor are all the same, it is also easy to use their services. There is no incompatibility issues, interoperability issues, and better integrated analytics, are all the benefits of CDN Hosting services.

Recording Lab Monthly off-grid power-consumption readings for research ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020

Introducing TOFFEE-Fudge - Network Packet Generator ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020
TOFFEE Fudge is a simple intuitive Network Packet Generator which can be used to create custom test synthetic Network Packets and can be used in various applications such as networking research, network infrastructure troubleshooting, ethical hacking, as a network software development tool and so on.

Building my own CDN - choosing a web-hosting to deploy my CDN - Update: 28-July-2016 ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020
The TOFFEE Project website is hosted on Inmotion Hosting. And so I am looking for alternate hosting provider to build my first CDN node. My plan is to make multiple sub-domains of my website such as cdn1.the-toffee-project.org, cdn2.the-toffee-project.org and point each of this corresponding subdomain(s) to various alternative web hosting servers geographically spread across the world. Sometimes choosing the same vendor for multiple CDN nodes may result multiple servers existing in the data-center. And this becomes an issue if there is some catastrophic network disaster.

Moon Base and Space Colonization - First we need fast InterPlanetary Internet ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020

My Lab Battery Purchase and Service logs for Research ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020
Here is a complete log of my lab battery purchase, service record which I maintain in Google drive. These I use for my home (or my family generic use) as well as a part of my home lab. I maintain a detailed log this way to monitor the failure rate of these batteries. This will allow me to select a specific brand/model which has higher success rate and to monitor any premature failure/expiry. The service log helps me to monitor and schedule the next service routine so that I can maintain these batteries in tip-top condition.

Youtubeで見る - [104//0] 154 VLOG Building my own CDN for TOFFEE website - Moving away from Joomla to non-Joomla website Ep4 ↗


CDN Hosting ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020
It is quite interesting that there are few web hosting firms are offering direct CDN based hosting services. Since it is a direct CDN based hosting, it is cheap, extremely easy or transparent CDN service. It is transparent, since each time you publish your content in the hosting web-server (origin server), it is immediately is in sync automatically in the user-serving CDN caching machines. Since the hosting vendor and the CDN vendor are all the same, it is also easy to use their services. There is no incompatibility issues, interoperability issues, and better integrated analytics, are all the benefits of CDN Hosting services.

Recording Lab Monthly off-grid power-consumption readings for research ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020

Introducing TOFFEE-Fudge - Network Packet Generator ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020
TOFFEE Fudge is a simple intuitive Network Packet Generator which can be used to create custom test synthetic Network Packets and can be used in various applications such as networking research, network infrastructure troubleshooting, ethical hacking, as a network software development tool and so on.

Building my own CDN - choosing a web-hosting to deploy my CDN - Update: 28-July-2016 ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020
The TOFFEE Project website is hosted on Inmotion Hosting. And so I am looking for alternate hosting provider to build my first CDN node. My plan is to make multiple sub-domains of my website such as cdn1.the-toffee-project.org, cdn2.the-toffee-project.org and point each of this corresponding subdomain(s) to various alternative web hosting servers geographically spread across the world. Sometimes choosing the same vendor for multiple CDN nodes may result multiple servers existing in the data-center. And this becomes an issue if there is some catastrophic network disaster.



Featured Educational Video:
Youtubeで見る - [44//0] 0xd Failed FreeNAS ZFS RAID-Z2 Debug | VLOG | #TheFreeBSDChannel #FreeBSD #NAS ↗

CDN Hosting ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020
It is quite interesting that there are few web hosting firms are offering direct CDN based hosting services. Since it is a direct CDN based hosting, it is cheap, extremely easy or transparent CDN service. It is transparent, since each time you publish your content in the hosting web-server (origin server), it is immediately is in sync automatically in the user-serving CDN caching machines. Since the hosting vendor and the CDN vendor are all the same, it is also easy to use their services. There is no incompatibility issues, interoperability issues, and better integrated analytics, are all the benefits of CDN Hosting services.

Recording Lab Monthly off-grid power-consumption readings for research ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020

Introducing TOFFEE-Fudge - Network Packet Generator ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020
TOFFEE Fudge is a simple intuitive Network Packet Generator which can be used to create custom test synthetic Network Packets and can be used in various applications such as networking research, network infrastructure troubleshooting, ethical hacking, as a network software development tool and so on.

Building my own CDN - choosing a web-hosting to deploy my CDN - Update: 28-July-2016 ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020
The TOFFEE Project website is hosted on Inmotion Hosting. And so I am looking for alternate hosting provider to build my first CDN node. My plan is to make multiple sub-domains of my website such as cdn1.the-toffee-project.org, cdn2.the-toffee-project.org and point each of this corresponding subdomain(s) to various alternative web hosting servers geographically spread across the world. Sometimes choosing the same vendor for multiple CDN nodes may result multiple servers existing in the data-center. And this becomes an issue if there is some catastrophic network disaster.



Youtubeで見る - [77//0] 155 VLOG - TOFFEE-Mocha WAN Emulation Software Development live update - 20-Oct-2016 ↗

CDN Hosting ↗
Tuesday' 04-Aug-2020
It is quite interesting that there are few web hosting firms are offering direct CDN based hosting services. Since it is a direct CDN based hosting, it is cheap, extremely easy or transparent CDN service. It is transparent, since each time you publish your content in the hosting web-server (origin server), it is immediately is in sync automatically in the user-serving CDN caching machines. Since the hosting vendor and the CDN vendor are all the same, it is also easy to use their services. There is no incompatibility issues, interoperability issues, and better integrated analytics, are all the benefits of CDN Hosting services.



Research :: Optimization of network data (WAN Optimization) at various levels:
Network File level network data WAN Optimization


Learn Linux Systems Software and Kernel Programming:
Linux, Kernel, Networking and Systems-Software online classes [CDN]


Hardware Compression and Decompression Accelerator Cards:
TOFFEE Architecture with Compression and Decompression Accelerator Card


TOFFEE-DataCenter on a Dell Server - Intel Xeon E5645 CPU:
TOFFEE-DataCenter screenshots on a Dual CPU - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5645 @ 2.40GHz - Dell Server