Does CIFS optimization work without WAFS

Question

Hi everyone,
Now I am testing WAE in my lab with the following environment.
Windows 2003 Server
|
Cisco 2821 with NME-WAE-502-K9 as WAE Core
|
|
NIST Net WAN Emulation Software
|
|
Cisco 2821 with NME-WAE-502-K9 as WAE Edge
|
PC
Cisco 2821:
12.4(9)T3
enabled CEF, WCCP v2 with TCP promiscuous mode service (WCCP services 61 and 62)
NME-WAE-502-K9:
4.0.3
enabled WCCP v2
NIST Net parameters:
Bandwidth: 1.5M
Latency: 300ms
Packet loss: 0.5%
Test Tools/Methods on PC:
Cisco WAFS Benchmark Tool for Microsoft Office Application downloaded from CCO
for CIFS/SMB application
TCP Replay utility downloaded from CCO for HTTP application
FTP for FTP application
In this environment, I can get good result for HTTP (by using TCP Reply utility) and FTP, that is,
speed for downloading file by HTTP and FTP is improved over WAN (NIST Net).
However I can not see the effectiveness of WAE for CIFS/SMB traffic by using WAFS Benchmark Tool.
I do not configure WAFS (Wide Area File Services), because I can not configure it due to lack of
DRAM on WAE Core.
2GB DRAM is needed to get WAE Core to be worked as WAFS core cluster but both WAE have
just 1GB DRAM.
So I am testing how WAE efficiently work for WAFS Benchmark Tool without WAFS.
However the result of testing is not indicating WAE efficiency for WAFS Benchmark Tool.
That is, Speed is not different, in other words Speed does not change so much in the following
three cases.
Native WAN:
Remove WCCP v2 configuration from Cisco 2821
Then PC accesses Windows 2003 server by using WAFS Benchmark Tool
Cache Miss:
Enable WCCP v2 with TCP promiscuous mode service (WCCP services 61 and 62) on Cisco
2821 and WAE and restart WAE to clear any cache information
Then PC accesses Windows 2003 server (it is a first time) by using WAFS Benchmark Tool
Cache Hit:
In the case of PC has been accesses Windows server in the past
PC accesses Windows 2003 server (it is a second time) by using WAFS Benchmark Tool
And unfortunately, when "wccp cifs-cache" command is configured or not on both WAE,
the result is the same, that is, Speed does not change so much.
I am confusing about optimization for CIFS/SMB traffic.
According to "Default Application Policies" in the Cisco Wide Area Application
Services Configuration Guide,
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/docs/app_ntwk_services/waas/waas/v403/configuration/guide/apx_apps.html
WAAS, by default, handles CIFS/SMB traffic with LZ, TFO and DRE.
Classifier: CIFS-non-wafs
WAAS Action: LZ+TFO+DRE
Destination Ports: 139, 445
So I was thinking WAE optimize CIFS/SMB traffic even if no WAFS configured...
Do I need to configure WAFS in other words WAFS must be configured to achieve
the effect of WAE for CIFS/SMB traffic ?
or
Do I need to configure additional command to get WAE work fine for CIFS/SMB traffic
without WAFS ?
or
Is my idea wrong ? that is, WAFS Benchmark Tool is not appropriate tool in this
environment (no WAFS) ?
Your assistance would be appreciated.
Best regards,

Answer 1

=== Before Test 2 is executed ===
WAE-SiteA#sh tfo conn sum
WAE-SiteA#sh statistics dre
Cache:
Status: Usable, Oldest Data (age): 0s
Total usable disk size: 47527 MB, Used: 0.00%
Hash table RAM size: 189 MB, Used: 0.00%
=== While Test 1 is being executed ===
WAE-SiteA#sh tfo conn sum
Optimized Connection List
Policy summary order: Our's, Peer's, Negotiated, Applied
F: Full optimization, D: DRE only, L: LZ Compression, T: TCP Optimization
Local-IP:Port Remote-IP:Port ConId PeerId Policy
192.168.2.2:1031 192.168.1.1:445 2 00:16:9d:38:8a:5d F,F,F,F
WAE-SiteA#sh statiWAE-SiteA#sh statistics dre
Cache:
Status: Usable, Oldest Data (age): 4m14s
Total usable disk size: 47527 MB, Used: 0.00%
Hash table RAM size: 189 MB, Used: 0.00%
Connections: Total (cumulative): 1 Active: 1
Encode:
Overall: msg: 426, in: 2120 KB, out: 1558 KB, ratio: 26.47%
DRE: msg: 426, in: 2120 KB, out: 1843 KB, ratio: 13.04%
DRE Bypass: msg: 0, in: 0 B
LZ: msg: 374, in: 749 KB, out: 464 KB, ratio: 38.00%
LZ Bypass: msg: 52, in: 1094 KB
Avg latency: 0.808 ms
Message size distribution:
0-1K=69% 1K-5K=8% 5K-15K=7% 15K-25K=6% 25K-40K=5% >40K=1%
Decode:
Overall: msg: 397, in: 101158 B, out: 2196 KB, ratio: 95.50%
DRE: msg: 396, in: 162 KB, out: 2195 KB, ratio: 92.61%
DRE Bypass: msg: 1, in: 89 B
LZ: msg: 338, in: 67992 B, out: 130 KB, ratio: 48.95%
LZ Bypass: msg: 59, in: 33166 B
Avg latency: 0.045 ms
Message size distribution:
0-1K=65% 1K-5K=9% 5K-15K=8% 15K-25K=4% 25K-40K=11% >40K=0%
=== While Test 3 is being executed ===
WAE-SiteA#sh tfo conn sum
Optimized Connection List
Policy summary order: Our's, Peer's, Negotiated, Applied
F: Full optimization, D: DRE only, L: LZ Compression, T: TCP Optimization
Local-IP:Port Remote-IP:Port ConId PeerId Policy
192.168.2.2:1031 192.168.1.1:445 2 00:16:9d:38:8a:5d F,F,F,F
WAE-SiteA#sh statiWAE-SiteA#sh statistics dre
Cache:
Status: Usable, Oldest Data (age): 12m5s
Total usable disk size: 47527 MB, Used: 0.01%
Hash table RAM size: 189 MB, Used: 0.00%
Connections: Total (cumulative): 1 Active: 1
Encode:
Overall: msg: 862, in: 4223 KB, out: 1616 KB, ratio: 61.72%
DRE: msg: 862, in: 4223 KB, out: 1948 KB, ratio: 53.88%
DRE Bypass: msg: 0, in: 0 B
LZ: msg: 726, in: 822 KB, out: 491 KB, ratio: 40.27%
LZ Bypass: msg: 136, in: 1125 KB
Avg latency: 0.584 ms
Message size distribution:
0-1K=70% 1K-5K=8% 5K-15K=7% 15K-25K=6% 25K-40K=6% >40K=1%
Decode:
Overall: msg: 803, in: 167 KB, out: 4392 KB, ratio: 96.18%
DRE: msg: 802, in: 269 KB, out: 4392 KB, ratio: 93.86%
DRE Bypass: msg: 1, in: 89 B
LZ: msg: 674, in: 100 KB, out: 203 KB, ratio: 50.29%
LZ Bypass: msg: 129, in: 68670 B
Avg latency: 0.024 ms
Message size distribution:
0-1K=66% 1K-5K=9% 5K-15K=7% 15K-25K=4% 25K-40K=11% >40K=0%