New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
ColoCrossing Buffalo Network Architecture Changes
Hi Guys,
In the past there have been numerous discussions about inconsistent incoming/download speeds to our Buffalo network. These inconsistencies were in large part due to where our DDOS infrastructure was placed in the network (at the edge). Today we completed a project to bring that equipment inside the network, allowing for much higher throughput speeds.
Do some testing and let us know if you're seeing better results. Looking forward to hearing some feedback.
Here's a test I just did from my office PC connected to our Buffalo network:
Thanks!
Comments
Is that Buffalo to Chicago? Not bad at all.
If you get me one of those 19$/m servers, I'd be gladly testing.
Finally!
Yes, this test was from Buffalo to Chicago. We are seeing faster speeds to all of our DC's and are very happy with the results!
Honestly I would be happy with this change, and quickly go over to test it out. However, after @cvps_chris's and @jbiloh's lackluster performance I don't have anything with colocrossing left.
Enjoy kiddies.
Maybe one day you'll reconsider
Awesome! Also welcome back Chris
Your ddos protection is based in Rio Rey or there is something more ?
Very nice indeed. Good work.
I might as well put a chair on my server as DDOS protection instead of using RioRey.
At least I can sit on the server instead of wasting money on false security.
Combination of in house software and networking techniques along with riorey gear.
Thanks! Hope your seeing more consistent, and higher speed, downloads now.
First of all I congratulate you for the effort of making or trying to make better a location that has been criticized several times.
I'm not a customer of yours but if you were doing everything as bad as a handful of clients report you would not be expanding.
I'll edit and go on.. ( crappy phone)
Also let is hosted by cc ( with help of cf) and even from south america it flies .
Software must also help or not but whts vbulletin is incredibly slow ( used to be good when they where in Rackspace(?)).Now liquid web is providing a sh service at least to what it used to be.
So external factors like in this case ddos had been eating bw and users could not have a linear speed or even worse sh.. speeds or even downtime ?
Thanks! We have a lot of great stuff in store in 2016, and we have no plans of slowing down. We're going to make every ColoCrossing datacenter across the United States a leader in the marketplace.
There is overhead when you inspect packets to stop DDOS. The way the Buffalo network was setup before today, all traffic experienced this overhead. Now, due to some cool network magic, that is no longer the case, but yet any customer and any subnet can instantly be protected by our DDOS shield without physical intervention. The end results are great speeds and still the benefit of DDOS protection.
I require ipv6 on my hosts at this point. Have any ipv6?
Sounds like a significant oversight in design, but good to see it corrected. I imagine this is going to improve the quality of your DDOS protection as well, taking extra load off of the system.
It's something we always questioned, but the way it was before was actually how the manufacturer of the equipment recommended. It was certainly "simpler" but clearly not better.
I read the title and immediately thought "cool, they are getting ipv6". Then read the thread - nope.
IPv6?
Don't worry, when they do actually do it, it will probably be one IPv6 address per server, just to avoid multiple blacklists, they can just have one.
@jbiloh This look very impressing for the Buffalo network.
Indeed. Hoping everyone enjoys the higher download speeds.