Community
Civil 3D Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Civil 3D Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular AutoCAD Civil 3D topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Remote Office Suggestions

12 REPLIES 12
Reply
Message 1 of 13
jrehm
254 Views, 12 Replies

Remote Office Suggestions

I have a bit of a problem. I have a company that opened a remote office and have a full time VPN between the two. I need the remote office to be able to access drawings at the home office, but this isn't working out well. If the remote office opens a drawing directly from the home office server, Land Desktop hangs (I'm assuming due to speed issues). People at the remote office can copy the file to the local machines, but this is tedious and presents the issue of home office users editing the document at the same time. Not good.

Vault was suggested as a means of getting around this, but I'm not sure if it will work with the way this place operates. They run a mix of versions 2004 and 2006. Some are stand-alone and some are network licensed. I also don't want to add complexity to the situation because they are already pissed that I haven't been able to come up with a viable solution on the cheap.

If it was me, I'd setup a dedicated T3 connection, but obviously this would be quite costly.

Anyone here with a similar situation?
12 REPLIES 12
Message 2 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: jrehm

jrehm wrote:
> I have a bit of a problem. I have a company that opened a remote
> office and have a full time VPN between the two. I need the remote
> office to be able to access drawings at the home office, but this
> isn't working out well. If the remote office opens a drawing
> directly from the home office server, Land Desktop hangs (I'm
> assuming due to speed issues). People at the remote office can copy
> the file to the local machines, but this is tedious and presents the
> issue of home office users editing the document at the same time.
> Not good.
>
> Vault was suggested as a means of getting around this, but I'm not
> sure if it will work with the way this place operates. They run a
> mix of versions 2004 and 2006. Some are stand-alone and some are
> network licensed. I also don't want to add complexity to the
> situation because they are already pissed that I haven't been able to
> come up with a viable solution on the cheap.
>
> If it was me, I'd setup a dedicated T3 connection, but obviously this
> would be quite costly.
>
> Anyone here with a similar situation?

There's no good answer here since the speed required to make everyone
happy would be costly. However, I can tell you that Vault is NOT a
solution, since it doesn't work with Land Desktop (at least in the sense
that Civil 3D does).

--
Jason Hickey

Civil 3D 2007, SP2
Dell Precision M70
2 GIG RAM, 256 MB nVidia Quadro FX Go1400
Intel Centrino 2 gHz Processor

www.civil3d.com
Message 3 of 13
jrehm
in reply to: jrehm

Something told me Vault wouldn't necessarily be the answer and even if it was, I think it would add complexity that probably wouldn't go over well with this bunch.

I'm in the process of pricing out a dedicated connection. Not sure of the cost, but I know it isn't gonna be cheap. But, if they want to work the way they do on the LAN, it's pretty much at the point they can either cough up the cash or fire me and find someone else that will fail at the same thing.
Message 4 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: jrehm

jrehm wrote:
> Something told me Vault wouldn't necessarily be the answer and even
> if it was, I think it would add complexity that probably wouldn't go
> over well with this bunch.
>
> I'm in the process of pricing out a dedicated connection. Not sure
> of the cost, but I know it isn't gonna be cheap. But, if they want
> to work the way they do on the LAN, it's pretty much at the point
> they can either cough up the cash or fire me and find someone else
> that will fail at the same thing.

IIRC, I priced out two partial T1 lines (1.5 pipes) at somewhere in the
neighborhood of $600 per month (I *THINK*) about a year and a half ago.
Dropping the two partial lines and going to one T3 pipe jacked that
price up to the $1600 per month neighborhood. Needless to say, we
stuck with the two partials.

--
Jason Hickey

Civil 3D 2007, SP2
Dell Precision M70
2 GIG RAM, 256 MB nVidia Quadro FX Go1400
Intel Centrino 2 gHz Processor

www.civil3d.com
Message 5 of 13
jwedding
in reply to: jrehm

http://www.riverbed.com/products/appliances/

I love these things. They're akin to black magic, and pricey, but better
than many other solutions. Data integrity is not the place to play cheap.

Worked like a champ with two offices similar to yours, 6Mb on one end, 1.5Mb
on the other end.

--
James Wedding, P.E.
Engineered Efficiency, Inc.
Civil 3D 2007
XP Tablet, SP2, 2GHz, 2G
www.eng-eff.com
www.civil3d.com
Message 6 of 13
jrehm
in reply to: jrehm

Interesting device. Could be a player. How much involved in setup and configuration?
Message 7 of 13
jrehm
in reply to: jrehm

Also, what kind of circuits were you running?
Message 8 of 13
jwedding
in reply to: jrehm

It wasn't bad, but they generally include basic setup in their quote anyway.

--
James Wedding, P.E.
Engineered Efficiency, Inc.
Civil 3D 2007
XP Tablet, SP2, 2GHz, 2G
www.eng-eff.com
www.civil3d.com
Message 9 of 13
jrehm
in reply to: jrehm

Right now DSL in both locations connected through VPN. The best outbound speeds are around 400k and with the VPN overhead obviously less actual throughput.

Looking at doing at least full T's in both locations, but the remote location will be moving into new space, so for now I'm stuck there with what's locally available (DSL or cable). I'm trying to get these folks to understand the issues associated with what we are trying to use now, but alas, we are talking a bunch of engineers... no offense.
Message 10 of 13
jrehm
in reply to: jrehm

Just talked to Riverbed and it looks like this very well may be the way to go. They even say that for my immediate needs, I may not even need to change out the DSL circuits.
Message 11 of 13
jrehm
in reply to: jrehm

Update on the Steelheads...

Have a 200 in the main office and a 100 in the remote office. After some issues with misnegotiation of link speeds, finally got them working. They significantly improve speeds.

The effective throughput is on the order of a 10mbps LAN. Would love to get higher speed circuits, but for now it seems to be doing the job. The remote user is a little disappointed, but I suspect this is because he was expecting things to run as fast as being on a 100 LAN. It has also been a little tough getting him to cooperate with the warming process. The speed in my opinion is acceptable.

The only big issue I ran into was that Riverbed states a cross-over is required between the Steelhead WAN port and the router/firewall. I found that this wouldn't work if you lock the interfaces at 100 Full. The connection would come up, but it would take nearly 5 minutes for traffic to start flowing and no optimization would take place. As soon as I swapped out the cables for straight-through things woke up nicely. Surprisingly, Riverbed didn't seem to have a notion swapping the cables may be needed when locking the speed and duplex.

As an indication of how much improvement has taken place, opening a 14 meg drawing file without the Steelhead takes about 9 minutes and frequently results in a lockup. With the Steelhead it takes about 30 seconds. Saving the file takes a little longer because of the lower outbound speed of the connection, but not much longer.

All in all they are amazing devices. I think the pricing is a bit excessive and the maintenance pricing is way excessive, but it is obviously value based pricing and unfortunately they sort of have you by the nads. That aside, I would recommend taking a look if one needs to operate across WAN links quickly and reliably.
Message 12 of 13
jrehm
in reply to: jrehm

Spoke a little too soon. Upon further testing we have been unable to get the Steelheads to work properly. One minute things are blazing fast, the next it's as if they aren't even there. Riverbed is thinking duplex/speed issues, but that doesn't seem to be the problem. Just can't figure it out.

Thinking of ditching the Steelheads because of all the troubleshooting time that's being invested and just putting a server in the remote office and syncing the necessary files between the two locations.
Message 13 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: jrehm

Have you set both Steelhead speeds to Auto? I've had the best luck with
this. Also, have you looked in the Riverbed support knowledgebase? Here's a
particularly relevant entry:

SMB signing FAQ

What is SMB signing?
-----------------------------
Server Message Block (SMB) signing is a Microsoft remote access
feature available in Windows Server 2000, 2003, and XP. SMB signing allows
any communication using the SMB protocol (including CIFS, the protocol used
for remote file access) to be digitally signed at the packet level. SMB
Signing is controlled through the Digitally Sign Communications options in
the domain controller policy. By default, domain controllers are configured
to require signing, while member servers and clients are not. Windows
2000sp3 and Windows XP typically do not use signing due to its associated
performance penalty.

How does it interact with the Steelhead appliance?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Digitally signing SMB packets enables the recipient of the packets to
confirm their point of origin and authenticity (that is, verifying that the
packets came from the expected location and have not been modified during
transit). SMB Signing does not keep data confidential nor does it encrypt
any data. It merely prevents others from adding or altering data in the
connection.

Steelhead appliances do not alter the SMB payload data, but they do
perform actions on their own using transaction prediction: reading ahead in
a file, prefetching directory contents, and so forth. For these reasons,
Steelhead appliances sometimes need to act like the client or server on a
particular SMB connection. With SMB signing enabled, the Steelhead
appliances cannot perform transaction prediction.

When the Steelhead appliances detect that the client and server are
using SMB signing, the Steelhead appliances stop performing transaction
prediction. This is done without disturbing the client or the server. The
Steelhead appliances continue to use compression and data referencing on the
connection, such that bandwidth consumption is reduced. However, the
Steelhead appliances are not able to execute CIFS specific latency
optimizations. Therefore, in networks with significant latency (over 20-30
ms round-trip times) you will not see nearly as much file access performance
improvement.

Why would someone want to digitally sign SMB traffic?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to ensure that any files or data you retrieve from a
file server have not been altered in transit. Furthermore, Windows domains
use the SMB protocol to transfer some types of non-file data. For instance,
when a workstation logs on to a domain, the domain controller sends group
policy information to the workstation through the SMB protocol. SMB signing
ensures that the workstation receives the group policy from the actual
domain controller.

What are best practices?
----------------------------------
Generally, Riverbed recommends using the Microsoft default settings:

* Use Domain controllers just for domain services, keep signing set at
the default setting Required.

* Use Member Servers for file or print serving, keep signing at the
default setting None.

Why do Microsoft and Riverbed think you should not sign traffic when
it is possible to do so?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the value added is not great. Signing can only detect data
tampering-it does not encrypt or otherwise hide the data from exposure. It
does not prevent the data from being recorded or examined. Second, when SMB
signing is enabled, this feature costs in server performance-with or without
Steelhead appliance (which is why it is not enabled on member servers).
Microsoft states that SMB signing causes a 15% performance drop for all file
serving operations in their documentation. On the Wide Area Network (WAN)
with Steelhead appliances, SMB signing can limit optimization to 1-5 times
instead of 5-100 times for remote clients.

What if I serve files from a domain controller?
-------------------------------------------------------------
If possible, you should avoid serving files from a domain controller.
If you cannot, then you must decide between keeping the signatures enabled
versus the large performance gains with deployed Steelhead appliances.

How do I control signing?
-----------------------------------
Microsoft provides full online documentation for signing at:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/secmgmt/sm0905.mspx

If you would like to disable signing for all computers in your domain,
you can update their Local Policy.

To disable signing for all computers in your domain for Windows 2002:

1. Open Active Directory Users and Computers on the domain controller.
2. Right click Domain Controllers and select Properties.
3. Click the Group Policy tab.
4. Click Default Domain Controllers Policy and select Edit.
5. Click Default Domain Controllers Policy/Computer
Configuration/Windows Settings/Security Settings/Local Policies/Security
Options.
6. Disable Digitally sign client communication (always) and Digitally
sign server communication (always).
7. Disable Digitally sign client communication (when possible) and
Digitally sign server communication (when possible).
8. Push out the updated policy to the relevant computers.
Alternatively, you can reboot them so that they download the new domain
policy.

To disable SMB signing on Win2K3 domain controllers, member servers,
and
clients:

1. Open Active Directory Users and Computers on the domain controller.
2. Right click Domain Controllers and select Properties.
3. Click the Group Policy tab.
4. Click Default Domain Controllers Policy and select Edit.
5. Click Default Domain Controllers Policy/Computer
Configuration/Windows
Settings/Security Settings/Local Policies/Security Options.
6. Disable Microsoft Network Server: digitally sign communications
(always) and Microsoft Network Server: digitally sign communications (if
client agrees).
7. Disable Microsoft Network Client: digitally sign client
communication (always) and Microsoft Network client: digitally sign server
communications (if server agrees).
8. Reboot all the domain controllers and member servers that you want
to optimize.

SMB signing was enabled on Windows 2000, Service Pack 3, Critical fix
Q329170.



wrote in message news:5417646@discussion.autodesk.com...
Spoke a little too soon. Upon further testing we have been unable to get
the Steelheads to work properly. One minute things are blazing fast, the
next it's as if they aren't even there. Riverbed is thinking duplex/speed
issues, but that doesn't seem to be the problem. Just can't figure it out.

Thinking of ditching the Steelheads because of all the troubleshooting time
that's being invested and just putting a server in the remote office and
syncing the necessary files between the two locations.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


 

Autodesk Design & Make Report