Traffice Throttling Through Direct Connection isn't working

[bunger]

Running B&R v9.5.0.1922. Local backup runs and then 2 different backup copy jobs kick off to send the backups to a remote location. The backup copy job is configured as a direct connection ( not using WAN acceleration ).

I have traffic rules in place from the source to the destination such that it should be throttled to 512k during business hours.

Both backup copy jobs are running right now ( business hours ) and they are currently using about 13Mbps, obviously not following the throttling rules.

Am I missing a setting somewhere?

[foggy]

Hi Bill, what are the source and target repository types? Have you made sure that corresponding addresses meet the rules requirements?

[bunger]

Both are Windows type repositories and the addresses do meet the rules...

[bunger]

Ugh.

Ignore this post.

One of the copy jobs is correctly following the throttling rule, but the other one is not. Because it is still using WAN acceleration. Doh.

Do you know if throttling jobs using WAN acceleration is in the pipeline?

[foggy]

Actually they should be throttled as well. Please contact technical support for a closer look.

[bunger]

I thought WAN acceleration didn't follow Traffic Throttling rules? Is that a new feature?

[PTide]

No, it's always been there by design:

Depending on the scenario, traffic can be throttled between the following components:<...>
Backup copy: source and target backup repositories or gateway sever(s), or WAN accelerators (if WAN accelerators are engaged in the backup copy process)<...>

Thanks

[bunger]

See this thread:
post209661.html#p209661

Re: Traffic Management Doesn't seem to be working
Post by Gostev » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:32 pm
WAN accelerators currently don't respect this settings, only data movers aka Direct mode.

[PTide]

Well, the thread seems to be more than 2 years old, and there have been several fixes related to WAN accelerators not respecting throttling rules in different scenarios since then. I admit that the wording that I used was not precise as the word 'always' is not quite correct, but the functionality works now as you can see.

Thanks!