Re: [foxboro] Remote display call up speed
- From: "Warren Brown" <bigwrb21@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:33:54
Hello
Another thing to check is the network topology
You don't mention if one of the AW's is behind
an LI ?
One interesting thing to test is to do a 'glof'
/opt/fox/bin/tools/glof Control_Point (one that is on the display)
on both AW's and see if both take approximately the same time to respond ?
Warren
>From: "Guzenske, Sue (USBORAX)" <Sue.Guzenske@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: "'foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [foxboro] Remote display call up speed
>Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 21:27:23 -0000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from [168.215.193.75] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
>MHotMailBE0601B100CA40043215A8D7C14B04F10; Wed, 09 Jan 2002 13:31:30 -0800
>Received: from turing.(none) (localhost [127.0.0.1])by turing.freelists.org
>(FreeLists Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPid D6FF584400; Wed, 9 Jan 2002
>16:31:04 -0500 (EST)
>Received: with LISTAR (v1.0.0; list foxboro); Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:29:55
>-0500 (EST)
>Received: from old-n2.infonet.com (old-n2-130.infonet.com
>[192.157.130.138])by turing.freelists.org (FreeLists Mail Multiplex) with
>ESMTP id 1A53B84359for <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:29:54
>-0500 (EST)
>Received: from infexch01.infonet.com (infexch01 [192.92.62.83]) by
>old-n2.infonet.com (8.11.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id g09LRuc25788 for
><foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 21:27:59 GMT
>Received: by INFEXCH01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)id
><CTA20S10>; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 21:30:05 -0000
>From foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Wed, 09 Jan 2002 13:31:43 -0800
>Delivered-To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Message-ID: <0969D9827D31D211B09900104B9BC118012A9330@boraxexch02>
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>X-archive-position: 495
>X-listar-version: Listar v1.0.0
>Sender: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Errors-To: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>X-original-sender: Sue.Guzenske@xxxxxxxxx
>Precedence: normal
>X-list: foxboro
>
>
>I have two AW51B units, both at 170 mHz, version 4.3, who support old style
>display managers using Exceed to supply view-only displays to PCs on our
>plant network.
>
>Box A supports 5 remote DMs and has a display call up time of about 1
>second
>on a PC. This box had 128 meg of RAM. Vmstat usually shows 90-95% idle
>time.
>
>Box B supports 1 or 2 remote DMs and can take up to 5 seconds to brings up
>a
>display on a PC. This box has 96 meg of RAM. Vmstat usually shows 95-99%
>idle time.
>
>Taking the le1 (2nd Ethernet connection)down and then putting it back on
>makes no change in the display call up speed. Neither box seems to have
>any
>time hogging processes running when ps -eaf is checked.
>
>What else can I check? I'd like to get box B to perform like box A.
>
>Thank you for your help.
>
>Sue Guzenske
>U.S. Borax Inc.
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by The Foxboro Company.
>Use the information obtained here at your own risk. For disclaimer,
>see http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html#maillist
>
>list info: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
>subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
>unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
___________________________________________________________________
This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by The Foxboro Company.
Use the information obtained here at your own risk. For disclaimer,
see http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html#maillist
list info: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
Other related posts:
