[THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN
- From: Magnus Hjorleifsson <magnus@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:59:15 -0400
RM gives this to you as well
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:31, "Jeremy Saunders" <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Far out, you guys haven’t lived!
>
>
>
> Get the ICA Session Monitoring and Control Console, or SMC Console for short.
> It’s a free SDK Tool that works with most versions of Presentation Server and
> XenApp. This will give you all the information about ICA Sessions in a nice
> GUI.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Matt Kosht
> Sent: Monday, 11 July 2011 9:49 PM
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN
>
>
>
> Angela,
>
> There are Windows performance counters you can setup easily in Performance
> Monitor. Look under "ICA Session" category. It will give you actual ICA
> latency by session in ms
>
> -Matt
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Angela Smith <angela_smith9@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Whats the best way to check min/max/avg latency?
>
> No, unfortunately I dont have Edgesite
>
> Thanks
> Ang
>
> From: andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN
>
> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:15:34 +0100
>
>
>
> Yes, that’s the thing I’d look at …
>
>
>
> You’ve not got edgesight running have you angela?
>
>
>
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Landin, Mark
> Sent: 07 July 2011 15:00
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN
>
>
>
> You are on a WAN. What’s the min/max/avg latency between these sites at the
> time that you experiencing these delays?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Angela Smith
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 5:05 AM
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN
>
>
>
> Hi
>
> Yes Servers are running Windows 2003R2 x86 with 10Gb RAM
>
> From: andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN
> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 10:50:46 +0100
>
> Whats on the xenapp servers – 2003?
>
>
>
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Angela Smith
> Sent: 07 July 2011 10:20
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN
>
>
>
> Great question. Wish I knew how to troubleshoot it. Our storage guy says
> there are no issues on the NetApp NAS (Unix based I think) so I have to
> believe him. Ive run some perfmon stats on my citrix server and have high
> readings for Redirector\Current Commands
>
> Citrix Server
> MaxMpxCt is set to 1024
> MaxWork Items is set to 4096
>
> NAS
> CIFS MPX is set to 1124
>
> Perfmon results
>
> Redirector\Current Commands: Min 155, Max 246. Average 170
> Server\Work Item Shortages: 0
> Server Work Queues\Available Work Items: Min 30, Max 30, Average 30
>
>
> Any suggestions on how to tweak server would be muchly appreciated
>
> Regards
> Angela
>
> From: andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN
> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:27:16 +0100
>
> Depends what your root cause of “SMB bottleneck” if its “back end file
> server” its unlikely this configuration is going to help.
>
>
>
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Angela Smith
> Sent: 03 July 2011 07:17
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Citrix Farm performance over WAN
>
>
>
> Hi
>
> We currently have 30 XenApp 5 Servers split between 2 Sites. Sites are
> connected by Gig Links. At present we use Zone Preference and Failover and
> Site A is Active only. Site B is for Disaster Recovery only. Site A is
> running at around 75% utilisation according to Citrix Load Evaluator. As per
> my previous emails we are having issues with SMB bottleneck. I am
> considering removing Zone Pref and Failover and making Site B active also.
> Therefore all XenApp servers get utilised which will half the resource
> requirements on my servers and hopefully remove any bottlenecks.
>
> Can anyone see an issue with running with such a config. XenApp Servers in
> site B will need to cross the Gig link to connect to File Server/Web
> interface but on a gig link I think should be OK. Any pro's/con's with this
> approach?
>
> Thanks
> Ang
>
>
>
> This message and any attachments may be a confidential attorney-client
> communication or otherwise be privileged and confidential. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any review, distribution or copying of this transmittal
> is prohibited. If you have received this transmittal in error, please reply
> by e-mail and delete this message and all attachments
>
>
Other related posts:
