Going old school, I see. Joe From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeremy Saunders Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:32 AM To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN 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