[THIN] Re: Citrix Load Evaluator / Total Sessions per Server & Application

Tony,

That was an early thought also, but doesn't appear to be so...
(And that same thought-process as to why we left "CPU Usage" out as a RULE in 
this load-evaluator.)

It's not memory.  These 20 servers are identical IBM HS21 Blades - w/ 4-CPU & 
4-GB RAM.
The "Memory Usage" graph in the "Load Manager Monitor" is usually around the 
high-20's to mid-30's range.
And that's consistent across the 20 blades.

Watching the actual memory usage - it averages between 2.5 and 3.0 GB of 
physical memory used - across all of these servers.

Antivirus?   I checked them all - we use Symantec AV  Corp. Edition.   They all 
pull from the same server and are in the same config-container.

Thanks,
Troy

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Anthony_Baldwin@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 3:10 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Load Evaluator / Total Sessions per Server & 
Application


Troy,

Which of the load evaluator rules seems to be the limiting factor?  I'm 
guessing its memory.  If you're running the same application across all your 
servers, do the instances of the application on the 19 'bad' servers have a 
bigger memory footprint than the application instances on the 1 'magic' server?

We experienced an issue like this where a handful of our servers were receiving 
a different anti-virus configuration that was causing each instance of IE to 
take a bigger memory footprint than on the other servers.

Tony


<TBarnhart@xxxxxxxx>
Sent by: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

02/23/2009 04:34 PM
Please respond to
thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


To

<thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

cc

Subject

[THIN] Citrix Load Evaluator  /  Total Sessions per Server & Application







Hey all,

We've had a small issue for the past year, and I can't seem to find an answer 
about it.

We started a new 4.5 farm this time last year and have an application that is 
published & load-managed across 20 servers.

There is a custom load-evaluator is built on these 4 "Assigned Rules":  
Application User Load, Load Throttling, Memory Usage, Server User Load.

Overall, this load-evaluator appears to be working well for our userload; per 
server and per application.

Except... One server seems to always have about 10-20% more total sessions then 
the other 19 servers.

Over thousands of session - the 19 servers will all be within a range of 100 or 
so total sessions, but this one server will be always at the top of the list 
for total sessions by several hundred more sessions for any time period.

Theoretically - all of these are equal.

At anytime I run a "qfarm /app" (during average workday) - all of my servers 
are in the 4500-6000 load range.
In the "Presentation Console" everything is running against this load-evaluator.
Also, We have Citrix Edgesight collecting data, that looks normal other than 
the total session count.
My performance statistics appear fairly normal at anytime we take a look.
The application is installed identically across the 20 servers.

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks,
Troy

Troy Barnhart, Sr. Systems Programmer
tbarnhart@xxxxxxxx
Regional Health, Inc.
353 Fairmont Boulevard
Rapid City, South Dakota 57701
PH: 605-716-8352 / FAX: 605-716-8302




************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://www.freelists.org/list/thin
Follow ThinList on Twitter
http://twitter.com/thinlist
Thin List discussion is now available in blog format at:
http://thinmaillist.blogspot.com
Thinlist MOBILE Feed
http://thinlist.net/mobile
************************************************







CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This message, including any attachments, is for

the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and

privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution

is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the

sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Other related posts: