[THIN] Re: Harumph! How about this one?
- From: Jeremy Saunders <jeremy.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 05:27:36 +0800
Ryan,
How about lowering the MTU size?
If you want help with that, just reply and I'll put together a more
informative post.
Kind regards,
Jeremy
Jeremy Saunders
Senior Systems Engineer
”ITS - passionate about
winning”
IBM Logicalis (Integrated
Technology Services)
Level 2, 1060 Hay Street
West Perth, WA 6005, AUSTRALIA
Phone: 132 426 Fax: ; 08 9261 8536
Mobile: TBA E-mail:
jeremy.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Lambert, Ryan"
<rlambert@netsour
ceit.com> To
Sent by: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
thin-bounce@freel cc
ists.org
Subject
[THIN] Re: Harumph! How about this
27/08/2004 04:58 one?
AM
Please respond to
thin
(Yep, third post in reply... I’m a whirlwind of thoughts.)
Ron,
Any idea why they would say the NT4 performance was wonderful in comparison
to this? I’ve gone down to 256 w/800x600, and it doesn’t seem any better.
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ron Oglesby
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:24 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Harumph! How about this one?
Depends on their config. Might be throttling you. But most likely they are
choking on their end.
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Lambert, Ryan
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:29 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Harumph! How about this one?
Hey folks.
I’ve another strange issue that seems to have me stumped, albeit only over
a WAN (ADSL) connection. Note that I do not see this on the LAN.
When someone opens an image via RDP or ICA, you can see the image painting
itself incredibly slow. While this is occurring, you can not click on any
other part of the session (locked up, for all intensive purposes) until the
picture has rendered fully. Now, this is the sick part:
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=634ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=514ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=506ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=600ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=861ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=655ms TTL=249
Reply from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: bytes=32 time=450ms TTL=249
I bet you can guess when I’m downloading the image to my client, huh?
Ping times are great, until this. This is on off hours, when no bandwidth
is being used by people in-house, so I can’t see saturation being an issue.
The traceroute indicates the latency starts right AT their router, and
nowhere in the upstream’s backbone.
Now, I’m pretty certain this problem isn’t on my end, because I’m on a DS3
that’s using hardly any of the load. ;p
Likewise, clients from other sites are complaining about it.
… So, eh?
Other related posts:
