[THIN] Re: Harumph! How about this one?
- From: "Ron Oglesby" <Roglesby@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:00:51 -0500
Was the client changed at the same time. Maybe you are dealing with the
browser acceleration stuff, where it is transferring compressed images down
to the client. Might be better to try turning that off.
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Lambert, Ryan
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:06 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Harumph! How about this one?
Ron,
They were previously on NT4 TSE with Metaframe 1.8. (Server was Single PIII
800 mhz, 1GB RAM, about . 18gb of hard disk space)
Now they are upgraded to Win2k3 Server with Metaframe XP FR3 (MUCH MUCH MUCH
nicer hardware, ie: Dual Xeon (HT-enabled), 2GB RAM, 2x36GB RAID1, GeForce
64MB PCI Video Card)
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Ron Oglesby
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:11 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Harumph! How about this one?
Sounds like their full of it (or it could really be something)
Tell me about the NT 4 performance thing. Did you change from Nt 4 and an
older version of MF to all new stuff/
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Lambert, Ryan
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:58 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Harumph! How about this one?
(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:
