[THIN] Re: MultiUserEnabled setting on Windows 2003 Terminal Servers

Jeremy,

Up until now, I've not worried about this metric. Your note prompted me to 
check it on a server where the main application is launched from an UNC name.

I'm running W2K3 SP2 and do not have MultiUserEnabled set. The metric is spiky, 
meaning that it goes along at zero for most of the time and then spikes up to 
as high as 1870 for a few seconds.

This metric is a queue length. It should be influenced heavily by network and 
file server contentions as well as the MultiUserEnabled setting. Besides moving 
from W2K to W2K3, perhaps they changed their network and file server 
environments causing this increase.

Just my tuppence.

Steve Raffensberger
Sovereign Bank Citrix Administrator
1125 Berkshire Boulevard
Wyomissing, PA 19610
Email: sraffens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Jeremy Saunders
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 3:02 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] MultiUserEnabled setting on Windows 2003 Terminal Servers


Hi All,

As per KB818528 my customer had enabled the MultiUserEnabled registry value
on their previous Windows 2000 Citrix Servers from there inception many
years ago. At the time this was due to issues with their Samba servers.
This "tweak" was included in their upgrade to Windows 2003 PS4.5 servers,
which is referenced in KB913835. It was not previously baselined, but a
performance audit shows the Redirector/Current Commands reaching over 200
in PerfMon. This is not good from an SMB performance point of view. In all
Terminal Server environments I have deployed over the years I have never
enabled this setting, and typically see the Current Commands sitting at
about 60 on heavily utilised servers, after the standard SMB tuning of
course. I have raised the current value as a concern, but the customer is
suggesting that this may well be due to how the MultiUserEnabled setting
works. There is no evidence anywhere on the Internet that suggests this is
the case. Therefore I am asking if the Current Commands value I am seeing
should be flagged as a serious concern? Does anyone have experience with
this?

I have also ask the same question to the MS Terminal Services and Windows
Server Performance Team's via their blog sites.

Cheers.
                                                                
 Kind regards,                                                  
                                                                
 Jeremy Saunders                                                
 Senior Technical Specialist                                    
                                                                
 Infrastructure Technology Services                             
 (ITS) & Cerulean                                               
 Global Technology Services (GTS)                               
 IBM Australia                                                  
 Level 1, 1060 Hay Street                                       
 West Perth  WA  6005                                           
                                                                
 Postal: PO Box 525, West Perth WA                              
 6872                                                           
                                                                
 Visit us at                                                    
 http://www.ibm.com/services/au/its                             
                                                                
 P:  +61 8 9261 8412                F:  +61 8 9261 8486         
 P:  (Reception) +61 8 9261 8420    E-mail:                     
 M:  TBA                            jeremy.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxx 
                                                                
                                                                







************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or 
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************




This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. 
Unless you are the addressee  (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you 
may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information 
contained in the message.  If you have received the message in error, please 
advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete or destroy the message. Thank you.

************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************

Other related posts: