Hi Steve, Wow....I've never seen it spike like that before, and never seen it go much over 100 before. Once under load, all my farms sit on a constant 40 to 60. This is why I was alarmed when seeing a figure over 200. The customer is getting a lot of pauses, hence the reason why I'm doing a performance audit. The SMB tuning has not been done. But when I highlight the Current Commands queue as being of concern, the customer is brushing that aside due to the MultiUserEnabled setting. I've had several conversations with others on this, and I've concluded that MultiUserEnabled or not, this shouldn't change the outstanding Current Commands queue. If anything, it should make it slightly more efficient, as it has more open sessions to the back-end file servers. Interesting one! 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 From: "Raffensberger, Stephen D" <sraffens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 29/05/2008 11:24 PM Subject: [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: //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: //www.freelists.org/list/thin ************************************************ ************************************************ For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link: //www.freelists.org/list/thin ************************************************