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

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:
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
************************************************


************************************************
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: