[THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN

  • From: Harry Singh <hboogz@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:37:46 -0400

That's a great find! Thanks Jeremy.


On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Jeremy Saunders <
jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Far out, you guys haven’t lived!****
>
> ** **
>
> Get the ICA Session Monitoring and Control Console, or SMC Console for
> short. It’s a free SDK Tool that works with most versions of Presentation
> Server and XenApp. This will give you all the information about ICA Sessions
> in a nice GUI.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> Jeremy****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Matt Kosht
> *Sent:* Monday, 11 July 2011 9:49 PM
>
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN****
>
> ** **
>
> Angela,****
>
> There are Windows performance counters you can setup easily in Performance
> Monitor. Look under "ICA Session" category. It will give you actual ICA
> latency by session in ms****
>
> -Matt****
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Angela Smith <angela_smith9@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:****
>
> Hi
>
> Whats the best way to check min/max/avg latency?
>
> No, unfortunately I dont have Edgesite
>
> Thanks
> Ang****
> ------------------------------
>
> From: andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN****
>
> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:15:34 +0100****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, that’s the thing I’d look at … ****
>
>  ****
>
> You’ve not got edgesight running have you angela?****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Landin, Mark
> *Sent:* 07 July 2011 15:00
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN****
>
>  ****
>
> You are on a WAN. What’s the min/max/avg latency between these sites at the
> time that you experiencing these delays?****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Angela Smith
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 07, 2011 5:05 AM
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi
>
> Yes Servers are running Windows 2003R2 x86 with 10Gb RAM****
> ------------------------------
>
> From: andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN
> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 10:50:46 +0100****
>
> Whats on the xenapp servers – 2003?****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Angela Smith
> *Sent:* 07 July 2011 10:20
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN****
>
>  ****
>
> Great question.  Wish I knew how to troubleshoot it.  Our storage guy says
> there are no issues on the NetApp NAS (Unix based I think) so I have to
> believe him.  Ive run some perfmon stats on my citrix server and have high
> readings for Redirector\Current Commands
>
> Citrix Server
> MaxMpxCt is set to 1024
> MaxWork Items is set to 4096
>
> NAS
> CIFS MPX is set to 1124
>
> Perfmon results
>
> Redirector\Current Commands: Min 155, Max 246.  Average 170
> Server\Work Item Shortages: 0
> Server Work Queues\Available Work Items: Min 30, Max 30, Average 30
>
>
> Any suggestions on how to tweak server would be muchly appreciated
>
> Regards
> Angela****
> ------------------------------
>
> From: andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix Farm performance over WAN
> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:27:16 +0100****
>
> Depends what your root cause of “SMB bottleneck” if its “back end file
> server” its unlikely this configuration is going to help. ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Angela Smith
> *Sent:* 03 July 2011 07:17
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Citrix Farm performance over WAN****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi
>
> We currently have 30 XenApp 5 Servers split between 2 Sites.  Sites are
> connected by Gig Links.  At present we use Zone Preference and Failover and
> Site A is Active only.  Site B is for Disaster Recovery only.  Site A is
> running at around 75% utilisation according to Citrix Load Evaluator.  As
> per my previous emails we are having issues with SMB bottleneck.  I am
> considering removing Zone Pref and Failover and making Site B active also.
> Therefore all XenApp servers get utilised which will half the resource
> requirements on my servers and hopefully remove any bottlenecks.
>
> Can anyone see an issue with running with such a config.  XenApp Servers in
> site B will need to cross the Gig link to connect to File Server/Web
> interface but on a gig link I think should be OK.  Any pro's/con's with this
> approach?
>
> Thanks
> Ang****
>
>  ****
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments may be a confidential attorney-client
> communication or otherwise be privileged and confidential. If you are not
> the intended recipient, any review, distribution or copying of this
> transmittal is prohibited. If you have received this transmittal in error,
> please reply by e-mail and delete this message and all attachments****
>
> ** **
>

Other related posts: