[THIN] Re: ICA session bandwidth calculations
- From: "Matthew Shrewsbury" <MShrewsbury@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 07:58:31 -0400
Personally if you want to keep it easy use a calculator on some website
and pray it is right. 1 Megabit is 1024 Kilobits. Divide that by 8 to
get the actual throughput and don't forget to factor TCP or UDP
overhead. 1 Megabit = 1024 Kilobits / 8 = 128 Kilobytes.
All you have to remember is 1024 and times or divide by 8. These should
be common computer numbers so it's not that hard to remember. Oh the
reason for 8 is there are 8 bits to a byte not 10.
Matthew Shrewsbury, MCSE+Internet MCSE 2000 CCA Server+
Network Manager
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Nick Smith
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 5:29 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA session bandwidth calculations
Try reversing the explanation.
Take a 1 mega-bit pipe. It transfer 1000 kilobits/second. To work out
the bytes divide by 10 (This is of course a non-binary lie, but we're
aiming at decimal-speaking folks). So it can transfer, at a *maximum*
100 kilobytes/second. So, your 1.5 Megabit line will actual transfer
1,500/10 = 150 Kilobytes a second. Roughly speaking, you're going to get
1 Megabyte every 6 seconds (Again an approximation, but we want to keep
this easy for your guys). Therefore you will get 60/6 = 10
Megabytes/minute - so your 100MB file will take 10 minutes to transfer.
Alternatively, try pointing them at this site:
http://www.onlineconversion.com/downloadspeed.htm
I believe a T1 is 1.5Mbits, so for your 100Mbyte file, it says 9.03
minutes. Personally, given overhead, packet loss, headers, and general
internet messiness, I'd guess that my 10 minutes is probably more
realistic.
(Bows in a slightly smug manner:-)).
Nick
From: Andrew Wood [mailto:andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 June 2006 09:58
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA session bandwidth calculations
ah right - thought I'd deleted that - d'oh!
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of HBooGz
Sent: 08 June 2006 17:31
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA session bandwidth calculations
You ended the explanation with " i think" which hinted to me that you
were a little uncertain with your explanantion.
I just wanted to know if some other folks could chime in with their
feedback on your explanantion or another explanation of their own.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far.
On 6/8/06, Andrew Wood <andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
how do you mean - feedback on that explanation?
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of HBooGz
Sent: 08 June 2006 17:04
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA session bandwidth calculations
I think management will respond better to 1000 better than the 1024, but
thanks for the specificity.
Regarding the transfering of the file of a 1.5 Megabit line -- does
anyone have any more feedback on that explanation ?
On 6/8/06, Andrew Wood <andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
true - but I was working to IEC standards ;)
I'm happy for it be old school 1024 as thats a multiple of 8 - but if
poor guy is struggling to explain it, lets not let him have to have the
curve ball of explaining to the suit that a kilo is not *actually* a
1000 but 1024.
:)
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of Alex .
Sent: 08 June 2006 16:47
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA session bandwidth calculations
1024 is not 1000
________________________________
From: andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA session bandwidth calculations
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:32:36 +0100
Well a byte is 8 bits. A kilobyte is a thousand bytes while a kilobit is
a 1000 bits. A megabyte is a thousand kilobytes
Megabit per second - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabit_per_second
Kilobit per second - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobit_per_second
when you transfer 100MB over a 1.5Mbit/s line you are transferring 100 x
1000 x 1000 x 8 bits over a network that can average a transfer of 1.5 x
1000 x 1000 bits every second
I think...
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of HBooGz
Sent: 08 June 2006 15:28
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA session bandwidth calculations
I'm currently in a battle with upper management about bandwidth
consumption with certain apps. I could use a basic defintition as what
the differences are from KiloBytes and Kilobits and MegaBytes and
Megabits to demonstrate to further elaborate.
The confusion comes in when the idea of users transferring files that
are about 100 MegaBytes over a 1.5 Megabit line.
This ties into the justification of an additional citrix server if
multiple users are running off different apps, printing, file-sharing,
etc.
Thanks,
On 6/8/06, Matt Kosht <matt.kosht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am assuming the 27KB was bits not bytes, as 27 KBps = 216 Kbps...
I benchmarked a client/server app just recently. Heads down data
entry in the application averaged only 26Kbps (no sound, 16 bit color,
128 bit encryption, seamless window) with v9.15.xxxx PNAgent.
Benchmarks of ESRI ArcGIS were closer to 33Kbps (probably because it
is so graphics intensive).
Printing can burst much higher as indicated but can be limited (using
the policy to control it in Citrix) without much notice by the user.
We limited GIS plotter users (who could plot 40-50MB drawings) to
30Kbps they didn't even notice. Printers are so much slower than the
network it just sits in the spooler waiting to print vs. sitting in
the plotter's local memory waiting to print. Net impact to the user is
the same.
-Matt
On 6/2/06, Landin, Mark <Mark.Landin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I know the rule of thumb used to be 27KB or so for an ICA session. No
> doubt things like high screen resolution, high color depth, and
virtual
> channels have changed that number somewhat.
>
> Is there a number that is still used with some degree of confidence?
If
> not, can one try to calculate what a session would take up? If so,
what
> variables need to be considered?
>
> For instance, I am thinking of deploying a GIS-like app, using 16-bit
> color, 1280x1024 resolution, with no sound, from Windows 2003/MPS3 or
> MPS 4, over an ICA 9 client. What could I expect the bandwidth
> requirements for an ICA session running that app to be? Is there any
way
> to guestimate?
> ************************************************
> 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
************************************************
--
HBooGz:\>
--
HBooGz:\>
--
HBooGz:\>
Other related posts:
