[THIN] Re: MultiUserEnabled setting on Windows 2003 Terminal Servers
- From: "Rick Mack" <ulrich.mack@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 03:42:19 +1000
Hi Jeremy,
Multiuserenabled simply increases the number of file handles available per
user session. There is some additional file-server end buffer memory
overhead but generally not enough to cause problems. However it doesn't
provide any SMB tuning per se.
I've never seen current commands jumping around either, even if that's
what's supposed to happen :-)
I always assumed that perfmon wasn't handling the copunters properly, or the
kernel wasn't updating them frequently enough.
Anyway, current commands above about 120 is cause for some concern because
it means the file server is definitely under-performing. Over 200 and you're
getting to the point where you could be starting to see pauses. However
there are also a number of other possibilities for pauses including
login/logout overheads, RAID caching on the TSD server etc.
If the pauses are due to SMB bottlenecking, then concentrating your efforts
on file server performance has to be your priority. In particular, if the
network volumes are SAN-based, check out SAN performance.
regards,
Rick
--
Ulrich Mack
Quest Software
Provision Networks Division
On 5/30/08, Jeremy Saunders <jeremy.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
Other related posts:
