[THIN] Re: Profiles on Citrix

  • From: "Angus Macdonald" <Angus.Macdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:00:08 +0100

I've just done a quick "finger in the air" test with one of my servers and the 
time from entering my password to the start button appearing is 5 secs on a 
quiet server and 11 on a heavily loaded one. When we had standard roaming 
profiles it could be anywhere up to 45 seconds for the same job. In this one 
area, I'm happy with my servers.

-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of 
Michael Pardee
Sent: 18 May 2007 12:36
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Profiles on Citrix

Exactly.  My goal is to provide 20 second logon and logoff performance for all 
of our users.  We are right about there.  After shaking some bugs out with 
Tricerat I think Simplify will fit the need.  We were able to get Flex down 
even faster, but I guess officially we cheated.  Instead of telling Flex what 
we wanted to "roam" for the user, we went the opposite route and told it to 
grab everything except for certain keys.  That's probably not the recommended 
way, but the logos were unbelievably fast - less than 10 seconds at the time.


From: Toby <toby.percival@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 12:23:46 +0100
To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [THIN] Re: Profiles on Citrix

Thanks Michael, I will try the same. Anything to improve the mood of our 
beloved users!

On 5/18/07, Michael Pardee <pardeemp.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

We've been testing Tricerat's Simplify Profiles product and just ran in to the 
same issue with the Internet Explorer Branding policy.  What we've noticed is 
that it may have something to do with the mandatory profile that we are using.  
It was built from a system with IE, moved to a common network share, and then 
locked down via permissions.  Just for grins I copied that mandatory profile to 
a test share and applied it to a few of us that are testing.  I then opened up 
the permissions to see if that made any difference and the "branding..." part 
of the logon process flew by in a second or two.  Haven't had a lot of time to 
go back and figure all of this out yet, but I'm going to see if we can figure 
out what pieces need updated in our mandatory profile for IE7, make the 
changes, and then lock the profile down again. 

Not sure if this is the same thing that is slowing you down, but it is what 
seems to be causing it in our environment.  Thanks for reminding me that I need 
to dig in to this one again.


From: Toby <toby.percival@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: < thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx  <mailto:thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 10:38:33 +0100
To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx    <mailto:thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: [THIN] Re: Profiles on Citrix

45 seconds is a long time. In fact, I have just timed logging in from a client 
pc, using a mandatory profile, located on the DC, and it took 57 seconds. I 
repeated the same test on multiple servers, and the time averaged 59 seconds. 
0-7 seconds - applying personal settings, registry settings
8-40 seconds - applying internet explorer branding policy
40-42 - applying personal settings
43 - 59 secs - applying login scripts
System is PS4.5, Windows 2003 Server SP2, with IE7.
I believe IE7 is responsible for slowing the time down by 15 seconds or more. I 
will investigate how I can improve the load time of the 'internet explorer 
branding policy'. 
On 5/18/07, Angus Macdonald <Angus.Macdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

It's hard to say with any certainty. Presumably your mandatory profile is being 
dragged from a network location whereas our defaults are stored locally on each 
server. Conversely, the flex profile loading takes a finite amount of time. I 
wouldn't imagine you'd see a great performance increase with flex profiles. 45 
secs sounds like a lot of time though. Can you guess how much of that is 
profile loading and processing? In my (not considerable) experience, all sorts 
of things can slow logins. 

-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of 
Sent: 18 May 2007 10:12
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Profiles on Citrix

Hi Angus,
As we are using 95% mandatory profiles, the only issue I have encountered is 
performance. For example, a user logon takes approximately 45 seconds, 
including login scripts etc.. Would you be able to guestimate how much time I 
could save by using flex? 
On 5/18/07, Angus Macdonald < Angus.Macdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
<mailto:Angus.Macdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: 

We had all sorts of profile troubles before went with flex profiles. Everybody 
gets a default profile at login, which is then modified by loading the flex 
component and a bit of Kix -scripting for particular groups. At logout the flex 
settings are saved before the profile type is tweaked in the registry to make 
it appear as a mandatory profile, ensuring it's dropped as the session closes. 

Since starting down this route, our profile problems have vanished.

-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx    <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>     <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [ mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]  
<mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> On 
Behalf Of bbeckett2000@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 17 May 2007 21:08 
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Profiles on Citrix

Running PS 4.0 on Windows 2003 servers. About a dozen servers. 
We've been using roaming profiles straight out of the box, MS box, for a while 
now. They're ok but just the nature of the beast in how they work will cause 
their fair share of problems. I know there are several alternatives out there, 
flex profiles for one. Can anyone give me some feedback on your implementation 
and results for any solution, be it flex profiles or some other alternative? 
I've heard talk of some type of database or dynamic solution that sounded good.

Other related posts: