IE 7 is notorious for this slowdown. The fix for the 20 seconds "Applying
Internet Explorer Branding policy" is replacing the IE7 branding dll to a
IE6 version dll.
Replace the iedkcs32.dll version with the IE6 version.It's not a neat
solution but it should do the trick.
On 5/18/07, Toby <toby.percival@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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 *Toby
> > *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?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > T.
> >
> > On 5/18/07, Angus Macdonald <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]
> > > *On Behalf Of *bbeckett2000@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > *Sent:* 17 May 2007 21:08
> > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > *Subject: *[THIN] Profiles on Citrix
> > >
> > > Gentlemen:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Kind Regards,
Michel Roth
Thincomputing.net <http://thincomputing.net/>
