[SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop AccessClient (SDAC / soft client) poor performance

William Yang wyang at tjhsst.edu
Wed Mar 3 01:00:48 EET 2010


Did you do
set highres_tick = 1
or
set_hires_tick = 1
?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org [mailto:sunray-users-
> bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of Devin Nate
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:50 PM
> To: SunRay-Users mailing list
> Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop
> AccessClient (SDAC / soft client) poor performance
> 
> Ok, I officially give up, and believe it's problems with the SDAC
software.
> 
> To answer some inquiries:
> 	- with or without uttsc makes no difference, the standard login is
> also blocky and laggy
> 		- kiosk mode on/off
> 	- We just spun up a dedicated Solaris 10 u8 box ... no improvement
> in SDAC, dtu's work perfect.
> 	- We put only 1 user on the above
> 	- We've tried different client os's - winxp pro 32 bit, win 7 pro 64
> bit
> 	- 10 / 100 1000 Mbps networking
> 	- on solaris, set highres_tick = 1, no difference
> 	- Different architectures of processor and video cards
> 	- different types of network switching
> 	- we have security enabled to the maximum in our SRS environments
> 	- basically we've replaced every single component we can to make
> this work.
> 
> Basically, SDAC is the only common item which has not performed to the
> same level of a sun ray DTU or rdp.
> 
> If/when we re-examine this software, I'll advise this group.
> 
> Thanks,
> Devin Nate
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org [mailto:sunray-users-
> bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of Craig Bender
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:05 PM
> To: SunRay-Users mailing list
> Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop
> AccessClient (SDAC / soft client) poor performance
> 
> How is performance not using uttsc?
> 
> Devin Nate wrote:
> > Hi Folks, William;
> >
> > I've just tried a totally different manchine. My home WinXP Pro 32-bit
> machine. Yes we'd tried some, but they were IBM/Lenovo, whereas mine has a
> totally different CPU /Networking /Video /etc. Ping rtt's are small ...
> performance of SDAC is just as bad.
> 
> 
> >
> > Ping times attached. Sample utcapture output attached, showing poor perf
> (the long tokenID is that of SDAC). Second utcapture showing a sun ray
DTU,
> with good times. Finally, another ping capture to show that MTU's up to
> and including 1300 are usable (and the client is set to 1133 for this
> test).
> >
> > This is going to kill the project for a few hundred users, and more
> importantly it's driving me nuts. I suspect either a bug in SDAC or an
> incompat for SDAC with RHEL. Every other app works great across this
> network, even the native Sun DTU's work great across this network.
> >
> > Very frustrating.
> >
> > Dare I ask, any more suggestions?
> >
> > Is anyone here from the Sun SDAC devel team? If so, maybe we could
> arrange something? devin.nate at cloudwerxdata.com.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Devin
> >
> >
> > 1. Ping time RTT.
> > C:\Documents and Settings\nated>ping 204.12.xx.yy
> > Pinging 204.12.xx.yy with 32 bytes of data:
> > Reply from 204.12.xx.yy: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=57
> > Reply from 204.12.xx.yy: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=57
> > Reply from 204.12.xx.yy: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=57
> > Reply from 204.12.xx.yy: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=57
> > Ping statistics for 204.12.xx.yy:
> >     Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
> > Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
> >     Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 17ms
> > C:\Documents and Settings\nated>
> >
> > 2. utcapture of BAD performance using SDAC.
> > root at srs1(/root)
> > # /opt/SUNWut/sbin/utcapture -r -s srs2 b976bba2338c4fcccf61d1c162ff1697
> > # TERMINALID      TIMESTAMP TOTAL PACKET   TOTAL LOSS   BYTES SENT
> PERCENT LOSS      LATENCY
> > b976bba2338c4fcccf61d1c162ff1697 20100301201048         2963
> 0      1557314        0.000      501.000
> > b976bba2338c4fcccf61d1c162ff1697 20100301201103         2963
> 0      1557314        0.000      501.000
> >
> > 3. utcapture of GOOD performance using Sun Ray DTU (model 270).
> > root at srs1(/root)
> > # /opt/SUNWut/sbin/utcapture -r -s srs2 00144fd354cc
> > # TERMINALID      TIMESTAMP TOTAL PACKET   TOTAL LOSS   BYTES SENT
> PERCENT LOSS      LATENCY
> > 00144fd354cc 20100301201152         4744           21       483326
> 0.000       15.823
> >
> > 4. ping showing that mtu up to and including 1300 is usable without
> fragmentation.
> > C:\Documents and Settings\nated>ping -l 1300 -f 204.12.152.133
> > Pinging 204.12.152.133 with 1300 bytes of data:
> > Reply from 204.12.152.133: bytes=1300 time=56ms TTL=57
> > Reply from 204.12.152.133: bytes=1300 time=16ms TTL=57
> > Reply from 204.12.152.133: bytes=1300 time=22ms TTL=57
> > Reply from 204.12.152.133: bytes=1300 time=29ms TTL=57
> > Ping statistics for 204.12.152.133:
> >     Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
> > Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
> >     Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 56ms, Average = 30ms
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org [sunray-users-
> bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of William Yang [wyang at tjhsst.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:40 PM
> > To: 'SunRay-Users mailing list'
> > Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop
> AccessClient     (SDAC / soft client) poor performance
> >
> > Maybe try Windows XP if you haven't already (sorry if I missed that you
> > already tried).  I'm on XP and performance is great.
> >
> > William Yang
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org [mailto:sunray-users-
> >> bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of Devin Nate
> >> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:25 PM
> >> To: SunRay-Users mailing list
> >> Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop
> >> AccessClient (SDAC / soft client) poor performance
> >>
> >> Thanks Bob for the followup.
> >>
> >> I've been up and down over mtu ... that was my guess at first too. I
> can
> >> confirm by packet capture that SDAC is using a mtu no larger than the
> >> slider in the client is set to for udp packets. Tcp packets appear to
> be
> >> using pmtud and getting an fine mtu also.
> >>
> >> I'm spinning up a host in our data center to test... but so far, no
> good
> >> solutions have come out of this.
> >>
> >> I suspect I'm going to need to get Oracle/Sun to open a case.. this is
> >> frustrating enough that I'd like to get folks with access to the source
> >> code involved. Where every other app works...?
> >>
> >> I may get a Solaris SRS running here as well for comparative testing.
> >>
> >> Anyhow, if anyone has any more ideas, let me know.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Devin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org [mailto:sunray-users-
> >> bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of Bob Doolittle
> >> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 3:43 PM
> >> To: SunRay-Users mailing list
> >> Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop
> >> AccessClient (SDAC / soft client) poor performance
> >>
> >> MTU settings sound more plausible than uttsc to me.
> >> uttsc should not affect latency as measured by utcapture - that's
> purely
> >> a metric measured between the X server and the client.
> >>
> >> -Bob
> >>
> >> Nishimura, Scott L (IT Solutions) wrote:
> >>> Devin,
> >>>
> >>>   I'll have to defer to more knowledgeable members of this list.  The
> >>> performance you describe, however, is suspiciously similar to what we
> >>> experienced a few years back before we had tuned our MTU settings [we
> >>> ultimately settled on 1470]:  when going through a PowerPoint stack,
> >>> we'd get 5-second delays in screen redraw.
> >>>
> >>> The only other time I've seen something like this was when I was using
> >>> PCSC [PC Smart Card] 1.0 and when I got a normal workload on the SRS,
> >>> pcscd started taking up 6% of the CPU and users would see many 5-
> second
> >>> delays during their session.
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org
> >>> [mailto:sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of Devin Nate
> >>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:27 PM
> >>> To: SunRay-Users mailing list
> >>> Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop
> >>> AccessClient (SDAC / soft client) poor performance
> >>>
> >>> Ahh, now that's something we haven't done yet... packet capture of the
> >>> uttsc data. So far we've done a packet capture of the dtu<-->srss and
> >>> compared with sdac<-->srss, and we couldn't see any difference there.
> >>>
> >>> I'll report observations asap.
> >>>
> >>> That said, would a difference in uttsc traffic to the terminal servers
> >>> cause utcapture to indicate a higher latency?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Devin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org
> >>> [mailto:sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of Nishimura,
> Scott
> >>> L (IT Solutions)
> >>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 3:16 PM
> >>> To: SunRay-Users mailing list
> >>> Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop Access
> >>> Client (SDAC / soft client) poor performance
> >>>
> >>> Devin,
> >>>
> >>>   How about if you run a truss or pstack or similar troubleshooting
> tool
> >>> on uttsc and compare the results between the actual DTU and SDAC?
> >>>
> >>> Does your sniffer test show excessive retransmissions?
> >>>
> >>> Also, what MTU size is being used?  Too large [> 1470?] could lead to
> >>> fragmentation; too small [< 500] could lead to "laggy" performance
> >>> [we've run into that before on a physical DTU before].
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org
> >>> [mailto:sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of Devin Nate
> >>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:06 PM
> >>> To: lars.tunkrans at bredband.net; SunRay-Usersmailing list
> >>> Subject: EXTERNAL:Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop Access
> Client
> >>> (SDAC / soft client) poor performance
> >>>
> >>> Hi Lars;
> >>>
> >>> I completely agree... the problem is, the DTU and SDAC clients are on
> >>> identical networks... in fact, I've taken the cable out of a perfect
> DTU
> >>> and put it into a PC. I was thinking perhaps QoS or something tagging
> >>> the udp packages.
> >>>
> >>> The PCs have Intel nic's. I'm tracking down totally different
> >>> architectures. Our core is all Cisco networking gear. We're looking to
> >>> setup a host on the same LAN directly connected to the core, that said
> >>> we had some hosts in the datacenter getting latency of 500.000, gig
> >>> connected but on a different subnet.
> >>>
> >>> All that aside, the Sun DTU's work perfect on the same network. We're
> >>> going through everything with a fine tooth comb, but I'm not
> optimistic.
> >>>
> >>> More thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Devin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org
> >>> [mailto:sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of Lars Tunkrans
> >>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:36 PM
> >>> To: SunRay-Users mailing list
> >>> Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop Access Client (SDAC
> /
> >>> soft client) poor performance
> >>>
> >>> 2010-03-01 20:31, Devin Nate skrev:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm really appreciating the ideas, please keep them coming?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Devin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>    When I experience  laggy  screen updates  on a DTU  ist is usually
> >>> becase there is
> >>> a problem with the network .
> >>>
> >>>   As the list can testify:
> >>>
> >>>    One returning problem is  Low end  flaky  L2 switches  with a
> >>> gigabit input from the CORE  switch
> >>> and 100Mbit  link out to the DTU.  These L2 switches  drops UDP
> packets
> >>>
> >>> and forces  the DTU
> >>> to ask for them again .  Hence  the Laggy  screen updates.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    Now heres a long shot.....
> >>>
> >>> if you are using  mainly the same  brand  pc ,  do they all have the
> >>> same  LAN Card / CHipset ?
> >>> There are many kinds of problems  with  Chinese  wierdo combines  of
> >>> PHY  / MAC   chipsets.
> >>> They come up with new combinations every week just to be able to
> >>> produce  the motherboard  5 cents
> >>> cheaper.
> >>>
> >>>    Should  you try   an  Intel  Pro1000  GT  Desktop adaptor ?   I
> think
> >>>
> >>> so.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/adapters/pro1000gt/pro1000gt-
> overv
> >>> iew.htm
> >>>
> >>>    This is probably the the most stable  ethernet card today,  since
> >>> 3COM  stopped making
> >>>    ethernet cards.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     Did you try to attach  the PC  directly to core switch  yet ?
> >>>
> >>>      //Lars
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> SunRay-Users mailing list
> >>> SunRay-Users at filibeto.org
> >>> http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> SunRay-Users mailing list
> >>> SunRay-Users at filibeto.org
> >>> http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> SunRay-Users mailing list
> >>> SunRay-Users at filibeto.org
> >>> http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> SunRay-Users mailing list
> >>> SunRay-Users at filibeto.org
> >>> http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> SunRay-Users mailing list
> >>> SunRay-Users at filibeto.org
> >>> http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> SunRay-Users mailing list
> >> SunRay-Users at filibeto.org
> >> http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> SunRay-Users mailing list
> >> SunRay-Users at filibeto.org
> >> http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SunRay-Users mailing list
> > SunRay-Users at filibeto.org
> > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
> > _______________________________________________
> > SunRay-Users mailing list
> > SunRay-Users at filibeto.org
> > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
> 
> --
> 
> Craig Bender
> 
> 
> 1-877-255-1537
> 
> Sun Ray Engineering
> Sun Microsystems
> A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Oracle Corporation
> _______________________________________________
> SunRay-Users mailing list
> SunRay-Users at filibeto.org
> http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
> _______________________________________________
> SunRay-Users mailing list
> SunRay-Users at filibeto.org
> http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users



More information about the SunRay-Users mailing list