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

Nishimura, Scott L (IT Solutions) scott.nishimura at ngc.com
Wed Mar 3 01:50:00 EET 2010


[Sorry list members:  my email gateway prepends the "EXTERNAL" string in
the Subject line and I've been forgetting to remove it.]

Devin,

   I ran utcapture -r on some units including an SDAC and I also saw a
constant latency of 500ms, no matter what I was doing in the SDAC.  My
other physical DTUs had expected #s [< 5ms].

>From my perspective, I would conclude that the 500 # is a bug in the
calculation of the latency because I'm not seeing actual performance to
mirror that #.  Perhaps it's not as responsive as a physical DTU but no
way does it correlate to a latency of 500ms.   And the fact that it's
ALWAYS exactly 500ms makes me suspicious [scratch that: I just saw a few
"503" measurements].

I realize this may not help your particular case but it's another
datapoint.


Scott

-----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 3:35 PM
To: SunRay-Users mailing list
Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop
AccessClient (SDAC / soft client) poor performance

Not yet, I'm going to have to. If I get any sort of resolution, I'll let
this list know.

Quite honestly, I don't even know if we're on a support contract. We
have a few hundred perpetual use licenses, but if I recall those don't
include support.

Thanks,
Devin



-----Original Message-----
From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org
[mailto:sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of Craig Bender
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:30 PM
To: SunRay-Users mailing list
Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop
AccessClient (SDAC / soft client) poor performance

Devin,
Have you opened a support call?

Devin Nate wrote:
> Sorry, that's what we did. We followed the documentation at:
>
> http://wikis.sun.com/display/SRSS4dot2/Tuning+%28All+Topics%29
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org
[mailto:sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of Ceri Davies
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:12 PM
> To: SunRay-Users mailing list
> Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop
AccessClient (SDAC / soft client) poor performance
>
> Neither of those are correct.  The correct syntax is:
>
> set hires_tick=1
>
> Ceri
>
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 04:03:54PM -0700, Devin Nate wrote:
>> The first of the 2 options.  set highres_tick = 1
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org
[mailto:sunray-users-bounces at filibeto.org] On Behalf Of William Yang
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:01 PM
>> To: 'SunRay-Users mailing list'
>> Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop
AccessClient (SDAC / soft client) poor performance
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> --
> That must be wonderful!  I don't understand it at all.
>                                                   -- Moliere
> _______________________________________________
> 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