We use VNC here regularly. I do not notice performance issues unless we are actually connected to the server. We are using [EMAIL PROTECTED] in our environment.
Jason Passow Mississippi Welders Supply [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph: (507) 494-5178 fax: (507) 454-8104 "If you do everything right, nobody will realize you've done anything at all." Servers Alive Discussion List wrote: > > I've found the problem! We run VNC on the SA server to allow us to > access the console. I've just stopped the VNC server service, and lo > and behold SA started racing through checks faster than a fast thing. > It's still taking longer than I'd like, but it's a big improvement. > > Has anyone else found that problem with VNC? > > Ian > _________________________________ > Ian K Gray > OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support > Tel: +44 1236 502661 > Mob: +44 7881 518854 > > > *Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>* > > 12/05/2006 21:05 > Please respond to > Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]> > > > > To > Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]> > cc > > Subject > [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: > [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction > > > > > > > > > > I was running mine on a desktop with a single P4-3Ghz and 512mb of RAM. > Hardware shouldn't be a problem for you. > > -Kevin > > Servers Alive Discussion List wrote: > >  > > > > I guess you mean twin procs (346 is only dual) - it's that pesky Xeon > > thing appearing as two. But that's still twice as many as I have - > > maybe that's it. I'll see if I can steal a twin proc server from > > somewhere... > > > > > > Ian > > _________________________________ > > Ian K Gray > > OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support > > Tel: +44 1236 502661 > > Mob: +44 7881 518854 > > Sent via Blackberry > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > * From: *Servers Alive Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > * Sent: *12/05/2006 20:30 > > * To: *Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]> > > * Subject: *[SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: > > [SA-list] SA Future Direction > > > > > > Check Types Qty % of Checks > > Ping Checks 167 25.77% > > Performance Checks 258 39.81% > > Diskspace Checks 110 16.98% > > Service Checks 48 7.41% > > Process Checks 55 8.49% > > Web Server Checks 2 0.31% > > SQL*Server Login 2 0.31% > > DNS Checks 5 0.77% > > Lotus Notes DB Checks 1 0.15% > > > > Total Checks 648 > > SA Cycle Time (sec) 240 > > Checks Per Sec. 2.7 > > Most checks take 0.25 sec. > > Perfmon checks take about 0.5 sec. > > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\DBU Consulting\Servers > > Alive\IntervalBetweenChecks = 1 > > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\DBU Consulting\Servers > > Alive\StartUp\PerItemCycle = 50 > > Windows 2003 Server > > IBM 346 Server > > Quad Processors 3GHz > > 2 Gig Memory > > Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet > > Jim F > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > *Sent:* Friday, May 12, 2006 1:50 PM > > *To:* Servers Alive Discussion List > > *Subject:* [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA > > Future Direction > > > > Hmmm... So what's the key difference? There must be a fundamental > > difference in config somewhere... > > _________________________________ > > Ian K Gray > > OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support > > Tel: +44 1236 502661 > > Mob: +44 7881 518854 > > Sent via Blackberry > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > * From: *Servers Alive Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > * Sent: *12/05/2006 18:25 > > * To: *Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]> > > * Subject: *[SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction > > > > > > No I am not running multithreaded. > > Jim F. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > *Sent:* Friday, May 12, 2006 1:15 PM > > *To:* Servers Alive Discussion List > > *Subject:* [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction > > > > Jim, > > > > Can you confirm if you're running the multithread beta? > > > > Ian > > _________________________________ > > Ian K Gray > > OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support > > Tel: +44 1236 502661 > > Mob: +44 7881 518854 > > Sent via Blackberry > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > * From: *Servers Alive Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > * Sent: *12/05/2006 18:05 > > * To: *Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]> > > * Subject: *[SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: > > [SA-list] SA Future Direction > > > > > > It looks like I may have exaggerated slightly, we are doing 648 checks > > in exactly 4 minutes which is about three checks per second. We do > > have a lot of perfmon checks which are comparatively slow. > > It easily clips through ping checks and process checks at 4 per second. > > Jim > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > *Sent:* Friday, May 12, 2006 12:45 PM > > *To:* Servers Alive Discussion List > > *Subject:* [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA > > Future Direction > > > > That makes sense, and I could live with that if LAN checks were fast. > > But I only get maybe 1 check per second on a local LAN ping with a 1 > > ms round trip... > > _________________________________ > > Ian K Gray > > OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support > > Tel: +44 1236 502661 > > Mob: +44 7881 518854 > > Sent via Blackberry > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > * From: *Servers Alive Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > * Sent: *12/05/2006 17:35 > > * To: *Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]> > > * Subject: *[SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction > > > > > > Ian > > We have fast WANS as well and still find the checks significantly > > slower than local, think its down to latency rather than bandwidth; > > especially disk size checks etc > > Dave > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > *Sent:* 12 May 2006 17:30 > > *To:* Servers Alive Discussion List > > *Subject:* [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction > > > > > > IBM Blade server, Xeon 2.8Ghz, 2Gb RAM, running Win2K server. Checks > > are probably 60% PING, 30% SNMP, 10% other stuff (Win services, disk > > space etc). Maybe 50% on the local LAN, and 50% across a (reasonably > > fast) WAN. > > > > We implemented all the tuning bits in the registry long time ago, > > although that never made a big difference. This is the first time I've > > seen a speed comparison - I'm staggered. Sounds like Michael is doing > > similar speeds to you, so evidence so far is pointing to the problem > > being here. If I could get checks going that fast it would > > revolutionise the process. > > > > Ian > > _________________________________ > > Ian K Gray > > OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support > > Tel: +44 1236 502661 > > Mob: +44 7881 518854 > > > > > > *Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>* > > > > 12/05/2006 16:50 > > Please respond to > > Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > To > > Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]> > > cc > > > > Subject > > [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That seems REALLY slow. I was running over 1000 checks with many RRDs, > > HTML generation, etc and I was never over 15 minutes. With some tuning > > and pruning I cut that in half with recent betas. > > > > What kind of hardware? > > > > -Kevin > > > > Servers Alive Discussion List wrote: > > > > > > Four checks per second??? How do you manage that? What sort of checks > > > are they? I'd be pleased with 1 check per second! (Currently I'm > > > running through about 360 checks in 15 mins - albeit including RRD > > > generation which takes up a minute or three, and also recognising that > > > checks over the WAN will take a bit longer). > > > > > > Ian > > > _________________________________ > > > Ian K Gray > > > OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support > > > Tel: +44 1236 502661 > > > Mob: +44 7881 518854 > > > > > > > > > *Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>* > > > > > > 12/05/2006 15:55 > > > Please respond to > > > Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > To > > > Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]> > > > cc > > > > > > Subject > > > [SA-list] SA Future Direction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since everyone is weighing in, I have two add my two cents worth. > > > > > > Multi-threading > > > It would be nice if SA ran a little faster, but be careful what you > > > ask for. We are currently running four checks per second. If that > > > number is significantly increased, I can foresee sizing problems with > > > my database where I log the output, network bandwidth issues and > > > server performance issues. > > > > > > XML > > > I donâââ‰â¢t care. Always felt it was overrated. > > > > > > Configuration Database > > > I think it is an excellent idea. It would be a good first step to > > > prepare for a remote administration tool. which I believe is extremely > > > important. > > > > > > Output Database > > > This is also an excellent idea. Users could write their own reports, > > > generate their own html, and if desired can produce their own XML. > > > > > > Jim Ferrell > > > EDS - Allison Transmission > > > 4700 W 10th St > > > Mail Code 462-470-H04 > > > Indianapolis, IN 46222 > > > > > > ( phone: +01-317-242-0034 (8-252) > > > + _mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cell phone: 317-716-4541 > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > > [email protected] > > > > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > [email protected] > > > > > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > [email protected] > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message has been scanned by Node N01 incoming > > > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > [email protected] > > Disclaimer > > > > This communication is confidential and intended solely for the use of > > the individuals to whom it is addressed. > > Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author and do not > > necessarily represent those of Allied Bakeries - a division of ABF > > Grain Products Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised > > that you have received this communication in error and that any use, > > dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of the contents is > > strictly prohibited. > > > > If you have received this communication in error, please notify Allied > > Bakeries Service Desk on Freephone 0800 374684 or reply to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message has been scanned by Node N02 Outgoing > > > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > > [email protected] > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > [email protected] > > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > [email protected] To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
