Another thing to check out... I saw these kind of performance twice since now. The first time was when a customer made a trunk with 2 Gigabit interfaces on a SunFire T2000. The trunk was well made on the server side, but he forgot / didn't know how to configure the switch accordingly. Results was that horrible!
Second time I saw that, another customer tried to "force" 100 MBps / full on all the Cisco switch ports where DTUs were connected. Since DTUs are autonegociate devices, forcing the ports on the Cisco switch was another very bad idea... Leaving the ports in autonegiociate solved the case. Ben On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:44:04 -0800, Kent Peacock wrote > Are you saying that the packet loss numbers you've measured are > similar when a 100 baseT switch is used? Do you have the Sun Ray > ports on the switch set to autonegotiate? > > Kent > > On 12/04/08 09:14, Rich Teer wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > This seems to be a recurring theme here, but here goes... I've > > installed a very small Sun Ray system where my wife works, and > > they're complaining about poor graphics performance, especially > > when scrolling a browser window. The effect is reminiscent of > > the bad old days of interlaced images over a dialup connection. > > (Applications seem to run at an acceptable speed, just screen > > refreshes could be improved.) > > > > I've a few things here which might be applicable, but I'd like to > > get to the bottom of this issue and solve it once and for all! > > > > Here's some output from utcapture: > > > > # TERMINALID TIMESTAMP TOTAL PACKET TOTAL LOSS BYTES SENT PERCENT LOSS LATENCY > > 00144fe4c5b9 20081204072607 159199432 26549517 1228284694 21.566 > > 00144fe4c5b9 20081204072637 159199666 26549575 1228423758 24.786 > > 00144fe4c5b9 20081204072707 159204536 26550855 1232240548 26.622 > > 00144fe4c5b9 20081204072737 159209024 26552099 1235935770 27.718 > > 00144fe4c5b9 20081204072752 159223822 26558363 1244974054 42.330 > > 00144fe4c5b9 20081204072807 159232746 26561859 1251139582 39.175 > > 00144fe4c5b9 20081204072837 159261524 26575784 1266804516 48.388 > > 00144fe4c5b9 20081204072852 159293508 26591384 1284242436 48.774 > > 00144fe4c5b9 20081204072907 159316291 26601802 1297510370 45.727 > > > > If I'm reading that correctly, that's between 20 and 50% packet loss, > > which would explain a lot! > > > > The server is a Sun Fire X2100 with a 2.2 GHz Opteron 148 CPU, > > 4 GB of RAM, and dual 80 GB disks. They are using a 16-port GBE > > switch, specifically a Netgear GS116 with CAT 5e cabling. There > > are only two thin clients on this network: a Sun Ray 2 FS and a > > Sun Ray 2; both have 22" inch monitors. > > > > The operating system is build 82 of Nevada (a little old, I know), > > and they're using SRSS 4.0 with patch 127554-03 applied. The > > thin clients have been power cycled and are running the updated > > firmware contained in that patch. > > > > I briefly tried swapping out the GBE switch for a Netgear 100 baseT > > one, but that didn't seem to make much (if any) difference. Any > > help greatfully received! > > > > TIA, > > > > _______________________________________________ > SunRay-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users Benoît Audet GRAB Technologies Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel.: (418) 871-6946 #25 Cel.: (418) 802-5882 _______________________________________________ SunRay-Users mailing list [email protected] http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
