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: [email protected] [mailto:sunray-users- > [email protected]] 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: [email protected] [mailto:sunray-users- > [email protected]] 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: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] 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: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] 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: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Devin Nate > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:06 PM > > To: [email protected]; 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: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] 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 > > [email protected] > > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users > > _______________________________________________ > > SunRay-Users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users > > _______________________________________________ > > SunRay-Users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users > > _______________________________________________ > > SunRay-Users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users > > _______________________________________________ > > SunRay-Users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > SunRay-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users > _______________________________________________ > SunRay-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users _______________________________________________ SunRay-Users mailing list [email protected] http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
