Yeah, maybe it's the Red Hat then. I've only tested against Solaris 10 with set_hires_tick = 1 on. Maybe the kernel's timer needs to fire faster than it is? I know under Linux, servers tend to have a really low tick rate set since that's more suitable for typical server loads.
William Yang > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sunray-users- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Devin Nate > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:24 PM > To: SunRay-Users mailing list > Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] EXTERNAL:Re: EXTERNAL: Sun Desktop > AccessClient (SDAC / soft client) poor performance > > 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? [email protected]. > > 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. > r...@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). > r...@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: [email protected] [[email protected]] > On Behalf Of William Yang [[email protected]] > 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: [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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
