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: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] 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: [email protected] [mailto:sunray-users- > > [email protected]] 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: [email protected] [mailto:sunray-users- > > [email protected]] 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? [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] [sunray-users- > > [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 > > > > -- > > > > Craig Bender > > > > > > 1-877-255-1537 > > > > Sun Ray Engineering > > Sun Microsystems > > A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Oracle Corporation > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 -- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere _______________________________________________ SunRay-Users mailing list [email protected] http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
