Dear ivanmarcus/mike, The MSRDP setup is done at my end for testing purpose with same user ,same screen,same depth etc. we measure the bandith for singile session and it is too low. i am already sharing a snapshot in preious mail.
*My point is if i used MSRDP web client to acees the server it take low bandwidth utilization . when i am using guacd with xrdp it uses high bandwidth.* On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 11:25, ivanmarcus <[email protected]> wrote: > Manoj, > > I've followed this thread with some interest, and have learnt something > from what Mike's been saying about how Guacamole handles image compression > etc. > > I'm not able to contribute much from a softwarec perspective but there are > a couple of things that I wonder about. > > In your tests it appears to me that, generally, the Guacamole <-> xrdp > traffic is much higher than Tomcat <-> browser, as one would anticipate. > Assuming your Guacamole <-> xrdp connections to be on an internal 1GbE > network then one would expect Tomcat <-> [external] browser experience to > be much quicker than say xrdp <-> [external] MSRD client. > > In an earlier post you said: > > My Observation is--- > > we observe that in my colleague company those people used Microsoft > remote desktop Web client (using activex) for 1200 connection in 10 Mbps > for huge transaction. and > > we used Xrdp+wine+Guacamole with 600 connection with 50 Mbps bandwidth . > > what protocol they are used ( Microsoft remote desktop Web client ) is > taking less bandwidth compare with Guacamole. > > From this I was interested to see what information there was regarding the > bandwidth requirements for MS RD Web Client vs MS Terminal Services Client. > > I found this website article: > > > https://www.rdsgurus.com/microsoft-rd-web-client-html5-performance-testing-part-1/ > > Although not completely clear my take on their results is that MSRDWC > could use similar, or possibly more, bandwith than MSTSC (or it could use > ~1/2 in some cases). They explicitly state further research is needed so > the results should be considered provisional at this time. > > *If* these results are in the typical ballpark then it would seem to me > somewhat at odds with what you said earlier, and with the results you've > charted. > > To clarifiy. > > (1) From the article let's say MSRDWC bandwith typically = MSTSC bandwith. > > (2)You measure Guacamole <-> xrdp bandwidth significantly higher than > Tomcat <-> browser (let's say this equates to what we'd expect typical > MSTSC bandwidth to be). > > (3) Extapolating; your colleague company is using MSRDWC, therefore with > no other changes or tuning we might ordinarily expect their bandwith > requirements to be higher than yours since, from your's and Mike's data, > the Tomcat <-> browser bandwidth should effectively be less than MSRDWC. > > (4) Yet you've said they have twice the connection numbers with 1/5 > available bandwith, and although not stated the intimation is that their > user's experience could be better than yours? > > Now I realise I'm drawing a fairly long bow, and making some pretty wild > assumptions based on possibly erroneous data, but at this point the > comparision just doesn't add up. > > There are many possibly variables that might explain this but I wonder, > initially, if there are some other differences in what service your > colleague company is delivering compared with yours? For example is theirs > a much reduced colour depth, is it limited to a specific app with little > screen updates, do they have burst mode data capacity, do they have fewer > _concurrent_ users etc? > > Ultimately Mike has said several times that you simply need to allocate > more resource for what you're doing, but it may assist yourself and the > community if you could obtain a similar bandwith log from your colleague > company as you have for yours. It would be good if the data were > standardised as much as possible (ie. perform exactly the same desktop > tasks) and the same colour depth settings etc were utilised. > > If this were effected I think we'd have a much better idea as to the > bandwith requirements of Guacamole vs MSRDWC. From this one might then know > if there's any real (comparative) issue between your service and that of > your colleague company, or not. It could also give some potentially useful > info around Guacamole/MSRDWC performance... > > > On 3/03/2020 4:06 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote: > > What tool u used for measuring bandwidth. > > Is there any resolution? > > As per your snanshot RDP take to much bandwidth utilization . if u also > 600 active connwction then the bandwidth utilization is around 40- 45 mbps. > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 00:45 Mike Jumper, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 1:59 AM Manoj Patil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear, >>> >>> I am deployed the Microsoft environment at my end and measure the >>> bandwidth data send and received. >>> using wireshark. >>> >>> please find the attached file one is microsoft web rdp bandwidth >>> calculation using wireshark and second snapshot is guacamol server >>> calculation using wireshark . >>> >> >> If you want to compare bandwidth usage reliably, you will need to measure >> and compare the two sides of the same session: one measurement being the >> browser <--> Guacamole traffic and the other being the guacd <--> RDP >> traffic. For example, here's my statistics for the first week of December >> last year: >> >> [image: glen-demo-stats-2019-12-01-through-2019-12-07.png] >> >> The graph shows total Guacamole bandwidth usage (green line) against RDP >> usage (orange line) for the same servers across all sessions. The purple >> line is the total number of active sessions. In general, the two bandwidth >> lines follow each other, however I've always observed the RDP line to be >> significantly higher, presumably due to using poorer image compression. The >> only times I've seen the Guacamole line peek (slightly) above the RDP line >> are when there is extremely low activity. >> >> If you are absolutely sure that you are measuring effectively the same >> sessions, connecting to the same RDP server, and that you are using the >> same display size, performing the same actions, seeing the same graphics, >> etc. between them, I'm not sure what would account for your measurements >> showing the opposite behavior. >> >> - Mike >> >> > -- Thanks & Regards, Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA) Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd Nasik. Mobile No -+91-9922507588 Email- [email protected]
