Saturday, July 19, 2008

[THIN] Re: Refresh me....

Theres a policy in AD that forces complex passwords – you want to enable that

Computer Config->Windows Settings->Security->Account Policies->Password Policy

That way a password must contain upper/lower case, a number and a non-alphanumeic character

...mind  you’ll simply end up with Password!1, Password!2 ...  ;)

 

From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chad Schneider (IT)
Sent: 18 July 2008 15:35
To: thin@freelists.org
Subject: [THIN] Re: Refresh me....

 

HAR HAR.

 

LOL!

 

That is funny, honestly...

 

So, what am I missing?

 

Chad Schneider
Systems Engineer
ThedaCare IT
920-735-7615

>>> On 7/18/2008 at 9:20 AM, <gareese@gmail.com> wrote:

...a better password policy

:^)



On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Chad Schneider (IT) <Chad.M.Schneider@thedacare.org> wrote:

If I want users to not be able to use password1, password2, password3 for their AD passwords, I thought I simply had to enable "enforce password history", but that does not seem to stop it.

 

What am I missing?

 

 

Chad Schneider
Systems Engineer
ThedaCare IT
920-735-7615

 

Friday, July 18, 2008

[THIN] Re: Video Performance

NIC is I/O and in a virtualized environment it has significant overhead in that a software layer is added to virtualize the NIC in a way that slows it down quite a bit. I would suggest, in general, that with 400 concurrent connections you have exceed what a VMWare based CSG can effectively handle, probably by quite a bit actually. The quick and easy proof is to spin up a CSG on a raw box and check the different in response times. The overhead in this case is not going to show in monitored utilization but more in the user experience of latency on the rich media stuff you are referring to. It is not a matter of utilization of VMWare resources as much as the fact that the virtualization I/O translation layer is simply too inefficient. Stay tuned- later this year Intel promises to have hardware NICS that are virtual machine aware…

 

The Netscaler is the product I am referring to. If you buy Netscaler Enterprise it includes a feature called Access Gateway. However, you can also buy the same product with only the gateway feature and it is called Access Gateway Enteprise Edition. It is very confusing, but in the end they are the same box with different software licenses loaded!!

 

 

Steve Greenberg

Thin Client Computing

34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453

Scottsdale, AZ 85266

(602) 432-8649

www.thinclient.net

steveg@thinclient.net

 


From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chris Grecsek
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:50 PM
To: 'thin@freelists.org'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Video Performance

 

Excellent feedback - thanks Steve! When you say VMware is bad with I/O do you mean disk or NIC or both? The perfmon counters we’re running on the VMs show very little utilization of disk or NIC so I guess we’ll just see how it goes.

 

We do have the WI and CSG on two separate VMs. We have about 400 concurrent connections on this WI/CSG set.

 

You also mentioned the Netscaler Access Gateway as a possible upgrade path from the WI/CSG. I’m doing some research but I must say, Citrix’s product naming bonanza makes me not 100% sure I’m looking at the correct product. I found information on the Access Gateway Enterprise Edition (AGEE) but is that a different product than the Netscaler Access Gateway? Was there a specific feature of the product that you think would be making the difference or is it just the fact that the device is designed to handle/manage that specific type of traffic/load?

 

 

-----------------------------

chris grecsek | centered networks | t:415-294-7776 | f:415-294-7772 | chris@centerednetworks.com


From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Steve Greenberg
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:07 PM
To: thin@freelists.org
Subject: [THIN] Re: Video Performance

 

Now that we know it is running on VMWare that could be the bottleneck right there- CSG is I/O intensive because of the nature of what it is doing as a proxy, this is the one area that hypervisor virtualization is still very weak at….

 

 

Steve Greenberg

Thin Client Computing

34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453

Scottsdale, AZ 85266

(602) 432-8649

www.thinclient.net

steveg@thinclient.net

 


From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chris Grecsek
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:21 AM
To: 'thin@freelists.org'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Video Performance

 

Hi Joe,

 

Thanks for the speedy response!

 

We’re not using any LBs – there are no network devices other than a standard PIX.

 

The WI and CSGs are both VMs on ESX 3.5. Based on your question I think we’ll setup a WI/CSG on a standalone server “just to see” even though we’re not seeing high utilization.

 

At this point we have not isolated the WI or CSG. We’re going to setup an additional site on the WI that will not use the CSG so that should achieve the isolation.  

 

We’ve done quite a bit of testing with the speedscreen/multimedia stuff - I think we’ve tried every conceivable combination in the policies and farm settings . I believe the policies should apply the same whether we come in via the CSG/WI or the PN.

            Image acceleration using lossy compression: enabled; compression level: do not use lossy compression; speedscreen progressive display:disabled

            Speedscreen browser acceleration: off; speedscreen flash: enabled – all connections; speedscreen multimedia: enabled – buffer = 10.

 

 

 

Thanks again,

Chris

-----------------------------

chris grecsek | centered networks | t:415-294-7776 | f:415-294-7772 | chris@centerednetworks.com


From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Joe Shonk
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:35 AM
To: thin@freelists.org
Subject: [THIN] Re: Video Performance

 

It could be a couple of things….  Have you tried removing CSG from the equation and isolate if its WI or CSG?  Is your CSG box running in a Virtual Machine?  Do you have a LB in front of your WI and/or CSG box?  How are you Applying the Ctx Policies for the SpeedScreen/multimedia.

 

Joe

 

From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chris Grecsek
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:24 AM
To: 'thin@freelists.org'
Subject: [THIN] Video Performance

 

We provide published desktops via Citrix/terminal services delivered via the internet. All users come in through the web interface/CSG via high speed, burstable (up to 100mb) connections. Most of the branch offices are <50 users so connectivity/maxxing out the pipe is not an issue. We don’t use any bandwidth restriction policies – users can use as much bandwidth as they’d like. We have bandwidth monitoring to look at all traffic and have our firewalls setup so that only Citrix traffic is using the burstable connection. Latency is sub 20ms and we have no packet loss.

 

Like everyone else using Citrix we’ve had challenges with video performance on the published desktop (Windows media player works great – Flash/other codecs, not so much). We had an interesting discovery today and I was curious if anyone could answer why/how this happens…when we connect to a published desktop via the WI/CSG (from one of our branch offices) video performance is bad. We ran a test today from within the datacenter where we connected to a published desktop, locally (from a laptop at the DC), using the Program Neighborhood as opposed to coming in over the WI/CSG and low and behold, video performance was excellent.

 

When we look at the amount of session bandwidth being used it’s nearly the same when coming in via the WI/CSG as it is when testing at the datacenter. So I guess the question is, is there something with the way the WI/CSG works that would be restricting/degrading the video performance (we ran performance counters on the WI/CSG and it doesn’t seem to be working very hard), is there a difference between using the Program Neighborhood verses the web client, etc.?

 

We’re on Citrix 4.5, latest rollups, latest version of the client, etc.

 

If anyone has any ideas, it would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you!

 

Chris

 

-----------------------------

chris grecsek | centered networks | t:415-294-7776 | f:415-294-7772 | chris@centerednetworks.com

[THIN] Re: Citrix WAN design - the ultimate design

OK. so centralizing the Print Server incurs additional WAN traversing, is this the case with Native Drivers and the Universal Driver?  Is the following correct:

1) Native Driver Printing.  ( 1-Citrix Server to Print Server, 2-Print Server to Printer).
2) Universal Driver Printing. ( 1-Server to Client,  2-Client to Print Server, 3-Print Server to Printer).
3) ScrewDrivers
( 1-Citrix Server to Print Server, 2-Print Server to Printer).

The other issue with a centralised Print Server is that the Print jobs spool over a WAN.  Having a local Print Server in each branch gets around this as the Print Job spools on the local Branch Network.  The cost of 20 Print Servers is obviously more expensive than purchasing a product such as ScrewDrivers.  ScrewDrivers would hopefully compress the Print Spool data to a point where links are not saturated..

This is all theory and I could be wrong.  Hope someone can validate it for me..

Thanks
Ang





From: joe.shonk@gmail.com
To: thin@freelists.org
Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix WAN design - the ultimate design
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:05:14 -0700

But even that is not going to work…  If it's all centralized then standard printing will be best solution.   Using auto-created printing is not going to buy anything since the print job will be traversing the WAN three times ( 1-Server to Client,  2-Client to Print Server, 3-Print Server to Printer).

 

Joe

 

From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Steve Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:11 AM
To: thin@freelists.org
Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix WAN design - the ultimate design

 

If 80% is central it doesn't seem cost effective to do print servers or Wanscaler/Branch repeaters in each office. I think all central with ScrewDrivers is a great plan

 

 

Steve Greenberg

Thin Client Computing

34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453

Scottsdale, AZ 85266

(602) 432-8649

www.thinclient.net

steveg@thinclient.net

 


From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Angela Smith
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:53 PM
To: thin@freelists.org
Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix WAN design - the ultimate design

 

Hi
 
80% of the applications are run centrally on the Citrix Servers.  All the data is also centrally managed (same network as Citrix servers).  We currently use a centralised MS Print Server but as part of the WAN upgrade I was going to install Print Servers in each office thinking it would reduce the bandwidth usage as our existing links do get saturated with Print traffic.  If I go down the ScrewDrivers path my preference would be to use a centralised Print Server otherwise I need to purchase 30 Servers for each branch office.  The endpoint devices are fat clients (Windows XP based PC's).
 
We are looking at upgrading the WAN to 4MB MPLS to all sites.  The links will go direct from branch to head office unless someone recommends otherwise.  Internet connection comes out of Head Office.  Im unsure if a WAN upgrade is sufficient to cater for WAN traffic or whether I also need WANScalers in each office.  I simply wanted to ensure I was not designing something that wasn't best practice...
 
Ang




> From: steveg@thinclient.net
> To: thin@freelists.org
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix WAN design - the ultimate design
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:37:19 -0700
>
>
> Are all the applications running centrally on Presentation Server? Is all
> the data central? What are the endpoint devices?
>
>
> Steve Greenberg
> Thin Client Computing
> 34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
> Scottsdale, AZ 85266
> (602) 432-8649
> www.thinclient.net
> steveg@thinclient.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf
> Of Angela Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:48 AM
> To: thin@freelists.org
> Subject: [THIN] Citrix WAN design - the ultimate design
>
>
> HI
>
> I have the fortunate situation where I have the opportunity to redesign our
> company WAN links / Citrix design. Is there a best practice for numerous
> small branch offices (10 - 40 users)? We have 30 sites around the country
> connected via frame relay links. If you had the opportunity to design your
> farm from new how would you do it??. Application use is fairly simple
> (Office, Outlook etc). Im not looking for assistance on Citrix farm
> numbers, more high level.. This is what Im thinking:
>
> 4Mb WAN links from Head Office to all sites (direct, not via other branches)
> Centralised Print Server in Head Office
> Citrix Presentation Server 4.5
> Tricerat ScrewDrivers for Printing
>
>
> Would this be a good start? Would anyone add Citrix WANScalers also or
> would 4Mb links be sufficient for sites with 40 users or less?
>
> Am I on the right track?
>
> Thanks
> Ang
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live Messenger treats you to 30 free emoticons - Bees, cows, tigers
> and more!
> http://livelife.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=567534***********************
> *************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
> set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
> http://www.freelists.org/list/thin
> NEW! Follow Thin List on Twitter!
> http://twitter.com/thinlist
> Thin List discussion is now available in blog format at:
> http://thinmaillist.blogspot.com
> HOT! Thinlist MOBILE Feed!
> http://thinlist.net/mobile
> Thinlist quick pick
> http://thinlist.net
> ************************************************
>
> ************************************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
> set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
> http://www.freelists.org/list/thin
> NEW! Follow Thin List on Twitter!
> http://twitter.com/thinlist
> Thin List discussion is now available in blog format at:
> http://thinmaillist.blogspot.com
> HOT! Thinlist MOBILE Feed!
> http://thinlist.net/mobile
> Thinlist quick pick
> http://thinlist.net
> ************************************************


Find out: SEEK Salary Centre Are you paid what you're worth?



Find out: SEEK Salary Centre Are you paid what you're worth?

[THIN] Re: Video Performance

Excellent feedback - thanks Steve! When you say VMware is bad with I/O do you mean disk or NIC or both? The perfmon counters we’re running on the VMs show very little utilization of disk or NIC so I guess we’ll just see how it goes.

 

We do have the WI and CSG on two separate VMs. We have about 400 concurrent connections on this WI/CSG set.

 

You also mentioned the Netscaler Access Gateway as a possible upgrade path from the WI/CSG. I’m doing some research but I must say, Citrix’s product naming bonanza makes me not 100% sure I’m looking at the correct product. I found information on the Access Gateway Enterprise Edition (AGEE) but is that a different product than the Netscaler Access Gateway? Was there a specific feature of the product that you think would be making the difference or is it just the fact that the device is designed to handle/manage that specific type of traffic/load?

 

 

-----------------------------

chris grecsek | centered networks | t:415-294-7776 | f:415-294-7772 | chris@centerednetworks.com


From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Steve Greenberg
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:07 PM
To: thin@freelists.org
Subject: [THIN] Re: Video Performance

 

Now that we know it is running on VMWare that could be the bottleneck right there- CSG is I/O intensive because of the nature of what it is doing as a proxy, this is the one area that hypervisor virtualization is still very weak at….

 

 

Steve Greenberg

Thin Client Computing

34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453

Scottsdale, AZ 85266

(602) 432-8649

www.thinclient.net

steveg@thinclient.net

 


From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chris Grecsek
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:21 AM
To: 'thin@freelists.org'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Video Performance

 

Hi Joe,

 

Thanks for the speedy response!

 

We’re not using any LBs – there are no network devices other than a standard PIX.

 

The WI and CSGs are both VMs on ESX 3.5. Based on your question I think we’ll setup a WI/CSG on a standalone server “just to see” even though we’re not seeing high utilization.

 

At this point we have not isolated the WI or CSG. We’re going to setup an additional site on the WI that will not use the CSG so that should achieve the isolation.  

 

We’ve done quite a bit of testing with the speedscreen/multimedia stuff - I think we’ve tried every conceivable combination in the policies and farm settings . I believe the policies should apply the same whether we come in via the CSG/WI or the PN.

            Image acceleration using lossy compression: enabled; compression level: do not use lossy compression; speedscreen progressive display:disabled

            Speedscreen browser acceleration: off; speedscreen flash: enabled – all connections; speedscreen multimedia: enabled – buffer = 10.

 

 

 

Thanks again,

Chris

-----------------------------

chris grecsek | centered networks | t:415-294-7776 | f:415-294-7772 | chris@centerednetworks.com


From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Joe Shonk
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:35 AM
To: thin@freelists.org
Subject: [THIN] Re: Video Performance

 

It could be a couple of things….  Have you tried removing CSG from the equation and isolate if its WI or CSG?  Is your CSG box running in a Virtual Machine?  Do you have a LB in front of your WI and/or CSG box?  How are you Applying the Ctx Policies for the SpeedScreen/multimedia.

 

Joe

 

From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chris Grecsek
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:24 AM
To: 'thin@freelists.org'
Subject: [THIN] Video Performance

 

We provide published desktops via Citrix/terminal services delivered via the internet. All users come in through the web interface/CSG via high speed, burstable (up to 100mb) connections. Most of the branch offices are <50 users so connectivity/maxxing out the pipe is not an issue. We don’t use any bandwidth restriction policies – users can use as much bandwidth as they’d like. We have bandwidth monitoring to look at all traffic and have our firewalls setup so that only Citrix traffic is using the burstable connection. Latency is sub 20ms and we have no packet loss.

 

Like everyone else using Citrix we’ve had challenges with video performance on the published desktop (Windows media player works great – Flash/other codecs, not so much). We had an interesting discovery today and I was curious if anyone could answer why/how this happens…when we connect to a published desktop via the WI/CSG (from one of our branch offices) video performance is bad. We ran a test today from within the datacenter where we connected to a published desktop, locally (from a laptop at the DC), using the Program Neighborhood as opposed to coming in over the WI/CSG and low and behold, video performance was excellent.

 

When we look at the amount of session bandwidth being used it’s nearly the same when coming in via the WI/CSG as it is when testing at the datacenter. So I guess the question is, is there something with the way the WI/CSG works that would be restricting/degrading the video performance (we ran performance counters on the WI/CSG and it doesn’t seem to be working very hard), is there a difference between using the Program Neighborhood verses the web client, etc.?

 

We’re on Citrix 4.5, latest rollups, latest version of the client, etc.

 

If anyone has any ideas, it would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you!

 

Chris

 

-----------------------------

chris grecsek | centered networks | t:415-294-7776 | f:415-294-7772 | chris@centerednetworks.com

[THIN] Re: Video Performance

Now that we know it is running on VMWare that could be the bottleneck right there- CSG is I/O intensive because of the nature of what it is doing as a proxy, this is the one area that hypervisor virtualization is still very weak at….

 

 

Steve Greenberg

Thin Client Computing

34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453

Scottsdale, AZ 85266

(602) 432-8649

www.thinclient.net

steveg@thinclient.net

 


From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chris Grecsek
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:21 AM
To: 'thin@freelists.org'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Video Performance

 

Hi Joe,

 

Thanks for the speedy response!

 

We’re not using any LBs – there are no network devices other than a standard PIX.

 

The WI and CSGs are both VMs on ESX 3.5. Based on your question I think we’ll setup a WI/CSG on a standalone server “just to see” even though we’re not seeing high utilization.

 

At this point we have not isolated the WI or CSG. We’re going to setup an additional site on the WI that will not use the CSG so that should achieve the isolation.  

 

We’ve done quite a bit of testing with the speedscreen/multimedia stuff - I think we’ve tried every conceivable combination in the policies and farm settings . I believe the policies should apply the same whether we come in via the CSG/WI or the PN.

            Image acceleration using lossy compression: enabled; compression level: do not use lossy compression; speedscreen progressive display:disabled

            Speedscreen browser acceleration: off; speedscreen flash: enabled – all connections; speedscreen multimedia: enabled – buffer = 10.

 

 

 

Thanks again,

Chris

-----------------------------

chris grecsek | centered networks | t:415-294-7776 | f:415-294-7772 | chris@centerednetworks.com


From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Joe Shonk
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:35 AM
To: thin@freelists.org
Subject: [THIN] Re: Video Performance

 

It could be a couple of things….  Have you tried removing CSG from the equation and isolate if its WI or CSG?  Is your CSG box running in a Virtual Machine?  Do you have a LB in front of your WI and/or CSG box?  How are you Applying the Ctx Policies for the SpeedScreen/multimedia.

 

Joe

 

From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chris Grecsek
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:24 AM
To: 'thin@freelists.org'
Subject: [THIN] Video Performance

 

We provide published desktops via Citrix/terminal services delivered via the internet. All users come in through the web interface/CSG via high speed, burstable (up to 100mb) connections. Most of the branch offices are <50 users so connectivity/maxxing out the pipe is not an issue. We don’t use any bandwidth restriction policies – users can use as much bandwidth as they’d like. We have bandwidth monitoring to look at all traffic and have our firewalls setup so that only Citrix traffic is using the burstable connection. Latency is sub 20ms and we have no packet loss.

 

Like everyone else using Citrix we’ve had challenges with video performance on the published desktop (Windows media player works great – Flash/other codecs, not so much). We had an interesting discovery today and I was curious if anyone could answer why/how this happens…when we connect to a published desktop via the WI/CSG (from one of our branch offices) video performance is bad. We ran a test today from within the datacenter where we connected to a published desktop, locally (from a laptop at the DC), using the Program Neighborhood as opposed to coming in over the WI/CSG and low and behold, video performance was excellent.

 

When we look at the amount of session bandwidth being used it’s nearly the same when coming in via the WI/CSG as it is when testing at the datacenter. So I guess the question is, is there something with the way the WI/CSG works that would be restricting/degrading the video performance (we ran performance counters on the WI/CSG and it doesn’t seem to be working very hard), is there a difference between using the Program Neighborhood verses the web client, etc.?

 

We’re on Citrix 4.5, latest rollups, latest version of the client, etc.

 

If anyone has any ideas, it would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you!

 

Chris

 

-----------------------------

chris grecsek | centered networks | t:415-294-7776 | f:415-294-7772 | chris@centerednetworks.com

[THIN] Re: Video Performance

Hi Joe,

 

Thanks for the speedy response!

 

We’re not using any LBs – there are no network devices other than a standard PIX.

 

The WI and CSGs are both VMs on ESX 3.5. Based on your question I think we’ll setup a WI/CSG on a standalone server “just to see” even though we’re not seeing high utilization.

 

At this point we have not isolated the WI or CSG. We’re going to setup an additional site on the WI that will not use the CSG so that should achieve the isolation.  

 

We’ve done quite a bit of testing with the speedscreen/multimedia stuff - I think we’ve tried every conceivable combination in the policies and farm settings . I believe the policies should apply the same whether we come in via the CSG/WI or the PN.

            Image acceleration using lossy compression: enabled; compression level: do not use lossy compression; speedscreen progressive display:disabled

            Speedscreen browser acceleration: off; speedscreen flash: enabled – all connections; speedscreen multimedia: enabled – buffer = 10.

 

 

 

Thanks again,

Chris

-----------------------------

chris grecsek | centered networks | t:415-294-7776 | f:415-294-7772 | chris@centerednetworks.com


From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Joe Shonk
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:35 AM
To: thin@freelists.org
Subject: [THIN] Re: Video Performance

 

It could be a couple of things….  Have you tried removing CSG from the equation and isolate if its WI or CSG?  Is your CSG box running in a Virtual Machine?  Do you have a LB in front of your WI and/or CSG box?  How are you Applying the Ctx Policies for the SpeedScreen/multimedia.

 

Joe

 

From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chris Grecsek
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:24 AM
To: 'thin@freelists.org'
Subject: [THIN] Video Performance

 

We provide published desktops via Citrix/terminal services delivered via the internet. All users come in through the web interface/CSG via high speed, burstable (up to 100mb) connections. Most of the branch offices are <50 users so connectivity/maxxing out the pipe is not an issue. We don’t use any bandwidth restriction policies – users can use as much bandwidth as they’d like. We have bandwidth monitoring to look at all traffic and have our firewalls setup so that only Citrix traffic is using the burstable connection. Latency is sub 20ms and we have no packet loss.

 

Like everyone else using Citrix we’ve had challenges with video performance on the published desktop (Windows media player works great – Flash/other codecs, not so much). We had an interesting discovery today and I was curious if anyone could answer why/how this happens…when we connect to a published desktop via the WI/CSG (from one of our branch offices) video performance is bad. We ran a test today from within the datacenter where we connected to a published desktop, locally (from a laptop at the DC), using the Program Neighborhood as opposed to coming in over the WI/CSG and low and behold, video performance was excellent.

 

When we look at the amount of session bandwidth being used it’s nearly the same when coming in via the WI/CSG as it is when testing at the datacenter. So I guess the question is, is there something with the way the WI/CSG works that would be restricting/degrading the video performance (we ran performance counters on the WI/CSG and it doesn’t seem to be working very hard), is there a difference between using the Program Neighborhood verses the web client, etc.?

 

We’re on Citrix 4.5, latest rollups, latest version of the client, etc.

 

If anyone has any ideas, it would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you!

 

Chris

 

-----------------------------

chris grecsek | centered networks | t:415-294-7776 | f:415-294-7772 | chris@centerednetworks.com