Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WAN Link being smashed by TS client

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WAN Link being smashed by TS client

    Hi,

    2 x locations, 2003 R2 PDC and BDC connected via VPN tunnel, no email on network and nothing unusual. PDC runs several SQL apps for LAN and other office TS across WAN link into PDC (9 users) is file and print server also, BDC is file and print and runs a SQL app for LAN.

    All users on each LAN log on locally.

    Last week the people who manage one of the apps upgraded it and installed Mimer 9.

    Network performance was shocking - latency of 600+ms on link, couldn't find anything other than quit all TS users and link returned to normal.

    Performance on PDC is still shocking.

    Any ideas why a TS client is hogging my link? I'm stuck and don't know where to go with this, network guy (emergency helP) said it was using 210 of 255 available.

    He also said we should get QOS enabled on routers, anyone give me a brief answer to justify to up above why?

    Any direction or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

    TIA
    A

  • #2
    Re: WAN Link being smashed by TS client

    1. Verity what the application upgrade did... (Maybe using extra graphics etc.)
    2. You can use router with QoS and/or data compression but it cost $.


    http://www.citrix.com/English/ps2/pr...tentID=1350184

    http://www.f5.com/products/big-ip/

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/...logy_home.html
    Best Regards,

    Yuval Sinay

    LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yuval14, Blog: http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/yuval14

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: WAN Link being smashed by TS client

      Hi Yuval,

      the app is not much different from the previous version, however Mimer 9 is quite a lot different from Mimer 8 (SQL) so a bit more resource intensive. But this shouldn't affect things so significantly.
      I'm still not sure how QOS would prioritise application when it's over TS? does that mean that the router will just prioritise TS on 3389 and what about data compression? I think the solution outways the $ for QOS.

      thanks so much for your input.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: WAN Link being smashed by TS client

        Well I've now got some Senior Network guys telling me that QOS is not the way to go. Someone says do it and someone else says don't.
        I understand that QOS can prioritise traffic and in principle this would be advantageous to a network. I have done up to CCNA but I'm no network guru, so I'm confused as to why one says yes and the other says there may be a better solution.

        anyone care to comment? elucidate me to any thing that could guide me?
        TIA as always.
        :P

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: WAN Link being smashed by TS client

          QOS is based on protcols priorities so you can provide more bandwidth for RDP then File System for exmaple.
          Best Regards,

          Yuval Sinay

          LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yuval14, Blog: http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/yuval14

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: WAN Link being smashed by TS client

            This post is related to the Latency on Cisco routers post. Can a moderator merge these teo so that we're not getting confused by responding to both? Thanks.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: WAN Link being smashed by TS client

              thanks Yuval and Joe..this post is now defunct as it's clear that the issue is not TS related but QOS with TS will be something I will look at down the track once issue relating to Latency on Cisco routers post is resolved.
              thanks again!!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: WAN Link being smashed by TS client

                This forum rocks!
                I got the ISP to reset the port at the exchange, bingo fixed.
                Which is great but dissappointing that the two different network guys I got in to look at the problem didn't ascertain this. I bet they'll still be charging me
                No one however can give me a reason as to why it happened.

                Comment

                Working...
                X