CE 10 Performance Issues

[Nuffsaid]

Hi All

So here’s the situation,

We currently run a CE 8.5 shop, trying to move to 10.

Our current 8.5 configuration is as follows; (all machines are dedicated to CE)

Three machine deployment;

CRYSTAL0
Windows 2000 Server (SP 3)
Dual Processor
1 GIG RAM 1.4 GHz
40 GIG HD
IIS 5.0
CE Web Connector
CE Web Server

CRYSTAL1
Windows 2000 Workstation (SP 2)
Dual Processor
2 GIG RAM 1.7 GHz
40 GIG HD Drive C:
100 GIG HD Drive D: (file store)
CE APS
CE EVENT
CE CACH
CE INPUT
CE OUTPUT

CRYSTAL2
Windows 2000 Workstation (SP 2)
Dual Processor
1 GIG RAM 1.4 GHz
40 GIG HD
CE PAGE SERVER
CE JOB SERVER

So now it’s time to upgrade to 10!
(Never got the time to implement 9)

As management is “on board”, seems like a good time to hit them up for new hardware.
So, they coughed up……..

All new machines are also dedicated to CE .

4 Server - basic config;

Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition
Dual Processors
3.2 GIG RAM 3.19GHz
114 GIG HD

CE 10 configuration as follows;

CRYSTAL 0
IIS 6.0 (It’s listed as supported in platforms.txt)
CE WEB CONNECTOR
CE WEB SERVER
CE CACH SERVER

CRYSTAL1
CE CMS SERVER
CE EVENT SERVER
CE INPUT
CE OUTPUT
FILE STORE

CRYSTAL2 & CRYSTAL3 (Mirror setup)
CE PAGE SERVER
CE REPORT JOB SERVER
CE PROGRAM JOB SERVER
CE REPORT APPLICATION SERVER

So, on paper, CE 10 should blow 8.5 out of the water, however, it’s a PIG.
Doing some benchmarking has revealed that 10 takes about twice the time to process as 8.5 on a lesser system. We’ve tried everything we can think of, but to no avail.

I’ve got a suspicion that performance is lacking due to some setting(s) within Windows Server 2003. I’ve heard that it comes out of the box “locked down” with security features that could possibly hamper CE’s performance.

If any of you are running a similar deployment, or know of any issues that maybe interfering with CE, I’d sure like to hear from you. (PLEASE, before I pull the rest of my hair out!!)

Thanks…….


Nuffsaid
"We will,
either FIND a way
or MAKE one.

 

[Turkbear]

Hi,
The first place I would look is in the connections to the CMS..
What database are you using for it?
Are the servers all on the same subnet ( this is critical).

IIRC IIS6 cannot be used as the web server with CE9 and I do not know if that has changed with CE10


I have found CE10 to be faster for most reports than 8.5 and never slower..
( and much faster for AD authentication)

 

[Nuffsaid]

Hi Turkbear,

All 4 servers are part of the same domain and run dual network connections through a gigabit hub which they are all connected to.

The CMS database is located on the CMS server (MSDE). We had the database located on our data warehouse (SQL 2000) but moved it back to the CMS as part of our troubleshooting efforts. We figured, because of the activity in the data warehouse,the CMS had to “wait it’s turn” and that might be part of our problem. This does not seem to be the case though. :0(



Nuffsaid
"We will,
either FIND a way
or MAKE one.

 

[Turkbear]

HI,
Is is MSDE or SqlServer? I have read ( somewhere) that MSDE on Windows 2003 can be problematic..


Have you looked at the technical notes from Microsoft on W2003 server?
Try here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/techinfo/overview/articleindex.mspx

It may have info on what is changed and how to maximise performance..

 

[lyanch]

Do the reports run slower in the designer as well? I had some problems with newer database dll's changing the way the SQL was being creating (and not sending it all to the database) when upgrading to 9 from 8.5. I could see the same thing happening in 8.5 to 10.

Once I fixed those problems, I have found 9 to be generally faster, especially with complex exports etc.

Lisa

 

[gashandler]

NuffSaid,

How is your implementation of CE10 going? I'm probably going to be upgrading from CE9 to 10 this quarter and I'm curious if you've encountered any issues. I've already had to deal with the pig factor. CE9 required a lot more juice to run than CE85, esp with scheduled reports which ran in batches and I had to seriously upgrade the hardward and our licensing.

 

[Nuffsaid]

Hi Gashandler,

We've had 10 in production for 6 months now and have not encountered any serious problems with the exception of the "pig factor". During testing we had our network monitored by an outside firm to see if there were improvements that could be made to improve CE's performance, however the network came back with a "clean bill of health". We then turned our attention to the box that houses our data warehouse. This box does not have the capacity or resources that the CE servers have, so we were a little concerned about creating the "Lion Feeding Off The Lamb" scenario. So our operations dept. beefed up the DW. During testing we came accross poorly designed reports that would choke the system if "Viewed On Demand". (This would happen in 8.5 also) We either removed this right or the report was redesigned. In 8.5 all users viewed reports with the Active X viewer. Now, due to the fact that most clients are still running Win 98, most users have to use the DHTML viewer and they complain that it's slower.

We could not find one or two sprcific reasons for poor performance, there were just to many variables.

At present we still get some complaints about performance but they seem to become fewer and fewer as we educate our users to "Schedule" vs "View On Demand" or to schedule to the appropriate format vs exporting from the viewer.



Nuffsaid.

 

[gashandler]

Great, thanks. Sounds like we already dealt with the "pig factor" then when we upgraded to CE9. We had to upgrade our hardware (and licensing) after upgrading to CE9 in order to handle our batched scheduled reports.