Terminal Server performance issues.

[BobLoblaws]

Currently, we are running Citrix Terminal Server on a Dell PowerEdge Server. It is a dual PII 300 w/ 512mb RAM. The server is a bit old but we have no problems with it. My boss decided to get a new server, but instead of going with a server, they bought a Compaq P4 1.6ghz w/ 512mb RAM Desktop.
We setup the desktop exactly the same as the server, and have been doing some tests. While running on the P4, users are complaining of major slowdowns. When we switch back to the old Dell Server, everything works like a charm.
Our server techies have no idea why this is happening, so it has fallen on me to find out.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[ShackDaddy]

Workstation versions of NT/2000 are built to priviledge console applications rather than network applications, so I wouldn't be surprised if your kernel on the workstation is not making the best decisions about prioritizing the sorts of processes that your workstation is handling. Also, with the sorts of work that a Term server does, one can imagine a distinct advantage to having multiple processors involved. Combine those two points and you might have some idea why your system is sluggish.

That's my .02

ShackDaddy

 

[BobLoblaws]

Both the desktop and server are running NT Server 4.0 SP5.
Although the server is dual processor, the processors are only PII 300s vs a single P4 1.6ghz. One would think that the P4 would blow the dual PII 300s out of the water...
I don't really understand what could cause this...

 

[shipmate]

Maybe the disks can't keep up (scsi vs. ide?), or how about the pagefile? Any differences for the Dell vs compaq virtual space your using?

I guess you've already covered the network basics, like the new server isn't stuck on an older hub or running half duplex or anything.....

I guess this is my .01 (not even worth .02, too basic)

Good luck

 

[BobLoblaws]

Everybody's 1 or 2 cents is worth it's weight in gold because maybe someone has encountered this before or knows what is happening. Unfortunately, I have already looked into the setup of each computer and they are identical.
Both use indentical IDE drives. Same hub, nics, etc.
When it was setup, they followed the exact procedures that were used for the sever.
The only noticable difference is the CPU, RAM, Motherboard, and case. ??? It has me stumped...

 

[yizhar]

HI.

Check for software issues.

What Anti Virus program and version is installed on each?
Check AV configuration also.

If the new hardware is IDE then it can also slow you down.

I suggest keeping the old server, and only add RAM if needed (a simple check with task manager at working time will tell you if you need some more).

Bye
Yizhar Hurwitz

http://come.to/yizhar

http://teachers.sivan.co.il/yizhar

 

[ag6969]

First off, I would have to agree with Yizhar, just add RAM (if needed) to the Dell. If they are both running identical hard drives (IDE on the DELL??), then the bottleneck is probably the motherboard. Server boards are designed for the specific task - move tons of imformation constantly. The chipset will be different, and the Dell is probably using I2O on the motherboard, which drastically improves performance. (If you don't know what I2O is, check out webopedia.com, they have good explanations). Simply put, from a hardware perspective, you are probably exceeding the functional design specs of the Compaq. When it comes to serving files or applications, stick with an actual server, they're designed for it! From what I know about term servers, RAM is far more valuble than MHz.

 

[BobLoblaws]

Thanks for the advice. I will somehow try to convince my boss to upgrade the current server. I'm sure that will be fun... LOL

 

[taztug]

In my experience with CITRIX terminal server the RAM is usually the issue. I had to trouble shoot a problem where we had to servers that performed drastically different. The only difference between the 2 servers was the RAM and one was dual processored. The single processor had more RAM and performed 8 times faster. We actually documented it and sent it to CITRIX. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke

Mike
MCSE

 

[BobLoblaws]

I discovered what was wrong. In the old server which was outperfoming the P4, it had a very generic NIC. The P4 computer has a 'smart' NIC (bells & wistles). The main application that runs on the terminal server is DOS based and doesn't like 'smart' NICs apparently. We replaced it with a 'stupid' NIC and now the P4 is doing great.
Thanks for all the help.