Performance impact on networkshare

February 8, 2008

Hello guys.

We have a TS setup, running 200 users on each server, which is connected to

a CX300 to deliver a decent performance to our users applications. Our users

mainly run a business account application, which uses a file based databse

to store the data.

When a user connects to the terminal server, a network share is created to a

folder which, based on an OU, which the Users contained in that OU have

access to. All folders of this sort, is located on the connected LUN from

the SAN, in one partition.

We however, has found a performance impact when users run the application

from the network share, which results in poor performance when accessing the

file based database.

I suspect that the poor performace is because of the network share, and the

traversal through the network stack. Does any of you experience the same

problem, and have you found a solution.

I would be grateful for any response.

- Jacob H. Jespersen

February 8, 2008

RE: Performance impact on networkshare

If the application writes to this location you'll want to make sure that the

underlying disks are configured at RAID10, not RAID5, as RAID5 is meant for

reads, not writes. I've seen improvements by 3x when switching such

applications from running on RAID5 to RAID10.

Another thing to be aware of is that SMB is tuned (by default) to only allow

50 concurrent connections from one host, probably to prevent against a type

of DOS. If one uses folder redirection on TS to file servers, SMB will need

to be tuned on both ends or performance will suffer. This problem doesn't

exist on XP, because the requests are all coming from different workstations.

I assume you are using X64, yes?

--

Patrick C. Rouse

Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

SE, West Coast USA & Canada

Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

Virtual Client Solutions

http://www.provisionnetworks.com

"Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

> Hello guys.

>

> We have a TS setup, running 200 users on each server, which is connected to

> a CX300 to deliver a decent performance to our users applications. Our users

> mainly run a business account application, which uses a file based databse

> to store the data.

>

> When a user connects to the terminal server, a network share is created to a

> folder which, based on an OU, which the Users contained in that OU have

> access to. All folders of this sort, is located on the connected LUN from

> the SAN, in one partition.

>

> We however, has found a performance impact when users run the application

> from the network share, which results in poor performance when accessing the

> file based database.

>

> I suspect that the poor performace is because of the network share, and the

> traversal through the network stack. Does any of you experience the same

> problem, and have you found a solution.

>

> I would be grateful for any response.

>

> - Jacob H. Jespersen

>

February 8, 2008

Re: Performance impact on networkshare

Hello Patrick.

Thank you for the fast response :)

The SAN is running RAID 10 as you predicted, as this RAID is the fastest and

most reliable IMHO.

Yes we are running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition x64-bit, in order

to have 32 GB ram available. I did not know about the SMB tuning, do you

have a reference where I can get some more information?

The clever idea behind connection a network share to the host server itself,

was that the users woulden't be confused about different folders, other than

their own, and we can always reference to the given driver name, when they

call for support. So to sum up, when a user connect to a terminal session on

server A, a network drive is created pointing to a SAN LUN partition on

server A, not a file server on the network.

- Jacob H. Jespersen

"Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:C1DDCF6B-C9FB-4437-A669-19620F5483E7@microsoft.com...

> If the application writes to this location you'll want to make sure that

> the

> underlying disks are configured at RAID10, not RAID5, as RAID5 is meant

> for

> reads, not writes. I've seen improvements by 3x when switching such

> applications from running on RAID5 to RAID10.

>

> Another thing to be aware of is that SMB is tuned (by default) to only

> allow

> 50 concurrent connections from one host, probably to prevent against a

> type

> of DOS. If one uses folder redirection on TS to file servers, SMB will

> need

> to be tuned on both ends or performance will suffer. This problem doesn't

> exist on XP, because the requests are all coming from different

> workstations.

> I assume you are using X64, yes?

>

> --

> Patrick C. Rouse

> Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

> SE, West Coast USA & Canada

> Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

> Virtual Client Solutions

> http://www.provisionnetworks.com

>

> "Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

>

>> Hello guys.

>>

>> We have a TS setup, running 200 users on each server, which is connected

>> to

>> a CX300 to deliver a decent performance to our users applications. Our

>> users

>> mainly run a business account application, which uses a file based

>> databse

>> to store the data.

>>

>> When a user connects to the terminal server, a network share is created

>> to a

>> folder which, based on an OU, which the Users contained in that OU have

>> access to. All folders of this sort, is located on the connected LUN from

>> the SAN, in one partition.

>>

>> We however, has found a performance impact when users run the application

>> from the network share, which results in poor performance when accessing

>> the

>> file based database.

>>

>> I suspect that the poor performace is because of the network share, and

>> the

>> traversal through the network stack. Does any of you experience the same

>> problem, and have you found a solution.

>>

>> I would be grateful for any response.

>>

>> - Jacob H. Jespersen

>>

February 8, 2008

Re: Performance impact on networkshare

You are aware that X64 Standard can also access >4GB RAM, yes? Just to make

sure I'm not misunderstanding you, are you saying that you're also booting

the TS from the SAN Disk?

http://www.thincomputing.net/blog/does-your-environment-need-smb-tuning.html

--

Patrick C. Rouse

Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

SE, West Coast USA & Canada

Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

Virtual Client Solutions

http://www.provisionnetworks.com

"Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

> Hello Patrick.

>

> Thank you for the fast response :)

>

> The SAN is running RAID 10 as you predicted, as this RAID is the fastest and

> most reliable IMHO.

>

> Yes we are running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition x64-bit, in order

> to have 32 GB ram available. I did not know about the SMB tuning, do you

> have a reference where I can get some more information?

>

> The clever idea behind connection a network share to the host server itself,

> was that the users woulden't be confused about different folders, other than

> their own, and we can always reference to the given driver name, when they

> call for support. So to sum up, when a user connect to a terminal session on

> server A, a network drive is created pointing to a SAN LUN partition on

> server A, not a file server on the network.

>

> - Jacob H. Jespersen

>

> "Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelelsen

> news:C1DDCF6B-C9FB-4437-A669-19620F5483E7@microsoft.com...

> > If the application writes to this location you'll want to make sure that

> > the

> > underlying disks are configured at RAID10, not RAID5, as RAID5 is meant

> > for

> > reads, not writes. I've seen improvements by 3x when switching such

> > applications from running on RAID5 to RAID10.

> >

> > Another thing to be aware of is that SMB is tuned (by default) to only

> > allow

> > 50 concurrent connections from one host, probably to prevent against a

> > type

> > of DOS. If one uses folder redirection on TS to file servers, SMB will

> > need

> > to be tuned on both ends or performance will suffer. This problem doesn't

> > exist on XP, because the requests are all coming from different

> > workstations.

> > I assume you are using X64, yes?

> >

> > --

> > Patrick C. Rouse

> > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

> > SE, West Coast USA & Canada

> > Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

> > Virtual Client Solutions

> > http://www.provisionnetworks.com

> >

> > "Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

> >

> >> Hello guys.

> >>

> >> We have a TS setup, running 200 users on each server, which is connected

> >> to

> >> a CX300 to deliver a decent performance to our users applications. Our

> >> users

> >> mainly run a business account application, which uses a file based

> >> databse

> >> to store the data.

> >>

> >> When a user connects to the terminal server, a network share is created

> >> to a

> >> folder which, based on an OU, which the Users contained in that OU have

> >> access to. All folders of this sort, is located on the connected LUN from

> >> the SAN, in one partition.

> >>

> >> We however, has found a performance impact when users run the application

> >> from the network share, which results in poor performance when accessing

> >> the

> >> file based database.

> >>

> >> I suspect that the poor performace is because of the network share, and

> >> the

> >> traversal through the network stack. Does any of you experience the same

> >> problem, and have you found a solution.

> >>

> >> I would be grateful for any response.

> >>

> >> - Jacob H. Jespersen

> >>

>

February 18, 2008

Re: Performance impact on networkshare

Hello Patrick.

Hmm following this comparisson chart

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/evaluate/features/compare.mspx

Only enterprise server can utilize 32 gb ram?

No we are not booting from the SAN disk, it is only used to store our

customers data.

- Jacob H. Jespersen

"Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:7C346A45-B431-4FBF-831D-93D9E2484C12@microsoft.com...

> You are aware that X64 Standard can also access >4GB RAM, yes? Just to

> make

> sure I'm not misunderstanding you, are you saying that you're also booting

> the TS from the SAN Disk?

>

> http://www.thincomputing.net/blog/does-your-environment-need-smb-tuning.html

>

> --

> Patrick C. Rouse

> Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

> SE, West Coast USA & Canada

> Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

> Virtual Client Solutions

> http://www.provisionnetworks.com

>

> "Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

>

>> Hello Patrick.

>>

>> Thank you for the fast response :)

>>

>> The SAN is running RAID 10 as you predicted, as this RAID is the fastest

>> and

>> most reliable IMHO.

>>

>> Yes we are running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition x64-bit, in

>> order

>> to have 32 GB ram available. I did not know about the SMB tuning, do you

>> have a reference where I can get some more information?

>>

>> The clever idea behind connection a network share to the host server

>> itself,

>> was that the users woulden't be confused about different folders, other

>> than

>> their own, and we can always reference to the given driver name, when

>> they

>> call for support. So to sum up, when a user connect to a terminal session

>> on

>> server A, a network drive is created pointing to a SAN LUN partition on

>> server A, not a file server on the network.

>>

>> - Jacob H. Jespersen

>>

>> "Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i

>> meddelelsen

>> news:C1DDCF6B-C9FB-4437-A669-19620F5483E7@microsoft.com...

>> > If the application writes to this location you'll want to make sure

>> > that

>> > the

>> > underlying disks are configured at RAID10, not RAID5, as RAID5 is meant

>> > for

>> > reads, not writes. I've seen improvements by 3x when switching such

>> > applications from running on RAID5 to RAID10.

>> >

>> > Another thing to be aware of is that SMB is tuned (by default) to only

>> > allow

>> > 50 concurrent connections from one host, probably to prevent against a

>> > type

>> > of DOS. If one uses folder redirection on TS to file servers, SMB will

>> > need

>> > to be tuned on both ends or performance will suffer. This problem

>> > doesn't

>> > exist on XP, because the requests are all coming from different

>> > workstations.

>> > I assume you are using X64, yes?

>> >

>> > --

>> > Patrick C. Rouse

>> > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

>> > SE, West Coast USA & Canada

>> > Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

>> > Virtual Client Solutions

>> > http://www.provisionnetworks.com

>> >

>> > "Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

>> >

>> >> Hello guys.

>> >>

>> >> We have a TS setup, running 200 users on each server, which is

>> >> connected

>> >> to

>> >> a CX300 to deliver a decent performance to our users applications. Our

>> >> users

>> >> mainly run a business account application, which uses a file based

>> >> databse

>> >> to store the data.

>> >>

>> >> When a user connects to the terminal server, a network share is

>> >> created

>> >> to a

>> >> folder which, based on an OU, which the Users contained in that OU

>> >> have

>> >> access to. All folders of this sort, is located on the connected LUN

>> >> from

>> >> the SAN, in one partition.

>> >>

>> >> We however, has found a performance impact when users run the

>> >> application

>> >> from the network share, which results in poor performance when

>> >> accessing

>> >> the

>> >> file based database.

>> >>

>> >> I suspect that the poor performace is because of the network share,

>> >> and

>> >> the

>> >> traversal through the network stack. Does any of you experience the

>> >> same

>> >> problem, and have you found a solution.

>> >>

>> >> I would be grateful for any response.

>> >>

>> >> - Jacob H. Jespersen

>> >>

>>

February 18, 2008

Re: Performance impact on networkshare

You need to scroll down further on the page under the heading that reads

"64-bit Versions of Windows Server 2003"

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/evaluate/features/compare.mspx#64Hardware%20Specifications

--

Patrick C. Rouse

Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

SE, West Coast USA & Canada

Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

Virtual Client Solutions

http://www.provisionnetworks.com

"Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

> Hello Patrick.

>

> Hmm following this comparisson chart

>

> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/evaluate/features/compare.mspx

>

> Only enterprise server can utilize 32 gb ram?

>

> No we are not booting from the SAN disk, it is only used to store our

> customers data.

>

> - Jacob H. Jespersen

>

> "Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelelsen

> news:7C346A45-B431-4FBF-831D-93D9E2484C12@microsoft.com...

> > You are aware that X64 Standard can also access >4GB RAM, yes? Just to

> > make

> > sure I'm not misunderstanding you, are you saying that you're also booting

> > the TS from the SAN Disk?

> >

> > http://www.thincomputing.net/blog/does-your-environment-need-smb-tuning.html

> >

> > --

> > Patrick C. Rouse

> > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

> > SE, West Coast USA & Canada

> > Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

> > Virtual Client Solutions

> > http://www.provisionnetworks.com

> >

> > "Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

> >

> >> Hello Patrick.

> >>

> >> Thank you for the fast response :)

> >>

> >> The SAN is running RAID 10 as you predicted, as this RAID is the fastest

> >> and

> >> most reliable IMHO.

> >>

> >> Yes we are running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition x64-bit, in

> >> order

> >> to have 32 GB ram available. I did not know about the SMB tuning, do you

> >> have a reference where I can get some more information?

> >>

> >> The clever idea behind connection a network share to the host server

> >> itself,

> >> was that the users woulden't be confused about different folders, other

> >> than

> >> their own, and we can always reference to the given driver name, when

> >> they

> >> call for support. So to sum up, when a user connect to a terminal session

> >> on

> >> server A, a network drive is created pointing to a SAN LUN partition on

> >> server A, not a file server on the network.

> >>

> >> - Jacob H. Jespersen

> >>

> >> "Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i

> >> meddelelsen

> >> news:C1DDCF6B-C9FB-4437-A669-19620F5483E7@microsoft.com...

> >> > If the application writes to this location you'll want to make sure

> >> > that

> >> > the

> >> > underlying disks are configured at RAID10, not RAID5, as RAID5 is meant

> >> > for

> >> > reads, not writes. I've seen improvements by 3x when switching such

> >> > applications from running on RAID5 to RAID10.

> >> >

> >> > Another thing to be aware of is that SMB is tuned (by default) to only

> >> > allow

> >> > 50 concurrent connections from one host, probably to prevent against a

> >> > type

> >> > of DOS. If one uses folder redirection on TS to file servers, SMB will

> >> > need

> >> > to be tuned on both ends or performance will suffer. This problem

> >> > doesn't

> >> > exist on XP, because the requests are all coming from different

> >> > workstations.

> >> > I assume you are using X64, yes?

> >> >

> >> > --

> >> > Patrick C. Rouse

> >> > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

> >> > SE, West Coast USA & Canada

> >> > Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

> >> > Virtual Client Solutions

> >> > http://www.provisionnetworks.com

> >> >

> >> > "Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> Hello guys.

> >> >>

> >> >> We have a TS setup, running 200 users on each server, which is

> >> >> connected

> >> >> to

> >> >> a CX300 to deliver a decent performance to our users applications. Our

> >> >> users

> >> >> mainly run a business account application, which uses a file based

> >> >> databse

> >> >> to store the data.

> >> >>

> >> >> When a user connects to the terminal server, a network share is

> >> >> created

> >> >> to a

> >> >> folder which, based on an OU, which the Users contained in that OU

> >> >> have

> >> >> access to. All folders of this sort, is located on the connected LUN

> >> >> from

> >> >> the SAN, in one partition.

> >> >>

> >> >> We however, has found a performance impact when users run the

> >> >> application

> >> >> from the network share, which results in poor performance when

> >> >> accessing

> >> >> the

> >> >> file based database.

> >> >>

> >> >> I suspect that the poor performace is because of the network share,

> >> >> and

> >> >> the

> >> >> traversal through the network stack. Does any of you experience the

> >> >> same

> >> >> problem, and have you found a solution.

> >> >>

> >> >> I would be grateful for any response.

> >> >>

> >> >> - Jacob H. Jespersen

> >> >>

> >>

>

February 20, 2008

Re: Performance impact on networkshare

Hmm you are right... Well since we have already implementet the servers in

production, there is no way back... I believe that the cost would be to

great to downgrade, and save some money each month...

"Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:73E9CDC8-BF93-412B-BF08-569BEE132111@microsoft.com...

> You need to scroll down further on the page under the heading that reads

> "64-bit Versions of Windows Server 2003"

>

> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/evaluate/features/compare.mspx#64Hardware%20Specifications

>

> --

> Patrick C. Rouse

> Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

> SE, West Coast USA & Canada

> Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

> Virtual Client Solutions

> http://www.provisionnetworks.com

>

> "Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

>

>> Hello Patrick.

>>

>> Hmm following this comparisson chart

>>

>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/evaluate/features/compare.mspx

>>

>> Only enterprise server can utilize 32 gb ram?

>>

>> No we are not booting from the SAN disk, it is only used to store our

>> customers data.

>>

>> - Jacob H. Jespersen

>>

>> "Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i

>> meddelelsen

>> news:7C346A45-B431-4FBF-831D-93D9E2484C12@microsoft.com...

>> > You are aware that X64 Standard can also access >4GB RAM, yes? Just to

>> > make

>> > sure I'm not misunderstanding you, are you saying that you're also

>> > booting

>> > the TS from the SAN Disk?

>> >

>> > http://www.thincomputing.net/blog/does-your-environment-need-smb-tuning.html

>> >

>> > --

>> > Patrick C. Rouse

>> > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

>> > SE, West Coast USA & Canada

>> > Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

>> > Virtual Client Solutions

>> > http://www.provisionnetworks.com

>> >

>> > "Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

>> >

>> >> Hello Patrick.

>> >>

>> >> Thank you for the fast response :)

>> >>

>> >> The SAN is running RAID 10 as you predicted, as this RAID is the

>> >> fastest

>> >> and

>> >> most reliable IMHO.

>> >>

>> >> Yes we are running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition x64-bit, in

>> >> order

>> >> to have 32 GB ram available. I did not know about the SMB tuning, do

>> >> you

>> >> have a reference where I can get some more information?

>> >>

>> >> The clever idea behind connection a network share to the host server

>> >> itself,

>> >> was that the users woulden't be confused about different folders,

>> >> other

>> >> than

>> >> their own, and we can always reference to the given driver name, when

>> >> they

>> >> call for support. So to sum up, when a user connect to a terminal

>> >> session

>> >> on

>> >> server A, a network drive is created pointing to a SAN LUN partition

>> >> on

>> >> server A, not a file server on the network.

>> >>

>> >> - Jacob H. Jespersen

>> >>

>> >> "Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i

>> >> meddelelsen

>> >> news:C1DDCF6B-C9FB-4437-A669-19620F5483E7@microsoft.com...

>> >> > If the application writes to this location you'll want to make sure

>> >> > that

>> >> > the

>> >> > underlying disks are configured at RAID10, not RAID5, as RAID5 is

>> >> > meant

>> >> > for

>> >> > reads, not writes. I've seen improvements by 3x when switching such

>> >> > applications from running on RAID5 to RAID10.

>> >> >

>> >> > Another thing to be aware of is that SMB is tuned (by default) to

>> >> > only

>> >> > allow

>> >> > 50 concurrent connections from one host, probably to prevent against

>> >> > a

>> >> > type

>> >> > of DOS. If one uses folder redirection on TS to file servers, SMB

>> >> > will

>> >> > need

>> >> > to be tuned on both ends or performance will suffer. This problem

>> >> > doesn't

>> >> > exist on XP, because the requests are all coming from different

>> >> > workstations.

>> >> > I assume you are using X64, yes?

>> >> >

>> >> > --

>> >> > Patrick C. Rouse

>> >> > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

>> >> > SE, West Coast USA & Canada

>> >> > Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

>> >> > Virtual Client Solutions

>> >> > http://www.provisionnetworks.com

>> >> >

>> >> > "Jacob Hornbech" wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> >> Hello guys.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> We have a TS setup, running 200 users on each server, which is

>> >> >> connected

>> >> >> to

>> >> >> a CX300 to deliver a decent performance to our users applications.

>> >> >> Our

>> >> >> users

>> >> >> mainly run a business account application, which uses a file based

>> >> >> databse

>> >> >> to store the data.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> When a user connects to the terminal server, a network share is

>> >> >> created

>> >> >> to a

>> >> >> folder which, based on an OU, which the Users contained in that OU

>> >> >> have

>> >> >> access to. All folders of this sort, is located on the connected

>> >> >> LUN

>> >> >> from

>> >> >> the SAN, in one partition.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> We however, has found a performance impact when users run the

>> >> >> application

>> >> >> from the network share, which results in poor performance when

>> >> >> accessing

>> >> >> the

>> >> >> file based database.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> I suspect that the poor performace is because of the network share,

>> >> >> and

>> >> >> the

>> >> >> traversal through the network stack. Does any of you experience the

>> >> >> same

>> >> >> problem, and have you found a solution.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> I would be grateful for any response.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> - Jacob H. Jespersen

>> >> >>

>> >>

>>

Sign In

Performance impact on networkshare

Recommended Posts

Guest Jacob Hornbech

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Patrick Rouse

Guest Jacob Hornbech

Guest Patrick Rouse

Guest Jacob Hornbech

Guest Patrick Rouse

Guest Jacob Hornbech

Similar Content

The Impact of the Presidential Election on Networks

How to improve my laptop's performance

SMB over QUIC performance issue

Using special character on folder level would cause any server/system impact?

Python 3.13 Boosts Performance and Developer Experience

Browse

Activity

Site Info