[X2Go-User] Latency Issues

[Nirav Shah]

Thanks Daniel. I tried to see WANem but it is not available for Mac but I
am able to use Network Link Conditioner on Mac and able to get the expected
latency.

Now, major issue is what are the best configuration for high latency setup.


On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Daniel Lindgren <bd.dali at gmail.com> wrote:

> If anyone needs to set up a test environment for latency issues I can
> recommend WANem, "The Wide Area Network emulator". I've used it to emulate
> real world high latency links in my job environment and the results are
> very close to reality. Just remember to set half the latency on ingoing and
> the other half on outgoing packets, e.g. 100 + 100 to emulate a 200ms
> latency.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
> 2013/11/24 Nirav Shah <shah.niravk at gmail.com>
>
>> Thanks Steve.
>>
>> I have tried VNCs before and I found X2Go better than any other. I tried
>> to throttle using Charles with specifying 300-400 ms latency but from my
>> location, it always shows the same result (70ms ping time).
>>
>> I am going to try some other tool to check this issue. It is possible to
>> change few settings in java application like heap memory etc.
>>
>>
>>  On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Steve Bergman <sbergman27 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> No. Although both use the same underlying NX libraries, you can't mix
>>> and match X2GO/FreeNX clients/servers. (Although you *can* run x2goserver
>>> and FreeNX server in parallel on the same server. In fact, I'm doing this
>>> right now in preparation for our transition to x2go.) I'm finding x2go to
>>> perform at least as well as NX. And FreeNX is more or less an abandoned
>>> project at this point, as is NeatX. It's probably not worth the trouble of
>>> trying to get FreeNX installed and working on CentOS. (CentOS 4 was the
>>> last release that I've installed FreeNX on.)  I've no reason to think
>>> FreeNX would do any better than x2go. But if there's a way to up the cache
>>> size in x2go, that might be worth a try. I've looked in the sessions and
>>> settings files in ~/.x2goclient/ and there don't seem to be any hidden
>>> options there that would apply. I'm guessing that we're probably getting
>>> the NX default values of 16MB RAM cache and 32MB disk cache, which ought to
>>> cover most situations reasonably well.
>>>
>>> One other option that would be easy enough to try would be one of the
>>> VNCs. In general, x2go way outperforms them. But you never know. For this
>>> particular workload, something like tightvnc, tigervnc, or vnc4 might work
>>> better. I doubt it. But vnc is easy to set up for a test.
>>>
>>> Any possibility that changing settings in the java application might
>>> mitigate the problem?
>>>
>>> BTW, thanks for the reference to 'charles':
>>>
>>> http://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/proxying/throttling/
>>>
>>> I didn't know about this, and had been looking for something similar.
>>>
>>> -Steve
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Nirav Shah
>> (C) (412) 296-9491
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> X2Go-User mailing list
>> X2Go-User at lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-user
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> X2Go-User mailing list
> X2Go-User at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-user
>



-- 
Thanks,

Nirav Shah
(C) (412) 296-9491
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.x2go.org/pipermail/x2go-user/attachments/20131124/ce95c949/attachment.html>