Speaking from a remote access point of view, performance using Citrix to
display NetView maps and Events is a great improvement over using X over
dial-up connections to display the map and events window. Over a 64K ISDN
dial-up (my home connection at the time), starting the NetView map using
Reflection X loaded locally on my PC took about 6 minutes. Even with a 128K
ISDN connection this process takes about 5 minutes. The same task using a
Citrix connection takes less than 2 minutes. Drilling down to sub-maps (we
have customized ours heavily) also performs much better using the Citrix
connection. I don't have any comparisons for running NT Terminal Server on a
low end machine and I definitely would not advise anyone to use a connection
speed less than 56Kbps if you need to use this connection for long periods of
time. To run an X emulator locally on a PC would need at least 256Kbps to
operate well in my estimation.
>From a LAN connection, I would definitely recommend using X directly if its
>available. I often use Reflection X loaded locally on my PC at work to
>display the NetView map and to use other various tools. This works pretty
>well on the LAN. I think you hinted at using an actual X-terminal or other
>true Unix machine and I would recommend that solution on the LAN above any
>other for LAN attached machines. An X emulator will never match the
>performance of a true X system on a Unix platform.
I have considered trying Linux on a spare hard drive at work to see how it
performs but I haven't had the chance yet...
So in summary, to do remote management of a network using NetView on Unix,
you can expect pretty good performance if you place NT Terminal server on a LAN
segment and make your remote access connection via Citrix.
Sorry for the rambling but I hope this helps.
----- Original Message -----
From: James Shanks
To: NV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: Remote Access / Web Access
Don -
What can you tell us about performance in this situation? The few emulations
I
have seen are so slow in comparsion to a true X setup that I shudder to think
about anyone using them all day, day in and day out, and yet I keep hearing
that
people do.
James Shanks
Tivoli (NetView for UNIX) L3 Support
Don Sykes <dsykes@INTERPATH.COM> on 02/08/2000 08:18:34 PM
Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on NetView
<NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
To: NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
cc: (bcc: James Shanks/Tivoli Systems)
Subject: Re: Remote Access / Web Access
As part of a much larger remote access project, our company uses Windows NT,
Terminal Server with Citrix for this. We loaded Reflection X on the NT server
(pick the X emulator you like, we use Reflection X because they have a version
specific to Citrix and multi-user access) and remotely control a NT session
using the Citrix client. Its not like sitting at the console but actually
works
quite well for remote access. I would suggest at least 1024x768 resolution on
the client to display a map you can read.
Hope this helps....
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick McNeil
To: NV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 3:00 PM
Subject: Remote Access / Web Access
Hello everyone,
I am currently being tasked with coming up with a remote access solution for
our network support group. My first suggestion was load X-Windows Server
software on a laptop and the on-call person can take the laptop home and
dial-up
for remote access. Unfortunately when I tried it, it takes on the order of
about 15 minutes before NetView is actually usable when dialing up. What I
mean
by usable is that you can actually look at the event log see what is down,
etc.
The next solution seems to be web access (which I haven't tried remotely,
yet). It looks like you have to have a read-write map open to do this. Which
is fine during the day, but at night the desktop people want everyone to log
out
(which then kills the web session).
Is anyone doing some type of remote access for their administrators?
Is there anyway around the read-write map access? What about in version 6?
What about 3rd party?
Thanks,
Patrick
|
Speaking from a remote access point of view, performance using
Citrix to display NetView maps and Events is a great improvement over using X
over dial-up connections to display the map and events window. Over a 64K
ISDN dial-up (my home connection at the time), starting the NetView map using
Reflection X loaded locally on my PC took about 6 minutes. Even with a
128K ISDN connection this process takes about 5 minutes. The same task
using a Citrix connection takes less than 2 minutes. Drilling down to
sub-maps (we have customized ours heavily) also performs much better using the
Citrix connection. I don't have any comparisons for running NT Terminal
Server on a low end machine and I definitely would not advise anyone to use
a connection speed less than 56Kbps if you need to use this connection for long
periods of time. To run an X emulator locally on a PC would need at least
256Kbps to operate well in my estimation.
From a LAN connection, I would definitely recommend using X
directly if its available. I often use Reflection X loaded locally on my
PC at work to display the NetView map and to use other various tools. This
works pretty well on the LAN. I think you hinted at using an actual
X-terminal or other true Unix machine and I would recommend that solution on the
LAN above any other for LAN attached machines. An X emulator will never
match the performance of a true X system on a Unix platform.
I have considered trying Linux on a spare hard drive at work
to see how it performs but I haven't had the chance yet...
So in summary, to do remote management of a network
using NetView on Unix, you can expect pretty good performance if you place
NT Terminal server on a LAN segment and make your remote access connection via
Citrix.
Sorry for the rambling but I hope this helps.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 8:39
AM
Subject: Re: Remote Access / Web
Access
Don -
What can you tell us about performance in this
situation? The few emulations I
have seen are so slow in comparsion
to a true X setup that I shudder to think
about anyone using them all day,
day in and day out, and yet I keep hearing that
people do.
James
Shanks
Tivoli (NetView for UNIX) L3 Support
Don Sykes <dsykes@INTERPATH.COM> on 02/08/2000
08:18:34 PM
Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER
Manager on NetView
<NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
To:
NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
cc: (bcc: James Shanks/Tivoli
Systems)
Subject: Re: Remote Access / Web
Access
As part of a much larger remote access
project, our company uses Windows NT,
Terminal Server with Citrix for
this. We loaded Reflection X on the NT server
(pick the X emulator
you like, we use Reflection X because they have a version
specific to
Citrix and multi-user access) and remotely control a NT session
using the
Citrix client. Its not like sitting at the console but actually
works
quite well for remote access. I would suggest at least 1024x768
resolution on
the client to display a map you can read.
Hope this
helps....
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick
McNeil
To: NV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
Sent: Tuesday, February
08, 2000 3:00 PM
Subject: Remote Access / Web
Access
Hello everyone,
I am currently being
tasked with coming up with a remote access solution for
our network support
group. My first suggestion was load X-Windows Server
software on a
laptop and the on-call person can take the laptop home and dial-up
for
remote access. Unfortunately when I tried it, it takes on the order
of
about 15 minutes before NetView is actually usable when dialing
up. What I mean
by usable is that you can actually look at the event
log see what is down, etc.
The next solution seems to be web
access (which I haven't tried remotely,
yet). It looks like you have
to have a read-write map open to do this. Which
is fine during the
day, but at night the desktop people want everyone to log out
(which then
kills the web session).
Is anyone doing some type of remote
access for their administrators?
Is there anyway around the
read-write map access? What about in version 6?
What about 3rd
party?
Thanks,
Patrick
|
|