ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish

    IT Discussion
    screenconnect centos 7
    5
    36
    4.8k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • JaredBuschJ
      JaredBusch
      last edited by

      Starting a support chat to get things reported, we shall see where this goes.

      JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • hobbit666H
        hobbit666
        last edited by

        What command is that?

        I'm running SC on Centos7 and not noticed any issues. Apart from a few when the other end is on a crap connection speed.

        JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • JaredBuschJ
          JaredBusch @hobbit666
          last edited by

          @hobbit666 said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

          What command is that?

          glances

          I'm running SC on Centos7 and not noticed any issues. Apart from a few when the other end is on a crap connection speed.

          IT certainly works fairly well. But compared to how it worked on a Windows instance, it is horrible.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • JaredBuschJ
            JaredBusch
            last edited by

            WARNING|CRITICAL logs (lasts 6 entries)
              2017-02-06 10:52:17 > 2017-02-06 10:52:24 CPU IOwait (62.7/66.0/69.3)
              2017-02-06 10:47:53 > 2017-02-06 10:48:00 CPU IOwait (60.9/64.1/67.3)
              2017-02-06 10:45:43 > 2017-02-06 10:45:46 CPU IOwait (63.5/63.5/63.5)
              2017-02-06 10:45:11 > 2017-02-06 10:45:14 CPU IOwait (60.1/60.1/60.1)
              2017-02-06 10:44:28 > 2017-02-06 10:44:31 CPU IOwait (65.7/65.7/65.7)
            ~ 2017-02-06 10:43:50 > ___________________ MEM real (1.58G/1.61G/1.64G) - Top process: mono
            

            IOwait happening oftenish

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • JaredBuschJ
              JaredBusch @JaredBusch
              last edited by

              @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

              Starting a support chat to get things reported, we shall see where this goes.

              /sigh

              0_1486400256430_upload-4a63ad41-e237-42c5-b500-dcb9619370ac

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • thwrT
                thwr @JaredBusch
                last edited by thwr

                deleted: mistake

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • gjacobseG
                  gjacobse
                  last edited by

                  How many clients are you running? We currently have 546 running without to much issue.

                  Obivous questions:

                  • centOS updated?
                  • nGinix running?
                  • System resources?

                  As SAM is more on the OS side, I'd say this is more up his alley than mine. So much of this is still Japanese translated Greek...

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • JaredBuschJ
                    JaredBusch
                    last edited by

                    Support Tech said:

                    Ok, 6.1 has our improved video encoding routine.
                    You may need to assign more CPU to that.
                    Our server definitely does perform better on a Windows OS as we use .NET instead of Mono.

                    gjacobseG thwrT scottalanmillerS 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • gjacobseG
                      gjacobse @JaredBusch
                      last edited by

                      @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                      Support Tech said:

                      Ok, 6.1 has our improved video encoding routine.
                      You may need to assign more CPU to that.
                      Our server definitely does perform better on a Windows OS as we use .NET instead of Mono.

                      Yes - They push Windows OS pretty hard. Which is 'okay' but dang it,.. we are on centOS and that is where we are staying.

                      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • thwrT
                        thwr @JaredBusch
                        last edited by thwr

                        @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                        Support Tech said:
                        Ok, 6.1 has our improved video encoding routine.
                        You may need to assign more CPU to that.
                        Our server definitely does perform better on a Windows OS as we use .NET instead of Mono.

                        Really? I should definitely stop developing bus drivers which run perfectly fine on Mono. How could I even think about doing such a thing?

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • JaredBuschJ
                          JaredBusch
                          last edited by

                          Hmm just clicked to a different group of machines and iotop shows this
                          0_1486401728366_upload-c2105719-d794-4369-8fcf-632790c63440

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • scottalanmillerS
                            scottalanmiller @gjacobse
                            last edited by

                            @gjacobse said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                            @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                            Support Tech said:

                            Ok, 6.1 has our improved video encoding routine.
                            You may need to assign more CPU to that.
                            Our server definitely does perform better on a Windows OS as we use .NET instead of Mono.

                            Yes - They push Windows OS pretty hard. Which is 'okay' but dang it,.. we are on centOS and that is where we are staying.

                            Cheaper to push more CPU and RAM at it on Linux. We could double what we have and still be cheaper than where it used to be on Windows. Maybe even quadruple it. And it wasn't that much faster on Windows.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • scottalanmillerS
                              scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
                              last edited by

                              @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                              Our server definitely does perform better on a Windows OS as we use .NET instead of Mono.

                              While native .NET does have advantages over Mono, that statement alone doesn't make sense. That's only one piece of the puzzle.

                              thwrT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • thwrT
                                thwr @scottalanmiller
                                last edited by

                                @scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                Our server definitely does perform better on a Windows OS as we use .NET instead of Mono.

                                While native .NET does have advantages over Mono, that statement alone doesn't make sense. That's only one piece of the puzzle.

                                Totally agree here. Mono does a pretty good job in most cases, even performance-wise.

                                scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • scottalanmillerS
                                  scottalanmiller @thwr
                                  last edited by

                                  @thwr said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                  @scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                  @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                  Our server definitely does perform better on a Windows OS as we use .NET instead of Mono.

                                  While native .NET does have advantages over Mono, that statement alone doesn't make sense. That's only one piece of the puzzle.

                                  Totally agree here. Mono does a pretty good job in most cases, even performance-wise.

                                  And why even use Mono? Native .NET is available. I wonder why they don't mention it?

                                  https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxredhat

                                  JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • gjacobseG
                                    gjacobse
                                    last edited by gjacobse

                                    Current htop sorted by memory:

                                    0_1486401995311_2017-02-06 12_25_59-gene@dny-lnx-sc_~.png

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • JaredBuschJ
                                      JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
                                      last edited by

                                      @scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                      @thwr said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                      @scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                      @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                      Our server definitely does perform better on a Windows OS as we use .NET instead of Mono.

                                      While native .NET does have advantages over Mono, that statement alone doesn't make sense. That's only one piece of the puzzle.

                                      Totally agree here. Mono does a pretty good job in most cases, even performance-wise.

                                      And why even use Mono? Native .NET is available. I wonder why they don't mention it?

                                      https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxredhat

                                      That is quite new, and they probably have not spent time to change because they prefer windows.

                                      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • scottalanmillerS
                                        scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
                                        last edited by

                                        @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                        @scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                        @thwr said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                        @scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                        @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                        Our server definitely does perform better on a Windows OS as we use .NET instead of Mono.

                                        While native .NET does have advantages over Mono, that statement alone doesn't make sense. That's only one piece of the puzzle.

                                        Totally agree here. Mono does a pretty good job in most cases, even performance-wise.

                                        And why even use Mono? Native .NET is available. I wonder why they don't mention it?

                                        https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxredhat

                                        That is quite new, and they probably have not spent time to change because they prefer windows.

                                        I'm not surprised that they've not put time into it, but just saying that it's slow on Linux because of Mono needs a qualifier like "and we've decided to use Mono for now" or "Native .NET isn't ready yet and lacks something we need". The statement that they make is sensible only because we know Mono is being used by them, but on its own, the statement is weird because Linux is a fully viable Microsoft .NET platform now and it's been a big deal.

                                        I'm not upset that they haven't tested or ported yet, but they could present that better, I feel. And it suggests that moving to Windows for .NET isn't a long term thing as we already have it native on Linux now. So we just have to wait for them to start using it.

                                        JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • JaredBuschJ
                                          JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
                                          last edited by

                                          @scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                          @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                          @scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                          @thwr said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                          @scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                          @JaredBusch said in ScreenConnect on CentOS is sluggish:

                                          Our server definitely does perform better on a Windows OS as we use .NET instead of Mono.

                                          While native .NET does have advantages over Mono, that statement alone doesn't make sense. That's only one piece of the puzzle.

                                          Totally agree here. Mono does a pretty good job in most cases, even performance-wise.

                                          And why even use Mono? Native .NET is available. I wonder why they don't mention it?

                                          https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxredhat

                                          That is quite new, and they probably have not spent time to change because they prefer windows.

                                          I'm not surprised that they've not put time into it, but just saying that it's slow on Linux because of Mono needs a qualifier like "and we've decided to use Mono for now" or "Native .NET isn't ready yet and lacks something we need". The statement that they make is sensible only because we know Mono is being used by them, but on its own, the statement is weird because Linux is a fully viable Microsoft .NET platform now and it's been a big deal.

                                          I'm not upset that they haven't tested or ported yet, but they could present that better, I feel. And it suggests that moving to Windows for .NET isn't a long term thing as we already have it native on Linux now. So we just have to wait for them to start using it.

                                          Looks like they are testing it. I asked about it.

                                          That was a subject of our meeting with development last week. They hit some kind of roadblock, but it's definitely being looked into.

                                          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • scottalanmillerS
                                            scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
                                            last edited by

                                            @JaredBusch Cool, if they had it out on that in 6-9 months I'd be thrilled. Our performance has been okay with Mono, but the whole Mono-wrapper thing is an unnecessary bit of overhead. I'm guessing the Linux server will surge forward in speed once they get that working. Hopefully no major roadblocks.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 1 / 2
                                            • First post
                                              Last post