High latency in NLB unicast mode

Hi Folks,
I have setup Exchange organization with two HUC-CAS physical server which are managed by NLB in Unicast mode.
facing issue with High latency on mailbox servers (database are equally distributed on both MBX server, mail queue's are normal, all ports are enable in NLB...)
Please let me know to reduce traffic without any service failure.
Thanks in Advance = Kapil

Hi,
As per the information and details provided by you, to solve the high latency in NLB Unicode mode, please follow these steps: -
• During packet reception, Netork Load Balancing’s fully pipelined implementation overlaps the delivery of incoming packets to
TCP/IP and the reception of other packets by the network adapter drive.
• This speeds up overall processing and reduces latency because latency because TCP/IP can process a packet while the network driver
interface specification (NDIS) drive receives a subsequent packet.
• It also reduces the overhead required for
TCP/IP and the NDIS drive to coordinate their actions, and in many cases, it eliminates an extra copy of packet data in memory.
• During packet sending, Network Load Balancing also enhances throughput and reduces latency and overhead by increasing the number of packets that TCP/IP can send with one NDIS call.
• To achieve these performance enhancements, Network Load Balancing allocates and manages a pool of packet buffers and descriptors that it uses to overlap the actions of TCP/IP and NDIS driver.
Network Load Balancing Performance.
The performance impact of Network Load Balancing can be measured in four key areas: -
1. CPU overhead
2. Response time
3. Throughput
4. Switch occupancy
I hope this information will be helpful for you.
Thanks and regards
Shweta@G

Similar Messages

Extremely slow and high latency all day.

DSL is running extremely slow during peak hours from 12 afternoon to 12 midnight. Lower than 50% of rated speed and high latency
I have been frustrated with this DSL Service for months now. I am considering contacting BBB to file a complaint and I am tired of dealing with customer service giving me the run around. Internet is a monopoly in my area therefore verizon feels it doesn't have to do anything to keep its customers when they provide crappy service. I am on waitlist for another internet service provider and it is going to take almost a year because of how bad the internet options are in the area and demand for better options. I even had to pay over 100 dollars to get a truck roll come to my house to fix any issues within the house and the internet has not gotten better. Atleast I feel I should get a refund or something.
Here is my speedtest result just now. http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/2899553407
It has been even slower at other times. http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/2893509440
Modem is Westell 6100 or something.
Transceiver Statistics
Transceiver Revision:
7.2.3.0
Vendor ID Code:
4
Line Mode:
G.DMT Mode
Data Path:
Interleaved
Transceiver Information
Downstream Path
Upstream Path
DSL Speed (Kbits/Sec)
3360
864
Margin (dB)
15.5
13.0
Line Attenuation (dB)
21.5
13.0
Transmit Power (dBm)
7.6
11.9
Giganews line info
news.giganews.com
traceroute to {edited for privacy}, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 gw1-g-vlan201.dca.giganews.com (216.196.98.4) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
2 ash-bb1-link.telia.net (213.248.70.241) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
3 TenGigE0-2-0-0.GW1.IAD8.ALTER.NET (63.125.125.41) 3 ms GigabitEthernet2-0-0.GW8.IAD8.ALTER.NET (63.65.76.189) 3 ms TenGigE0-2-0-0.GW1.IAD8.ALTER.NET (63.125.125.41) 3 ms
4 P1-8-0-0.LSANCA-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net (130.81.151.237) 72 ms 72 ms 72 ms
5 P9-3.LSANCA-LCR-01.verizon-gni.net (130.81.193.123) 75 ms P8-0.LSANCA-DSL-44.verizon-gni.net (130.81.35.133) 75 ms 76 ms
6 * * *
7 * * *
8 * * *
9 * * *
10 * * *
11 * * *
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * * Max number of unresponsive hops reached (firewall or filter?)
news-europe.giganews.com
traceroute to {edited for privacy}, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 vl201.gw1.ams.giganews.com (216.196.110.3) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
2 te7-8.ccr01.ams05.atlas.cogentco.com (149.11.104.17) 0 ms te7-7.ccr01.ams05.atlas.cogentco.com (149.11.104.9) 0 ms te7-8.ccr01.ams05.atlas.cogentco.com (149.11.104.17) 0 ms
3 te0-7-0-16.ccr21.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.72.42) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
4 te0-3-0-0.ccr21.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.48.141) 8 ms 8 ms te0-2-0-0.ccr21.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.158) 8 ms
5 te0-7-0-4.ccr21.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.84.125) 90 ms te0-0-0-4.ccr21.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.84.129) 90 ms *
6 te0-3-0-6.ccr21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.5) 96 ms te0-0-0-2.ccr21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.25.238) 96 ms te0-2-0-7.ccr21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.1) 96 ms
7 be2042.ccr21.iad02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.26.126) 97 ms 97 ms 97 ms
8 uunet.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.13.138) 99 ms verizon.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.10.226) 105 ms 105 ms
9 P0-8-0-0.LSANCA-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net (130.81.29.127) 177 ms 178 ms P1-0-0-0.LSANCA-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net (130.81.199.39) 174 ms
10 P8-0.LSANCA-DSL-44.verizon-gni.net (130.81.35.133) 175 ms P9-3.LSANCA-LCR-02.verizon-gni.net (130.81.193.109) 187 ms 182 ms
11 * * *
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * Max number of unresponsive hops reached (firewall or filter?)
Here is what ICSI Netalyzer Results have stated.
Network Access Link Properties + –
Network performance (?): Latency: 580 ms, Loss: 15.5% –
The round-trip time (RTT) between your computer and our server is 580 ms, which is somewhat high. This may be due to a variety of factors, including distance between your computer and our server, a slow network link, or other network traffic.
We recorded a packet loss of 16%. This loss is very significant and will lead to serious performance problems. It could be due either to very high load on our servers due to a large number of visitors, or problems in your network. Of the packet loss, at least 14.0% of the packets appear to have been lost on the path from your computer to our servers.
TCP connection setup latency (?): 720ms –
The time it takes for your computer to set up a TCP connection with our server is 720 ms, which is quite high. This may be due to a variety of factors, including a significant distance between your computer and our server, a particularly slow or poor network link, or problems in your network.
Background measurement of network health (?): 3 transient outages, longest: 0.8 seconds –
During most of Netalyzr's execution, the client continuously measures the state of the network in the background, looking for short outages. During testing, the client observed 3 such outages. The longest outage lasted for 0.8 seconds. This suggests a general problem with the network where connectivity is intermittent. This loss might also cause some of Netalyzr's other tests to produce incorrect results.
Network bandwidth (?): Upload 700 Kbit/s, Download 2.3 Mbit/s +
Network buffer measurements (?): Uplink 5400 ms, Downlink 1200 ms –
We estimate your uplink as having 5400 ms of buffering. This is quite high, and you may experience substantial disruption to your network performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large uploads. With such a buffer, real-time applications such as games or audio chat can work quite poorly when conducting large uploads at the same time.
We estimate your downlink as having 1200 ms of buffering. This is quite high, and you may experience substantial disruption to your network performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large downloads. With such a buffer, real-time applications such as games or audio chat can work quite poorly when conducting large downloads at the same time.
HTTP Tests + –
Address-based HTTP proxy detection (?): OK +
Content-based HTTP proxy detection (?): OK +
HTTP proxy detection via malformed requests (?): OK +
Filetype-based filtering (?): OK +
HTTP caching behavior (?): OK +
JavaScript-based tests (?): OK +
DNS Tests + –
Restricted domain DNS lookup (?): OK +
Unrestricted domain DNS lookup (?): OK +
DNS resolver address (?): OK +
DNS resolver properties (?): Lookup latency 520 ms +
Direct probing of DNS resolvers (?): +
DNS glue policy (?): OK +
DNS resolver port randomization (?): OK +
DNS lookups of popular domains (?): OK +
DNS external proxy (?): OK +
DNS results wildcarding (?): Warning –
Your ISP's DNS server returns IP addresses even for domain names which should not resolve. Instead of an error, the DNS server returns an address of 199.101.28.20, which resolves to search.dnsassist.verizon.net. You can inspect the resulting HTML content here.
There are several possible explanations for this behavior. The most likely cause is that the ISP is attempting to profit from customer's typos by presenting advertisements in response to bad requests, but it could also be due to an error or misconfiguration in the DNS server.
The big problem with this behavior is that it can potentially break any network application which relies on DNS properly returning an error when a name does not exist.
The following lists your DNS server's behavior in more detail.
Please help. I am so frustrated I literally have fights with my family over internet problems. I am right now looking for other options and even starting to think about paying over 100 a month for dedicated line or T1 if they can service my area.

Not a single response from Verizon on this? And after you posted the tests & information they will need? I think I may have to make a service choice soon. Its bad enough Verizon can't post a simple email address for our support, they have removed Usenet access, removed access to our websites (I use HTML so their sitebuilder is useless)... Sheeshe...

WLC 4402 upgrade to 7.0.235.3 -- high latency

Hi All,
Since we've upgraded the 4402 (from 4-2-176-0) to 7.0.235.3 many client facing very high latency.
We're having 12 x 1142 APs and they are connected in local mode to WLC.
Before the upgrade performance was good. Now, when I ping from LAN to WLAN clients it takes from 0.1ms - 20s.
64 bytes from 10.123.60.210: icmp_seq=58 ttl=127 time=4711 ms
64 bytes from 10.123.60.210: icmp_seq=59 ttl=127 time=3711 ms
64 bytes from 10.123.60.210: icmp_seq=60 ttl=127 time=2712 ms
64 bytes from 10.123.60.210: icmp_seq=61 ttl=127 time=1713 ms
64 bytes from 10.123.60.210: icmp_seq=62 ttl=127 time=754 ms
64 bytes from 10.123.60.210: icmp_seq=63 ttl=127 time=3.12 ms
64 bytes from 10.123.60.210: icmp_seq=64 ttl=127 time=1109 ms
64 bytes from 10.123.60.210: icmp_seq=65 ttl=127 time=109 ms
64 bytes from 10.123.60.210: icmp_seq=66 ttl=127 time=0.949 ms
I cant find any pattern..seems to happen to random clienst at radom time.
Any ideas..or further checks I can do?
Thanks a lot,
Stefan

All is set to auto.

Very high latency on my MBP 3,1 (mid 2007) with airport extreme card 0x168C

Hi
I wanted to let you know that i filled a bug report concerning a problem involving a MacBookPro3,1 and my airport extreme card (AirPort Extreme (0x168C, 0x87) Firmware Version 1.4.16.2)
If you've got any feedback, please feel free to share it with me.
Here's the bug report:
Hello
I'm experiencing very high latency on my MBP when connected using Wi-Fi in my living room and I believe this is a software bug.
This is the trace of my ping test to my router (5m from me):
macbookpro:~ laurent$ ping 192.168.0.254
PING 192.168.0.254 (192.168.0.254): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=1536.229 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=536.642 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=3444.466 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2547.260 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=2671.552 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1671.272 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=2619.991 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=1619.350 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=2362.474 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1362.662 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=363.461 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=1407.557 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=1020.437 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=119.570 ms
^C
--- 192.168.0.254 ping statistics ---
14 packets transmitted, 13 packets received, +1 duplicates, 7% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 119.570/1663.066/3444.466/937.468 ms
These are the details of my network when alt clicking on the network icon:
ca:69:50:37:c7:b2
Channel: 5
RSSI: -54
Transmit Rate: 54
I'm using Channel 5 where my router is the only device available (checked with iStumbler and KissMac).
I compared these results with another computer sitting at the same place:
This is the trace of my ping test to my router using a PC laptop:
C:\Documents and Settings\Laurent>ping -t 192.168.0.254
Envoi d'une requête 'ping' sur 192.168.0.254 avec 32 octets de données :
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=2 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=2 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=3 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=4 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=3 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=4 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=2 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=3 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=3 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=6 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=4 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=8 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=4 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=4 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=4 ms TTL=64
Réponse de 192.168.0.254 : octets=32 temps=1 ms TTL=64
Statistiques Ping pour 192.168.0.254:
Paquets : envoyés = 16, reçus = 16, perdus = 0 (perte 0%),
Durée approximative des boucles en millisecondes :
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 8ms, Moyenne = 3ms
(PC: Win XP SP3 with Linksys Wi-Fi card)
Obviously, my Mac has very high latency where my PC works as expected.
I tried resetting the PRAM, but i didn't affect my results.
I tried updating Airport with the latest AirPort Client Update (http://support.apple.com/downloads/AirPortClient_Update_for_MacBook_and_MacBookPro), but my hardware wasn't eligible for that update (Mid 2007 MacBookPro).
I believe this isn't a hardware bug because i get acceptable ping results when next to my router or in other rooms of my flat.
Can you help me with that bug ?
Regards,
Laurent
Hardware Overview:
Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro3,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.2 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 4 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 800 MHz
Boot ROM Version: MBP31.0070.B07
SMC Version (system): 1.16f11
Serial Number (system): W874551DX91
Hardware UUID: 00000000-0000-1000-8000-001B63B19195
Sudden Motion Sensor:
State: Enabled
AirPort:
Type: AirPort
Hardware: AirPort
BSD Device Name: en1
IPv4 Addresses: 192.168.0.2
IPv4:
Addresses: 192.168.0.2
Configuration Method: DHCP
Interface Name: en1
NetworkSignature: IPv4.Router=192.168.0.254;IPv4.RouterHardwareAddress=00:07:cb:3e:04:ef
Router: 192.168.0.254
Subnet Masks: 255.255.255.0
DNS:
Server Addresses: 212.27.40.241, 212.27.40.240
DHCP Server Responses:
Domain Name Servers: 212.27.40.241,212.27.40.240
Lease Duration (seconds): 0
DHCP Message Type: 0x05
Routers: 192.168.0.254
Server Identifier: 192.168.0.254
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
Proxies:
Exceptions List: *.local, 169.254/16
FTP Passive Mode: Yes
Ethernet:
MAC Address: 00:1e:52:72:05:2c
Media Options:
Media Subtype: Auto Select
AirPort Card Information:
Wireless Card Type: AirPort Extreme (0x168C, 0x87)
Wireless Card Locale: Worldwide
Wireless Card Firmware Version: 1.4.16.2
Current Wireless Network: kalamar
Wireless Channel: 5

Ok, I must have jinxed myself.
High latency with my Negear WPN824v3. As previously mentioned, the other wireless computers connect fine. Latency remains regardless of the power connected or not.
Please advise.
PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=11.607 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=7280.106 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=9209.019 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=8237.475 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=7262.603 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=4313.763 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=3336.361 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=2339.579 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=1344.110 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=345.132 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=1191.119 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=3969.730 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=3992.111 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=3692.648 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=2927.634 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=2130.216 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=1437.424 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=2385.203 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=1393.622 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=396.783 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=23 ttl=64 time=1.295 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=24 ttl=64 time=115.793 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=25 ttl=64 time=3.137 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=26 ttl=64 time=10.240 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=27 ttl=64 time=2.709 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=28 ttl=64 time=9.958 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=29 ttl=64 time=1818.371 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=30 ttl=64 time=1470.613 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=31 ttl=64 time=472.520 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=32 ttl=64 time=2255.417 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=33 ttl=64 time=18198.039 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=34 ttl=64 time=23288.761 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=35 ttl=64 time=25150.840 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=36 ttl=64 time=26813.832 ms
^C
--- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
63 packets transmitted, 34 packets received, 46% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.295/4906.111/26813.832/7241.136 ms

High latency with WRT54GH

When i ping to my current router(wrt54gh), it always have high latency.
it can go as high as 2000++ms and drop to 400+ ms suddenly.
i only disabled SSID broadcasting and i didnt set any security mode to it.
how can i solve this problem?

yea, i'm using wireless connection.
but somwhow it only happen during night time and i'm the only one connected to that router (very sure).
i havent try out direct connection yet, i'll try it tonight.

High Latency in WoW during day/evening

I recently had a problem with my internet being really slow, but it has been resolved by BT. Turns out they accidently capped me and so my speeds reduced.
Ever since that problem, i am now getting high latency when palying WoW, but only during the times i want to play. Nothing else is affected, i can still browse, stream, download etc. But on WoW i get high latency. This seems to be all day until very late in the evening / early morning when it goes down.

Hi Dottz
Do you notice any issues when playing any other games?
This still could be an underlying connection issue with your connection that is causing this, I can have it looked into for you just drop me an email using the contact us address in my profile. You can copy this address from the section 'about me'.
Thanks
Stuart
BTCare Community Mod
If we have asked you to email us with your details, please make sure you are logged in to the forum, otherwise you will not be able to see our ‘Contact Us’ link within our profiles.
We are sorry that we are unable to deal with service/account queries via the private message(PM) function so please don't PM your account info, we need to deal with this via our email account :-)

Diablo 3 high latency on beta so far after playing...

As topic, so far I have seen 300ms+ for about a week now and I really am not up for activating battle ping. There no latency reports as far as i can see on the beta forums.
There is still at least 1 1/2 months and I really would not like to be throttled.
So if a mod can update the network team with a heads up, that would be appreciated as i think a hole legion is going to play the game.
Thank you and appreciated the effort.

It's not to be expected, the latecy is WAY to high even for american servers.
When i play LoL on usa servers my pingt does not get above 50ms, when i play on wow usa account my ping does not go above 80ms
So 300+ is not normal and Blizzard already confirmed that the ports that need to be open are not all the same as the wow ports.
It's beta and i really am not that fuzzed about it now, but i am just not up for sorting out high latency when the game has launched and it takes 7 days again.
During the day it's alright and it happen during THROTTLE hours.
Considering the real money auction house that is kinda a disaster.
I am sure someone from BT can have it checked out in front.

I feel 8.02 is less responsive and has higher latency!

After installing 8.02 and 10.5.3, Logic feels less snappy, has higher latency and has graphical glicthes when a big project is loaded.
Also, when recording in loop mode and when the playback cursor goes back to the beginning of the loop, the recorded notes are all messed up (like Ableton Live)
Also, when dragging a selection in the arranger, the (dragged) selection jumps all the way up or down? (bug?)
8.02 has various other tiny glitches.
Also, the Sculpture synth uses way more CPU since the update!
Good thing: projects load up extremely fast
I have no problems with the Overload Message but then again, I never saw them, ever in 8.0 or 8.01
I did a repair permission before and after each update (update OSX, Logic and Apogee Duet) and flashed the PRAM after all the updates.
I do not use third party plugins.
What am I doing wrong? Because I read all good things about the new Apple updates. However, I am not experiencing them, except for the faster loading times

I have the same latency problem since updating, and only in Logic (not Cubase). I reduced the midi latency when I uncheck, "Universal Track Mode," which is supposed to remain checked, in Audio pref., and turning off any sends on that track while recording.
Now there's a whole new problem of rerouting outputs to high number Double busses (bus 29-30) that never existed before when I reopen a project or start a new one from a template.

Safari loading pages slowly / high latency

I have recently been asked by one of my clients to look at a problem with their 3 macs at their place of business. They are an iMac, a macbook and a macbook air. They have all started to exhibit the same problem of being slow to load web pages using safari as their web browser of choice.
Using the broadband speed test at speedtest.net shows that they are getting some extremely high latency (~4000ms) to some sites.
I have tested the broadband connection thoroughly using my own (linux) laptop and everything seems to be in working order. Tests on the macs themselves using a terminal show that latency to the internet and dns response times are all as they should be.
From some limited searching the problem appears to be similar to the problem described in http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8799710&#8799710 where safari itself is causing some problems for some reason.
What I'm looking for is some suggestions on how i can go about fixing the problem when i next visit the client

Welcome to the forums!
The following usually works on both Tiger and Leopard:
(First, if yours is an Intel Mac, check that Safari is not running in Rosetta, which is enough to slow it to a crawl.)
Adding DNS codes to your Network Settings, should gives good results in terms of speed-up:
Open System Preferences/Network. Double click on your connection type, or select it in the drop-down menu. Click on TCP/IP and in the box marked 'DNS Servers' enter the following two numbers:
208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220
(An explanation of why that is both safe and a good idea can be read here: http://www.labnol.org/internet/tools/opendsn-what-is-opendns-why-required-2/2587 / )
Whilst in System Preferences/Network you should also turn off 'IPv6' in your preference pane, as otherwise you may not get the full speed benefit (the DNS resolver will default to making SRV queries). If you want to know what IPv6 is:
This is Apple's guidance on iPv6:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=Mac/10.5/en/8708.html
Click on Apply Now and close the window.
Restart Safari, and repair permissions.
If that didn't do it, then try this as well:
Empty Safari's cache (from the Safari menu), then close Safari.
Go to Home/Library/Safari and delete the following files:
form values
download.plist
Then go to Home/Library/Preferences and delete
com.apple.Safari.plist
Repair permissions (in Disk Utility).
Start up Safari again, and things should have improved.

Why does my 10GB iSCSI setup seem see such high latency and how can I fix it?

I have a iscsi server setup with the following configuration
Dell R510
Perc H700 Raid controller
Windows Server 2012 R2
Intel Ethernet X520 10Gb
12 near line SAS drives
I have tried both Starwind and the built in Server 2012 iscsi software but see similar results. I am currently running the latest version of starwinds free
iscsi server.
I have connected it to a HP 8212 10Gb port which is also connected via 10Gb to our vmware servers. I have a dedicated vlan just for iscsi and have enabled
jumbo frames on the vlan.
I frequently see very high latency on my iscsi storage. So much so that it can timeout or hang vmware. I am not sure why. I can run IOmeter and
get some pretty decent results.
I am trying to determine why I see such high latency 100'ms. It doesn't seem to always happen, but several times throughout the day, vmware is complaining
about the latency of the datastore. I have a 10Gb iscsi connection between the servers. I wouldn't expect the disks to be able to max that out. The highest I could see when running IO meter was around 5Gb. I also don't see much load
at all on the iscsi server when I see the high latency. It seems network related, but I am not sure what settings I could check. The 10Gb connect should be plenty as I said and it is no where near maxing that out.
Any thoughts about any configuration changes I could make to my vmware enviroment, network card settings or any ideas on where I can troubleshoot this. I
am not able to find what is causing it. I reference this document and for changes to my iscsi settings
http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/extras/m/white_papers/20403565.aspx
Thank you for your time.

I have a iscsi server setup with the following configuration
Dell R510
Perc H700 Raid controller
Windows Server 2012 R2
Intel Ethernet X520 10Gb
12 near line SAS drives
I have tried both Starwind and the built in Server 2012 iscsi software but see similar results. I am currently running the latest version of starwinds free
iscsi server.
I have connected it to a HP 8212 10Gb port which is also connected via 10Gb to our vmware servers. I have a dedicated vlan just for iscsi and have enabled
jumbo frames on the vlan.
I frequently see very high latency on my iscsi storage. So much so that it can timeout or hang vmware. I am not sure why. I can run IOmeter and
get some pretty decent results.
I am trying to determine why I see such high latency 100'ms. It doesn't seem to always happen, but several times throughout the day, vmware is complaining
about the latency of the datastore. I have a 10Gb iscsi connection between the servers. I wouldn't expect the disks to be able to max that out. The highest I could see when running IO meter was around 5Gb. I also don't see much load
at all on the iscsi server when I see the high latency. It seems network related, but I am not sure what settings I could check. The 10Gb connect should be plenty as I said and it is no where near maxing that out.
Any thoughts about any configuration changes I could make to my vmware enviroment, network card settings or any ideas on where I can troubleshoot this. I
am not able to find what is causing it. I reference this document and for changes to my iscsi settings
http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/extras/m/white_papers/20403565.aspx
Thank you for your time.
If both StarWind and MSFT target show the same numbers I can guess it's network configuration issue. Anything higher then 30 ms is a nightmare :( Did you properly tune your network stacks? What numbers (x-put and latency) you get for raw TCP numbers (NTtcp
and Iperf are handy to show)?
StarWind VSAN [Virtual SAN] clusters Hyper-V without SAS, Fibre Channel, SMB 3.0 or iSCSI, uses Ethernet to mirror internally mounted SATA disks between hosts.

Windows 7 and Networks with High Latency

We are currently trying to rollout Windows 7 on our network to replace XP but have encountered an issue whereby we have remote clients that access the network over high-latency satallite links (BGAN and Vocality/Satellite). The latency of the links (based
on ping results) can be 600ms for Vocality and 1-3s for BGANs.
The particular services that don't work are a full motion video solution using TVI Viewer 7.9.1 and Outlook 2003 or 2007. These work fine on Windows XP. Shares can be accessed but are significantly slower than XP and ping does respond fine.
Windows 7 is running on Panasonic Toughbook CF52 and CF74 and I've tested in with a vanilla install with no updates and not on the Domain (2008R2 native) to eliminate GPO interference and tried it with all MS updates as of about 2 months ago.
I've tried removing the extra services on the network card (Topology Discovery, ipv6 and QoS), updated to the latest NIC drivers from Panasonic and drivers from Intel themselves. Reduced the MTU to as low as 500 and increased the Frame size (I forget what
to but was following a guide for slow links).
I've successfully replicated the issue on out development system using a satallite simulator.
Windows 7 with Outlook and TVI work fine on our network when connected via the LAN, ADSL, 3G and WiFi.
I'm currently analysing Wireshark captures but they don't seem any different to the XP ones.
Any help would be much appreciated.

Hi,
I noticed that your issue just happened when you use satellite transmission connection.
The fact is that this kind of connection in Windows 7 use TCP protocol. Transmission Control Protocol ( TCP ) under ideal conditions can provide reliable data delivery, but it is inherent in the existence of a throughput bottleneck, with the emergence on
the long-distance WAN packet loss and latency increases, the bottleneck is becoming more prominent and serious. In satellite networks with high loss, effective throughput may be as low as 0.1% - 10% of available bandwidth.
However, FASP can be the solution.
FASP
http://asperasoft.com/technology/transport/fasp/#overview-464
This response contains a reference to a third party World Wide Web site. Microsoft is providing this information as a convenience to you. Microsoft does not control these sites and has not tested any software or information found on these sites; therefore,
Microsoft cannot make any representations regarding the quality, safety, or suitability of any software or information found there. There are inherent dangers in the use of any software found on the Internet, and Microsoft cautions you to make sure that you
completely understand the risk before retrieving any software from the Internet.
Thanks for your understanding.

ISE 1.2.1 Complaining about High latency - can´t figure out why.

Hello!
my 2 node (16 core, 32 GB Ram, SAN) ISE installation on VMWARE is, complaining about High latency. I have about 250 Test clients connected, and the VMWARE guys can´t seem to find anything wrong. Is there anyway to get a more detailed test WHAT actually is causing this high latency? CPU´s are idling, ram is at 2% and disk I/O is almost not messurable.. but the software is still complaining. (the Dashboard shows latency at 100+ ms) I think this might be the external CA, againt which the client certificates are run. but I don´t know if I can test this theorie!
I have 2 Hardware Appliances coming, but I thought my Test enviroment should be more then enough to handel 250 clients.. I am abit concerned about the going live with 5000 clients in the future.. if it is already complaining with 250 active clients.
and yes, I will be splitting the tasks up between the 2 Physical Boxes (Profiling and such) and the 2 VM Boxes (Management) but at the moment, for 250 clients the 2 VM´s should be enough.

I have a couple of my customers complaining about this as well. I believe it is cosmetic and it is due to this bug CSCup97285
The suggested action for this alarm in ISE is:
Check if the system has sufficient resources, Check the actual amount of work on the system for example, no of authentications, profiler activity etc.., Add additional server to distribute the load
I have confirmed with both clients that the appropriate resources were allocated and reserved in VM. In addition, neither client is reporting any issues so this leads me to believe that it is just a cosmetic bug.
Thank you for rating helpful posts!

Flash Media Live Encoder high latency

Hello,
we are trying to stream via Flash Media Live Encoder over a satellite connection (high latency of 1500 ms) and we get data rates no more of 500 kbps although there is available bandwidth to use. Is there any configuration parameter value to compensate the high latency issue. I searched in the knowlegdge db and I found that there were configuration settings for the TCP window size that were solved after the version 2.
Any ideas?
Thomas

No... FME does not have any facilities for negotiating with a
webservice or communicating with a browser. You can create an FME
profile xml document and distribute that (sort of like Justin.tv
does), but your users will need to apply that profile
manually.

High latency with MSI 790XT-G45 under W7

I have decided myself to go for W7 one one of my rigs.I ve got some genuine disks of 32 and 64 and loaded W7 for testing purposes .
As my intention is to use the 790XT-G45 (considering it more W7 suited than my Platinum beeing newer more CPU support) tryed both W7 versions , but there is a problem.
Using the DPC high latency tool i get like 100 us under any W7 version with this 790XT-G45.The same board is ok latency wise under XP ,it hovers around 10-20 us when you re not doing anything serious with it .I have to remind that on this board i ve also had some issues with the big mouse cursor thing that seems to be related to motherboard latencyes.
In the past i ve used the K9A2 Platinum with W7 64 RC with the same video card and sound card that i use now on the 790XT-G45 ,but the latency was always 10-20 us.In fact trying again the Platinum gives me under W7 like 10-20 us.
I ve tryed disableing onboards ,removing the Creative and updating to latest BIOS version but no joy.The latency also adds some drag to the system i mean W7 windows don t look to snappy like it feels on Platinum.
So is this board compatible to W7 for real ?
What is so different between the 2 boards ,does the 790X have bigger latencyes than the 790 FX from the Platinum.One of the issues is that even if i would choose the Platinum CPU upgrade path closes.
I repeat i ve tested both boards with default W7 drivers and with vendors drivers and same thing.
Any user with 790XT-G45 encountering this under W7 ?
At first glance it s not a very big issue ,but i m very sure this 100 us get s me while playing to more and i really hate input lag and static on my sound.
Any ideas ?

Hi Guys,
I agree with Sm3K3R that a 70+ microsecond increase in average DPC latency will have an undesirable affect on some apps (games, real-time streaming, etc.). I also believe that what is good for XP will almost certainly not be good for Windows 7. Too much of the architecture has changed. Better drivers may help going forward. To me, the bigger question is why this mobo takes so much longer to run these routines than the K9A2.
I do not have any serious problems with the apps I run. Some of them may run better with a shorter average DPC latency. I have no way to tell with what I currently have to work with. Other bottlenecks may be in play. I was just responding to Sm3K3R's request for feedback. My power option is set to high performance and my base configuration has 41 processes running, including Diskeeper real-time defragmenter, Avira Antivirus, Logitech SetPoint, Process Lasso's process governor, PeerBlocker, and TaskDock. It also includes the Microsoft search functions and the sidebar with 2 gadgets running. Most of these processes run as services. I thought it was the search, sidebar, or one or more of the non-Microsoft products causing my base 100+ average latency indicated by the DPC high latency tool, so I ran LatencyMon to find out.
I ran it several times for 2 to 5 minutes at a time, starting when the system was idle. The Nvidia display and NT Kernel & System drivers always topped the list, with latencies from 50 to 114 microseconds. The display driver's routine also ran much more often than any thing else, followed, about 60% less often, by the NT Kernel & System driver. Thus these 2 drivers contribute the most to my average DPC latency. The other products listed above most often had 0 or less than 15 microsecond DPC latencies. Once I saw this, I did not bother to check my game configuration which does not have the search, sidebar, and the non-Microsoft products listed above in it.
During a Google search of this issue, I read that someone reduced their average Windows 7 DPC latency by 50 microseconds by turning off the HPET timer. I tried this and it did not work for me.
Looking forward to the results of Sm3K3R's further testing and feedback from others.

High Latency

Hi, when trying to connect to my work VPN from my girfriends house the connection is unusable, speaking to the girlfriend she is regulally thrown off her VPN connection whilst working from home. After a few traceroutes I noticed very high latency on the route between the home hub and VPN gateway:
Traceroute:
traceroute to ukc1-twvpn.oraclevpn.com (144.24.19.20), 60 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 BThomehub.home (192.168.1.254) 17.482 ms 17.154 ms 17.062 ms
2 217.32.142.201 (217.32.142.201) 22.871 ms 25.683 ms 25.596 ms
3 217.32.147.174 (217.32.147.174) 25.350 ms 25.930 ms 26.414 ms
4 212.140.206.90 (212.140.206.90) 30.361 ms 31.576 ms 32.324 ms
5 217.41.169.215 (217.41.169.215) 32.262 ms 32.884 ms 33.496 ms
6 217.41.169.109 (217.41.169.109) 34.581 ms 20.622 ms 21.236 ms
7 acc2-xe-2-0-3.sf.21cn-ipp.bt.net (109.159.255.223) 21.177 ms acc2-xe-0-2-1.sf.21cn-ipp.bt.net (109.159.251.213) 321.036 ms acc2-xe-0-3-1.sf.21cn-ipp.bt.net (109.159.251.237) 321.884 ms
8 core1-te0-4-0-2.ilford.ukcore.bt.net (109.159.251.129) 322.600 ms core1-te-0-13-0-12.ealing.ukcore.bt.net (109.159.251.169) 324.078 ms core2-te0-0-0-6.ealing.ukcore.bt.net (109.159.251.159) 325.564 ms
9 peer2-xe1-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net (109.159.254.104) 323.088 ms 194.72.31.159 (194.72.31.159) 324.616 ms 326.111 ms
10 t2c3-xe-2-1-2-0.uk-lon1.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.192) 329.071 ms t2c3-xe-0-1-1-0.uk-lon1.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.164) 329.642 ms t2c3-xe-1-1-3-0.uk-lon1.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.182) 327.789 ms
11 166-49-211-254.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.254) 326.511 ms 328.270 ms 67.958 ms
12 ae14-xcr1.lnd.cw.net (195.2.30.113) 68.455 ms 69.132 ms 105.162 ms
13 ae0-xcr2.lnd.cw.net (195.2.25.122) 103.959 ms 102.668 ms 101.729 ms
14 ae10-xcr1.bkl.cw.net (195.2.30.166) 105.256 ms 106.756 ms 105.887 ms
15 oracle-gw-bkl.cw.net (195.59.8.10) 109.243 ms 107.291 ms 108.281 ms
16 144.24.17.2 (144.24.17.2) 110.882 ms 111.875 ms 109.591 ms
17 * * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
Who can I get in touch with to help troubleshoot this issue? I have gone through all normal basic troubleshooting steps such as the ubiqutous reboots of all technology. Many thanks.
Chris.

Is that problem consistent? My ping/tracert is fine: also from Infinity connection. I can't check the VPN itself.
I see your route and mine are both pretty similar and indeed both go through 212.140.206.90
You seem to have very high pings even to the HomeHub. Normally that should show up as 1ms or less even with wireless.
Tracing route to ukc1-twvpn.oraclevpn.com [144.24.19.20]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 6 ms 5 ms 5 ms 172.16.14.14
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 8 ms 8 ms 7 ms 213.120.158.173
5 13 ms 12 ms 12 ms 212.140.206.90
6 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 217.41.169.219
7 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 217.41.169.109
8 13 ms 30 ms 12 ms acc2-xe-1-3-0.sf.21cn-ipp.bt.net [109.159.251.203]
9 21 ms 23 ms 23 ms core2-te-0-13-0-10.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [109.159.251.179]
10 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms peer2-xe3-3-1.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [109.159.254.227]
11 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms t2c3-xe-0-1-2-0.uk-lon1.eu.bt.net [166.49.211.166]
12 22 ms 22 ms 22 ms 166-49-211-254.eu.bt.net [166.49.211.254]
13 24 ms 24 ms 23 ms ae14-xcr1.lnd.cw.net [195.2.30.113]
14 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms ae0-xcr2.lnd.cw.net [195.2.25.122]
15 20 ms 17 ms 18 ms ae10-xcr1.bkl.cw.net [195.2.30.166]
16 24 ms 23 ms 22 ms oracle-gw-bkl.cw.net [195.59.8.10]
17 21 ms 21 ms 20 ms 144.24.17.2
18 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms ukc1-twvpn.oraclevpn.com [144.24.19.20]

High latency in NLB unicast mode

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for