Technical and Installation Discussions

[MickeyW]

Server:

Quad Xeon 2.0 Ghz, 2 GB Mem

Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard

Windows Firewall is off

1000 to Switch, 100 FullDuplex to Fortigate 60B firewall/VPN

Two T1s to the internet.

No AV Yet. Just set this up.

1 printer, yes it works.

MAS 200 4.40.0.0 is running as an application.

For the time being, the share and folders MAS is in, is set to Full Control for everyone.

Workstation:

Duel Core 2.7 GHz, 2Gig Mem

Windows XP

Windows Firewall is off

100 FullDuplex to switch, then Fortigate 60B firewall/VPN

T1 connection to the internet.

Kaspersky AV, disabled while testing

2 printers, both work. Plus the Microsoft Office Document writers, etc.

AD Sites and Services is setup, remote office is setup as a sub-net.

DNS and WINS is replicating across the network.

Over 500 pings to the server, average is 102ms response.

A 1.25MB file transferred to the server takes about 12-15 seconds

A workstation on the LAN with the server runs MAS just fine. Display and printing.

The remote workstation takes approximately 9 seconds to fill in the details on an item inquiry screen. 8 seconds to change to the ‘Quantity’ tab. 6 seconds to close the inquiry screen.

11 seconds for SO inquiry.

Almost 5 minutes to verify Role maintenance.

And forget printing (I know this can be increased by changing the ODBC drivers, but I’m trying to get the basics working first.)

After all that detail (sorry   ) my question is, is this ‘normal’? I know the server can use more memory, but right now, it is just the server, and one workstation connecting to MAS.

Any suggestions to keep the remote workers from rioting once we move them to MAS would be greatly appreciated.

Mickey

[TomTarget]

Probably not the answer to the VPN,  but only 2 GB ram on the server seems a little low.

If you ping the server from the remote session,  what is the response time?

[BigLouie]

1. Welcome to the Sage Community

2. This is normal response time when running MAS 200 over VPN.  You might try TS or Citrix for better performance.

[MickeyW]

Tom, We already have the plan to upgrade the server memory... but right now it is just Windows/MAS and 2 workstations, one local and the other remote. should be fine until we start ramping this up for live use.

Louie, (were you at summit in Atlanta? hi!) this is what I was fearing. didn't really want the expense/overhead for 20+ users on a TS, but that may be what we have to do. Would this be from Bandwidth usage or something else? There has been talk of upgrading the Data lines at the remote location to either multiple T1s or a Point-to-Point for the VPN.

Thanks,

Mickey

[rmikolainis]

That time is pretty normal for running MAS over a VPN.

Unfortunately, running it over citrix or through terminal services is the only solution to improve your performance.

Also, look at getting more RAM for the server.

[TomTarget]

Old knowledgebase (402125) article from way back (3.30) suggests that ping time should be 20-30ms. 

Since you are over 100ms that could easily account for it.

Local connections typically are 1ms or less.

[BigLouie]

---

MickeyW wrote:

Louie, (were you at summit in Atlanta? hi!) this is what I was fearing. didn't really want the expense/overhead for 20+ users on a TS, but that may be what we have to do. Would this be from Bandwidth usage or something else? There has been talk of upgrading the Data lines at the remote location to either multiple T1s or a Point-to-Point for the VPN.

Thanks,

Mickey

---

Yes I was at the Summit in Atlanta.  There is a check box in User Maintenance for Low Speed Connection. You might try checking that and see what happens.

[timmjlane]

I've got 30 remote users that use MAS200 over a VPN logging into a pretty basic TS and it's working fine.  Your TS doesn't have to be anything special.  Mine is an old Dell PowerEdge 2850 with a Xeon processor, 4GB of RAM and a pair of 80GB HD's in a RAID1 config.

Could save some $$'s by looking at refurbished servers for the TS.  Like I said, it doesn't have to be anythign special, the big thing is that it's on the same LAN as the MAS server.