6 Replies Latest reply: Apr 15, 2010 4:54 AM by phoffmann RSS

    Remote LANDesk Console extremely slow to work with

    Rookie

      Hi Guys,

       

      Currently in our environment, the LANDesk Core Server is hosted in Singapore and I have different sites in Asia Pacific connecting to this LANDesk Server via either the LANDesk Console installed on remote workstations or the LANDesk Web Console.

       

      The normal LANDesk Console that we are running on is extremely slow when you try to perform tasks like OS Deployment, creating bare metal devices or scheduling a provisioning or software distribution tasks. The Web Console on the other hand is relatively fast in response. However, we are unable to create bare metal devices using the Web Console.

       

      In this situation, would a TS installation on a VMWare Server with 10 application mode licenses and an installed LANDesk Console help better or would Citrix be recommended? Please advise accordingly with your opinions/recommendations if possible, thank you.

       

      Cheers,

      Jonathan Quek

        • 1. Re: Remote LANDesk Console extremely slow to work with
          phoffmann SupportEmployee

          Hi Jonathan,

           

          First of all - what version / SP of LANDesk are you on, as it were? That is always helpful info to state .

           

          Depending on what version of LANDesk you're on, the 32-bit console could be trying to communicate directly to the DB, and perform the relevant SQL operations (whilst the WebConsole mostly just "displays stuff", and the Core talks to the DB directly). So if you've got a remote console at a remote location (often with a sub-optimal link), then things will slow down, yes.

           

          It would help if you'd put a bit of background on whether / why you prefer a particular solution of those two that you stated and what (if anything) causes you hesitation.

           

          Please note - though - that the 32-bit Console on Citrix isn't something that is supported. It works (and we've done our best to ensure the installer will work), as it's a popular feature, but it's not officially supported. (That said, there's plenty of folks who use it and it works).

           

          If your concern is cost, I don't know of problems with either solution. Terminal Services has a bit more of a 'whince' factor as you're potentially letting on people on to your Core Server itself, and with 32-bit console users being strongly recommended to have local admin rights, that can leave you in an uncomfortable place (with potentially too many people having admin rights on the Core).

           

          Is this what you were looking for?

           

          - Paul Hoffmann

          LANDesk EMEA Technical Lead

          • 3. Re: Remote LANDesk Console extremely slow to work with
            Rookie

            Hi Paul,

             

            Thank you for the detailed reply. My bad, I wanted to include the version, but slipped my mind. I am on LDMS 8.8 SP3, most of the agents in the environment have been upgraded to 8.8 SP3 and some are still on 8.8 SP2A. We have about just over 2000 nodes reporting to a single core in the AsiaPac region which is one of the three cores, the other 2 are in US and Europe.

             

            Both the Core and SQL are running on separate VMs. So from what I gathered from you are saying is that the 32 bit console running on Citrix is not an officially supported configuration. And yes, although cost would be a concern, I am also concerned with the overall long term picture in terms of choosing TS vs. Citrix. And yes, you hit the nail on the spot, Running a Terminal Services solution would mean potentially having a big group of people with local admin rights on the server and I think that is something that it would likely be frowned upon.

             

            If we do choose the TS way, is there anyway that we can configure the group to not have so much rights/permissions on the Core and yet be able to perform most of the tasks at hand? And any other potential considerations to look out for whether we go for TS or Citrix?

             

            Cheers,

            Jonathan Quek

            • 4. Re: Remote LANDesk Console extremely slow to work with
              Rookie

              Hi Paul,

               

              Another solution that I have thought of is that if we were to setup a separate VM Server in Singapore with Terminal Services and allow my various sites to connect to this VM using TS while I install a 32 bit console on that machine and have my sites connect to the Core in the Singapore network instead. Would that work?

               

              I think that would circumvent the issue of having too many users log on to the Core with full local admin rights, right?

               

              Cheers,

              Jonathan Quek

              • 5. Re: Remote LANDesk Console extremely slow to work with
                phoffmann SupportEmployee

                Well - the basic recommendation / requirement stands that "people who use the 32-bit console need local admin rights". This is indeed a requirement, not just from our point of view, but for various technological reasons. UDD for instance starts behaving "odd" if the user doesn't have local admin rights, since various of the network calls needed to be made don't work / work "only half way" if the user doesn't have local admin rights.

                 

                So that's a reason against people operating on Core via TS.

                 

                The other question is how well you can control the relevant people. You *COULD* get away with just TS'ing into a "normal" Remote Console installed (either on a server or a client OS), if that's all you need. Usually nowhere near as many people need access to the Core as it seems quite often .

                 

                The question would be whether you've got a spare box flying around (even a virtual one) that you can use for this.

                 

                So - as your last question indicated - this "may" work, it depends on what people need to do. As long as they don't need to configure services and only run "normal" operations (creation of tasks, etc.) then yes, this should be fine.

                 

                From our point of view, there's no real considerational differences between TS / Citrix (other than - as said - Citrix isn't really supported, but tends to work), from our point of view, as the financial question isn't really for us to decide.

                 

                Certainly you can give the "normal remote console" a try via TS, this has a good chance of fulfilling your needs.

                 

                - Paul Hoffmann

                LANDesk EMEA Technical Lead

                • 6. Re: Remote LANDesk Console extremely slow to work with
                  phoffmann SupportEmployee

                  Well - the basic recommendation / requirement stands that "people who use the 32-bit console need local admin rights". This is indeed a requirement, not just from our point of view, but for various technological reasons. UDD for instance starts behaving "odd" if the user doesn't have local admin rights, since various of the network calls needed to be made don't work / work "only half way" if the user doesn't have local admin rights.

                   

                  So that's a reason against people operating on Core via TS.

                   

                  The other question is how well you can control the relevant people. You *COULD* get away with just TS'ing into a "normal" Remote Console installed (either on a server or a client OS), if that's all you need. Usually nowhere near as many people need access to the Core as it seems quite often .

                   

                  The question would be whether you've got a spare box flying around (even a virtual one) that you can use for this.

                   

                  So - as your last question indicated - this "may" work, it depends on what people need to do. As long as they don't need to configure services and only run "normal" operations (creation of tasks, etc.) then yes, this should be fine.

                   

                  From our point of view, there's no real considerational differences between TS / Citrix (other than - as said - Citrix isn't really supported, but tends to work), from our point of view, as the financial question isn't really for us to decide.

                   

                  Certainly you can give the "normal remote console" a try via TS, this has a good chance of fulfilling your needs.

                   

                  - Paul Hoffmann

                  LANDesk EMEA Technical Lead