[X2Go-User] Latency Issues

[Nirav Shah]

Hi,

I am using X2Go Client and we are facing Latency issues when developers use
it from different country and they use graphics functionalities.

How can I reduce this latency effect? Remote machine is Linux CentOs and
client is on Windows 7/Mac OS X

I have done following based on different forums:

1) Use plain wall paper
2) Removed shared drive, audio support, local print support
3) Change the connection to ADSL


Are there any other improvements I can do?

[Mathias Ewald]

Hi Nirav,

I am not an expert and we might want for Mike to reply, but from what
I understood choosing a high pack algorithm should reduce data volume
to be transferred while increasing CPU usage at both ends. But I am
not entirely sure about this. I would like to hear Mike's opinion on this.

cheers
Mathias

Post by Nirav Shah
Hi,
I am using X2Go Client and we are facing Latency issues when
developers use it from different country and they use graphics
functionalities.
How can I reduce this latency effect? Remote machine is Linux
CentOs and client is on Windows 7/Mac OS X
1) Use plain wall paper 2) Removed shared drive, audio support,
local print support 3) Change the connection to ADSL
Are there any other improvements I can do?
_______________________________________________ X2Go-User mailing
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-user

- --
Mathias Ewald - vXpertise
WWW: www.vxpertise.net
Landline: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Mail: ***@vxpertise.net
Skype: mathias.ewald

ATTENTION: My email address ***@mathias-ewald.de is no longer in
use. Please send to ***@vxpertise.net only!

[Steve Bergman]

Post by Nirav Shah
I am using X2Go Client and we are facing Latency issues when

developers use it from different country and they use graphics
functionalities.
---

I'm new to x2go, but have a good bit of experience administering FreeNX
for business desktops served over WANs. In Session Preferences ->
Connection, experiment with the slider settings. In particular, MODEM,
ISDN, and ADSL. I find that ADSL works best over my 3 - 10 mbit/s WANs.
But if yours are slower, MODEM or ISDN might work better. On a fast WAN,
MODEM and ISDN make the updates clunkier by limiting the update rate,
and possibly other things. It's hard to predict all interactions. But
you might even try 'WAN' for a relatively high bandwidth, high latency
connection. The higher slider levels are good for latency. But note that
'LAN' provides no compression at all. It's likely to perform quite badly.

Also, on that same page, you can reduce the image quality, which
defaults to 9 (highest quality) but supports a range from 0 to 9. I'm
not familiar enough with the "Method" options to make a recommendation.
I suspect the default is probably pretty good.

To give you an idea what you should be able to expect, NX technology
over a 3mbit full duplex link with a ~150 - 200ms latency between sites
provides very usable business desktops (Mail, browsing, Libreoffice) for
my ~100 desktop users. About 50 of those are over the WAN, and the rest
are on the local LAN. I know of nothing that even remotely compares to
FreeNX/x2go for performance over a WAN.

Please experiment and report back. I'm interested in your results. And
please tell us more about your problematic workload. The ping times to
the clients, the nominal bandwidth, etc.

-Steve

[Mike Gabriel]

Hi all,

thanks Steve for your contribution. Very good.

Post by Nirav Shah

Post by Nirav Shah
I am using X2Go Client and we are facing Latency issues when

developers use it from different country and they use graphics
functionalities.
---
I'm new to x2go, but have a good bit of experience administering
FreeNX for business desktops served over WANs. In Session
Preferences -> Connection, experiment with the slider settings. In
particular, MODEM, ISDN, and ADSL. I find that ADSL works best over
my 3 - 10 mbit/s WANs. But if yours are slower, MODEM or ISDN might
work better. On a fast WAN, MODEM and ISDN make the updates clunkier
by limiting the update rate, and possibly other things. It's hard to
predict all interactions. But you might even try 'WAN' for a
relatively high bandwidth, high latency connection. The higher
slider levels are good for latency. But note that 'LAN' provides no
compression at all. It's likely to perform quite badly.
Also, on that same page, you can reduce the image quality, which
defaults to 9 (highest quality) but supports a range from 0 to 9.
I'm not familiar enough with the "Method" options to make a
recommendation. I suspect the default is probably pretty good.
To give you an idea what you should be able to expect, NX technology
over a 3mbit full duplex link with a ~150 - 200ms latency between
sites provides very usable business desktops (Mail, browsing,
Libreoffice) for my ~100 desktop users. About 50 of those are over
the WAN, and the rest are on the local LAN. I know of nothing that
even remotely compares to FreeNX/x2go for performance over a WAN.
Please experiment and report back. I'm interested in your results.
And please tell us more about your problematic workload. The ping
times to the clients, the nominal bandwidth, etc.

With connection speed X2Go (i.e. NX) is very good, even on very low
speed lines.

However, with latency issues things become different. As latency is
defined as the amount of time the data needs to traverse from client
to server / server to client, we should make sure that on high latency
connections, data is as processed as fast as possible.

So my basic idea about this is, that what you actually need to reduce
is the time that is required for processing/caching/compressing images
etc. On high latency lines it helps to have good bandwidth available,
because you (in theory) can use the high bandwidth to compensate for
high latency. E.g. by choosing a faster but less effective algorithm
for compression (or not compressing images at all).

My personal problem here: I cannot test this theory, because I do not
have high latency connections here to test this with. I know that you
can simulate high latency / low bandwidth in a lab setup, but I
neither have time nor resources for doing that.

Greets,
Mike
--
DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
fon: [phone]

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: ***@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb

[Nirav Shah]

Thanks Steve and Mike for the guidance you have provided. I really
appreciate your help.

My servers are available in California and the developers are working in
Europe and in India. So the ping time varies from 150 ms to 400 ms. I have
selected ADSL with 16m-jpeg connection. The developers are accessing Linux
environment with GNome. They use some Java 2D graphics for the development.
Their normal bandwidth (tested using Speedtest.net) is around 3-5 MBPS.

The replies from Mike and Steve, I understood that for this kind of high
latency I should use "WAN" connection speed with compression method - "No
Pack". Is this my understanding correct?

I have already set Image quality to 1 and disabled audio/print/shared
folder support.

I have also used libjpeg-turbo library on the server side (Linux OS).


Will this kind of setup work? If I upgrade hardware on my server/client,
will it make any difference? Can X2go handle this kind of latency issues
with some settings? Is there any minimum bandwidth required with this
latency?


Thanks,
Nirav


On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Mike Gabriel <

Post by Mike Gabriel
Hi all,
thanks Steve for your contribution. Very good.
I am using X2Go Client and we are facing Latency issues when

Post by Nirav Shah
developers use it from different country and they use graphics
functionalities.
---
I'm new to x2go, but have a good bit of experience administering FreeNX
for business desktops served over WANs. In Session Preferences ->
Connection, experiment with the slider settings. In particular, MODEM,
ISDN, and ADSL. I find that ADSL works best over my 3 - 10 mbit/s WANs. But
if yours are slower, MODEM or ISDN might work better. On a fast WAN, MODEM
and ISDN make the updates clunkier by limiting the update rate, and
possibly other things. It's hard to predict all interactions. But you might
even try 'WAN' for a relatively high bandwidth, high latency connection.
The higher slider levels are good for latency. But note that 'LAN' provides
no compression at all. It's likely to perform quite badly.
Also, on that same page, you can reduce the image quality, which defaults
to 9 (highest quality) but supports a range from 0 to 9. I'm not familiar
enough with the "Method" options to make a recommendation. I suspect the
default is probably pretty good.
To give you an idea what you should be able to expect, NX technology over
a 3mbit full duplex link with a ~150 - 200ms latency between sites provides
very usable business desktops (Mail, browsing, Libreoffice) for my ~100
desktop users. About 50 of those are over the WAN, and the rest are on the
local LAN. I know of nothing that even remotely compares to FreeNX/x2go for
performance over a WAN.
Please experiment and report back. I'm interested in your results. And
please tell us more about your problematic workload. The ping times to the
clients, the nominal bandwidth, etc.

With connection speed X2Go (i.e. NX) is very good, even on very low speed
lines.
However, with latency issues things become different. As latency is
defined as the amount of time the data needs to traverse from client to
server / server to client, we should make sure that on high latency
connections, data is as processed as fast as possible.
So my basic idea about this is, that what you actually need to reduce is
the time that is required for processing/caching/compressing images etc. On
high latency lines it helps to have good bandwidth available, because you
(in theory) can use the high bandwidth to compensate for high latency. E.g.
by choosing a faster but less effective algorithm for compression (or not
compressing images at all).
My personal problem here: I cannot test this theory, because I do not have
high latency connections here to test this with. I know that you can
simulate high latency / low bandwidth in a lab setup, but I neither have
time nor resources for doing that.
Greets,
Mike
--
DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
fon: [phone]
GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-
netzwerkteam.de.xfb
_______________________________________________
X2Go-User mailing list
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-user

[Mike Gabriel]

Hi Nirav,

Post by Nirav Shah
Thanks Steve and Mike for the guidance you have provided. I really
appreciate your help.
My servers are available in California and the developers are working in
Europe and in India. So the ping time varies from 150 ms to 400 ms. I have
selected ADSL with 16m-jpeg connection. The developers are accessing Linux
environment with GNome. They use some Java 2D graphics for the development.
Their normal bandwidth (tested using Speedtest.net) is around 3-5 MBPS.
The replies from Mike and Steve, I understood that for this kind of high
latency I should use "WAN" connection speed with compression method - "No
Pack". Is this my understanding correct?

I am really not an expert on this, but you could try that (maybe not
,,No Pack''). On IRC there is a guy called "TheUser". Ask him about
that question once he appears again. He had another WAN based
recommendation that I forgot again.

Using speed = LAN is identical to normal X11 over SSH.

Post by Nirav Shah
I have already set Image quality to 1 and disabled audio/print/shared
folder support.
I have also used libjpeg-turbo library on the server side (Linux OS).

You should have libjpeg-turbo on the client, as well. But for this you
need an nxproxy that uses the compat libs from libjpeg-turbo. If you
build statically, then you need to build against libjpeg-turbo directly.

Post by Nirav Shah
Will this kind of setup work? If I upgrade hardware on my server/client,
will it make any difference? Can X2go handle this kind of latency issues
with some settings? Is there any minimum bandwidth required with this
latency?

All good questions that I do not have an experienced answer for. I
only know that several other people have struggled with this.

Mike
--
DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
fon: [phone]

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: ***@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb

[Nirav Shah]

Thanks Mike for the quick and helpful answers..See my updates in bold.


On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Mike Gabriel <

Post by Mathias Ewald
Hi Nirav,
Thanks Steve and Mike for the guidance you have provided. I really

Post by Nirav Shah
appreciate your help.
My servers are available in California and the developers are working in
Europe and in India. So the ping time varies from 150 ms to 400 ms. I have
selected ADSL with 16m-jpeg connection. The developers are accessing Linux
environment with GNome. They use some Java 2D graphics for the development.
Their normal bandwidth (tested using Speedtest.net) is around 3-5 MBPS.
The replies from Mike and Steve, I understood that for this kind of high
latency I should use "WAN" connection speed with compression method - "No
Pack". Is this my understanding correct?

I am really not an expert on this, but you could try that (maybe not ,,No
Pack''). On IRC there is a guy called "TheUser". Ask him about that
question once he appears again. He had another WAN based recommendation
that I forgot again.
Using speed = LAN is identical to normal X11 over SSH.
* I will try to use LAN option and see if it is able to resolve the
problem or not. I have also downloaded few tools like Charles and NLC tool
for Mac to test the latency using my computer. I will try different option
to solve this problem.*
I have already set Image quality to 1 and disabled audio/print/shared

Post by Nirav Shah
folder support.
I have also used libjpeg-turbo library on the server side (Linux OS).

You should have libjpeg-turbo on the client, as well. But for this you
need an nxproxy that uses the compat libs from libjpeg-turbo. If you build
statically, then you need to build against libjpeg-turbo directly.

* I am not sure, how can I install this library on my client on windows and
Mac. Is there any documentation available somewhere? as I am not aware of
this library. *

Post by Mathias Ewald
Will this kind of setup work? If I upgrade hardware on my server/client,

Post by Nirav Shah
will it make any difference? Can X2go handle this kind of latency issues
with some settings? Is there any minimum bandwidth required with this
latency?

All good questions that I do not have an experienced answer for. I only
know that several other people have struggled with this.
Mike
--
DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
fon: [phone]
GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-
netzwerkteam.de.xfb

[Steve Bergman]

It's hard to get around the cold hard fact that a 400ms round trip time
means that nothing that requires talking to the server can happen in
less than 400ms, which is nearly half a second. (Consider that Einstein,
himself, is imposing at least 50ms of that latency upon you from the grave.)

How large/complex are these java graphics? The NoMachine NX client has
controls for both RAM and on-disk caches. The RAM cache is configurable
from 4MB to 128M. And the on-disk cache is configurable from 0MB to
512MB. Depending upon the exact workload, large caches may help. But I'm
not sure how to set that in x2go. (What does the '16m' in '16m-jpeg'
actually mean, I wonder? 16m RAM cache? Something else?)

Regarding trying out 'LAN', I can tell you right now that's going to
perform *extremely* badly. I'd have a lot more hope for 'WAN'. My best
*guess* is that ADSL *may* be your best bet. But do try everything and
see what works best.

-Steve

[Nirav Shah]

Java graphics are not that complex but it has run time debugging features
which is performing(or displaying) very slow when we use x2go client. Is
it possible to use Nxclient with X2go server? I am fine with that too. I
have tried to use NXServer but I found it difficult to install/configure
compared to X2go server.

I am going to try all the options if I am able to test different latency on
my machine. I tried with Charles but somehow, it was not giving me the
proper result of latency after configuring it.

Post by Steve Bergman
It's hard to get around the cold hard fact that a 400ms round trip time
means that nothing that requires talking to the server can happen in less
than 400ms, which is nearly half a second. (Consider that Einstein,
himself, is imposing at least 50ms of that latency upon you from the grave.)
How large/complex are these java graphics? The NoMachine NX client has
controls for both RAM and on-disk caches. The RAM cache is configurable
from 4MB to 128M. And the on-disk cache is configurable from 0MB to 512MB.
Depending upon the exact workload, large caches may help. But I'm not sure
how to set that in x2go. (What does the '16m' in '16m-jpeg' actually mean,
I wonder? 16m RAM cache? Something else?)
Regarding trying out 'LAN', I can tell you right now that's going to
perform *extremely* badly. I'd have a lot more hope for 'WAN'. My best
*guess* is that ADSL *may* be your best bet. But do try everything and see
what works best.
-Steve

[Steve Bergman]

No. Although both use the same underlying NX libraries, you can't mix
and match X2GO/FreeNX clients/servers. (Although you *can* run
x2goserver and FreeNX server in parallel on the same server. In fact,
I'm doing this right now in preparation for our transition to x2go.) I'm
finding x2go to perform at least as well as NX. And FreeNX is more or
less an abandoned project at this point, as is NeatX. It's probably not
worth the trouble of trying to get FreeNX installed and working on
CentOS. (CentOS 4 was the last release that I've installed FreeNX on.)
I've no reason to think FreeNX would do any better than x2go. But if
there's a way to up the cache size in x2go, that might be worth a try.
I've looked in the sessions and settings files in ~/.x2goclient/ and
there don't seem to be any hidden options there that would apply. I'm
guessing that we're probably getting the NX default values of 16MB RAM
cache and 32MB disk cache, which ought to cover most situations
reasonably well.

One other option that would be easy enough to try would be one of the
VNCs. In general, x2go way outperforms them. But you never know. For
this particular workload, something like tightvnc, tigervnc, or vnc4
might work better. I doubt it. But vnc is easy to set up for a test.

Any possibility that changing settings in the java application might
mitigate the problem?

BTW, thanks for the reference to 'charles':

http://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/proxying/throttling/

I didn't know about this, and had been looking for something similar.

-Steve

[Nirav Shah]

Thanks Steve.

I have tried VNCs before and I found X2Go better than any other. I tried to
throttle using Charles with specifying 300-400 ms latency but from my
location, it always shows the same result (70ms ping time).

I am going to try some other tool to check this issue. It is possible to
change few settings in java application like heap memory etc.

No. Although both use the same underlying NX libraries, you can't mix and
match X2GO/FreeNX clients/servers. (Although you *can* run x2goserver and
FreeNX server in parallel on the same server. In fact, I'm doing this right
now in preparation for our transition to x2go.) I'm finding x2go to perform
at least as well as NX. And FreeNX is more or less an abandoned project at
this point, as is NeatX. It's probably not worth the trouble of trying to
get FreeNX installed and working on CentOS. (CentOS 4 was the last release
that I've installed FreeNX on.) I've no reason to think FreeNX would do
any better than x2go. But if there's a way to up the cache size in x2go,
that might be worth a try. I've looked in the sessions and settings files
in ~/.x2goclient/ and there don't seem to be any hidden options there that
would apply. I'm guessing that we're probably getting the NX default values
of 16MB RAM cache and 32MB disk cache, which ought to cover most situations
reasonably well.
One other option that would be easy enough to try would be one of the
VNCs. In general, x2go way outperforms them. But you never know. For this
particular workload, something like tightvnc, tigervnc, or vnc4 might work
better. I doubt it. But vnc is easy to set up for a test.
Any possibility that changing settings in the java application might
mitigate the problem?
http://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/proxying/throttling/
I didn't know about this, and had been looking for something similar.
-Steve

[Daniel Lindgren]

If anyone needs to set up a test environment for latency issues I can
recommend WANem, "The Wide Area Network emulator". I've used it to emulate
real world high latency links in my job environment and the results are
very close to reality. Just remember to set half the latency on ingoing and
the other half on outgoing packets, e.g. 100 + 100 to emulate a 200ms
latency.

Cheers,
Daniel

Post by Nirav Shah
Thanks Steve.
I have tried VNCs before and I found X2Go better than any other. I tried
to throttle using Charles with specifying 300-400 ms latency but from my
location, it always shows the same result (70ms ping time).
I am going to try some other tool to check this issue. It is possible to
change few settings in java application like heap memory etc.

No. Although both use the same underlying NX libraries, you can't mix and
match X2GO/FreeNX clients/servers. (Although you *can* run x2goserver and
FreeNX server in parallel on the same server. In fact, I'm doing this right
now in preparation for our transition to x2go.) I'm finding x2go to perform
at least as well as NX. And FreeNX is more or less an abandoned project at
this point, as is NeatX. It's probably not worth the trouble of trying to
get FreeNX installed and working on CentOS. (CentOS 4 was the last release
that I've installed FreeNX on.) I've no reason to think FreeNX would do
any better than x2go. But if there's a way to up the cache size in x2go,
that might be worth a try. I've looked in the sessions and settings files
in ~/.x2goclient/ and there don't seem to be any hidden options there that
would apply. I'm guessing that we're probably getting the NX default values
of 16MB RAM cache and 32MB disk cache, which ought to cover most situations
reasonably well.
One other option that would be easy enough to try would be one of the
VNCs. In general, x2go way outperforms them. But you never know. For this
particular workload, something like tightvnc, tigervnc, or vnc4 might work
better. I doubt it. But vnc is easy to set up for a test.
Any possibility that changing settings in the java application might
mitigate the problem?
http://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/proxying/throttling/
I didn't know about this, and had been looking for something similar.
-Steve

--
Thanks,
Nirav Shah
(C) [phone]
_______________________________________________
X2Go-User mailing list
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-user

[Nirav Shah]

Thanks Daniel. I tried to see WANem but it is not available for Mac but I
am able to use Network Link Conditioner on Mac and able to get the expected
latency.

Now, major issue is what are the best configuration for high latency setup.

Post by Daniel Lindgren
If anyone needs to set up a test environment for latency issues I can
recommend WANem, "The Wide Area Network emulator". I've used it to emulate
real world high latency links in my job environment and the results are
very close to reality. Just remember to set half the latency on ingoing and
the other half on outgoing packets, e.g. 100 + 100 to emulate a 200ms
latency.
Cheers,
Daniel

Post by Nirav Shah
Thanks Steve.
I have tried VNCs before and I found X2Go better than any other. I tried
to throttle using Charles with specifying 300-400 ms latency but from my
location, it always shows the same result (70ms ping time).
I am going to try some other tool to check this issue. It is possible to
change few settings in java application like heap memory etc.

Post by Steve Bergman
No. Although both use the same underlying NX libraries, you can't mix
and match X2GO/FreeNX clients/servers. (Although you *can* run x2goserver
and FreeNX server in parallel on the same server. In fact, I'm doing this
right now in preparation for our transition to x2go.) I'm finding x2go to
perform at least as well as NX. And FreeNX is more or less an abandoned
project at this point, as is NeatX. It's probably not worth the trouble of
trying to get FreeNX installed and working on CentOS. (CentOS 4 was the
last release that I've installed FreeNX on.) I've no reason to think
FreeNX would do any better than x2go. But if there's a way to up the cache
size in x2go, that might be worth a try. I've looked in the sessions and
settings files in ~/.x2goclient/ and there don't seem to be any hidden
options there that would apply. I'm guessing that we're probably getting
the NX default values of 16MB RAM cache and 32MB disk cache, which ought to
cover most situations reasonably well.
One other option that would be easy enough to try would be one of the
VNCs. In general, x2go way outperforms them. But you never know. For this
particular workload, something like tightvnc, tigervnc, or vnc4 might work
better. I doubt it. But vnc is easy to set up for a test.
Any possibility that changing settings in the java application might
mitigate the problem?
http://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/proxying/throttling/
I didn't know about this, and had been looking for something similar.
-Steve

--
Thanks,
Nirav Shah
(C) [phone]
_______________________________________________
X2Go-User mailing list
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-user

_______________________________________________
X2Go-User mailing list
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-user

[Nirav Shah]

Thanks, Matthias. When you say high pack algorithm, do you mean to see the
compression method? I am using 16m - jpeg compression method. Do you
recommend something else?


On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Mathias Ewald

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Nirav,
I am not an expert and we might want for Mike to reply, but from what
I understood choosing a high pack algorithm should reduce data volume
to be transferred while increasing CPU usage at both ends. But I am
not entirely sure about this. I would like to hear Mike's opinion on this.
cheers
Mathias

Post by Nirav Shah
Hi,
I am using X2Go Client and we are facing Latency issues when
developers use it from different country and they use graphics
functionalities.
How can I reduce this latency effect? Remote machine is Linux
CentOs and client is on Windows 7/Mac OS X
1) Use plain wall paper 2) Removed shared drive, audio support,
local print support 3) Change the connection to ADSL
Are there any other improvements I can do?
_______________________________________________ X2Go-User mailing
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-user

- --
Mathias Ewald - vXpertise
WWW: www.vxpertise.net
Landline: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Skype: mathias.ewald
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=+RXl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
X2Go-User mailing list
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-user

[bmullan]

Mike, Shah et al

I've used libturbo-jpeg for a couple years with x2go after I first
learned about it.

You might check your Distro... but at least for Ubuntu I believe
libturbo-jpeg is the default installed by Ubuntu now.

*/NOTE: in the following - I _did have to_ install
"libjpeg-turbo-progs" separately /*

On my Ubuntu 13.10 x64 system if I run Synaptic and search for
"libturbo" I find:

*/Independent JPEG Group's JPEG runtime library (dependency package) /*
*//*
*/libjpeg8 dependency package, depending on libjpeg-turbo8./*

You might do the same on your Distro to find out what libjpeg is being
used today.

Brian

[bmullan]

I should have added a little more info related to this.

I use Amazon's EC2 cloud quite a bit with x2go.

My AWS EC2 server runs ubuntu 13.10 x64 and I have the x2goserver
installed on it with the xubuntu-desktop (re xfce desktop).

However, on that server I think installing xubuntu-desktop must have
auto-magically installed "libjpeg-turbo-progs" because I did not have to
install it manually.

My home PC has an 18Mbps downlink from the internet and a 3 Mbps uplink
(I use ATT uVerse).

Now regards the X2GO client CONNECTION SETTINGS.

Setting the Client to WAN

* logging into the AWS x2goserver's XFCE and then running firefox I
goto youtube and play a music video.
* video is a bit choppy (I know that's subjective <g>).


Setting the Client to LAN (no compression)

* logging into the AWS x2goserver's XFCE and then running firefox I
goto youtube and play a music video.
* video is almost perfect - re less choppiness than with Client set to
WAN.

So at least in my experience whether you set the Client to WAN or LAN
"may" depend on your downlink speed from the remote x2goserver.
If you have a fast enough WAN connection at your client you may find
doing no compression at all (re LAN) provides a better experience.

Lastly, don't forget to consider what your "local" lan consists of.
If your Client PC is on a Wireless network and sharing that Wireless
network with
multiple other Wireless network users you may find that your wireless
network is having a bigger impact on QoS of the video in the remote desktop
than the remote server, local PC or the WAN.

my .02
Brian Mullan

Post by bmullan
Mike, Shah et al
I've used libturbo-jpeg for a couple years with x2go after I first
learned about it.
You might check your Distro... but at least for Ubuntu I believe
libturbo-jpeg is the default installed by Ubuntu now.
*/NOTE: in the following - I _did have to_ install
"libjpeg-turbo-progs" separately /*
On my Ubuntu 13.10 x64 system if I run Synaptic and search for
*/Independent JPEG Group's JPEG runtime library (dependency package) /*
*//*
*/libjpeg8 dependency package, depending on libjpeg-turbo8./*
You might do the same on your Distro to find out what libjpeg is being
used today.
Brian

[Nirav Shah]

Hi Brian,

Thanks a lot for your tips to improve the performance. So now, I am going
to try:

1) If download link is good then I will try "LAN" settings
2) When it is in wireless network , I will try "WAN" settings.

Yesterday, I tried different settings using LAN, WAN, ADSL with simulated
latency but I was not able to identify the difference between different
settings. I might need to run some youtube video to see the difference.

Thanks again for your help.

Post by bmullan
I should have added a little more info related to this.
I use Amazon's EC2 cloud quite a bit with x2go.
My AWS EC2 server runs ubuntu 13.10 x64 and I have the x2goserver
installed on it with the xubuntu-desktop (re xfce desktop).
However, on that server I think installing xubuntu-desktop must have
auto-magically installed "libjpeg-turbo-progs" because I did not have to
install it manually.
My home PC has an 18Mbps downlink from the internet and a 3 Mbps uplink (I
use ATT uVerse).
Now regards the X2GO client CONNECTION SETTINGS.
Setting the Client to WAN
- logging into the AWS x2goserver's XFCE and then running firefox I
goto youtube and play a music video.
- video is a bit choppy (I know that's subjective <g>).
Setting the Client to LAN (no compression)
- logging into the AWS x2goserver's XFCE and then running firefox I
goto youtube and play a music video.
- video is almost perfect - re less choppiness than with Client set to
WAN.
So at least in my experience whether you set the Client to WAN or LAN
"may" depend on your downlink speed from the remote x2goserver.
If you have a fast enough WAN connection at your client you may find doing
no compression at all (re LAN) provides a better experience.
Lastly, don't forget to consider what your "local" lan consists of. If
your Client PC is on a Wireless network and sharing that Wireless network
with
multiple other Wireless network users you may find that your wireless
network is having a bigger impact on QoS of the video in the remote desktop
than the remote server, local PC or the WAN.
my .02
Brian Mullan
Mike, Shah et al
I've used libturbo-jpeg for a couple years with x2go after I first learned
about it.
You might check your Distro... but at least for Ubuntu I believe
libturbo-jpeg is the default installed by Ubuntu now.
*NOTE: in the following - I did have to install
"libjpeg-turbo-progs" separately *
On my Ubuntu 13.10 x64 system if I run Synaptic and search for "libturbo"
*Independent JPEG Group's JPEG runtime library (dependency package) *
*libjpeg8 dependency package, depending on libjpeg-turbo8.*
You might do the same on your Distro to find out what libjpeg is being
used today.
Brian

[bmullan]

Nivav

If you are on a Wireless network that is only used by yourself try both
settings and see which performs better.

The reason I mentioned the local WiFi setup consideration is that some
folks forget that WiFi being shared by alot of users impacts
jitter/latency. Some of this could be addressed by utilizing multiple
access-points or WiFi routers and then connect those multiple wifi
devices into a small ethernet hub or switch ... which then connects to
your WAN connection for internet access.

With multiple wifi devices tho you do need to think about what wifi
frequency spectrum each is using as you wouldn't want both using the
same spectrum even if they are configured as different wifi networks for
your users.

Brian

Post by Nirav Shah
Hi Brian,
Thanks a lot for your tips to improve the performance. So now, I am
1) If download link is good then I will try "LAN" settings
2) When it is in wireless network , I will try "WAN" settings.
Yesterday, I tried different settings using LAN, WAN, ADSL with
simulated latency but I was not able to identify the difference
between different settings. I might need to run some youtube video to
see the difference.
Thanks again for your help.
I should have added a little more info related to this.
I use Amazon's EC2 cloud quite a bit with x2go.
My AWS EC2 server runs ubuntu 13.10 x64 and I have the x2goserver
installed on it with the xubuntu-desktop (re xfce desktop).
However, on that server I think installing xubuntu-desktop must
have auto-magically installed "libjpeg-turbo-progs" because I did
not have to install it manually.
My home PC has an 18Mbps downlink from the internet and a 3 Mbps
uplink (I use ATT uVerse).
Now regards the X2GO client CONNECTION SETTINGS.
Setting the Client to WAN
* logging into the AWS x2goserver's XFCE and then running
firefox I goto youtube and play a music video.
* video is a bit choppy (I know that's subjective <g>).
Setting the Client to LAN (no compression)
* logging into the AWS x2goserver's XFCE and then running
firefox I goto youtube and play a music video.
* video is almost perfect - re less choppiness than with Client
set to WAN.
So at least in my experience whether you set the Client to WAN or
LAN "may" depend on your downlink speed from the remote x2goserver.
If you have a fast enough WAN connection at your client you may
find doing no compression at all (re LAN) provides a better
experience.
Lastly, don't forget to consider what your "local" lan consists
of. If your Client PC is on a Wireless network and sharing that
Wireless network with
multiple other Wireless network users you may find that your
wireless network is having a bigger impact on QoS of the video in
the remote desktop
than the remote server, local PC or the WAN.
my .02
Brian Mullan

Post by bmullan
Mike, Shah et al
I've used libturbo-jpeg for a couple years with x2go after I
first learned about it.
You might check your Distro... but at least for Ubuntu I believe
libturbo-jpeg is the default installed by Ubuntu now.
*/NOTE: in the following - I _did have to_ install
"libjpeg-turbo-progs" separately /*
On my Ubuntu 13.10 x64 system if I run Synaptic and search for
*/Independent JPEG Group's JPEG runtime library (dependency package) /*
*//*
*/libjpeg8 dependency package, depending on libjpeg-turbo8./*
You might do the same on your Distro to find out what libjpeg is
being used today.
Brian

--
Thanks,
Nirav Shah
(C) [phone]