You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@guacamole.apache.org by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> on 2020/02/12 10:23:03 UTC
Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Dear,
As per our observation we found that there is continuous send receive
traffic from server to client and vise versa in every fractions of
seconds(may be checking the network availability ) , however we are not
doing any activity(idle session).
we are attaching snapshot of wireshark send receive packet capture details
when session is idle .
Is there any configuration setting to increase the time duration of
checking network availability OR some other way to reduce
bandwidth utilization on continuous basis?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of
Guacamole
Posted by ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Manoj,
If you've isolated your bandwidth issue to Xrdp that's useful. My
comments around FreeRDP could be equally applied to Xrdp insofar as
there may be some tweaks available, or some useful resource your company
could provide the Xrdp project.
I've not had a lot to do with Xrdp myself so there's nothing more I can
say. Others may be able to comment but ultimately you will probably need
to research that yourself. Should you achieve your goal it would be
useful to post back what you did to the group.
I see Mike has replied to you regarding the browser <-> Guacamole
disconnect you're experiencing.
On 11/03/2020 4:15 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
> ivanmarcus,
>
> Thanks for cooperation .
>
> Xrdp observation----------
>
> As per observation and experience i think the measure issue at Xrdp
> side . Xrdp send the images in bitmap and jpeg compression but i could
> not see the compression is done or not.
>
> second thing is when you move the mouse pointer on RDp session then it
> also send the bytes .
>
> third one is , its calculate the RDP desktop in BPP,Width and
> Hight and show this bitmap to client . (rendering)
>
> TLS 1.2 calls is default implemented in and it send request(read
> write) in 100 ms .
>
> At Guacamole Side---
>
> When Browser to Guacamole in idle no send receive .
>
> But when connect to RDP session its continuously checking keepalive
> then some bytes to be increased .
>
> When at client side latency is 400-500 guacamole disconnected frequently .
>
> can you help in this to increased the parameter for checking the
> connection to keepalive and checking latency.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 02:12, ivanmarcus
> <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Manoj,
>
>
> On 11/03/2020 12:02 a.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>> When connect to FreeRDP client-> xrdp ,bandwidth utilization is
>> also High in idle condition. In running condition using freerdp
>> client utilization is High.
>
> Thank you for doing this test. From the above comment I take it
> that what you experience with the FreeRDP client <-> Xrdp is
> similar to what you have with Guacamole <-> Xrdp, and results in
> the issue you raise.
>
> As you're probably aware Guacamole uses FreeRDP for RDP
> connections to Xrdp. If the bandwidth requirement using FreeRDP
> directly, without Guacamole, is problematic for you then it's
> likely the issue results from FreeRDP rather than Guacamole.
>
> FreeRDP is a separate project to Guacamole. You should research
> your issue in relation to FreeRDP, rather than Guacamole, as this
> may give you the answers you're looking for. Possibly it's just a
> function of the way FreeRDP works and you will simply need to
> allocate more bandwidth as Mike has already suggested, or there
> may be some parameters you can tweak.
>
> Concluding, I note that FreeRDP, as with Guacamole, is an
> open-source project. If you've discovered an issue that is causing
> you a problem then your company could consider putting some
> resource into fixing/improving that issue? Not only would that
> make things better for you, it would also assist the wider
> community who've provided the base for your service, including,
> ultimately, Guacamole.
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
> Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
> Nasik.
> Mobile No -+91-9922507588
> Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 8:15 PM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> When at client side latency is 400-500 guacamole disconnected frequently .
>
> can you help in this to increased the parameter for checking the
> connection to keepalive and checking latency.
>
The timeout at all levels of the Guacamole stack is 15 seconds, well above
400-500ms. If you are seeing disconnects, the cause is not the latency of
your link, nor is there likely some parameter you need to change within
Guacamole. It is more likely that something on the network is interfering
with the Guacamole connection, such as a proxy which does not support
WebSocket (or is not configured properly for WebSocket) and which buffers
HTTP connections.
- Mike
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
ivanmarcus,
Thanks for cooperation .
Xrdp observation----------
As per observation and experience i think the measure issue at Xrdp side .
Xrdp send the images in bitmap and jpeg compression but i could not see the
compression is done or not.
second thing is when you move the mouse pointer on RDp session then it also
send the bytes .
third one is , its calculate the RDP desktop in BPP,Width and Hight and
show this bitmap to client . (rendering)
TLS 1.2 calls is default implemented in and it send request(read write) in
100 ms .
At Guacamole Side---
When Browser to Guacamole in idle no send receive .
But when connect to RDP session its continuously checking keepalive then
some bytes to be increased .
When at client side latency is 400-500 guacamole disconnected frequently .
can you help in this to increased the parameter for checking the
connection to keepalive and checking latency.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 02:12, ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Manoj,
>
> On 11/03/2020 12:02 a.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>
> When connect to FreeRDP client-> xrdp ,bandwidth utilization is also High
> in idle condition. In running condition using freerdp client utilization
> is High.
>
>
> Thank you for doing this test. From the above comment I take it that what
> you experience with the FreeRDP client <-> Xrdp is similar to what you have
> with Guacamole <-> Xrdp, and results in the issue you raise.
>
> As you're probably aware Guacamole uses FreeRDP for RDP connections to
> Xrdp. If the bandwidth requirement using FreeRDP directly, without
> Guacamole, is problematic for you then it's likely the issue results from
> FreeRDP rather than Guacamole.
>
> FreeRDP is a separate project to Guacamole. You should research your issue
> in relation to FreeRDP, rather than Guacamole, as this may give you the
> answers you're looking for. Possibly it's just a function of the way
> FreeRDP works and you will simply need to allocate more bandwidth as Mike
> has already suggested, or there may be some parameters you can tweak.
>
> Concluding, I note that FreeRDP, as with Guacamole, is an open-source
> project. If you've discovered an issue that is causing you a problem then
> your company could consider putting some resource into fixing/improving
> that issue? Not only would that make things better for you, it would also
> assist the wider community who've provided the base for your service,
> including, ultimately, Guacamole.
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of
Guacamole
Posted by ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Manoj,
On 11/03/2020 12:02 a.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
> When connect to FreeRDP client-> xrdp ,bandwidth utilization is also
> High in idle condition. In running condition using freerdp client
> utilization is High.
Thank you for doing this test. From the above comment I take it that
what you experience with the FreeRDP client <-> Xrdp is similar to what
you have with Guacamole <-> Xrdp, and results in the issue you raise.
As you're probably aware Guacamole uses FreeRDP for RDP connections to
Xrdp. If the bandwidth requirement using FreeRDP directly, without
Guacamole, is problematic for you then it's likely the issue results
from FreeRDP rather than Guacamole.
FreeRDP is a separate project to Guacamole. You should research your
issue in relation to FreeRDP, rather than Guacamole, as this may give
you the answers you're looking for. Possibly it's just a function of the
way FreeRDP works and you will simply need to allocate more bandwidth as
Mike has already suggested, or there may be some parameters you can tweak.
Concluding, I note that FreeRDP, as with Guacamole, is an open-source
project. If you've discovered an issue that is causing you a problem
then your company could consider putting some resource into
fixing/improving that issue? Not only would that make things better for
you, it would also assist the wider community who've provided the base
for your service, including, ultimately, Guacamole.
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear,
When i am connecting through MSRD client to xrdp --
In idle mode Bandwidth utilization is low ,but when i move mouse pointer
over windows and run my application bandwidth is utilized high.
In reverse i am connect MSRD client to MSRD (windows) host in idle
condition bandwidth is low , when i am move mouse pointer over windows or
run application on windows host the utilization of bandwidth is very low.
When connect to FreeRDP client-> xrdp ,bandwidth utilization is also High
in idle condition. In running condition using freerdp client utilization
is High.
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 13:15, ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Manoj,
>
> I think the answer you're giving is 'yes' - ie. that the issue you're
> experiencing is in fact between Guacamole and the Xrdp machine(?).
>
> In that case, for the next step, could you try connecting to your Xrdp
> machine directly via:
>
> (1) MSRD client
>
> (2) FreeRDP client
> And compare the experience/bandwidth utilisation of these two clients
> (doing the same tasks, incl idle)?
>
>
>
> On 10/03/2020 5:48 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>
> dear Mkie/
> ivanmarcus
>
> can i share a html code of MSRDC . through this html you can able to
> connect windows machine.
> share this html on that mailid or any personal maild ?
>
> see the snap shot .
>
> When i am check MSRDC at high network latency(600-700 ms) it run smoothly
> . but in guacamole breaks the connection in time to time(connect-reconnect).
>
> Also we check at this latency typing is very fast there is no laggy in
> keyboard typing.
>
> In guacamole to Xrdp at same latency there is keyboard laagy occur means
> slow typing at client end.
>
> we also see when i am connect to MSRDC(windows) host through client its
> take first time 8-10 kbps continilously transfer data in transection mode .
>
> in idle mode there is no any bandwidth utilization.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 09:06, ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Manoj,
>>
>> Perhaps I'm struggling to understand completely, but maybe we should just
>> go through this one step at a time.
>>
>> (1) Is the bandwidth issue you're presenty raising between Guacamole and
>> the local (Xrdp) client - NOT between Guacamole and the remote browser?
>>
>> On 10/03/2020 4:20 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>>
>> Dear ivanmarcus,
>>
>> To be specific. You say MSRDWC uses a lot less bandwidth than Guacamole,
>> however (if I understand correctly) from what you say you're using
>> Guacamole with a Xrdp client machine, and MSRDWC with a MSRD client
>> machine. I suggest you should first test with Guacamole to the MSRD client,
>> and then MSRDWC to the *same* client with the *same* parameters and the
>> *same* series of tests. IOW the *only* change in the lineup is MSRDWC vs
>> Guacamole - NOT the client machine as
>>
>> I am done the setup of MSRDC at my place and measuring the sam scenario
>> Guacamole to xrdp client ----
>>
>> When connecting through browser to guacamole it's low bandwidth . when
>> connect guacad to xrdp host its huge bandwidth.
>>
>> Guacamole to MSRDC client--
>>
>> We test this setup with guacamole to MSRDC host through client there is
>> also a bandwidth utilization . we measure theough wireshark
>>
>> MSRDC to same client --
>>
>> When i am connected to MSRDC with same parameter of bpp, width , height
>> etc and measure through wireshark there is tremendous different , its take
>> very low bandwidth .
>>
>> When I am in idle mode in guacamole to xrdp its continuously check
>> keepalive and bandwidth utilizated that time.
>>
>> When i am in idle in MSRDC there is no keepalive checking see in
>> wireshark hence bandits is very low .
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, 02:00 ivanmarcus, <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>> <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Manoj,
>>>
>>> We may have exhausted our ability to help. As Stefan has pointed out
>>> there have been a number of suggestions and explanations around the issue
>>> you raise; it could be useful if you were to pursue those in the first
>>> instance.
>>>
>>> One thing that strikes me from your latest post is that you're
>>> introducing too many variables when attempting to compare systems. If you
>>> want to make comparisons then you should start with as identical a system
>>> as possible and change just *one* parameter first. In this way you will
>>> generally be a lot clearer around what changes have an affect on something.
>>>
>>> To be specific. You say MSRDWC uses a lot less bandwidth than Guacamole,
>>> however (if I understand correctly) from what you say you're using
>>> Guacamole with a Xrdp client machine, and MSRDWC with a MSRD client
>>> machine. I suggest you should first test with Guacamole to the MSRD client,
>>> and then MSRDWC to the *same* client with the *same* parameters and the
>>> *same* series of tests. IOW the *only* change in the lineup is MSRDWC vs
>>> Guacamole - NOT the client machine as well.
>>>
>>> Moving on from this, I don't have access to MSRDWC and have never used
>>> it but if possible the next test might be to utilise it with an Xrdp client
>>> machine and compare that with Guacamole to the *same* client. Such logical
>>> steps would lend much more credence to your results, and may provide a
>>> clearer pointer to you as to where the issue, if there is one, lays.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/03/2020 8:58 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear,
>>>
>>> Any Resolution on my Issues.
>>>
>>> Please suggest any changes at guacamole server and Xrdp host server.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 13:22, Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear ivanmarcus/mike,
>>>>
>>>> The MSRDP setup is done at my end for testing purpose with same user
>>>> ,same screen,same depth etc. we measure the bandith for singile session and
>>>> it is too low. i am already sharing a snapshot in preious mail.
>>>>
>>>> *My point is if i used MSRDP web client to acees the server it take low
>>>> bandwidth utilization . when i am using guacd with xrdp it uses high
>>>> bandwidth.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
> Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
> Nasik.
> Mobile No -+91-9922507588
> Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@guacamole.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@guacamole.apache.org
>
>
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of
Guacamole
Posted by ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Manoj,
I think the answer you're giving is 'yes' - ie. that the issue you're
experiencing is in fact between Guacamole and the Xrdp machine(?).
In that case, for the next step, could you try connecting to your Xrdp
machine directly via:
(1) MSRD client
(2) FreeRDP client
And compare the experience/bandwidth utilisation of these two clients
(doing the same tasks, incl idle)?
On 10/03/2020 5:48 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
> dear Mkie/
>
>
> ivanmarcus
>
>
> can i share a html code of MSRDC . through this html you can able to
> connect windows machine.
> share this html on that mailid or any personal maild ?
>
> see the snap shot .
>
> When i am check MSRDC at high network latency(600-700 ms) it run
> smoothly . but in guacamole breaks the connection in time to
> time(connect-reconnect).
>
> Also we check at this latency typing is very fast there is no laggy in
> keyboard typing.
>
> In guacamole to Xrdp at same latency there is keyboard
> laagy occur means slow typing at client end.
>
> we also see when i am connect to MSRDC(windows) host through client
> its take first time 8-10 kbps continilously transfer data in
> transection mode .
>
> in idle mode there is no any bandwidth utilization.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 09:06, ivanmarcus
> <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Manoj,
>
> Perhaps I'm struggling to understand completely, but maybe we
> should just go through this one step at a time.
>
> (1) Is the bandwidth issue you're presenty raising between
> Guacamole and the local (Xrdp) client - NOT between Guacamole and
> the remote browser?
>
>
> On 10/03/2020 4:20 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>> Dear ivanmarcus,
>>
>> To be specific. You say MSRDWC uses a lot less bandwidth than
>> Guacamole, however (if I understand correctly) from what you say
>> you're using Guacamole with a Xrdp client machine, and MSRDWC
>> with a MSRD client machine. I suggest you should first test with
>> Guacamole to the MSRD client, and then MSRDWC to the *same*
>> client with the *same* parameters and the *same* series of tests.
>> IOW the *only* change in the lineup is MSRDWC vs Guacamole - NOT
>> the client machine as
>>
>> I am done the setup of MSRDC at my place and measuring the sam
>> scenario
>> Guacamole to xrdp client ----
>>
>> When connecting through browser to guacamole it's low bandwidth .
>> when connect guacad to xrdp host its huge bandwidth.
>>
>> Guacamole to MSRDC client--
>>
>> We test this setup with guacamole to MSRDC host through client
>> there is also a bandwidth utilization . we measure theough wireshark
>> MSRDC to same client --
>>
>> When i am connected to MSRDC with same parameter of bpp, width ,
>> height etc and measure through wireshark there is tremendous
>> different , its take very low bandwidth .
>>
>> When I am in idle mode in guacamole to xrdp its continuously
>> check keepalive and bandwidth utilizated that time.
>>
>> When i am in idle in MSRDC there is no keepalive checking see in
>> wireshark hence bandits is very low .
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, 02:00 ivanmarcus,
>> <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>> <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Manoj,
>>
>> We may have exhausted our ability to help. As Stefan has
>> pointed out there have been a number of suggestions and
>> explanations around the issue you raise; it could be useful
>> if you were to pursue those in the first instance.
>>
>> One thing that strikes me from your latest post is that
>> you're introducing too many variables when attempting to
>> compare systems. If you want to make comparisons then you
>> should start with as identical a system as possible and
>> change just *one* parameter first. In this way you will
>> generally be a lot clearer around what changes have an affect
>> on something.
>>
>> To be specific. You say MSRDWC uses a lot less bandwidth than
>> Guacamole, however (if I understand correctly) from what you
>> say you're using Guacamole with a Xrdp client machine, and
>> MSRDWC with a MSRD client machine. I suggest you should first
>> test with Guacamole to the MSRD client, and then MSRDWC to
>> the *same* client with the *same* parameters and the *same*
>> series of tests. IOW the *only* change in the lineup is
>> MSRDWC vs Guacamole - NOT the client machine as well.
>>
>> Moving on from this, I don't have access to MSRDWC and have
>> never used it but if possible the next test might be to
>> utilise it with an Xrdp client machine and compare that with
>> Guacamole to the *same* client. Such logical steps would lend
>> much more credence to your results, and may provide a clearer
>> pointer to you as to where the issue, if there is one, lays.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/03/2020 8:58 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>>> Dear,
>>>
>>> Any Resolution on my Issues.
>>>
>>> Please suggest any changes at guacamole server and Xrdp host
>>> server.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 13:22, Manoj Patil
>>> <manoj2patil@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear
>>>
>>>
>>> ivanmarcus/mike,
>>>
>>>
>>> The MSRDP setup is done at my end for testing purpose
>>> with same user ,same screen,same depth etc. we measure
>>> the bandith for singile session and it is too low. i am
>>> already sharing a snapshot in preious mail.
>>>
>>> *My point is if i used MSRDP web client to acees the
>>> server it take low bandwidth utilization . when i am
>>> using guacd with xrdp it uses high bandwidth.*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
> Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
> Nasik.
> Mobile No -+91-9922507588
> Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@guacamole.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@guacamole.apache.org
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
dear Mkie/
ivanmarcus
can i share a html code of MSRDC . through this html you can able to
connect windows machine.
share this html on that mailid or any personal maild ?
see the snap shot .
When i am check MSRDC at high network latency(600-700 ms) it run smoothly .
but in guacamole breaks the connection in time to time(connect-reconnect).
Also we check at this latency typing is very fast there is no laggy in
keyboard typing.
In guacamole to Xrdp at same latency there is keyboard laagy occur means
slow typing at client end.
we also see when i am connect to MSRDC(windows) host through client its
take first time 8-10 kbps continilously transfer data in transection mode .
in idle mode there is no any bandwidth utilization.
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 09:06, ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Manoj,
>
> Perhaps I'm struggling to understand completely, but maybe we should just
> go through this one step at a time.
>
> (1) Is the bandwidth issue you're presenty raising between Guacamole and
> the local (Xrdp) client - NOT between Guacamole and the remote browser?
>
> On 10/03/2020 4:20 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>
> Dear ivanmarcus,
>
> To be specific. You say MSRDWC uses a lot less bandwidth than Guacamole,
> however (if I understand correctly) from what you say you're using
> Guacamole with a Xrdp client machine, and MSRDWC with a MSRD client
> machine. I suggest you should first test with Guacamole to the MSRD client,
> and then MSRDWC to the *same* client with the *same* parameters and the
> *same* series of tests. IOW the *only* change in the lineup is MSRDWC vs
> Guacamole - NOT the client machine as
>
> I am done the setup of MSRDC at my place and measuring the sam scenario
> Guacamole to xrdp client ----
>
> When connecting through browser to guacamole it's low bandwidth . when
> connect guacad to xrdp host its huge bandwidth.
>
> Guacamole to MSRDC client--
>
> We test this setup with guacamole to MSRDC host through client there is
> also a bandwidth utilization . we measure theough wireshark
>
> MSRDC to same client --
>
> When i am connected to MSRDC with same parameter of bpp, width , height
> etc and measure through wireshark there is tremendous different , its take
> very low bandwidth .
>
> When I am in idle mode in guacamole to xrdp its continuously check
> keepalive and bandwidth utilizated that time.
>
> When i am in idle in MSRDC there is no keepalive checking see in wireshark
> hence bandits is very low .
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, 02:00 ivanmarcus, <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Manoj,
>>
>> We may have exhausted our ability to help. As Stefan has pointed out
>> there have been a number of suggestions and explanations around the issue
>> you raise; it could be useful if you were to pursue those in the first
>> instance.
>>
>> One thing that strikes me from your latest post is that you're
>> introducing too many variables when attempting to compare systems. If you
>> want to make comparisons then you should start with as identical a system
>> as possible and change just *one* parameter first. In this way you will
>> generally be a lot clearer around what changes have an affect on something.
>>
>> To be specific. You say MSRDWC uses a lot less bandwidth than Guacamole,
>> however (if I understand correctly) from what you say you're using
>> Guacamole with a Xrdp client machine, and MSRDWC with a MSRD client
>> machine. I suggest you should first test with Guacamole to the MSRD client,
>> and then MSRDWC to the *same* client with the *same* parameters and the
>> *same* series of tests. IOW the *only* change in the lineup is MSRDWC vs
>> Guacamole - NOT the client machine as well.
>>
>> Moving on from this, I don't have access to MSRDWC and have never used it
>> but if possible the next test might be to utilise it with an Xrdp client
>> machine and compare that with Guacamole to the *same* client. Such logical
>> steps would lend much more credence to your results, and may provide a
>> clearer pointer to you as to where the issue, if there is one, lays.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/03/2020 8:58 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>>
>> Dear,
>>
>> Any Resolution on my Issues.
>>
>> Please suggest any changes at guacamole server and Xrdp host server.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 13:22, Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear ivanmarcus/mike,
>>>
>>> The MSRDP setup is done at my end for testing purpose with same user
>>> ,same screen,same depth etc. we measure the bandith for singile session and
>>> it is too low. i am already sharing a snapshot in preious mail.
>>>
>>> *My point is if i used MSRDP web client to acees the server it take low
>>> bandwidth utilization . when i am using guacd with xrdp it uses high
>>> bandwidth.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of
Guacamole
Posted by ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Manoj,
Perhaps I'm struggling to understand completely, but maybe we should
just go through this one step at a time.
(1) Is the bandwidth issue you're presenty raising between Guacamole and
the local (Xrdp) client - NOT between Guacamole and the remote browser?
On 10/03/2020 4:20 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
> Dear ivanmarcus,
>
> To be specific. You say MSRDWC uses a lot less bandwidth than
> Guacamole, however (if I understand correctly) from what you say
> you're using Guacamole with a Xrdp client machine, and MSRDWC with a
> MSRD client machine. I suggest you should first test with Guacamole to
> the MSRD client, and then MSRDWC to the *same* client with the *same*
> parameters and the *same* series of tests. IOW the *only* change in
> the lineup is MSRDWC vs Guacamole - NOT the client machine as
>
> I am done the setup of MSRDC at my place and measuring the sam scenario
> Guacamole to xrdp client ----
>
> When connecting through browser to guacamole it's low bandwidth . when
> connect guacad to xrdp host its huge bandwidth.
>
> Guacamole to MSRDC client--
>
> We test this setup with guacamole to MSRDC host through client there
> is also a bandwidth utilization . we measure theough wireshark
> MSRDC to same client --
>
> When i am connected to MSRDC with same parameter of bpp, width ,
> height etc and measure through wireshark there is tremendous different
> , its take very low bandwidth .
>
> When I am in idle mode in guacamole to xrdp its continuously check
> keepalive and bandwidth utilizated that time.
>
> When i am in idle in MSRDC there is no keepalive checking see in
> wireshark hence bandits is very low .
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, 02:00 ivanmarcus, <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> Manoj,
>
> We may have exhausted our ability to help. As Stefan has pointed
> out there have been a number of suggestions and explanations
> around the issue you raise; it could be useful if you were to
> pursue those in the first instance.
>
> One thing that strikes me from your latest post is that you're
> introducing too many variables when attempting to compare systems.
> If you want to make comparisons then you should start with as
> identical a system as possible and change just *one* parameter
> first. In this way you will generally be a lot clearer around what
> changes have an affect on something.
>
> To be specific. You say MSRDWC uses a lot less bandwidth than
> Guacamole, however (if I understand correctly) from what you say
> you're using Guacamole with a Xrdp client machine, and MSRDWC with
> a MSRD client machine. I suggest you should first test with
> Guacamole to the MSRD client, and then MSRDWC to the *same* client
> with the *same* parameters and the *same* series of tests. IOW the
> *only* change in the lineup is MSRDWC vs Guacamole - NOT the
> client machine as well.
>
> Moving on from this, I don't have access to MSRDWC and have never
> used it but if possible the next test might be to utilise it with
> an Xrdp client machine and compare that with Guacamole to the
> *same* client. Such logical steps would lend much more credence to
> your results, and may provide a clearer pointer to you as to where
> the issue, if there is one, lays.
>
>
>
> On 9/03/2020 8:58 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>> Dear,
>>
>> Any Resolution on my Issues.
>>
>> Please suggest any changes at guacamole server and Xrdp host server.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 13:22, Manoj Patil <manoj2patil@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear
>>
>>
>> ivanmarcus/mike,
>>
>>
>> The MSRDP setup is done at my end for testing purpose with
>> same user ,same screen,same depth etc. we measure the bandith
>> for singile session and it is too low. i am already sharing a
>> snapshot in preious mail.
>>
>> *My point is if i used MSRDP web client to acees the server
>> it take low bandwidth utilization . when i am using guacd
>> with xrdp it uses high bandwidth.*
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> *
>>
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear ivanmarcus,
To be specific. You say MSRDWC uses a lot less bandwidth than Guacamole,
however (if I understand correctly) from what you say you're using
Guacamole with a Xrdp client machine, and MSRDWC with a MSRD client
machine. I suggest you should first test with Guacamole to the MSRD client,
and then MSRDWC to the *same* client with the *same* parameters and the
*same* series of tests. IOW the *only* change in the lineup is MSRDWC vs
Guacamole - NOT the client machine as
I am done the setup of MSRDC at my place and measuring the sam scenario
Guacamole to xrdp client ----
When connecting through browser to guacamole it's low bandwidth . when
connect guacad to xrdp host its huge bandwidth.
Guacamole to MSRDC client--
We test this setup with guacamole to MSRDC host through client there is
also a bandwidth utilization . we measure theough wireshark
MSRDC to same client --
When i am connected to MSRDC with same parameter of bpp, width , height
etc and measure through wireshark there is tremendous different , its take
very low bandwidth .
When I am in idle mode in guacamole to xrdp its continuously check
keepalive and bandwidth utilizated that time.
When i am in idle in MSRDC there is no keepalive checking see in wireshark
hence bandits is very low .
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, 02:00 ivanmarcus, <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Manoj,
>
> We may have exhausted our ability to help. As Stefan has pointed out there
> have been a number of suggestions and explanations around the issue you
> raise; it could be useful if you were to pursue those in the first instance.
>
> One thing that strikes me from your latest post is that you're introducing
> too many variables when attempting to compare systems. If you want to make
> comparisons then you should start with as identical a system as possible
> and change just *one* parameter first. In this way you will generally be a
> lot clearer around what changes have an affect on something.
>
> To be specific. You say MSRDWC uses a lot less bandwidth than Guacamole,
> however (if I understand correctly) from what you say you're using
> Guacamole with a Xrdp client machine, and MSRDWC with a MSRD client
> machine. I suggest you should first test with Guacamole to the MSRD client,
> and then MSRDWC to the *same* client with the *same* parameters and the
> *same* series of tests. IOW the *only* change in the lineup is MSRDWC vs
> Guacamole - NOT the client machine as well.
>
> Moving on from this, I don't have access to MSRDWC and have never used it
> but if possible the next test might be to utilise it with an Xrdp client
> machine and compare that with Guacamole to the *same* client. Such logical
> steps would lend much more credence to your results, and may provide a
> clearer pointer to you as to where the issue, if there is one, lays.
>
>
>
> On 9/03/2020 8:58 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>
> Dear,
>
> Any Resolution on my Issues.
>
> Please suggest any changes at guacamole server and Xrdp host server.
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 13:22, Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear ivanmarcus/mike,
>>
>> The MSRDP setup is done at my end for testing purpose with same user
>> ,same screen,same depth etc. we measure the bandith for singile session and
>> it is too low. i am already sharing a snapshot in preious mail.
>>
>> *My point is if i used MSRDP web client to acees the server it take low
>> bandwidth utilization . when i am using guacd with xrdp it uses high
>> bandwidth.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of
Guacamole
Posted by ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Manoj,
We may have exhausted our ability to help. As Stefan has pointed out
there have been a number of suggestions and explanations around the
issue you raise; it could be useful if you were to pursue those in the
first instance.
One thing that strikes me from your latest post is that you're
introducing too many variables when attempting to compare systems. If
you want to make comparisons then you should start with as identical a
system as possible and change just *one* parameter first. In this way
you will generally be a lot clearer around what changes have an affect
on something.
To be specific. You say MSRDWC uses a lot less bandwidth than Guacamole,
however (if I understand correctly) from what you say you're using
Guacamole with a Xrdp client machine, and MSRDWC with a MSRD client
machine. I suggest you should first test with Guacamole to the MSRD
client, and then MSRDWC to the *same* client with the *same* parameters
and the *same* series of tests. IOW the *only* change in the lineup is
MSRDWC vs Guacamole - NOT the client machine as well.
Moving on from this, I don't have access to MSRDWC and have never used
it but if possible the next test might be to utilise it with an Xrdp
client machine and compare that with Guacamole to the *same* client.
Such logical steps would lend much more credence to your results, and
may provide a clearer pointer to you as to where the issue, if there is
one, lays.
On 9/03/2020 8:58 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
> Dear,
>
> Any Resolution on my Issues.
>
> Please suggest any changes at guacamole server and Xrdp host server.
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 13:22, Manoj Patil <manoj2patil@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear
>
>
> ivanmarcus/mike,
>
>
> The MSRDP setup is done at my end for testing purpose with same
> user ,same screen,same depth etc. we measure the bandith for
> singile session and it is too low. i am already sharing a snapshot
> in preious mail.
>
> *My point is if i used MSRDP web client to acees the server it
> take low bandwidth utilization . when i am using guacd with xrdp
> it uses high bandwidth.*
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear
I know the discussion is going on .., but still we try to minimised the
bandwidth utilization. I see in xrdp code there is a bitmap and jpeg cache
and compression with respectively bpp(bit per pixel), width and height .
but guacamole can done the compression and cache the bitmap and jpeg.
We see in guacamole they used ping and webp so I think the cache and
compression is mismatch.
Please if it correct?
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, 13:39 Stefan M. Radman, <sm...@kmi.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Manoj
>
> Several Guacamole users have made useful suggestions over the course of
> the discussion.
>
> Ultimately, the resolution of your issues is in your own hands.
>
> Stefan
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 2020, at 08:58, Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear,
> >
> > Any Resolution on my Issues.
> >
> > Please suggest any changes at guacamole server and Xrdp host server.
> >
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged and
> confidential information, or may otherwise be protected from disclosure,
> and is intended solely for use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not
> the intended recipient of this communication, please notify the sender that
> you have received this communication in error and delete and destroy all
> copies in your possession.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@guacamole.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@guacamole.apache.org
>
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of
Guacamole
Posted by "Stefan M. Radman" <sm...@kmi.com.INVALID>.
Hi Manoj
Several Guacamole users have made useful suggestions over the course of the discussion.
Ultimately, the resolution of your issues is in your own hands.
Stefan
> On Mar 9, 2020, at 08:58, Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear,
>
> Any Resolution on my Issues.
>
> Please suggest any changes at guacamole server and Xrdp host server.
>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged and confidential information, or may otherwise be protected from disclosure, and is intended solely for use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please notify the sender that you have received this communication in error and delete and destroy all copies in your possession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@guacamole.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@guacamole.apache.org
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear,
Any Resolution on my Issues.
Please suggest any changes at guacamole server and Xrdp host server.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 13:22, Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear ivanmarcus/mike,
>
> The MSRDP setup is done at my end for testing purpose with same user ,same
> screen,same depth etc. we measure the bandith for singile session and it is
> too low. i am already sharing a snapshot in preious mail.
>
> *My point is if i used MSRDP web client to acees the server it take low
> bandwidth utilization . when i am using guacd with xrdp it uses high
> bandwidth.*
>
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 11:25, ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Manoj,
>>
>> I've followed this thread with some interest, and have learnt something
>> from what Mike's been saying about how Guacamole handles image compression
>> etc.
>>
>> I'm not able to contribute much from a softwarec perspective but there
>> are a couple of things that I wonder about.
>>
>> In your tests it appears to me that, generally, the Guacamole <-> xrdp
>> traffic is much higher than Tomcat <-> browser, as one would anticipate.
>> Assuming your Guacamole <-> xrdp connections to be on an internal 1GbE
>> network then one would expect Tomcat <-> [external] browser experience to
>> be much quicker than say xrdp <-> [external] MSRD client.
>>
>> In an earlier post you said:
>>
>> My Observation is---
>>
>> we observe that in my colleague company those people used Microsoft
>> remote desktop Web client (using activex) for 1200 connection in 10 Mbps
>> for huge transaction. and
>>
>> we used Xrdp+wine+Guacamole with 600 connection with 50 Mbps bandwidth .
>>
>> what protocol they are used ( Microsoft remote desktop Web client ) is
>> taking less bandwidth compare with Guacamole.
>>
>> From this I was interested to see what information there was regarding
>> the bandwidth requirements for MS RD Web Client vs MS Terminal Services
>> Client.
>>
>> I found this website article:
>>
>>
>> https://www.rdsgurus.com/microsoft-rd-web-client-html5-performance-testing-part-1/
>>
>> Although not completely clear my take on their results is that MSRDWC
>> could use similar, or possibly more, bandwith than MSTSC (or it could use
>> ~1/2 in some cases). They explicitly state further research is needed so
>> the results should be considered provisional at this time.
>>
>> *If* these results are in the typical ballpark then it would seem to me
>> somewhat at odds with what you said earlier, and with the results you've
>> charted.
>>
>> To clarifiy.
>>
>> (1) From the article let's say MSRDWC bandwith typically = MSTSC
>> bandwith.
>>
>> (2)You measure Guacamole <-> xrdp bandwidth significantly higher than
>> Tomcat <-> browser (let's say this equates to what we'd expect typical
>> MSTSC bandwidth to be).
>>
>> (3) Extapolating; your colleague company is using MSRDWC, therefore with
>> no other changes or tuning we might ordinarily expect their bandwith
>> requirements to be higher than yours since, from your's and Mike's data,
>> the Tomcat <-> browser bandwidth should effectively be less than MSRDWC.
>>
>> (4) Yet you've said they have twice the connection numbers with 1/5
>> available bandwith, and although not stated the intimation is that their
>> user's experience could be better than yours?
>>
>> Now I realise I'm drawing a fairly long bow, and making some pretty wild
>> assumptions based on possibly erroneous data, but at this point the
>> comparision just doesn't add up.
>>
>> There are many possibly variables that might explain this but I wonder,
>> initially, if there are some other differences in what service your
>> colleague company is delivering compared with yours? For example is theirs
>> a much reduced colour depth, is it limited to a specific app with little
>> screen updates, do they have burst mode data capacity, do they have fewer
>> _concurrent_ users etc?
>>
>> Ultimately Mike has said several times that you simply need to allocate
>> more resource for what you're doing, but it may assist yourself and the
>> community if you could obtain a similar bandwith log from your colleague
>> company as you have for yours. It would be good if the data were
>> standardised as much as possible (ie. perform exactly the same desktop
>> tasks) and the same colour depth settings etc were utilised.
>>
>> If this were effected I think we'd have a much better idea as to the
>> bandwith requirements of Guacamole vs MSRDWC. From this one might then know
>> if there's any real (comparative) issue between your service and that of
>> your colleague company, or not. It could also give some potentially useful
>> info around Guacamole/MSRDWC performance...
>>
>>
>> On 3/03/2020 4:06 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>>
>> What tool u used for measuring bandwidth.
>>
>> Is there any resolution?
>>
>> As per your snanshot RDP take to much bandwidth utilization . if u also
>> 600 active connwction then the bandwidth utilization is around 40- 45 mbps.
>>
>> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 00:45 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 1:59 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear,
>>>>
>>>> I am deployed the Microsoft environment at my end and measure the
>>>> bandwidth data send and received.
>>>> using wireshark.
>>>>
>>>> please find the attached file one is microsoft web rdp bandwidth
>>>> calculation using wireshark and second snapshot is guacamol server
>>>> calculation using wireshark .
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to compare bandwidth usage reliably, you will need to
>>> measure and compare the two sides of the same session: one measurement
>>> being the browser <--> Guacamole traffic and the other being the guacd <-->
>>> RDP traffic. For example, here's my statistics for the first week of
>>> December last year:
>>>
>>> [image: glen-demo-stats-2019-12-01-through-2019-12-07.png]
>>>
>>> The graph shows total Guacamole bandwidth usage (green line) against RDP
>>> usage (orange line) for the same servers across all sessions. The purple
>>> line is the total number of active sessions. In general, the two bandwidth
>>> lines follow each other, however I've always observed the RDP line to be
>>> significantly higher, presumably due to using poorer image compression. The
>>> only times I've seen the Guacamole line peek (slightly) above the RDP line
>>> are when there is extremely low activity.
>>>
>>> If you are absolutely sure that you are measuring effectively the same
>>> sessions, connecting to the same RDP server, and that you are using the
>>> same display size, performing the same actions, seeing the same graphics,
>>> etc. between them, I'm not sure what would account for your measurements
>>> showing the opposite behavior.
>>>
>>> - Mike
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
> Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
> Nasik.
> Mobile No -+91-9922507588
> Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear ivanmarcus/mike,
The MSRDP setup is done at my end for testing purpose with same user ,same
screen,same depth etc. we measure the bandith for singile session and it is
too low. i am already sharing a snapshot in preious mail.
*My point is if i used MSRDP web client to acees the server it take low
bandwidth utilization . when i am using guacd with xrdp it uses high
bandwidth.*
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 11:25, ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Manoj,
>
> I've followed this thread with some interest, and have learnt something
> from what Mike's been saying about how Guacamole handles image compression
> etc.
>
> I'm not able to contribute much from a softwarec perspective but there are
> a couple of things that I wonder about.
>
> In your tests it appears to me that, generally, the Guacamole <-> xrdp
> traffic is much higher than Tomcat <-> browser, as one would anticipate.
> Assuming your Guacamole <-> xrdp connections to be on an internal 1GbE
> network then one would expect Tomcat <-> [external] browser experience to
> be much quicker than say xrdp <-> [external] MSRD client.
>
> In an earlier post you said:
>
> My Observation is---
>
> we observe that in my colleague company those people used Microsoft
> remote desktop Web client (using activex) for 1200 connection in 10 Mbps
> for huge transaction. and
>
> we used Xrdp+wine+Guacamole with 600 connection with 50 Mbps bandwidth .
>
> what protocol they are used ( Microsoft remote desktop Web client ) is
> taking less bandwidth compare with Guacamole.
>
> From this I was interested to see what information there was regarding the
> bandwidth requirements for MS RD Web Client vs MS Terminal Services Client.
>
> I found this website article:
>
>
> https://www.rdsgurus.com/microsoft-rd-web-client-html5-performance-testing-part-1/
>
> Although not completely clear my take on their results is that MSRDWC
> could use similar, or possibly more, bandwith than MSTSC (or it could use
> ~1/2 in some cases). They explicitly state further research is needed so
> the results should be considered provisional at this time.
>
> *If* these results are in the typical ballpark then it would seem to me
> somewhat at odds with what you said earlier, and with the results you've
> charted.
>
> To clarifiy.
>
> (1) From the article let's say MSRDWC bandwith typically = MSTSC bandwith.
>
> (2)You measure Guacamole <-> xrdp bandwidth significantly higher than
> Tomcat <-> browser (let's say this equates to what we'd expect typical
> MSTSC bandwidth to be).
>
> (3) Extapolating; your colleague company is using MSRDWC, therefore with
> no other changes or tuning we might ordinarily expect their bandwith
> requirements to be higher than yours since, from your's and Mike's data,
> the Tomcat <-> browser bandwidth should effectively be less than MSRDWC.
>
> (4) Yet you've said they have twice the connection numbers with 1/5
> available bandwith, and although not stated the intimation is that their
> user's experience could be better than yours?
>
> Now I realise I'm drawing a fairly long bow, and making some pretty wild
> assumptions based on possibly erroneous data, but at this point the
> comparision just doesn't add up.
>
> There are many possibly variables that might explain this but I wonder,
> initially, if there are some other differences in what service your
> colleague company is delivering compared with yours? For example is theirs
> a much reduced colour depth, is it limited to a specific app with little
> screen updates, do they have burst mode data capacity, do they have fewer
> _concurrent_ users etc?
>
> Ultimately Mike has said several times that you simply need to allocate
> more resource for what you're doing, but it may assist yourself and the
> community if you could obtain a similar bandwith log from your colleague
> company as you have for yours. It would be good if the data were
> standardised as much as possible (ie. perform exactly the same desktop
> tasks) and the same colour depth settings etc were utilised.
>
> If this were effected I think we'd have a much better idea as to the
> bandwith requirements of Guacamole vs MSRDWC. From this one might then know
> if there's any real (comparative) issue between your service and that of
> your colleague company, or not. It could also give some potentially useful
> info around Guacamole/MSRDWC performance...
>
>
> On 3/03/2020 4:06 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>
> What tool u used for measuring bandwidth.
>
> Is there any resolution?
>
> As per your snanshot RDP take to much bandwidth utilization . if u also
> 600 active connwction then the bandwidth utilization is around 40- 45 mbps.
>
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 00:45 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 1:59 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear,
>>>
>>> I am deployed the Microsoft environment at my end and measure the
>>> bandwidth data send and received.
>>> using wireshark.
>>>
>>> please find the attached file one is microsoft web rdp bandwidth
>>> calculation using wireshark and second snapshot is guacamol server
>>> calculation using wireshark .
>>>
>>
>> If you want to compare bandwidth usage reliably, you will need to measure
>> and compare the two sides of the same session: one measurement being the
>> browser <--> Guacamole traffic and the other being the guacd <--> RDP
>> traffic. For example, here's my statistics for the first week of December
>> last year:
>>
>> [image: glen-demo-stats-2019-12-01-through-2019-12-07.png]
>>
>> The graph shows total Guacamole bandwidth usage (green line) against RDP
>> usage (orange line) for the same servers across all sessions. The purple
>> line is the total number of active sessions. In general, the two bandwidth
>> lines follow each other, however I've always observed the RDP line to be
>> significantly higher, presumably due to using poorer image compression. The
>> only times I've seen the Guacamole line peek (slightly) above the RDP line
>> are when there is extremely low activity.
>>
>> If you are absolutely sure that you are measuring effectively the same
>> sessions, connecting to the same RDP server, and that you are using the
>> same display size, performing the same actions, seeing the same graphics,
>> etc. between them, I'm not sure what would account for your measurements
>> showing the opposite behavior.
>>
>> - Mike
>>
>>
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of
Guacamole
Posted by ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Manoj,
I've followed this thread with some interest, and have learnt something
from what Mike's been saying about how Guacamole handles image
compression etc.
I'm not able to contribute much from a softwarec perspective but there
are a couple of things that I wonder about.
In your tests it appears to me that, generally, the Guacamole <-> xrdp
traffic is much higher than Tomcat <-> browser, as one would anticipate.
Assuming your Guacamole <-> xrdp connections to be on an internal 1GbE
network then one would expect Tomcat <-> [external] browser experience
to be much quicker than say xrdp <-> [external] MSRD client.
In an earlier post you said:
> My Observation is---
>
> we observe that in my colleague company those people used Microsoft
> remote desktop Web client (using activex) for 1200 connection in 10
> Mbps for huge transaction. and
>
> we used Xrdp+wine+Guacamole with 600 connection with 50 Mbps bandwidth .
>
> what protocol they are used ( Microsoft remote desktop Web client )
> is taking less bandwidth compare with Guacamole.
From this I was interested to see what information there was regarding
the bandwidth requirements for MS RD Web Client vs MS Terminal Services
Client.
I found this website article:
https://www.rdsgurus.com/microsoft-rd-web-client-html5-performance-testing-part-1/
Although not completely clear my take on their results is that MSRDWC
could use similar, or possibly more, bandwith than MSTSC (or it could
use ~1/2 in some cases). They explicitly state further research is
needed so the results should be considered provisional at this time.
*If* these results are in the typical ballpark then it would seem to me
somewhat at odds with what you said earlier, and with the results you've
charted.
To clarifiy.
(1) From the article let's say MSRDWC bandwith typically = MSTSC bandwith.
(2)You measure Guacamole <-> xrdp bandwidth significantly higher than
Tomcat <-> browser (let's say this equates to what we'd expect typical
MSTSC bandwidth to be).
(3) Extapolating; your colleague company is using MSRDWC, therefore with
no other changes or tuning we might ordinarily expect their bandwith
requirements to be higher than yours since, from your's and Mike's data,
the Tomcat <-> browser bandwidth should effectively be less than MSRDWC.
(4) Yet you've said they have twice the connection numbers with 1/5
available bandwith, and although not stated the intimation is that their
user's experience could be better than yours?
Now I realise I'm drawing a fairly long bow, and making some pretty wild
assumptions based on possibly erroneous data, but at this point the
comparision just doesn't add up.
There are many possibly variables that might explain this but I wonder,
initially, if there are some other differences in what service your
colleague company is delivering compared with yours? For example is
theirs a much reduced colour depth, is it limited to a specific app with
little screen updates, do they have burst mode data capacity, do they
have fewer _concurrent_ users etc?
Ultimately Mike has said several times that you simply need to allocate
more resource for what you're doing, but it may assist yourself and the
community if you could obtain a similar bandwith log from your colleague
company as you have for yours. It would be good if the data were
standardised as much as possible (ie. perform exactly the same desktop
tasks) and the same colour depth settings etc were utilised.
If this were effected I think we'd have a much better idea as to the
bandwith requirements of Guacamole vs MSRDWC. From this one might then
know if there's any real (comparative) issue between your service and
that of your colleague company, or not. It could also give some
potentially useful info around Guacamole/MSRDWC performance...
On 3/03/2020 4:06 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
> What tool u used for measuring bandwidth.
>
> Is there any resolution?
>
> As per your snanshot RDP take to much bandwidth utilization . if u
> also 600 active connwction then the bandwidth utilization is around
> 40- 45 mbps.
>
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 00:45 Mike Jumper, <mjumper@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 1:59 AM Manoj Patil <manoj2patil@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear,
>
> I am deployed the Microsoft environment at my end and measure
> the bandwidth data send and received.
> using wireshark.
>
> please find the attached file one is microsoft web rdp
> bandwidth calculation using wireshark and second snapshot is
> guacamol server calculation using wireshark .
>
>
> If you want to compare bandwidth usage reliably, you will need to
> measure and compare the two sides of the same session: one
> measurement being the browser <--> Guacamole traffic and the other
> being the guacd <--> RDP traffic. For example, here's my
> statistics for the first week of December last year:
>
> glen-demo-stats-2019-12-01-through-2019-12-07.png
>
> The graph shows total Guacamole bandwidth usage (green line)
> against RDP usage (orange line) for the same servers across all
> sessions. The purple line is the total number of active sessions.
> In general, the two bandwidth lines follow each other, however
> I've always observed the RDP line to be significantly higher,
> presumably due to using poorer image compression. The only times
> I've seen the Guacamole line peek (slightly) above the RDP line
> are when there is extremely low activity.
>
> If you are absolutely sure that you are measuring effectively the
> same sessions, connecting to the same RDP server, and that you are
> using the same display size, performing the same actions, seeing
> the same graphics, etc. between them, I'm not sure what would
> account for your measurements showing the opposite behavior.
>
> - Mike
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Mike
Pls find the attached file
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, 19:46 Manoj Patil, <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear mike,
>
> We have captured the Guacamole screen recording as per your suggestions.
> please find attachment and guide us what data is sent .
>
> How we can see that file data?
>
>
>
> On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 14:50, Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 20:17 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Mike,
>>>
>>> I am capture the screen as per your suggestion , when i am opening the
>>> first screen of my app. this screen will download as image/png and again i
>>> am opening same screen again this screen will be download .
>>>
>>> all above i am capture and send a snapshots for the reference . please
>>> check and guide us.
>>>
>>
>> Not screen captures / screenshots, a Guacamole screen recording, as
>> produced by Guacamole when you enable screen recording on a connection. It
>> is effectively a raw protocol dump and would show what is actually sent,
>> when, and in what context.
>>
>> - Mike
>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
> Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
> Nasik.
> Mobile No -+91-9922507588
> Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear Mike,
i am sure that measuring the same sessions, connecting to the same RDP
server, and that you are using the same display size, performing the same
actions, seeing the same graphics.
I am go through as per your suggestion and calculate the bandwidth for
below action.
browser <--> Guacamole traffic and the guacd <--> RDP traffic.
As per observation browser <--> Guacamole traffic is very low around 27K .
guacd <--> RDP traffic is very high in working condition is around
2876K.
From the below observation guacd <--> RDP traffic and
bandwidth utilization is very high.
plz find attached snapshot of measuring bandwidth.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 00:45, Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 1:59 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear,
>>
>> I am deployed the Microsoft environment at my end and measure the
>> bandwidth data send and received.
>> using wireshark.
>>
>> please find the attached file one is microsoft web rdp bandwidth
>> calculation using wireshark and second snapshot is guacamol server
>> calculation using wireshark .
>>
>
> If you want to compare bandwidth usage reliably, you will need to measure
> and compare the two sides of the same session: one measurement being the
> browser <--> Guacamole traffic and the other being the guacd <--> RDP
> traffic. For example, here's my statistics for the first week of December
> last year:
>
> [image: glen-demo-stats-2019-12-01-through-2019-12-07.png]
>
> The graph shows total Guacamole bandwidth usage (green line) against RDP
> usage (orange line) for the same servers across all sessions. The purple
> line is the total number of active sessions. In general, the two bandwidth
> lines follow each other, however I've always observed the RDP line to be
> significantly higher, presumably due to using poorer image compression. The
> only times I've seen the Guacamole line peek (slightly) above the RDP line
> are when there is extremely low activity.
>
> If you are absolutely sure that you are measuring effectively the same
> sessions, connecting to the same RDP server, and that you are using the
> same display size, performing the same actions, seeing the same graphics,
> etc. between them, I'm not sure what would account for your measurements
> showing the opposite behavior.
>
> - Mike
>
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:07 PM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What tool u used for measuring bandwidth.
>
AWS CloudWatch.
Is there any resolution?
>
There isn't really anything to resolve.
As already noted in this thread, the bandwidth you've measured for
Guacamole looks fine and the bandwidth we've measured for Guacamole looks
fine. It's interesting that you're seeing lower RDP utilization in one of
your tests, and worth looking into seeing why that might be the case, but
other than an interesting research problem that might eventually yield
further performance improvements to Guacamole, there's nothing to resolve.
Assuming that what you're comparing is an indeed apples-to-apples
comparison, then there is probably something to be discovered which would
further improve things, but I'm not going to be able to tell you what that
is because I don't know it yet. All I can tell you right now is that if
you're finding you haven't allocated sufficient resources, then you need to
allocate sufficient resources.
As per your snanshot RDP take to much bandwidth utilization .
>
Thankfully, the RDP side of things in a Guacamole deployment is purely
internal, with everything between Tomcat and the client being Guacamole
protocol.
- Mike
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
What tool u used for measuring bandwidth.
Is there any resolution?
As per your snanshot RDP take to much bandwidth utilization . if u also 600
active connwction then the bandwidth utilization is around 40- 45 mbps.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 00:45 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 1:59 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear,
>>
>> I am deployed the Microsoft environment at my end and measure the
>> bandwidth data send and received.
>> using wireshark.
>>
>> please find the attached file one is microsoft web rdp bandwidth
>> calculation using wireshark and second snapshot is guacamol server
>> calculation using wireshark .
>>
>
> If you want to compare bandwidth usage reliably, you will need to measure
> and compare the two sides of the same session: one measurement being the
> browser <--> Guacamole traffic and the other being the guacd <--> RDP
> traffic. For example, here's my statistics for the first week of December
> last year:
>
> [image: glen-demo-stats-2019-12-01-through-2019-12-07.png]
>
> The graph shows total Guacamole bandwidth usage (green line) against RDP
> usage (orange line) for the same servers across all sessions. The purple
> line is the total number of active sessions. In general, the two bandwidth
> lines follow each other, however I've always observed the RDP line to be
> significantly higher, presumably due to using poorer image compression. The
> only times I've seen the Guacamole line peek (slightly) above the RDP line
> are when there is extremely low activity.
>
> If you are absolutely sure that you are measuring effectively the same
> sessions, connecting to the same RDP server, and that you are using the
> same display size, performing the same actions, seeing the same graphics,
> etc. between them, I'm not sure what would account for your measurements
> showing the opposite behavior.
>
> - Mike
>
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 1:59 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear,
>
> I am deployed the Microsoft environment at my end and measure the
> bandwidth data send and received.
> using wireshark.
>
> please find the attached file one is microsoft web rdp bandwidth
> calculation using wireshark and second snapshot is guacamol server
> calculation using wireshark .
>
If you want to compare bandwidth usage reliably, you will need to measure
and compare the two sides of the same session: one measurement being the
browser <--> Guacamole traffic and the other being the guacd <--> RDP
traffic. For example, here's my statistics for the first week of December
last year:
[image: glen-demo-stats-2019-12-01-through-2019-12-07.png]
The graph shows total Guacamole bandwidth usage (green line) against RDP
usage (orange line) for the same servers across all sessions. The purple
line is the total number of active sessions. In general, the two bandwidth
lines follow each other, however I've always observed the RDP line to be
significantly higher, presumably due to using poorer image compression. The
only times I've seen the Guacamole line peek (slightly) above the RDP line
are when there is extremely low activity.
If you are absolutely sure that you are measuring effectively the same
sessions, connecting to the same RDP server, and that you are using the
same display size, performing the same actions, seeing the same graphics,
etc. between them, I'm not sure what would account for your measurements
showing the opposite behavior.
- Mike
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear,
I am deployed the Microsoft environment at my end and measure the bandwidth
data send and received.
using wireshark.
please find the attached file one is microsoft web rdp bandwidth
calculation using wireshark and second snapshot is guacamol server
calculation using wireshark .
as per observation microsoft web rdp take low bandwidth for single session
.
thankful your valuable time and waiting valuable reply
On Sun, 1 Mar 2020 at 14:11, Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 23:07 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear,
>>
>> Thank For your appreciation .
>>
>> The only thing that I noticed is that there is no compression between the
>> server and the client.
>> Meaning that full sized base64 encoded PNG images are send to the client,
>> which causes a high network load.
>>
>
> No. PNG is compression, and an average of ~86 Kbps is not high network
> load. There is some overhead from base64, but that overhead is all but
> nullified by (1) the gzip compression that is generally automatically
> applied to WebSocket and (2) the speed that browsers can process that
> base64 data compared with alternative mechanisms that lack the overhead.
>
>
>> i am try to find out why more bandwidth is required for 600 connection
>> and how to reduced it.
>>
>> My Observation is---
>>
>> we observe that in my colleague company those people used Microsoft
>> remote desktop Web client (using activex) for 1200 connection in 10 Mbps
>> for huge transaction. and
>>
>
> An average of 8 Kbps per connection sounds unlikely for any form of
> steamed graphical data.
>
>
>> we used Xrdp+wine+Guacamole with 600 connection with 50 Mbps bandwidth .
>>
>> what protocol they are used ( Microsoft remote desktop Web client ) is
>> taking less bandwidth compare with Guacamole.
>>
>
> From measurements of real-world use of the live demo environment deployed
> by my day job, I see the opposite of this. The overall bandwidth used
> between the users' browsers and the Guacamole servers is significantly less
> than the bandwidth used by RDP between guacd and the Windows servers.
>
> - Mike
>
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 23:07 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear,
>
> Thank For your appreciation .
>
> The only thing that I noticed is that there is no compression between the
> server and the client.
> Meaning that full sized base64 encoded PNG images are send to the client,
> which causes a high network load.
>
No. PNG is compression, and an average of ~86 Kbps is not high network
load. There is some overhead from base64, but that overhead is all but
nullified by (1) the gzip compression that is generally automatically
applied to WebSocket and (2) the speed that browsers can process that
base64 data compared with alternative mechanisms that lack the overhead.
> i am try to find out why more bandwidth is required for 600 connection and
> how to reduced it.
>
> My Observation is---
>
> we observe that in my colleague company those people used Microsoft
> remote desktop Web client (using activex) for 1200 connection in 10 Mbps
> for huge transaction. and
>
An average of 8 Kbps per connection sounds unlikely for any form of steamed
graphical data.
> we used Xrdp+wine+Guacamole with 600 connection with 50 Mbps bandwidth .
>
> what protocol they are used ( Microsoft remote desktop Web client ) is
> taking less bandwidth compare with Guacamole.
>
From measurements of real-world use of the live demo environment deployed
by my day job, I see the opposite of this. The overall bandwidth used
between the users' browsers and the Guacamole servers is significantly less
than the bandwidth used by RDP between guacd and the Windows servers.
- Mike
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear,
Thank For your appreciation .
The only thing that I noticed is that there is no compression between the
server and the client.
Meaning that full sized base64 encoded PNG images are send to the client,
which causes a high network load.
i am try to find out why more bandwidth is required for 600 connection and
how to reduced it.
My Observation is---
we observe that in my colleague company those people used Microsoft remote
desktop Web client (using activex) for 1200 connection in 10 Mbps for huge
transaction. and
we used Xrdp+wine+Guacamole with 600 connection with 50 Mbps bandwidth .
what protocol they are used ( Microsoft remote desktop Web client ) is
taking less bandwidth compare with Guacamole.
if we tune guacamole like that Microsoft remote desktop Web client it is
valuable for all in low bandwidth.
without your help we can not do any changes in guacamole server.
Please guide.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2020 at 11:36, Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 20:57 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear,
>>
>> Thanks your valuable replay .
>>
>> I observe that when data send from server to client in image/PNG and PNG
>> take to much bandwidth rather than *Webp.*
>>
>
> No, whether WebP performs better than PNG depends on the content of the
> image, and there is more to performance than simply bandwidth. Guacamole
> attempts to detect this automatically and use whichever will produce the
> best user experience. Forcing WebP across the board will likely perform
> noticably poorly.
>
>
>> *Please guide us how i am enable or decode image data/PNG to image
>> data/Webp in guacamole server with tomcat with compression?*
>>
>
> Guacamole already does this automatically, and it has nothing to do with
> Tomcat.
>
> Really, I think you are chasing red herrings, trying to solve a problem
> that isn't actually in the software. Your recording and bandwidth
> measurements both show things working nominally and that the bandwidth
> usage is not high.
>
> I believe the ultimate issue is that you're trying to cram 600 connections
> down the same 50 Mbps pipe, and that you are not going to achieve
> reasonable performance for those 600 connections simply because that is not
> a reasonable resource allocation. Guacamole will still work, but it will be
> strongly limited by what you've given it to work with.
>
> It doesn't hurt to experiment (it's the only way progress happens) and
> you're more than welcome to dig through the source on your own and see
> whether tweaking things with respect to WebP vs. PNG vs. JPEG helps. If you
> do discover an improvement, it would be a very welcome contribution.
>
> That said, keep in mind:
>
> * This and many other things have been tried before. Guacamole is as it
> currently is because of this extensive testing and design. Using WebP
> across the board has been tested, and it performed badly.
> * There are bandwidth, encode time, and decode time tradeoffs in using
> these various compression schemes. The idea of using WebP across the board
> (for browsers that support it) was rejected during initial testing for this
> reason - PNG often compresses faster and nearly as well, with the slower
> encode time of lossless WebP outweighing any benefit and ultimately making
> things slower.
> * While there are likely cleverer ways to determine whether PNG, WebP, or
> JPEG should be used, and cleverer algorithms to be applied to Guacamole's
> cost optimizer, it's unlikely to be as simple as "just use WebP" and
> unlikely to produce the order-of-magnitude improvement you would need to
> fit all those connections in 50 Mbps.
>
> - Mike
>
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 20:57 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear,
>
> Thanks your valuable replay .
>
> I observe that when data send from server to client in image/PNG and PNG
> take to much bandwidth rather than *Webp.*
>
No, whether WebP performs better than PNG depends on the content of the
image, and there is more to performance than simply bandwidth. Guacamole
attempts to detect this automatically and use whichever will produce the
best user experience. Forcing WebP across the board will likely perform
noticably poorly.
> *Please guide us how i am enable or decode image data/PNG to image
> data/Webp in guacamole server with tomcat with compression?*
>
Guacamole already does this automatically, and it has nothing to do with
Tomcat.
Really, I think you are chasing red herrings, trying to solve a problem
that isn't actually in the software. Your recording and bandwidth
measurements both show things working nominally and that the bandwidth
usage is not high.
I believe the ultimate issue is that you're trying to cram 600 connections
down the same 50 Mbps pipe, and that you are not going to achieve
reasonable performance for those 600 connections simply because that is not
a reasonable resource allocation. Guacamole will still work, but it will be
strongly limited by what you've given it to work with.
It doesn't hurt to experiment (it's the only way progress happens) and
you're more than welcome to dig through the source on your own and see
whether tweaking things with respect to WebP vs. PNG vs. JPEG helps. If you
do discover an improvement, it would be a very welcome contribution.
That said, keep in mind:
* This and many other things have been tried before. Guacamole is as it
currently is because of this extensive testing and design. Using WebP
across the board has been tested, and it performed badly.
* There are bandwidth, encode time, and decode time tradeoffs in using
these various compression schemes. The idea of using WebP across the board
(for browsers that support it) was rejected during initial testing for this
reason - PNG often compresses faster and nearly as well, with the slower
encode time of lossless WebP outweighing any benefit and ultimately making
things slower.
* While there are likely cleverer ways to determine whether PNG, WebP, or
JPEG should be used, and cleverer algorithms to be applied to Guacamole's
cost optimizer, it's unlikely to be as simple as "just use WebP" and
unlikely to produce the order-of-magnitude improvement you would need to
fit all those connections in 50 Mbps.
- Mike
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear,
Thanks your valuable replay .
I observe that when data send from server to client in image/PNG and PNG
take to much bandwidth rather than *Webp.*
*Please guide us how i am enable or decode image data/PNG to image
data/Webp in guacamole server with tomcat with compression?*
On Sun, 1 Mar 2020 at 01:40, Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 6:17 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear mike,
>>
>> We have captured the Guacamole screen recording as per your suggestions.
>> please find attachment and guide us what data is sent .
>>
>
> Looking through the recording, everything looks absolutely fine. All
> updates are incremental, and updates to large parts of the screen are only
> sent when those parts of the screen have indeed changed. This change is
> sometimes subtle (a window border changes color due to losing focus, drop
> shadow appears in front of something that otherwise hasn't changed, buttons
> become enabled/disabled, etc.), but the changes are there.
>
> The raw data is just over 5 MB and covers a session around 8 minutes in
> length. Average bandwidth usage over that timeframe would have been around
> 86 Kbps (10 KB/s), however that actually would have been closer to 57 Kbps
> (7 KB/s) with the additional gzip compression typically applied between
> Tomcat and the browser.
>
> There is no problem here.
>
> How we can see that file data?
>>
>
> You can manually walk through the data - the Guacamole protocol is text
> and is documented:
>
> http://guacamole.apache.org/doc/gug/guacamole-protocol.html
> http://guacamole.apache.org/doc/gug/protocol-reference.html
>
> You can also play back the recording in-browser and watch as parts of the
> recording are decoded. There's an example of this in the Guacamole source:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/guacamole-client/tree/master/doc/guacamole-playback-example
>
> There's also a third-party hosted version of the above which I wrote for
> my day job that has some modifications to support loading larger files:
>
> https://player.glyptodon.com/
>
> - Mike
>
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 6:17 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear mike,
>
> We have captured the Guacamole screen recording as per your suggestions.
> please find attachment and guide us what data is sent .
>
Looking through the recording, everything looks absolutely fine. All
updates are incremental, and updates to large parts of the screen are only
sent when those parts of the screen have indeed changed. This change is
sometimes subtle (a window border changes color due to losing focus, drop
shadow appears in front of something that otherwise hasn't changed, buttons
become enabled/disabled, etc.), but the changes are there.
The raw data is just over 5 MB and covers a session around 8 minutes in
length. Average bandwidth usage over that timeframe would have been around
86 Kbps (10 KB/s), however that actually would have been closer to 57 Kbps
(7 KB/s) with the additional gzip compression typically applied between
Tomcat and the browser.
There is no problem here.
How we can see that file data?
>
You can manually walk through the data - the Guacamole protocol is text and
is documented:
http://guacamole.apache.org/doc/gug/guacamole-protocol.html
http://guacamole.apache.org/doc/gug/protocol-reference.html
You can also play back the recording in-browser and watch as parts of the
recording are decoded. There's an example of this in the Guacamole source:
https://github.com/apache/guacamole-client/tree/master/doc/guacamole-playback-example
There's also a third-party hosted version of the above which I wrote for my
day job that has some modifications to support loading larger files:
https://player.glyptodon.com/
- Mike
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear mike,
We have captured the Guacamole screen recording as per your suggestions.
please find attachment and guide us what data is sent .
How we can see that file data?
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 14:50, Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 20:17 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Mike,
>>
>> I am capture the screen as per your suggestion , when i am opening the
>> first screen of my app. this screen will download as image/png and again i
>> am opening same screen again this screen will be download .
>>
>> all above i am capture and send a snapshots for the reference . please
>> check and guide us.
>>
>
> Not screen captures / screenshots, a Guacamole screen recording, as
> produced by Guacamole when you enable screen recording on a connection. It
> is effectively a raw protocol dump and would show what is actually sent,
> when, and in what context.
>
> - Mike
>
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 20:17 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mike,
>
> I am capture the screen as per your suggestion , when i am opening the
> first screen of my app. this screen will download as image/png and again i
> am opening same screen again this screen will be download .
>
> all above i am capture and send a snapshots for the reference . please
> check and guide us.
>
Not screen captures / screenshots, a Guacamole screen recording, as
produced by Guacamole when you enable screen recording on a connection. It
is effectively a raw protocol dump and would show what is actually sent,
when, and in what context.
- Mike
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear Mike,
I am capture the screen as per your suggestion , when i am opening the
first screen of my app. this screen will download as image/png and again i
am opening same screen again this screen will be download .
all above i am capture and send a snapshots for the reference . please
check and guide us.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 23:46, Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:34 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Mike,
>>
>> Today we have measured bandwidth utilization using another verified tool
>> on our server and had below observations :
>>
>> 1. It seems that whenever *single *user session is in idle mode (No
>> screen change) , the bandwidth utilization is almost 707 B/s (which is low)
>>
>
> OK.
>
>
>> 2. And whenever *single * session is active(means Screen changes with
>> user inputs) , the bandwidth utilization is almost 30-40 KB/s which is too
>> high for us for single user session.
>>
>
> That may be too high for the amount of bandwidth you've allocated (50
> Mbps) for 600 concurrent connections, but it is not too high nor unexpected
> for a single session. For an active session, this is low bandwidth.
> Multiplied by 600, it is beyond what will fit in what you've allocated, but
> this is not an issue with Guacamole; you have simply allocated way too few
> network resources for what is a very large load.
>
> From these observations, We might say that whenever screen changes on
>> remote session, frames for whole screen are transferred every time over n/w
>> and hence causes high data flow which leads to high bandwidth utilization.
>> (This also happens whenever same screen/window is opened repeatedly).
>>
>
> No. Guacamole does not send the whole screen each time something changes.
> It sends only the changes. As mentioned earlier, if you want to see what
> Guacamole is sending, you need to capture a screen recording.
>
> The only case where Guacamole will send the entire screen is if the entire
> screen has changed.
>
> FYR i have attached screen shots for single user session in both idle
>> and active state.
>>
>> Urging you to check the same and guide us further to work on frames
>> transferred over n/w and how to tune it ?
>>
>
> I don't believe there is anything to be tuned on the Guacamole side. My
> expectation is that a screen recording would show that only the changed
> regions are being sent, and that the most appropriate compression is being
> used for those regions.
>
> On your network, if you intend to support 600 concurrent connections, you
> really need to allocate more than a single 50 Mbps line. As resource
> consumption will be bursty, not constant, you can likely get away with less
> than simply multiplying the bandwidth of an average connection by 600, but
> 50 Mbps is just not realistic.
>
> - Mike
>
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:34 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mike,
>
> Today we have measured bandwidth utilization using another verified tool
> on our server and had below observations :
>
> 1. It seems that whenever *single *user session is in idle mode (No
> screen change) , the bandwidth utilization is almost 707 B/s (which is low)
>
OK.
> 2. And whenever *single * session is active(means Screen changes with
> user inputs) , the bandwidth utilization is almost 30-40 KB/s which is too
> high for us for single user session.
>
That may be too high for the amount of bandwidth you've allocated (50 Mbps)
for 600 concurrent connections, but it is not too high nor unexpected for a
single session. For an active session, this is low bandwidth. Multiplied by
600, it is beyond what will fit in what you've allocated, but this is not
an issue with Guacamole; you have simply allocated way too few network
resources for what is a very large load.
From these observations, We might say that whenever screen changes on
> remote session, frames for whole screen are transferred every time over n/w
> and hence causes high data flow which leads to high bandwidth utilization.
> (This also happens whenever same screen/window is opened repeatedly).
>
No. Guacamole does not send the whole screen each time something changes.
It sends only the changes. As mentioned earlier, if you want to see what
Guacamole is sending, you need to capture a screen recording.
The only case where Guacamole will send the entire screen is if the entire
screen has changed.
FYR i have attached screen shots for single user session in both idle and
> active state.
>
> Urging you to check the same and guide us further to work on frames
> transferred over n/w and how to tune it ?
>
I don't believe there is anything to be tuned on the Guacamole side. My
expectation is that a screen recording would show that only the changed
regions are being sent, and that the most appropriate compression is being
used for those regions.
On your network, if you intend to support 600 concurrent connections, you
really need to allocate more than a single 50 Mbps line. As resource
consumption will be bursty, not constant, you can likely get away with less
than simply multiplying the bandwidth of an average connection by 600, but
50 Mbps is just not realistic.
- Mike
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear Mike,
Today we have measured bandwidth utilization using another verified tool on
our server and had below observations :
1. It seems that whenever *single *user session is in idle mode (No screen
change) , the bandwidth utilization is almost 707 B/s (which is low)
2. And whenever *single * session is active(means Screen changes with user
inputs) , the bandwidth utilization is almost 30-40 KB/s which is too high
for us for single user session.
From these observations, We might say that whenever screen changes on
remote session, frames for whole screen are transferred every time over n/w
and hence causes high data flow which leads to high bandwidth utilization.
(This also happens whenever same screen/window is opened repeatedly).
FYR i have attached screen shots for single user session in both idle and
active state.
Urging you to check the same and guide us further to work on frames
transferred over n/w and how to tune it ?
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 12:52, Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mike/Nick,
>
> For your below question, PF below reply.
>
> Sean makes a really good point, and, really, it brings us back to one of
> Mike's questions, Manoj: what problem are you trying to solve? Are you
> seeing congestion on the network when you use Guacamole? Is the Guacamole
> connection unreliable or slow or choppy? Are you seeing high resource
> utilization for the Guacamole components or the web browser?
>
> *--Our problem is high bandwidth utilization (around 90 kbps per user
> connection) and we want to reduce this anyhow. Because we have only 50 mbps
> MPLS link and we have deployed and running more than 600 user sessions in
> parallel. So this bandwidth is not sufficient and s/w gets slow with
> degraded performance. *
>
> *--Is there anyway using which we can reduce this bandwidth (90 kbps) to
> at least 10-20 kbps ? or can we increase tunnel keep alive checking
> timeouts at guacamole client and server side so as to reduce frequent data
> transfer over network.*
>
> *--If so please do let us know. this will greatly appreciated and our
> clients will be more happy to use our solution.*
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 00:39, Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Manoj, Guacamole will not send image data if the connection is idle.
>> Images are sent only when content on the screen is changing and only for
>> the part of the screen that changed.
>>
>> Earlier in this conversation, you described 90 Kbps. This has now become
>> 1.8 Mbps. I assume you are now measuring something completely different,
>> and the connection is extremely active?
>>
>> I'm still not seeing what problem you're trying to solve. The fact that
>> this doesn't match our own measurements notwithstanding, slightly higher
>> idle bandwidth usage is unlikely to be the cause of any actual problem.
>> Framing overhead could easily cause Guacamole's bandwidth usage to be
>> higher than RDP when things are idle, but would be become negligible when
>> things are actually in use, at which point Guacamole's bandwidth usage
>> would be expected to be lower than the underlying RDP connection.
>>
>> Perhaps you could configure the Guacamole connection in question to
>> capture a screen recording? If you capture a screen recording via Guacamole
>> and send it our way, that will essentially be a raw protocol dump and
>> should allow us to see exactly what's happening behind the scenes,
>> including what data is transferred and when.
>>
>> - Mike
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 10:47 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi nick,
>>>
>>> Yes , I am seeing encoded images at idle connection and frequently
>>> packet send recive ACK and SYN through server to client and vice versa .
>>>
>>> I am seeing high resource utilization for the Guacamole components on
>>> the web browser.
>>>
>>> I am also cross check bandwidth utilization RDP with using MSTSC ActiveX
>>> control its too less (1.3 kbps) in running mode . in idle mode they can not
>>> utilized network .
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Feb 2020, 00:00 Nick Couchman, <vn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:35 PM Sean Reid <se...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Manoj,
>>>>>
>>>>> Guacd has a few formats at its disposal to send images: PNG, JPEG, and
>>>>> optionally webp. PNG is lossless, JPEG and webp are lossy. Guacd chooses
>>>>> heuristically which it will use based on things like the current framerate,
>>>>> the size of the image, and whether or not PNG is just better at accurately
>>>>> representing the frame content. These heuristics are not user-controllable,
>>>>> so the fact that guacd is choosing PNG means that it is the optimal choice
>>>>> given the current state of the remote display.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sean
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:56 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only thing that I noticed is that there is no compression between
>>>>>> the server and the client. Meaning that full sized base64 encoded PNG
>>>>>> images are send to the client, which causes a high network load (~1.8mb/s)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well, 1.8 Mb/s may be a high network load on a 5 Mb/s shared MPLS
>>>> connection, but it isn't all that high on a 100 Mb/s network link. Also,
>>>> what are you doing when you see this utilization and base64-encoded PNG
>>>> images? Is this when the connection is idle? Or are you watching a
>>>> YouTube video on the remote system? It matters. And it seems like you've
>>>> jumped back and forth between talking about idle connections and now
>>>> talking about...?? There's very little context to your assertion, here.
>>>>
>>>> Sean makes a really good point, and, really, it brings us back to one
>>>> of Mike's questions, Manoj: what problem are you trying to solve? Are you
>>>> seeing congestion on the network when you use Guacamole? Is the Guacamole
>>>> connection unreliable or slow or choppy? Are you seeing high resource
>>>> utilization for the Guacamole components or the web browser?
>>>>
>>>> -Nick
>>>>
>>>>>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
> Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
> Nasik.
> Mobile No -+91-9922507588
> Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear Mike/Nick,
For your below question, PF below reply.
Sean makes a really good point, and, really, it brings us back to one of
Mike's questions, Manoj: what problem are you trying to solve? Are you
seeing congestion on the network when you use Guacamole? Is the Guacamole
connection unreliable or slow or choppy? Are you seeing high resource
utilization for the Guacamole components or the web browser?
*--Our problem is high bandwidth utilization (around 90 kbps per user
connection) and we want to reduce this anyhow. Because we have only 50 mbps
MPLS link and we have deployed and running more than 600 user sessions in
parallel. So this bandwidth is not sufficient and s/w gets slow with
degraded performance. *
*--Is there anyway using which we can reduce this bandwidth (90 kbps) to at
least 10-20 kbps ? or can we increase tunnel keep alive checking timeouts
at guacamole client and server side so as to reduce frequent data transfer
over network.*
*--If so please do let us know. this will greatly appreciated and our
clients will be more happy to use our solution.*
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 00:39, Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> Manoj, Guacamole will not send image data if the connection is idle.
> Images are sent only when content on the screen is changing and only for
> the part of the screen that changed.
>
> Earlier in this conversation, you described 90 Kbps. This has now become
> 1.8 Mbps. I assume you are now measuring something completely different,
> and the connection is extremely active?
>
> I'm still not seeing what problem you're trying to solve. The fact that
> this doesn't match our own measurements notwithstanding, slightly higher
> idle bandwidth usage is unlikely to be the cause of any actual problem.
> Framing overhead could easily cause Guacamole's bandwidth usage to be
> higher than RDP when things are idle, but would be become negligible when
> things are actually in use, at which point Guacamole's bandwidth usage
> would be expected to be lower than the underlying RDP connection.
>
> Perhaps you could configure the Guacamole connection in question to
> capture a screen recording? If you capture a screen recording via Guacamole
> and send it our way, that will essentially be a raw protocol dump and
> should allow us to see exactly what's happening behind the scenes,
> including what data is transferred and when.
>
> - Mike
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 10:47 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi nick,
>>
>> Yes , I am seeing encoded images at idle connection and frequently packet
>> send recive ACK and SYN through server to client and vice versa .
>>
>> I am seeing high resource utilization for the Guacamole components on
>> the web browser.
>>
>> I am also cross check bandwidth utilization RDP with using MSTSC ActiveX
>> control its too less (1.3 kbps) in running mode . in idle mode they can not
>> utilized network .
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Feb 2020, 00:00 Nick Couchman, <vn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:35 PM Sean Reid <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Manoj,
>>>>
>>>> Guacd has a few formats at its disposal to send images: PNG, JPEG, and
>>>> optionally webp. PNG is lossless, JPEG and webp are lossy. Guacd chooses
>>>> heuristically which it will use based on things like the current framerate,
>>>> the size of the image, and whether or not PNG is just better at accurately
>>>> representing the frame content. These heuristics are not user-controllable,
>>>> so the fact that guacd is choosing PNG means that it is the optimal choice
>>>> given the current state of the remote display.
>>>>
>>>> Sean
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:56 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The only thing that I noticed is that there is no compression between
>>>>> the server and the client. Meaning that full sized base64 encoded PNG
>>>>> images are send to the client, which causes a high network load (~1.8mb/s)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well, 1.8 Mb/s may be a high network load on a 5 Mb/s shared MPLS
>>> connection, but it isn't all that high on a 100 Mb/s network link. Also,
>>> what are you doing when you see this utilization and base64-encoded PNG
>>> images? Is this when the connection is idle? Or are you watching a
>>> YouTube video on the remote system? It matters. And it seems like you've
>>> jumped back and forth between talking about idle connections and now
>>> talking about...?? There's very little context to your assertion, here.
>>>
>>> Sean makes a really good point, and, really, it brings us back to one of
>>> Mike's questions, Manoj: what problem are you trying to solve? Are you
>>> seeing congestion on the network when you use Guacamole? Is the Guacamole
>>> connection unreliable or slow or choppy? Are you seeing high resource
>>> utilization for the Guacamole components or the web browser?
>>>
>>> -Nick
>>>
>>>>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
Manoj, Guacamole will not send image data if the connection is idle. Images
are sent only when content on the screen is changing and only for the part
of the screen that changed.
Earlier in this conversation, you described 90 Kbps. This has now become
1.8 Mbps. I assume you are now measuring something completely different,
and the connection is extremely active?
I'm still not seeing what problem you're trying to solve. The fact that
this doesn't match our own measurements notwithstanding, slightly higher
idle bandwidth usage is unlikely to be the cause of any actual problem.
Framing overhead could easily cause Guacamole's bandwidth usage to be
higher than RDP when things are idle, but would be become negligible when
things are actually in use, at which point Guacamole's bandwidth usage
would be expected to be lower than the underlying RDP connection.
Perhaps you could configure the Guacamole connection in question to capture
a screen recording? If you capture a screen recording via Guacamole and
send it our way, that will essentially be a raw protocol dump and should
allow us to see exactly what's happening behind the scenes, including what
data is transferred and when.
- Mike
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 10:47 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi nick,
>
> Yes , I am seeing encoded images at idle connection and frequently packet
> send recive ACK and SYN through server to client and vice versa .
>
> I am seeing high resource utilization for the Guacamole components on the
> web browser.
>
> I am also cross check bandwidth utilization RDP with using MSTSC ActiveX
> control its too less (1.3 kbps) in running mode . in idle mode they can not
> utilized network .
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2020, 00:00 Nick Couchman, <vn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:35 PM Sean Reid <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Manoj,
>>>
>>> Guacd has a few formats at its disposal to send images: PNG, JPEG, and
>>> optionally webp. PNG is lossless, JPEG and webp are lossy. Guacd chooses
>>> heuristically which it will use based on things like the current framerate,
>>> the size of the image, and whether or not PNG is just better at accurately
>>> representing the frame content. These heuristics are not user-controllable,
>>> so the fact that guacd is choosing PNG means that it is the optimal choice
>>> given the current state of the remote display.
>>>
>>> Sean
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:56 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only thing that I noticed is that there is no compression between
>>>> the server and the client. Meaning that full sized base64 encoded PNG
>>>> images are send to the client, which causes a high network load (~1.8mb/s)
>>>>
>>>
>> Well, 1.8 Mb/s may be a high network load on a 5 Mb/s shared MPLS
>> connection, but it isn't all that high on a 100 Mb/s network link. Also,
>> what are you doing when you see this utilization and base64-encoded PNG
>> images? Is this when the connection is idle? Or are you watching a
>> YouTube video on the remote system? It matters. And it seems like you've
>> jumped back and forth between talking about idle connections and now
>> talking about...?? There's very little context to your assertion, here.
>>
>> Sean makes a really good point, and, really, it brings us back to one of
>> Mike's questions, Manoj: what problem are you trying to solve? Are you
>> seeing congestion on the network when you use Guacamole? Is the Guacamole
>> connection unreliable or slow or choppy? Are you seeing high resource
>> utilization for the Guacamole components or the web browser?
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>>>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi nick,
Yes , I am seeing encoded images at idle connection and frequently packet
send recive ACK and SYN through server to client and vice versa .
I am seeing high resource utilization for the Guacamole components on the
web browser.
I am also cross check bandwidth utilization RDP with using MSTSC ActiveX
control its too less (1.3 kbps) in running mode . in idle mode they can not
utilized network .
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020, 00:00 Nick Couchman, <vn...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:35 PM Sean Reid <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Manoj,
>>
>> Guacd has a few formats at its disposal to send images: PNG, JPEG, and
>> optionally webp. PNG is lossless, JPEG and webp are lossy. Guacd chooses
>> heuristically which it will use based on things like the current framerate,
>> the size of the image, and whether or not PNG is just better at accurately
>> representing the frame content. These heuristics are not user-controllable,
>> so the fact that guacd is choosing PNG means that it is the optimal choice
>> given the current state of the remote display.
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:56 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing that I noticed is that there is no compression between
>>> the server and the client. Meaning that full sized base64 encoded PNG
>>> images are send to the client, which causes a high network load (~1.8mb/s)
>>>
>>
> Well, 1.8 Mb/s may be a high network load on a 5 Mb/s shared MPLS
> connection, but it isn't all that high on a 100 Mb/s network link. Also,
> what are you doing when you see this utilization and base64-encoded PNG
> images? Is this when the connection is idle? Or are you watching a
> YouTube video on the remote system? It matters. And it seems like you've
> jumped back and forth between talking about idle connections and now
> talking about...?? There's very little context to your assertion, here.
>
> Sean makes a really good point, and, really, it brings us back to one of
> Mike's questions, Manoj: what problem are you trying to solve? Are you
> seeing congestion on the network when you use Guacamole? Is the Guacamole
> connection unreliable or slow or choppy? Are you seeing high resource
> utilization for the Guacamole components or the web browser?
>
> -Nick
>
>>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Nick Couchman <vn...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:35 PM Sean Reid <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Manoj,
>
> Guacd has a few formats at its disposal to send images: PNG, JPEG, and
> optionally webp. PNG is lossless, JPEG and webp are lossy. Guacd chooses
> heuristically which it will use based on things like the current framerate,
> the size of the image, and whether or not PNG is just better at accurately
> representing the frame content. These heuristics are not user-controllable,
> so the fact that guacd is choosing PNG means that it is the optimal choice
> given the current state of the remote display.
>
> Sean
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:56 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The only thing that I noticed is that there is no compression between the
>> server and the client. Meaning that full sized base64 encoded PNG images
>> are send to the client, which causes a high network load (~1.8mb/s)
>>
>
Well, 1.8 Mb/s may be a high network load on a 5 Mb/s shared MPLS
connection, but it isn't all that high on a 100 Mb/s network link. Also,
what are you doing when you see this utilization and base64-encoded PNG
images? Is this when the connection is idle? Or are you watching a
YouTube video on the remote system? It matters. And it seems like you've
jumped back and forth between talking about idle connections and now
talking about...?? There's very little context to your assertion, here.
Sean makes a really good point, and, really, it brings us back to one of
Mike's questions, Manoj: what problem are you trying to solve? Are you
seeing congestion on the network when you use Guacamole? Is the Guacamole
connection unreliable or slow or choppy? Are you seeing high resource
utilization for the Guacamole components or the web browser?
-Nick
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Sean Reid <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi Manoj,
Guacd has a few formats at its disposal to send images: PNG, JPEG, and
optionally webp. PNG is lossless, JPEG and webp are lossy. Guacd chooses
heuristically which it will use based on things like the current framerate,
the size of the image, and whether or not PNG is just better at accurately
representing the frame content. These heuristics are not user-controllable,
so the fact that guacd is choosing PNG means that it is the optimal choice
given the current state of the remote display.
Sean
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:56 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only thing that I noticed is that there is no compression between the
> server and the client. Meaning that full sized base64 encoded PNG images
> are send to the client, which causes a high network load (~1.8mb/s)
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020, 09:05 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> No, unless the RDP server is horribly broken, Guacamole will receive only
>> incremental updates for the changed portions of the screen, and will only
>> forward incremental updates to the client.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 18:46 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> I am really see on chrome when I am open a forms or any gui those are
>>> see at client side network tab.
>>> I think this is rendring.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020, 00:24 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 10:35 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi mike
>>>>>
>>>>> Help me in that matter how I am decrypt the tcp packet. And find out
>>>>> what data is travel?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am using domain name with https connection.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can't. You need to capture the data at a point where it is not
>>>> encrypted.
>>>>
>>>> - Mike
>>>>
>>>>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
The only thing that I noticed is that there is no compression between the
server and the client. Meaning that full sized base64 encoded PNG images
are send to the client, which causes a high network load (~1.8mb/s)
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020, 09:05 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> No, unless the RDP server is horribly broken, Guacamole will receive only
> incremental updates for the changed portions of the screen, and will only
> forward incremental updates to the client.
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 18:46 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I am really see on chrome when I am open a forms or any gui those are
>> see at client side network tab.
>> I think this is rendring.
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020, 00:24 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 10:35 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi mike
>>>>
>>>> Help me in that matter how I am decrypt the tcp packet. And find out
>>>> what data is travel?
>>>>
>>>> I am using domain name with https connection.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't. You need to capture the data at a point where it is not
>>> encrypted.
>>>
>>> - Mike
>>>
>>>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
No, unless the RDP server is horribly broken, Guacamole will receive only
incremental updates for the changed portions of the screen, and will only
forward incremental updates to the client.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 18:46 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I am really see on chrome when I am open a forms or any gui those are
> see at client side network tab.
> I think this is rendring.
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020, 00:24 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 10:35 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi mike
>>>
>>> Help me in that matter how I am decrypt the tcp packet. And find out
>>> what data is travel?
>>>
>>> I am using domain name with https connection.
>>>
>>
>> You can't. You need to capture the data at a point where it is not
>> encrypted.
>>
>> - Mike
>>
>>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Mike,
I am really see on chrome when I am open a forms or any gui those are see
at client side network tab.
I think this is rendring.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020, 00:24 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 10:35 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi mike
>>
>> Help me in that matter how I am decrypt the tcp packet. And find out what
>> data is travel?
>>
>> I am using domain name with https connection.
>>
>
> You can't. You need to capture the data at a point where it is not
> encrypted.
>
> - Mike
>
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 10:35 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi mike
>
> Help me in that matter how I am decrypt the tcp packet. And find out what
> data is travel?
>
> I am using domain name with https connection.
>
You can't. You need to capture the data at a point where it is not
encrypted.
- Mike
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi mike
Help me in that matter how I am decrypt the tcp packet. And find out what
data is travel?
I am using domain name with https connection.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020, 23:44 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 10:09 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi ,
>>
>> I am see in browser Guacamole send full-screen images from the server
>> to the client.
>> Can this is utilized bandwidth?
>>
>
> No, Guacamole does not do this.
>
> Guacamole sends incremental rectangles of image data, *not* full screen
> images. Only changed regions are sent, with those regions compressed using
> an appropriate format.
>
> The only time that Guacamole will send a full screen image is if the
> entire screen has changed.
>
> Sending full screen images would also use far more bandwidth than the
> miniscule 90 Kbps you have observed.
>
> - Mike
>
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 10:09 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> I am see in browser Guacamole send full-screen images from the server to
> the client.
> Can this is utilized bandwidth?
>
No, Guacamole does not do this.
Guacamole sends incremental rectangles of image data, *not* full screen
images. Only changed regions are sent, with those regions compressed using
an appropriate format.
The only time that Guacamole will send a full screen image is if the entire
screen has changed.
Sending full screen images would also use far more bandwidth than the
miniscule 90 Kbps you have observed.
- Mike
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi ,
I am see in browser Guacamole send full-screen images from the server to
the client.
Can this is utilized bandwidth?
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020, 06:08 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 16:31 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Mike ,
>>
>> I am continuously check http request and capture the packet I see ACK is
>> continuously from server to client side and client to server s oh side in
>> idle session .
>>
>
> ACK packets are just part of TCP. You need to actually look at the data
> being transferred to see what's happening at the Guacamole level.
>
> Please help us in how can I check at my end to find out where is the
>> problem of high bandwidth utilization.
>>
>
> 90 Kbps is not high bandwidth. You might be able to figure out why what
> you're seeing is above average (I measure 17 Kbps on my end, for example),
> but really ... I'm not sure you're chasing the right issue.
>
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 16:31 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Mike ,
>
> I am continuously check http request and capture the packet I see ACK is
> continuously from server to client side and client to server s oh side in
> idle session .
>
ACK packets are just part of TCP. You need to actually look at the data
being transferred to see what's happening at the Guacamole level.
Please help us in how can I check at my end to find out where is the
> problem of high bandwidth utilization.
>
90 Kbps is not high bandwidth. You might be able to figure out why what
you're seeing is above average (I measure 17 Kbps on my end, for example),
but really ... I'm not sure you're chasing the right issue.
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Mike ,
I am continuously check http request and capture the packet I see ACK is
continuously from server to client side and client to server s oh side in
idle session .
Please help us in how can I check at my end to find out where is the
problem of high bandwidth utilization.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020, 05:42 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 16:03 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear mike,
>>
>> In last reply of Nick he said there is any traffic of audio and I am
>> check the http traffic and send you I see the the word in this traffic is
>> guac_audio . but I am not enable the audio settings .
>>
>
> That is not audio traffic. It's just a declaration of what the client
> supports. If you disabled audio, you won't receive any.
>
> - Mike
>
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 16:03 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear mike,
>
> In last reply of Nick he said there is any traffic of audio and I am
> check the http traffic and send you I see the the word in this traffic is
> guac_audio . but I am not enable the audio settings .
>
That is not audio traffic. It's just a declaration of what the client
supports. If you disabled audio, you won't receive any.
- Mike
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Dear mike,
In last reply of Nick he said there is any traffic of audio and I am check
the http traffic and send you I see the the word in this traffic is
guac_audio . but I am not enable the audio settings .
Please check http request and guide us
GET
/aceBankCBS/websocket-tunnel?token=010A36823D3FF22287309A8C592C1B046E50465362DC4F6B9CE1C2E53A2489CB&GUAC_DATA_SOURCE=mysql&GUAC_ID=274&GUAC_TYPE=c&GUAC_WIDTH=1366&GUAC_HEIGHT=635&GUAC_DPI=96&GUAC_AUDIO=audio%2FL8&GUAC_AUDIO=audio%2FL16&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fjpeg&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fpng&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fwebp
HTTP/1.1
Host: 103.115.232.22:2790
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0
Accept: */*
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13
Origin: http://103.115.232.22:2790
Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: guacamole
Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: permessage-deflate
Sec-WebSocket-Key: Zvk3/kV4ybnfVqM+QwtUYA==
DNT: 1
Connection: keep-alive, Upgrade
Pragma: no-cache
Cache-Control: no-cache
Upgrade: websocket
HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
Server: Apache-Coyote/1.1
Upgrade: websocket
Connection: upgrade
Sec-WebSocket-Accept: D6A8C+QV7sHMKnLCckBZKowuOCA=
Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: guacamole
Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: permessage-deflate
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 07:08:18 GMT
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, 23:27 Mike Jumper, <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> Manoj, what are you trying to ask? I'm confused about what is confusing
> here. The last response to your question about disabling audio explains
> exactly that, and points to documentation which also explains this.
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 09:08 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> GET
>> /aceBankCBS/websocket-tunnel?token=010A36823D3FF22287309A8C592C1B046E50465362DC4F6B9CE1C2E53A2489CB&GUAC_DATA_SOURCE=mysql&GUAC_ID=274&GUAC_TYPE=c&GUAC_WIDTH=1366&GUAC_HEIGHT=635&GUAC_DPI=96&GUAC_AUDIO=audio%2FL8&GUAC_AUDIO=audio%2FL16&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fjpeg&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fpng&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fwebp
>> HTTP/1.1
>> Host: 103.115.232.22:2790
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:68.0)
>> Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0
>> Accept: */*
>> Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
>> Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
>> Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13
>> Origin: http://103.115.232.22:2790
>> Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: guacamole
>> Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: permessage-deflate
>> Sec-WebSocket-Key: Zvk3/kV4ybnfVqM+QwtUYA==
>> DNT: 1
>> Connection: keep-alive, Upgrade
>> Pragma: no-cache
>> Cache-Control: no-cache
>> Upgrade: websocket
>>
>> HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
>> Server: Apache-Coyote/1.1
>> Upgrade: websocket
>> Connection: upgrade
>> Sec-WebSocket-Accept: D6A8C+QV7sHMKnLCckBZKowuOCA=
>> Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: guacamole
>> Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: permessage-deflate
>> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 07:08:18 GMT
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, 22:13 Manoj Patil, <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Today I am see in tcp and web socket packet there is audio traffic is
>>> found but I am not enable the audio I think by default audio is enable
>>> when guacamole is install .
>>>
>>> Please guide us how to disable the audio communication from server to
>>> client and viceversa .
>>>
>>> I am using mysql authentication.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, 14:30 ivanmarcus, <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the Guacamole GUI there's a tickbox 'disable audio'
>>>>
>>>> You could also check this out:
>>>>
>>>> http://guacamole.apache.org/doc/gug/configuring-guacamole.html
>>>>
>>>> which explains how the audio works (and from that perhaps how you might
>>>> deal with it in your configuration).
>>>>
>>>> On 16/02/2020 12:05 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>> I agree to we can not send u un- encrypted traffic for checking but as
>>>> per discussion I ask you how to check at guacamole end if audio is enabled?
>>>> And if enabled then give me solution for disable the audio streaming
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020, 22:19 Nick Couchman, <vn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:03 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Mike,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have investigate further and there in we found that there's an
>>>>>> continues ACK/SYN/PING traffic flows between server and client for an
>>>>>> absolutely idle session.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this is by design - the Guacamole protocol has built-in
>>>>> mechanisms to verify that the connection is still active and prevent the
>>>>> server (guacd) from dropping the connection. However, as Mike stated, the
>>>>> amount of traffic generates solely for keeping alive an idle connection is
>>>>> very low - 17Kb/s - so it does not account for all of the traffic you are
>>>>> seeing - something else is going on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Due to which number of packets and in turn data exchange
>>>>>> increases continuously for an absolutely idle session.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely idle is a little bit of a misnomer, here. If a session is
>>>>> in progress, it will *never* be "absolutely idle" - that is, there will
>>>>> always be some amount of minimal data exchange in order to keep the session
>>>>> alive - else it will shut down. This is true of pretty much any protocol -
>>>>> RDP, VNC, SSH, Telnet, and Guacamole - all will have some minimal amount of
>>>>> overhead client/server traffic even when there are no mouse/keyboard
>>>>> actions and the screen is not being updated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please guide us on how to stop continues server
>>>>>> PING/NOP/ACK/SYN ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, this cannot be disabled without changing the code, and the result
>>>>> would be undesirable - the remote connection would shut down. And, this
>>>>> isn't a problem - again, the amount of data you're seeing shows that
>>>>> something else is going on aside from a completely idle connection. You
>>>>> might check and see if audio is being generated that would account for the
>>>>> higher bandwidth utilization, or if file sharing is enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, as Mike said, in order to truly debug what's going on, here, you
>>>>> need to look at the traffic un-encrypted. This will allow you to see the
>>>>> actual Guacamole protocol packets that are being exchanged and figure out
>>>>> where the data is coming from.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Nick
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
Manoj, what are you trying to ask? I'm confused about what is confusing
here. The last response to your question about disabling audio explains
exactly that, and points to documentation which also explains this.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 09:08 Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> GET
> /aceBankCBS/websocket-tunnel?token=010A36823D3FF22287309A8C592C1B046E50465362DC4F6B9CE1C2E53A2489CB&GUAC_DATA_SOURCE=mysql&GUAC_ID=274&GUAC_TYPE=c&GUAC_WIDTH=1366&GUAC_HEIGHT=635&GUAC_DPI=96&GUAC_AUDIO=audio%2FL8&GUAC_AUDIO=audio%2FL16&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fjpeg&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fpng&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fwebp
> HTTP/1.1
> Host: 103.115.232.22:2790
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:68.0)
> Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0
> Accept: */*
> Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
> Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
> Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13
> Origin: http://103.115.232.22:2790
> Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: guacamole
> Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: permessage-deflate
> Sec-WebSocket-Key: Zvk3/kV4ybnfVqM+QwtUYA==
> DNT: 1
> Connection: keep-alive, Upgrade
> Pragma: no-cache
> Cache-Control: no-cache
> Upgrade: websocket
>
> HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
> Server: Apache-Coyote/1.1
> Upgrade: websocket
> Connection: upgrade
> Sec-WebSocket-Accept: D6A8C+QV7sHMKnLCckBZKowuOCA=
> Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: guacamole
> Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: permessage-deflate
> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 07:08:18 GMT
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, 22:13 Manoj Patil, <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Today I am see in tcp and web socket packet there is audio traffic is
>> found but I am not enable the audio I think by default audio is enable
>> when guacamole is install .
>>
>> Please guide us how to disable the audio communication from server to
>> client and viceversa .
>>
>> I am using mysql authentication.
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, 14:30 ivanmarcus, <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the Guacamole GUI there's a tickbox 'disable audio'
>>>
>>> You could also check this out:
>>>
>>> http://guacamole.apache.org/doc/gug/configuring-guacamole.html
>>>
>>> which explains how the audio works (and from that perhaps how you might
>>> deal with it in your configuration).
>>>
>>> On 16/02/2020 12:05 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>> I agree to we can not send u un- encrypted traffic for checking but as
>>> per discussion I ask you how to check at guacamole end if audio is enabled?
>>> And if enabled then give me solution for disable the audio streaming
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020, 22:19 Nick Couchman, <vn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:03 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have investigate further and there in we found that there's an
>>>>> continues ACK/SYN/PING traffic flows between server and client for an
>>>>> absolutely idle session.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is by design - the Guacamole protocol has built-in mechanisms
>>>> to verify that the connection is still active and prevent the server
>>>> (guacd) from dropping the connection. However, as Mike stated, the amount
>>>> of traffic generates solely for keeping alive an idle connection is very
>>>> low - 17Kb/s - so it does not account for all of the traffic you are seeing
>>>> - something else is going on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Due to which number of packets and in turn data exchange
>>>>> increases continuously for an absolutely idle session.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely idle is a little bit of a misnomer, here. If a session is
>>>> in progress, it will *never* be "absolutely idle" - that is, there will
>>>> always be some amount of minimal data exchange in order to keep the session
>>>> alive - else it will shut down. This is true of pretty much any protocol -
>>>> RDP, VNC, SSH, Telnet, and Guacamole - all will have some minimal amount of
>>>> overhead client/server traffic even when there are no mouse/keyboard
>>>> actions and the screen is not being updated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please guide us on how to stop continues server
>>>>> PING/NOP/ACK/SYN ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, this cannot be disabled without changing the code, and the result
>>>> would be undesirable - the remote connection would shut down. And, this
>>>> isn't a problem - again, the amount of data you're seeing shows that
>>>> something else is going on aside from a completely idle connection. You
>>>> might check and see if audio is being generated that would account for the
>>>> higher bandwidth utilization, or if file sharing is enabled.
>>>>
>>>> And, as Mike said, in order to truly debug what's going on, here, you
>>>> need to look at the traffic un-encrypted. This will allow you to see the
>>>> actual Guacamole protocol packets that are being exchanged and figure out
>>>> where the data is coming from.
>>>>
>>>> -Nick
>>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
GET
/aceBankCBS/websocket-tunnel?token=010A36823D3FF22287309A8C592C1B046E50465362DC4F6B9CE1C2E53A2489CB&GUAC_DATA_SOURCE=mysql&GUAC_ID=274&GUAC_TYPE=c&GUAC_WIDTH=1366&GUAC_HEIGHT=635&GUAC_DPI=96&GUAC_AUDIO=audio%2FL8&GUAC_AUDIO=audio%2FL16&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fjpeg&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fpng&GUAC_IMAGE=image%2Fwebp
HTTP/1.1
Host: 103.115.232.22:2790
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0
Accept: */*
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13
Origin: http://103.115.232.22:2790
Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: guacamole
Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: permessage-deflate
Sec-WebSocket-Key: Zvk3/kV4ybnfVqM+QwtUYA==
DNT: 1
Connection: keep-alive, Upgrade
Pragma: no-cache
Cache-Control: no-cache
Upgrade: websocket
HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
Server: Apache-Coyote/1.1
Upgrade: websocket
Connection: upgrade
Sec-WebSocket-Accept: D6A8C+QV7sHMKnLCckBZKowuOCA=
Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: guacamole
Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: permessage-deflate
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 07:08:18 GMT
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, 22:13 Manoj Patil, <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Today I am see in tcp and web socket packet there is audio traffic is
> found but I am not enable the audio I think by default audio is enable
> when guacamole is install .
>
> Please guide us how to disable the audio communication from server to
> client and viceversa .
>
> I am using mysql authentication.
>
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, 14:30 ivanmarcus, <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In the Guacamole GUI there's a tickbox 'disable audio'
>>
>> You could also check this out:
>>
>> http://guacamole.apache.org/doc/gug/configuring-guacamole.html
>>
>> which explains how the audio works (and from that perhaps how you might
>> deal with it in your configuration).
>>
>> On 16/02/2020 12:05 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>> I agree to we can not send u un- encrypted traffic for checking but as
>> per discussion I ask you how to check at guacamole end if audio is enabled?
>> And if enabled then give me solution for disable the audio streaming
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020, 22:19 Nick Couchman, <vn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:03 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Mike,
>>>>
>>>> We have investigate further and there in we found that there's an
>>>> continues ACK/SYN/PING traffic flows between server and client for an
>>>> absolutely idle session.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, this is by design - the Guacamole protocol has built-in mechanisms
>>> to verify that the connection is still active and prevent the server
>>> (guacd) from dropping the connection. However, as Mike stated, the amount
>>> of traffic generates solely for keeping alive an idle connection is very
>>> low - 17Kb/s - so it does not account for all of the traffic you are seeing
>>> - something else is going on.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Due to which number of packets and in turn data exchange
>>>> increases continuously for an absolutely idle session.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely idle is a little bit of a misnomer, here. If a session is in
>>> progress, it will *never* be "absolutely idle" - that is, there will always
>>> be some amount of minimal data exchange in order to keep the session alive
>>> - else it will shut down. This is true of pretty much any protocol - RDP,
>>> VNC, SSH, Telnet, and Guacamole - all will have some minimal amount of
>>> overhead client/server traffic even when there are no mouse/keyboard
>>> actions and the screen is not being updated.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you please guide us on how to stop continues server
>>>> PING/NOP/ACK/SYN ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, this cannot be disabled without changing the code, and the result
>>> would be undesirable - the remote connection would shut down. And, this
>>> isn't a problem - again, the amount of data you're seeing shows that
>>> something else is going on aside from a completely idle connection. You
>>> might check and see if audio is being generated that would account for the
>>> higher bandwidth utilization, or if file sharing is enabled.
>>>
>>> And, as Mike said, in order to truly debug what's going on, here, you
>>> need to look at the traffic un-encrypted. This will allow you to see the
>>> actual Guacamole protocol packets that are being exchanged and figure out
>>> where the data is coming from.
>>>
>>> -Nick
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi all
Today I am see in tcp and web socket packet there is audio traffic is
found but I am not enable the audio I think by default audio is enable
when guacamole is install .
Please guide us how to disable the audio communication from server to
client and viceversa .
I am using mysql authentication.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, 14:30 ivanmarcus, <iv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> In the Guacamole GUI there's a tickbox 'disable audio'
>
> You could also check this out:
>
> http://guacamole.apache.org/doc/gug/configuring-guacamole.html
>
> which explains how the audio works (and from that perhaps how you might
> deal with it in your configuration).
>
> On 16/02/2020 12:05 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
>
> Hi
> I agree to we can not send u un- encrypted traffic for checking but as per
> discussion I ask you how to check at guacamole end if audio is enabled? And
> if enabled then give me solution for disable the audio streaming
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020, 22:19 Nick Couchman, <vn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:03 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Mike,
>>>
>>> We have investigate further and there in we found that there's an
>>> continues ACK/SYN/PING traffic flows between server and client for an
>>> absolutely idle session.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, this is by design - the Guacamole protocol has built-in mechanisms
>> to verify that the connection is still active and prevent the server
>> (guacd) from dropping the connection. However, as Mike stated, the amount
>> of traffic generates solely for keeping alive an idle connection is very
>> low - 17Kb/s - so it does not account for all of the traffic you are seeing
>> - something else is going on.
>>
>>
>>> Due to which number of packets and in turn data exchange
>>> increases continuously for an absolutely idle session.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely idle is a little bit of a misnomer, here. If a session is in
>> progress, it will *never* be "absolutely idle" - that is, there will always
>> be some amount of minimal data exchange in order to keep the session alive
>> - else it will shut down. This is true of pretty much any protocol - RDP,
>> VNC, SSH, Telnet, and Guacamole - all will have some minimal amount of
>> overhead client/server traffic even when there are no mouse/keyboard
>> actions and the screen is not being updated.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Can you please guide us on how to stop continues server PING/NOP/ACK/SYN
>>> ?
>>>
>>
>> No, this cannot be disabled without changing the code, and the result
>> would be undesirable - the remote connection would shut down. And, this
>> isn't a problem - again, the amount of data you're seeing shows that
>> something else is going on aside from a completely idle connection. You
>> might check and see if audio is being generated that would account for the
>> higher bandwidth utilization, or if file sharing is enabled.
>>
>> And, as Mike said, in order to truly debug what's going on, here, you
>> need to look at the traffic un-encrypted. This will allow you to see the
>> actual Guacamole protocol packets that are being exchanged and figure out
>> where the data is coming from.
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of
Guacamole
Posted by ivanmarcus <iv...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
In the Guacamole GUI there's a tickbox 'disable audio'
You could also check this out:
http://guacamole.apache.org/doc/gug/configuring-guacamole.html
which explains how the audio works (and from that perhaps how you might
deal with it in your configuration).
On 16/02/2020 12:05 p.m., Manoj Patil wrote:
> Hi
> I agree to we can not send u un- encrypted traffic for checking but as
> per discussion I ask you how to check at guacamole end if audio is
> enabled? And if enabled then give me solution for disable the audio
> streaming
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020, 22:19 Nick Couchman, <vnick@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:03 AM Manoj Patil <manoj2patil@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> We have investigate further and there in we found that there's
> an continues ACK/SYN/PING traffic flows between server and
> client for an absolutely idle session.
>
>
> Yes, this is by design - the Guacamole protocol has built-in
> mechanisms to verify that the connection is still active and
> prevent the server (guacd) from dropping the connection. However,
> as Mike stated, the amount of traffic generates solely for keeping
> alive an idle connection is very low - 17Kb/s - so it does not
> account for all of the traffic you are seeing - something else is
> going on.
>
> Due to which number of packets and in turn data exchange
> increases continuously for an absolutely idle session.
>
>
> Absolutely idle is a little bit of a misnomer, here. If a session
> is in progress, it will *never* be "absolutely idle" - that is,
> there will always be some amount of minimal data exchange in order
> to keep the session alive - else it will shut down. This is true
> of pretty much any protocol - RDP, VNC, SSH, Telnet, and Guacamole
> - all will have some minimal amount of overhead client/server
> traffic even when there are no mouse/keyboard actions and the
> screen is not being updated.
>
>
> Can you please guide us on how to stop continues server
> PING/NOP/ACK/SYN ?
>
>
> No, this cannot be disabled without changing the code, and the
> result would be undesirable - the remote connection would shut
> down. And, this isn't a problem - again, the amount of data
> you're seeing shows that something else is going on aside from a
> completely idle connection. You might check and see if audio is
> being generated that would account for the higher bandwidth
> utilization, or if file sharing is enabled.
>
> And, as Mike said, in order to truly debug what's going on, here,
> you need to look at the traffic un-encrypted. This will allow you
> to see the actual Guacamole protocol packets that are being
> exchanged and figure out where the data is coming from.
>
> -Nick
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi
I agree to we can not send u un- encrypted traffic for checking but as per
discussion I ask you how to check at guacamole end if audio is enabled? And
if enabled then give me solution for disable the audio streaming
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020, 22:19 Nick Couchman, <vn...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:03 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Mike,
>>
>> We have investigate further and there in we found that there's an
>> continues ACK/SYN/PING traffic flows between server and client for an
>> absolutely idle session.
>>
>>
> Yes, this is by design - the Guacamole protocol has built-in mechanisms to
> verify that the connection is still active and prevent the server (guacd)
> from dropping the connection. However, as Mike stated, the amount of
> traffic generates solely for keeping alive an idle connection is very low -
> 17Kb/s - so it does not account for all of the traffic you are seeing -
> something else is going on.
>
>
>> Due to which number of packets and in turn data exchange
>> increases continuously for an absolutely idle session.
>>
>
> Absolutely idle is a little bit of a misnomer, here. If a session is in
> progress, it will *never* be "absolutely idle" - that is, there will always
> be some amount of minimal data exchange in order to keep the session alive
> - else it will shut down. This is true of pretty much any protocol - RDP,
> VNC, SSH, Telnet, and Guacamole - all will have some minimal amount of
> overhead client/server traffic even when there are no mouse/keyboard
> actions and the screen is not being updated.
>
>
>>
>> Can you please guide us on how to stop continues server PING/NOP/ACK/SYN ?
>>
>
> No, this cannot be disabled without changing the code, and the result
> would be undesirable - the remote connection would shut down. And, this
> isn't a problem - again, the amount of data you're seeing shows that
> something else is going on aside from a completely idle connection. You
> might check and see if audio is being generated that would account for the
> higher bandwidth utilization, or if file sharing is enabled.
>
> And, as Mike said, in order to truly debug what's going on, here, you need
> to look at the traffic un-encrypted. This will allow you to see the actual
> Guacamole protocol packets that are being exchanged and figure out where
> the data is coming from.
>
> -Nick
>
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Nick Couchman <vn...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:03 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Mike,
>
> We have investigate further and there in we found that there's an
> continues ACK/SYN/PING traffic flows between server and client for an
> absolutely idle session.
>
>
Yes, this is by design - the Guacamole protocol has built-in mechanisms to
verify that the connection is still active and prevent the server (guacd)
from dropping the connection. However, as Mike stated, the amount of
traffic generates solely for keeping alive an idle connection is very low -
17Kb/s - so it does not account for all of the traffic you are seeing -
something else is going on.
> Due to which number of packets and in turn data exchange
> increases continuously for an absolutely idle session.
>
Absolutely idle is a little bit of a misnomer, here. If a session is in
progress, it will *never* be "absolutely idle" - that is, there will always
be some amount of minimal data exchange in order to keep the session alive
- else it will shut down. This is true of pretty much any protocol - RDP,
VNC, SSH, Telnet, and Guacamole - all will have some minimal amount of
overhead client/server traffic even when there are no mouse/keyboard
actions and the screen is not being updated.
>
> Can you please guide us on how to stop continues server PING/NOP/ACK/SYN ?
>
No, this cannot be disabled without changing the code, and the result would
be undesirable - the remote connection would shut down. And, this isn't a
problem - again, the amount of data you're seeing shows that something else
is going on aside from a completely idle connection. You might check and
see if audio is being generated that would account for the higher bandwidth
utilization, or if file sharing is enabled.
And, as Mike said, in order to truly debug what's going on, here, you need
to look at the traffic un-encrypted. This will allow you to see the actual
Guacamole protocol packets that are being exchanged and figure out where
the data is coming from.
-Nick
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hello Mike,
We have investigate further and there in we found that there's an
continues ACK/SYN/PING traffic flows between server and client for an
absolutely idle session.
Due to which number of packets and in turn data exchange
increases continuously for an absolutely idle session.
Can you please guide us on how to stop continues server PING/NOP/ACK/SYN ?
can we configure some parameters in guacamole-client to achieve this ?
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 00:04, Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:23 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear,
>>
>> As per our observation we found that there is continuous send receive
>> traffic from server to client and vise versa in every fractions of
>> seconds(may be checking the network availability ) , however we are not
>> doing any activity(idle session).
>>
>> we are attaching snapshot of wireshark send receive packet capture
>> details when session is idle .
>>
>
> Your screenshot shows:
>
> * 4 MB of data transfer over the course of 6 minutes.
> * At least two separate HTTP connections, judging from the "Client Hello"
> toward the end, presumably more.
> * Only encrypted traffic.
>
> It's not going to be possible to look at a screenshot of encrypted traffic
> and determine what's going on. That said, based on what can be seen, it
> looks like the following is true:
>
> 1) You are not measuring what you expect (multiple connections are present
> in reality) OR the HTTP tunnel is being used, which will indeed have
> bandwidth overhead.
> 2) Regardless of what you're measuring, 4 MB in 6 minutes is around 90
> Kbps. I wouldn't expect this for an idle connection, but it is also
> definitely not high usage.
>
> Testing this myself, I see 17 Kbps of usage between browser and webapp for
> an idle RDP connection.
>
> Is there any configuration setting to increase the time duration of
>> checking network availability OR some other way to reduce
>> bandwidth utilization on continuous basis?
>>
>
> No, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Guacamole is doing
> something wrong here, nor that you should look to decrease pinging between
> client and server as a solution. You should investigate what is actually
> being sent behind the scenes by capturing the unencrypted traffic.
>
> - Mike
>
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Manoj Patil.(Asst. Manager DBA)
Netwin Systems & Softwares(I) Pvt.Ltd
Nasik.
Mobile No -+91-9922507588
Email- manoj2patil@gmail.com
Re: Required help for reducing High Bandwidth Utilization of Guacamole
Posted by Mike Jumper <mj...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:23 AM Manoj Patil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear,
>
> As per our observation we found that there is continuous send receive
> traffic from server to client and vise versa in every fractions of
> seconds(may be checking the network availability ) , however we are not
> doing any activity(idle session).
>
> we are attaching snapshot of wireshark send receive packet capture
> details when session is idle .
>
Your screenshot shows:
* 4 MB of data transfer over the course of 6 minutes.
* At least two separate HTTP connections, judging from the "Client Hello"
toward the end, presumably more.
* Only encrypted traffic.
It's not going to be possible to look at a screenshot of encrypted traffic
and determine what's going on. That said, based on what can be seen, it
looks like the following is true:
1) You are not measuring what you expect (multiple connections are present
in reality) OR the HTTP tunnel is being used, which will indeed have
bandwidth overhead.
2) Regardless of what you're measuring, 4 MB in 6 minutes is around 90
Kbps. I wouldn't expect this for an idle connection, but it is also
definitely not high usage.
Testing this myself, I see 17 Kbps of usage between browser and webapp for
an idle RDP connection.
Is there any configuration setting to increase the time duration of
> checking network availability OR some other way to reduce
> bandwidth utilization on continuous basis?
>
No, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Guacamole is doing something
wrong here, nor that you should look to decrease pinging between client and
server as a solution. You should investigate what is actually being sent
behind the scenes by capturing the unencrypted traffic.
- Mike