RCN business services reliability and bandwidth

Ben Scott dragonhawk at gmail.com
Thu Oct 1 17:33:32 EDT 2009


On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> wrote:
> So when they run our product it is X
> over IP, which is very slow (and considerably slower since the upgrade).

  There were ways to manipulate the X protocol to perform better over
high-latency links, with things like special proxy servers,
compression algorithms, etc.  They may still work to help that.
Another option would be to run a VNC X desktop locally, and then
export the VNC session remotely.  As I recall, VNC can be pretty good
over a high-latency link if you tweak the right options and aren't
doing high res graphics work.

  Also, is it possible to bypass the doubled-up remote GUI thing?
Maybe export X or VNC or whatever directly from Boston to the field
client, bypassing the Citrix GUI repeater?  That's going to kill
performance, I'm sure.  Citrix has all sorts of products and options
for remote access.  Even something as simple a port forwarding rule
might do it for you.

  I know this isn't the problem you asked about, but speeding up the
GUI is likely to yield other benefits, too, so it's worth thinking
about anyway.  And once it's done, you don't have to pay as much for
Internet feeds.

> RCN's service is assymetric 20Mbps/2Mbps for a savings of several
> hundred bucks a month.

  I have no experience with RCN in the past decade, I'm afraid.  But
the usual recommendation is to ask to see the SLA (Service Level
Agreement) terms.  I know when I looked at Comcast's SLA for their 2
mbit/sec symmetric feed, the terms were a joke.  It basically just
said Comcast would feel extra bad if their symmetric feed failed to
deliver.  And Comcast was the one who got to decide if they were
delivering or not; they disclosed no metrics.

-- Ben


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list