Concurrent threads

[paprita]

Default number is 15. Why this choice?
Is it convenient to increase this value? I think that service will be faster but what about processor (lansweeperservice run on a server without any other service)?
And what about SQL server? Could I have any problem on it?

I use lansweeper 3.5.1 on a quite big WAN:

- more than 12.000 PC (desktop+laptop+server);
- more than 15 different towns.

In order to obtain the best from lansweeper, can you give me an idea about settings (concurrent threads, scan option, or whatelse) and about hardware configuration of the 3 servers (SQL 2000, lansweeperservice, web)?

Actually my problem is that I have a long queue and it take too time between active directory interrogation and computer scan ... often many PC are already switched off ...
I need to increase concurrent threads but I noted some problems with db ...

[Hemoco]

Did you take a look at this thread, it might explain your problem: http://www.lansweeper.com/forum/yaf_postsm8417_tblAutorun-table-growing-alarmingly-quickly.aspx#8417

[paprita]

Lansweeper wrote:
Did you take a look at this thread, it might explain your problem: http://www.lansweeper.com/forum/yaf_postsm8417_tblAutorun-table-growing-alarmingly-quickly.aspx#8417

Thanks.

I've send a PM to stiky because the thread is closed.

[Hemoco]

You can see if your sql server can follow if you don't have any sql time-outs in your error log.
2-3 pc's every minute is indeed really slow, could it be that the network is somehow the bottleneck?

[paprita]

Lansweeper wrote:
You can see if your sql server can follow if you don't have any sql time-outs in your error log.

Now I can't but on monday I will

Lansweeper wrote:
2-3 pc's every minute is indeed really slow, could it be that the network is somehow the bottleneck?

After few minutes I have written the post, it's started to go faster ... I don't understand but sometimes it goes fast and sometimes it goes slow ...
However I've obsverved its work for 3 hours and it scanned more than 2.200 PC ... 750 PC every hour ... its a good result, I think, but I need some more ... from 30% to 50% more, if possible ...

First of all I'll try to change service server to a quad core ...

I'm thinking to change SQL 2000 to SQL 2008 ... what do you think about that?

Is there someone else who use lansweeper on a network with more than 12.000 PC? Just to exchange experience ...

[Hemoco]

You have to play with the threads to get the best result, there is no right or wrong answer to this.

Things that can increase speed : Number of processors/cores on your lansweeperservice.exe machine.
2 processors of 1Ghz is better than one of 2 Ghz.
If you have 4/8/16 of this you can increase the amount of threads.

Second step : make sure that your sql server can follow.

I would also suggest to set the waittime for not important items high (cdroms,...)

We're testing on a VMware virtual machine with 4 virtual processors and have 45 concurrent threads.

[paprita]

Lansweeper wrote:
We're testing on a VMware virtual machine with 4 virtual processors and have 45 concurrent threads.

Which version of SQL are you using?
How much memory is installed?

[Hemoco]

paprita wrote:
Which version of SQL are you using?
How much memory is installed?

SQL 2000, 2 GB ram (virtual)

[paprita]

Lansweeper wrote:
Things that can increase speed : Number of processors/cores on your lansweeperservice.exe machine.
2 processors of 1Ghz is better than one of 2 Ghz.
If you have 4/8/16 of this you can increase the amount of threads.

We're testing on a VMware virtual machine with 4 virtual processors and have 45 concurrent threads.

Server with lansweeperservice on is a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual - Core processor 5600+ - 2,9 GHz - 4GB RAM and now I'm going with 30 concurrent threads ... but I see that there are ploblems yet ... there is a long queue (more than 5.000 PC) and lansweeperservice is going very slowly (2 or 3 PC every minute) ... processor is maximum 2% (that is very strange ... usually work at 50%) ... what about if I decrease to 25 or 20 concurrents threads?

Lansweeper wrote:
Second step : make sure that your sql server can follow.

What do you mean with this? I use SQL server 2000 on a Intel E2160 (dual core) - 1,8 GHz - 2 GB RAM ...
Do you think that SQL 2000 is too old or server is too "small"?
And how can I see on SQL 2000 if it can "follow"?

[paprita]

In this moment it seems that all is blocked:
- Total computers processed: 1534
- In queue 6004
- In process 1
- Threads running 40

lansweeperservice is running and SQL too.

I have decreased concurrent threads to 30 ... now it work ... I hope it don't block again ...

What do you think about this?