PERFORMANCE OF THIN-CLIENT MULTIMEDIA IN A LOW BUDGET ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENTMichael GonzalesDamian Clarke

2

Objective• Tests the performance of web-based multimedia and video on

thin clients and X-Windows sessions

• Focus was placed on multimedia platforms, HTML 5 and Flash 10

• The hardware architecture included Sun Ray Thin Clients and RDP X-Windows session in a Linux environment connected to a Solaris server

• Assess the feasibility of both multimedia platforms as a potential education solution for content delivery

3

Motivation• Evolution of Computing Environment (Back to the past?)• Large and centralized >>>

small and distributive >>>> back to small and centralized.

• Cost • A distributive specialization approach could address issues of

• cost-effectiveness • maintenance • performance • reliability • security

4

Motivation• Student Expectations • convenient access to information; anytime, anywhere and on demand

access

• Native vs. Web Application• Zero footprint installation (Silverlight work well here too)• Cross-platform compatible (Yes, you can use one of the cross-platform

widget libraries too with native code, but Web is much easier.)• Server-centralized control of logic, resources (data, CPU, et al), etc.• Public facing application with highly sensitive data that needs to stay

behind a firewall

5

Overview

6

Related WorksJ. Nieh, S. J. Yang, and N. Novik, “A Comparison of Thin-Client

Computing Architectures”

• Tested 5 thin clients

• Multimedia-intensive workloads degrades significantly over WAN compared to LAN

• Higher-level encodings were shown to vary widely in graphic-intensive multimedia with rapidly changing images.

7

Related WorksA. Lai and J. Nieh, “Limits of Wide-Area Thin-Client Computing”

• Introduced a non-invasive slow-motion benchmarking technique: packet monitoring and slow motion versions of application benchmarks.

• Non multimedia-intensive over WAN

• Thin client computing can deliver acceptable performance

8

Related WorksY. Chang, P. Tseng, K. Chen, and C. Lei, “Understanding The Performance

of Thin-Client Gaming”

• Methodology for quantifying the performance of thin clients on gaming

• Display frame rates and frame distortion were critical factors in game performance.

• Differences in thin-client implementations may have different levels of robustness against network impairments

9

Related WorksA. Y. Wong and M. Seltzer, “Operating System Support for Multi-User

Remote, Graphical Interaction,”

• Effects of OS support for multi-user remote graphical interaction and the performance via user-perceived latency

• Resource scheduling for both the processor and memory in these systems is not well optimized for heavy concurrent interactive use, with latency and jitter well above human-perceptible levels.

10

Uniqueness of this Work• Systematically focused on server instrumentation due to the

proprietary and closed-source nature of the thin client platform used.

• None of the previous work analyzed the behavior of the server at runtime on the kernel level.

• Multimedia platforms: HTML5 and Flash

11

Background: HTML5• HTML5 is a synthesis of several new and existing technologies

(primarily JavaScript, CSS3, Canvas, and SVG),

• Allows deployment when the Flash plugin is not available (Safari).

• Heavy graphics work: The <canvas> tag allows bitmap graphics manipulation.

• Integration with other systems: WebSocket allows full-duplex, persistent connections.

12

Background: Flash• Flash is a vector animation software, originally designed to

create animations for display on web pages.

• Manipulates vector and raster graphics to provide animation of text, drawings, and still images

• Flash is everywhere.

• A gigantic community and secondary market..

13

Background: GIUMark2• Vector Charting Test

• Simulating a streaming stock chart with different alpha fills

• Bitmap Gaming Test• Simulates a tower defense game.

Uses lots of bitmap resources and animations for sprites on screen at once.

• Text Column Test• Tests rendering capability of various

text organizations and character types.

14

Background: InstrumentationUtility Description

sar(1) General-purpose System Activity Reporterproviding numerous system statistics

vmstat(1M) Reports virtual memory statistics andaggregate system wide CPU utilization

mpstat(1M) Per-CPU statistics

netstat(1M) Network statistics

kstat(1M) All available kernel statistics

prstat(1M) Process/thread statistics

15

Experimental Setup

• Sun Ray Server 5.2 running on Solaris 11, 2.8Ghz, 3GB RAM• Apple Airport Express Router• Sun Ray Thin Client 2 and a 2FS• 1-2 X-Windows Remote clients for comparison purposes

16

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

17

Performance Analysis and Results• Evaluations based on GUIMark 2 frame rates for Adobe Flash

10.10 and HTML 5 using Firefox 7• Conducted five tests per scenario for each application on a

given platform to normalize rates• Assessed:• Native Server• Sun Ray • Remote X• Scalability case

18

The Native Case…• Results based on our Solaris 11 Server• Performed for a base case assessment for comparison for our

Sun Rays and Remote session analysis

19

Native vs. Single Sun Ray

HTML 5 Flash HTML 5 Flash HTML 5 FlashVector Charting Bitmap Gaming Text Column

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Sun RayNative

Fram

es p

er s

econ

d

20

Remote X Session Performance• Assessment based on a remote X session using Firefox• Performed frame rate measurements of the remote session, as

well as tests on the notebook natively

21

Native Laptop vs. Remote X

HTML 5 Flash HTML 5 Flash HTML 5 FlashVector Charting Bitmap Gaming Text Column

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Native NotebookRemote X

Fram

es p

er S

econ

d

22

Remote X vs. Sun Ray

HTML 5 Flash HTML 5 Flash HTML 5 FlashVector Charting Bitmap Gaming Text Column

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sun RayRemote X

Fram

es P

er s

econ

d

23

Multiple Sun Ray Sessions

HTML 5 Flash HTML 5 Flash HTML 5 FlashVector Charting Bitmap Gaming Text Column

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

SingleTwo Session

Fram

es p

er S

econ

d

24

D-Trace and Solaris System Tools•Used to determine potential bottlenecks and

drawbacks of each respective application• Performed on server during Sun Ray Session• Performed analysis on three main components:• CPU• Memory• Network I/O

25

Flash Breakdown• Flash utilized the most CPU time of the system• Performed “yield” system call most frequently• Lots of memory maps• Most page faults on the system

• Xnewt, the Sun Ray X server, utilized most system calls• Highest kernel function used were writes• Utilized socket layer the most, higher than the scheduler

26

HTML 5 Breakdown• Scheduler top process using CPU time, followed by

Xnewt and Firefox• Reads, writes, and mwaits were most common system

calls• Reads and writes generated evenly between Xnewt

and Firefox• Dtrace itself had most page faults, others unranked• Similar to Flash, Xnewt largest process hitting network

socket

27

Remote X Comparisons• Remote X doesn’t use Xnewt• Increases in performance where Xnewt hogged resources

• More CPU cycle utilization of sched• Number of network reads/writes more even on X• Xnewt shows as an additional process in HTML 5• Suffers in cases where HTML 5 shows CPU utilization between

sched/Firefox as nearly equal

28

Bringing it All Together…• Sun Rays perform relatively well in web-based multimedia• Xnewt creates bottleneck• Work best with HTML 5 in terms of scalability

• Remote X best on powerful client in HTML 5• Utilizes some of client resources due to X-server rendering• Does not handle Flash well due to application dependencies• Not targeted toward our intended environments

• Flash handles well on single Sun Rays, poor otherwise

29

In Conclusion…• Assessed two different types of thin clients• Analyzed various scenarios of Adobe Flash and

HTML 5 rendering performance for different types of hardware organizations• Assessed the application impact on the server

under the hood• Effectively determine what created bottlenecks•Determine a best organization for such a

framework

30

Further Areas of Exploration• Better Remote X performance assessments• How it handles multimedia rendering due to X-servers existing on the

client• Chromebook Assessments• Browser focused OS• Presents users only a login to their Google Account, and the web• Costs of around $350+• How does this benefit if full netbooks cost less?

• Can have better performance, but pay more for hardware with less functionality at the moment

31

Questions

?