Office Servers and Services

"La connaissance ne vaut que si elle est partagée" / "An effective Knowledge is a shared one"

Microsoft Lync 2010 with XenDesktop 5.5: Mise à jour de best Practice

Posted by Teruin laurent sur octobre 19, 2011


Citrix vient de publier une note sur les « Best Practice » lync sous l’environnement Citrix en voici le contenu

Summary

This article contains information on Using Microsoft Lync 2010 with XenDesktop 5.5.

Background
The purpose of these tests is to assess the usability of Microsoft Lync 2010 Citrix XenDesktop 5.5 users. The tests were mainly carried out in the System 3 lab in Chalfont, but because this lab is isolated from the Citrix corporate LAN, it was necessary to use local Exchange and Lync servers, rather than Citrix corporate servers.Because the System 3 lab is independently connected to the Internet, the Citrix Technical Support Engineers were able to include various LAN/WAN topologies during testing. The engineers were also able to simulate LAN/WAN bandwidth, latency and packet loss conditions on our networks.

System 3 Lab – Hardware Details

Software Details

XenDesktop Active Policy Settings

Network Details

The System 3 lab in Chalfont is connected to the Internet through a domestic ADSL service with a maximum upload speed of 1Mbps and a maximum download speed of 8Mbps. Because this ADSL service has multiple IP addresses, the engineers have configured our lab so that it is logically two separate sites:

  • Virtdom
  • Physdom

Although the engineers have no control over the speed of our ADSL line, network quality between Virtdom and Physdom sites is entirely under our control, and engineers use a Linktropy-mini WAN Emulator to simulate various LAN/WAN bandwidth, latency and packet loss conditions.

Notes:

Initially when the engineers tried using the BBC news channel as an audio and video source but found that there was a so much screen activity that video stream (across the network) quickly fell behind the sound stream, causing an increasing lack of lip-sync. On reflection, the BBC news channel includes live news footage, as well as multiple camera angles of multiple talking heads. This is not what Lync was designed for.

  • Audio assessment
    • Initial assessment of audio quality concentrated on the sound, and was based on factors such as a) were there any pops or breaks in the audio, and b) was the speech distorted in a way? As might be expected, as LAN/WAN quality was reduced, one eventually became aware that the audio quality was probably not be as good as in previous test runs. For assessment of this nature, it was useful to have a standard voice recording that could be repeated for each test.
    • Although the preceding assessment of quality is useful, it was felt that for audio conferencing there were additional measures of usability, based on factors, such as a) am I getting the message, b) is the content understandable, and c) is audio quality a distraction. For assessments of this nature, it was much more useful to listen to a new Podcast. Generally, the engineers found that they had a much greater tolerance of poor network quality when assessing usability, rather than assessing audio quality.
  • Audio and video assessment
    • Generally, the assessments for audio quality and usability (above) are all applicable to audio in this section.
    • For video, the problems encountered related to a) stuttering, or short freezes, and b) synchronisation of the picture and the sound (lip-sync). Of these, lack of lip-sync was the most common.

Audio Tests over LAN


Notes:


Notes:


Note:

The audio visual source used in these tests was a Logitech C600 webcam. This webcam was pointed at the tablet PC, and the audio-out from the tablet PC was connected through a 3.5mm audio lead into the microphone port on the Citrix client PC (Eight). The tablet PC was used to play http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxe6WxAVFqM

       

Bandwidth set: 5 Mbps Audio & Video Results

Total Latency (RTT)

Packet Loss Set

0%

0.5%

1%

20ms

Sound quality – Good

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Good

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Good

Usable

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Good

Usable

40ms

Sound quality – Good

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Good

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Fair

Usable

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Good

Usable

80ms

Sound quality – Good

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Good

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Fair

Usable

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Fair

Usable

150ms

Sound quality – Good

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Good

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Fair

Usable

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Fair

Talking head A/V sync – Poor

Desktop – Some lag

Usable

200ms

Sound quality – Good

Video quality – Good

Talking head A/V sync – Good

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Fair

Talking head A/V sync – Fair

Usable

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Fair

Talking head A/V sync – Poor

Desktop – Significant lag

Possibly usable

500ms

Sound quality – Fair

Video quality – Fair

Talking head A/V sync – Fair

Desktop – Significant lag

Usable

Sound quality – Fair

Video quality – Poor

Talking head A/V sync – Poor

Desktop – Significant lag

Probably not usable

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Poor

Talking head A/V sync – Poor

Desktop – Unresponsive

Probably not usable

1000ms

Sound quality – Fair

Video quality – Fair

Talking head A/V sync – Fair

Desktop – Significant lag

Usable

Sound quality – Fair

Video quality – Poor

Talking head A/V sync – Poor

Desktop – Unresponsive

Not usable

Sound quality – Fair. Some popping

Video quality – Poor

Talking head A/V sync – Poor

Desktop – Unresponsive

Not usable

2000ms

Sound quality – Poor

Video quality – Poor

Talking head A/V sync – Poor

Desktop – Unresponsive

Not usable

Not tested

Not tested

Audio/Video Tests over WAN with Access Gateway and Branch Repeater

Notes:

Lync Tests Run in a LAN Environment with UDP Audio Selected

  • Lync audio conferencing quality remained fair and was usable down to 5mbps/2000ms RTT/1% packet loss. However, with these RTT and packet loss settings it was difficult to interact with the desktop regardless of audio usage.
  • Lync audio and video conferencing remained fair and was usable down to 5mbps/80ms RTT/1% packet loss.

Lync Tests Run in a WAN Environment where UDP Audio was not available.

(WAN environment includes an Access Gateway running is Secure Gateway mode)

  • Lync audio conferencing quality remained fair and was usable down to 768kbps/200ms RTT/1% packet loss.
  • Lync audio and video conferencing remained fair and was usable down to 1.5mbps/500ms RTT/0% packet loss.

 

This document applies to:

 

 


 

Laisser un commentaire

Choisissez une méthode de connexion pour poster votre commentaire:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

 
%d blogueurs aiment cette page :