Epicor 9 Client runs 40% slower on Terminal Server than when installed locally.
Entreprenerd last edited by scottalanmiller
The name says it all. 2012 R2 for ERP and ERPSQL, TS is 2008 R2 with 16 vCPUs and 30GB ram. Less than 20 users. The TS is overpowered by far.
I know there's a performance hit when using TS over local but this speed issue is too much for them to handle. Even if the internal heavy users install the client locally, the external salesforce will be unable to use Epicor properly.
I'm looking assistance, a TS expert, or a guru familiar with Epicor client in a TS environment. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time.
This can be tricky to test but... if you log into the TS server and attempt to use the Epicor client that way (no RDP, just sitting at the console) is it slow in the same way as when used remotely or it fast like on the locally installed version?
What is the OS version that the locally installed users are on? That Server version maps to Windows 7. Does that match?
JaredBusch last edited by JaredBusch
Epicor does so many bad things it is just sad.
I have a client that upgraded to the Windows Server & MS SQL based Prophet 21 in late 2014. Epicor tried to tell them it had to be a physical server with a three RAID arrays R1, R5, R1.
I made them backtrack on that and it came as Server 2012 with GUI + Hyper-V. Client wanted it all through Epicor for full support.
stacksofplates last edited by
Wish I could help. I've only used Epicor 10 SaaS. Not really super impressed, esp for the price.
NetworkNerd last edited by NetworkNerd
Which version of E9 are you running? We ran 9.05.702A on VMs at the time (1 Server 2008 VM that ran SQL 2008, 1 Server 2003 VM that was an appserver for E9, and 1 Server 2003 VM running terminal server). All of those VMs were on the same ESXi host connected to the same vSwitch. With TS 2003, folks would have to RDP into the terminal server and run E9. At that time, from what I recall, running E9 via RDP to the terminal server was faster than running it locally, even at the site where the servers were. We also rebooted the terminal server every night to keep it running well.
I want to know more about the architecture of the servers themselves. Are these all VMs? Are they physical servers? And along the lines of what @scottalanmiller mentioned, are you having folks login to your terminal server via RDP to run the Epicor client, or are you using RemoteApp?
Is there some way the terminal server is getting saturated with network traffic and just cannot connect to the appserver as fast as local clients (i.e. some older network gear in between that may not be working as expected)?
NetworkNerd last edited by
Can the external sales force try installing the E9 client locally and connecting to the site where the appserver and database servers are via VPN client software to see how things go? While I understand TS seems better in this scenario, have you tried it with a couple of folks to see what happens?
NetworkNerd last edited by NetworkNerd
We run E10.0.700.3 at the moment (1 Server 2012 VM that runs SQL 2012, 1 Server 2012 VM that runs the E10 appserver, and 1 Server 2012 VM that runs RemoteApp for the E10 client - all on the same ESXi host) and will likely move to E10.1 in the next few months. We actually found that at sites with low internet bandwidth, RemoteApp is a little slower than when the client is installed locally. One site running a T1 told us that, and we confirmed it to be the case. It may have had to do with the nice metro interface in E10. The sites with 35/5 coax or 10/10 fiber seem to run RemoteApp about the same as installing the client locally.
I actually heard someone say at Epicor Insights 2015 that Epicor 10 ran better when installed locally on client machines connecting over site-to-site VPN. We never really had to test that theory other than at the site with a T1 that I mention here.