Conrad Sallian's community posts

Hi Nate,

The host mouse can't really be used/shared because it keeps jumping back to the position of the viewer mouse cursor.

Responded in this thread.

I don't know if it's related, but the host cursor is also visible when "Lock input and screen" is enabled. (It moves around on the blacked out host screen as the viewer user moves the mouse.)

Please, try uninstalling the mointor driver in the Host options (Settings for Host -> Options -> Driver) and see if it fixes the issue.

Hi Nate,

Thank you for your message.

Is it not sensible to transfer control of the mouse back and forth?

Sorry, but no. The remote user is not supposed to control the mouse pointer of the admin. Why should they if they don't even see the admin's screen.

The capture sound mode will be improved in the beta 2 due in a couple of weeks.

Hello Max,

Yeah, I don't think you understand what I mean, because businesses would definitely prefer to run traffic between their hosts directly and not through another server unless they had to. We'll just agree to disagree on that. Perhaps if I was unclear, all I really meant is that connections be made using direct connection, but without the user having to configure anything, it is handled automatically by the server. But I do believe you answered my question by not having any plans to implement such a feature. Fair enough.

Perhaps, cascade connection may qualify as such a feature.

Thanks.

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for your message.

This functionality is going to be added in version 6.9.0.1 Beta 2 (the current beta is beta 1) .

Hello Max,

Are there any plans to implement a service to facilitate direct connections between hosts instead of connections relaying through your servers unless manually setting up port forwarding and using direct IP's?

I am not sure what service you can possibly mean. A connection can be either direct or mediated through a server - be it our public server or a self-hosted server. If our public servers don't work for you well, feel free to use the self-hosted server, this is one of the reasons why we offer it (for free).

If you mean peer-to-peer connectivity though, I am sorry but this is not the way to go for us. It might work for free and personal tools, but since we also sell to businesses they won't be happy to use a P2P application due to security concerns that such applications can bring.

I've frequently ran into performance issues through the various relays used by Remote Utilities. Way, way, too frequently. The latency is high and there is significant ping loss. I have a PC next to me that I'm connecting to that has more than 8 seconds of latency (it's varied fr om 4-18 seconds while I've been writing this). The re's the scenic login screen and then the computer boots up with Spotify open and the large pictures seem to bring it to a crawl even with 16 bits colour. I have it on HDMI output to a monitor on my right, and then connecting using Internet ID fr om my main PC next to it. At this moment, round trip ping time to your relay server in Montreal is 163ms (from west Canada. I normally get 78ms pings to Ontario, so this Montreal hub kinda sucks as you'll see below) with approx 18% packet loss.

A ping from your location to our server doesn't say anything about the quality of the server itself. Our servers can sustain far more load than now and are located in one of the largest datacenters in Canada.

I believe you also have a relay server in California, which is closer and lower latency, approximately 50ms with no ping loss so far. So I'm not sure how hosts pick the relay servers, whether its random, first to respond, round robin, or load balanced, etc. But there is very clear and poor performance using the relay server and I don't see a way for me to bounce it to a better relay server and I don't see anything happening on the server side to migrate me to the better performing server that is 1/3 latency and without packet loss.

We recommend that you use a self-hosted server or even direct connection where possible.

Hello Petar,

Thank you for the details.

It should be noted that RDP is not a generic Remote Utilities mode. RU simply runs the microsoft RDP client when you run this mode.

Perhaps, you meant Remote Utilities' own Full Control and View mode. If this is the Full Control mode that doesn't work for you, I recommend that you refer to this knowledge base article for help.

That said, in version 6.9.1.0 Beta 2 we will update the sound capture mechanism to improve its performance.

Thanks.

Hello Petar,

Thank you for your post. Do other connection modes work?

Hello Marty,

Sorry, I probably should have explained that I understand how a RU Server would benefit, but I was just testing for raw performance and a direct connection through a port forward would be the same as a local RU server with Internet-ID (please correct me if I am wrong).

With direct connection performance is better by definition. However, if RU Server is located very close to either side of connection (Viewer or Host) the difference should be unnoticeable.

As for improving the sound capture performance, we'll see what we can do and we can implement any improvements in this beta.

Thanks!

Hi,

If it's a different network (subnet) then you should whitelist the IP address of the router in between , not the Viewer's. I assume that your router forwards packets between two local subnets in this scenario.