Hi,
I've upgraded to 6.0.2 and windows Client 3.2.
But I'm not pretty sure if the Scanner redirection works properly.
If I run the mspaint.exe, then Scan succeeded. While when I use "Windows Fax and Scan", there will be a message box popped up which saying "This=0x?????" ? stands for numbers。
Is it a known issue? or something wrong with my environment?
Is there a sample operation to refer? thanks
so the fax/scan issue is a bug with the new scanner redirection feature.
i have a blog post coming out shortly that will better explain the feature, but in summary it DOESNT use USB redirection. when you tested the zero client, or indeed the older client software without the scanner functionality installed then thats all using the original USB redirection functionality. This does in deed work in many cases, but you will find that across a WAN then scanning can then take a very long time, and for some scanners their drivers will timeout/fail.
so the new scanning redirection functionality captures the image at the local client endpoint, compresses it and sends the image as a whole to the guest where its presented back via a virtual scanner device to the application. This is much like how we do the RTAV functionality.
the result is that things should work much more reliably across a wan/unreliable network.
the fax/scan issue with the new scanner functionality is a bug which we are working on fixing, and hope to fix it v soon,
make sense?
cheers
peterB
Hi.
Unfortunately I can confirm this is indeed an issue with compatability with Microsoft fax&scan application. We are working on a resolution to this right now. If possible, pls try to use other image acquisition applications.
Cheers
Peterb
Hi Peterb,
Thanks for your confirmation.
BTW, I was wondering if we could have some tool to monitor the scanner redirection function? Maybe like WMI counter?
hi,
can i ask what the wmi counter would show, or help you with? Id like to understand your requirement and usecase a bit more,
thanks
peterB
I wanna show the statistics about scanner redirection. Is that possible?
well, im trying to understand what sort of stats you'd find useful from a scanner. is it just bandwidth? or something else?
im struggling a little to understand what the use case really is here as Im not sure what sort of data you are wanting to see.
cheers
peterB
thanks for your patience.
to be honest, I'm not pretty sure what should be included in the stats. I just wanna make it transparent when I'm using this feature to make the the function is running good or bad. If good, what the bandwidth is, and everything related. If bad, I could get some clue about it to narrow down the root cause.
the feature is really to make scanning more reliable and faster. when doing scans with USB this was often slow or unreliable - especially over a lossy wan network link.
ultimately, whether it is working or not will come down to whether the scan succeeds or not. WMI counters won't really give you anything more meaningful than this IMO.
Thank you Peter and wish A Happy New Year!
I'm looking at the ETW(event Tracing for Windows) if it could help.
happy new year to you too!
I'm sorry, but I still don't really know what EWT would be "tracking", or how that could help. Im not really sure what the problem is that needs solving here. is it simply that you want to "see" the scanning network traffic bandwidth?
cheers
peterB
Is scanning only a problem if you're using View 6.0.2, the View software client, and Windows Fax and Scan?
Asking because I just tested the Windows Fax and Scan with View 6.0.2 on a Zero Client and it's working fine. So just curious if it's only related to the software view client.
Edit: I was able to scan using Windows Fax and Scan with a Fujitsu scanner with 3.1.0 and 3.2.0 of the View client. I did not enable the scanner re-direction or whatever it's called when I installed the View Agent though. What exactly does that do?
hi Peter,
Just show me how to display bandwidth.That's cool.
Hi nzorn,
That's weird. "Two roads diverged in a wood."
How about fitting in some other scanner and Thin Client?
so the fax/scan issue is a bug with the new scanner redirection feature.
i have a blog post coming out shortly that will better explain the feature, but in summary it DOESNT use USB redirection. when you tested the zero client, or indeed the older client software without the scanner functionality installed then thats all using the original USB redirection functionality. This does in deed work in many cases, but you will find that across a WAN then scanning can then take a very long time, and for some scanners their drivers will timeout/fail.
so the new scanning redirection functionality captures the image at the local client endpoint, compresses it and sends the image as a whole to the guest where its presented back via a virtual scanner device to the application. This is much like how we do the RTAV functionality.
the result is that things should work much more reliably across a wan/unreliable network.
the fax/scan issue with the new scanner functionality is a bug which we are working on fixing, and hope to fix it v soon,
make sense?
cheers
peterB
Peter,
Thanks for the explanation, that does make sense now. I'll add it to my list of things to test with before pushing out to my users.
Thank you Peter.
I got pretty much the whole story of Scanner Redirection. And it definitely means a lot to me.
Wish you could fix it ASAP.
BTW, I've already received H6.1. literally, there's nothing new as I can see.
we are working on fixing microsoft fax/scan issue now... Please note that other applications work perfectly well with capturing images from the scanner.
just a quick note to say that the Microsoft fax/scan app now works as a scanning app with Scanner Redirection with the newly released Horizon 6.1.1 agent (and the Windows 3.4 client).
cheers
peterB
Peter,
The release notes for 6.11 advise caution when enabling scanner redirection due to a significant effect on consolidation ratios, to the point where the recommendation is to create a separate pool for users with scanner redirection enabled. Can you explain more about this please?
Thanks,
Geoff