Network Computingwww.networkcomputing.com

Intel And Tivoli Take Control
Intel Corp.'s LANDesk and Tivoli System's TME 10 both ship with tightly integrated remote-control functionality that is not available outside of these frameworks. As an integrated component, the applications not only benefit from tight integration, they also leverage both the underlying operating system and the ESM platform. Bear in mind, however, that these remote-control solutions need to be viewed in light of the application in which they run: Software distribution, remote host organization, connection options and security are largely supplied by the underlying ESM framework and are not germane to the evaluation of the remote-control feature itself.

We characterize tight integration to be far more than a pop-up item on a menu. These solutions offer advanced features, such as software distribution for automated installation and updates as well as access control according to an administrator's role in the organization. For example, during the LANDesk installation, a new user group was added to the Windows NT Domain called Remote Control Operators. Users who attempted to control another computer from LANDesk must be members of that group. This type of solution builds on the NT security model of managed users and access control lists.

Although the integrated solutions included with LANDesk and Tivoli are feature-poor when compared with the eight solutions we tested, they do provide core remote-control functionality. LANDesk even offers file transfer and chat capabilities. Missing are features like the "SOS" function found in PC-Duo 3.72 from Vector Networks. The SOS function provides users with an easy way to notify administrators that they need help.

Tivoli's solution, TME 10 Decafe, functions in a similar manner to Intel's LANDesk remote control, but permissions ("roles" in TME parlance) for remote control are set for administrators according to a target region, not according to the administrators level in the hierarchy. Access to remote control can be set for different administrative regions, which provides fine-grained access control. Using Tivoli's remote control is unremarkable to say the least. It works in a nonintrusive manner and doesn't offer any of the frills of the full-blown package tested in this roundup.

How We Tested Enterprise Remote Control
We set up each remote-control solution in our Real-World Lab® at Syracuse University. All solutions were installed on 200-MHz Pentium Pro workstations with 128 MB of RAM on top of Windows NT Workstation and Windows95. NT Workstation participated in our NT Domain for authentication and network access where applicable. An Apple Macintosh PowerBook 3400 was used as well.

We performed two tests to determine how well each application performed under duress. To test platform stability, we initiated a remote-control session and dropped the client-side interface on the intervening router to simulate an unreachable host--a common network occurrence. Sessions were running with keyboard locking or screen blanking active and inactive. With the exception of Traveling Software's LapLink 7.5 for Windows NT/95, host connections were gracefully closed after a 30-second-to-one-minute time-out. With the keyboard locked and screen blanked, LapLink remained in a locked state, requiring a power cycle to regain control.

The second test examined how well the server acted after numerous connections. Using the scheduler included with Microsoft Corp.'s Plus! Pack, we repeatedly launched remote-control sessions to determine if the host retained system resources after repeated connections. We made remote-control connections that lasted three minutes, after which the connection was disconnected. Our clients would wait one minute and then reconnect. We continued this cycle for six hours. NT's Performance Monitor was used to track CPU and memory utilization. All of the solutions tested were well-behaved, only registering very short spikes in CPU utilization while a user connected.

Throughput testing was not performed, because we did not find performance to be an issue over the LAN. The focus in this roundup was for integration into enterprise network frameworks, where remote control is used for quick access rather than for remote application hosting.