# Slow Thinlinc screen refresh since a couple of weeks

**URL:** <https://community.thinlinc.com/t/slow-thinlinc-screen-refresh-since-a-couple-of-weeks/2086>\
**Category:** Community Support\
**Created:** [1 October 2026 17:50 UTC](https://community.thinlinc.com/t/slow-thinlinc-screen-refresh-since-a-couple-of-weeks/2086 "2026-10-01T17:50:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![guytout](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71e660/32.png) [@guytout](https://community.thinlinc.com/u/guytout)\
**Post date:** [1 October 2026 17:50 UTC](https://community.thinlinc.com/t/slow-thinlinc-screen-refresh-since-a-couple-of-weeks/2086/1 "2026-10-01T17:50:51Z")

</div>

I have two Linux Servers (Ubuntu 24.04 and Suse Linux Leap 16) running ThinLinc that have been stable since a couple of years. However, the connection to the two machines have suddendly become laggy a couple of weeks ago. I suspect this happened after a windows 11 update. The connection is so laggy that it is almost impossible to work on the machines (around 20 seconds or more to refresh the screen after moving a window). I have reduced the compression level down to 2 but it did not help.

I wonder if anyone else is seeing this issue and if there is a way to mitigate it

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aaron](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/community.thinlinc.com/aaron/32/13_2.png) [@aaron](https://community.thinlinc.com/u/aaron)\
**Post date:** [1 October 2026 20:04 UTC](https://community.thinlinc.com/t/slow-thinlinc-screen-refresh-since-a-couple-of-weeks/2086/2 "2026-10-01T20:04:08Z")

</div>

Strange! Nothing I’ve seen before personally, but if it’s two separate machines both experiencing the same issue, then it seems like an issue with the client and/or the network between the client and server.

Have you tested a different client on the same network to see if the problem still exists? Or the same client from a different network?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![guytout](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71e660/32.png) [@guytout](https://community.thinlinc.com/u/guytout)\
**Post date:** [1 October 2026 23:42 UTC](https://community.thinlinc.com/t/slow-thinlinc-screen-refresh-since-a-couple-of-weeks/2086/3 "2026-10-01T23:42:53Z")

</div>

I tested the same client version 4.17 on an older Windows 10 machine (same network) and everything was very snappy. I then tested the latest stable client version 4.21 on the same windows 10 machine and every was snappy as well. However, upgrading the client on the Window 11 machine to 4.21 did not help. The connection is still very laggy. This points to something going on with the recent update on Windows 11.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aaron](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/community.thinlinc.com/aaron/32/13_2.png) [@aaron](https://community.thinlinc.com/u/aaron)\
**Post date:** [11 October 2026 21:52 UTC](https://community.thinlinc.com/t/slow-thinlinc-screen-refresh-since-a-couple-of-weeks/2086/4 "2026-10-11T21:52:47Z")

</div>

What about the 4.17 client on the Windows 11 machine? Still laggy? It sounds like the common denominator here is Windows 11, but AFAIK this is nothing we have seen before.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![guytout](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71e660/32.png) [@guytout](https://community.thinlinc.com/u/guytout)\
**Post date:** [12 October 2026 17:37 UTC](https://community.thinlinc.com/t/slow-thinlinc-screen-refresh-since-a-couple-of-weeks/2086/5 "2026-10-12T17:37:47Z")

</div>

Indeed, the lag seems to be related to Win11. I have not found any hint that could lead me to a solution. As suspected, rebooting the Linux machines running the ThinLinc servers did not bring any change.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aaron](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/community.thinlinc.com/aaron/32/13_2.png) [@aaron](https://community.thinlinc.com/u/aaron)\
**Post date:** [12 October 2026 20:30 UTC](https://community.thinlinc.com/t/slow-thinlinc-screen-refresh-since-a-couple-of-weeks/2086/6 "2026-10-12T20:30:47Z")

</div>

@CendioOssman anything you’ve come across before?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![guytout](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71e660/32.png) [@guytout](https://community.thinlinc.com/u/guytout)\
**Post date:** [13 October 2026 20:45 UTC](https://community.thinlinc.com/t/slow-thinlinc-screen-refresh-since-a-couple-of-weeks/2086/7 "2026-10-13T20:45:28Z")

</div>

Just some additional information. The lag affects, typing, mouse movent and screen redraws.

I ran some pings and mtr from both the Win11 and the Win10 machines. The results are very similar and there is nothing that could indicate an issue.

Here are some numbers:

**Ping and MTR from the Win11 machine**

here are the results for server\_name ping -M do -s 1200 -c 40 x.x.x.x  
PING x.x.x.x (x.x.x.x) 1200(1228) bytes of data.  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=1 ttl=63 time=12.9 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=2 ttl=63 time=11.3 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=3 ttl=63 time=16.5 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=4 ttl=63 time=8.01 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=5 ttl=63 time=12.3 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=6 ttl=63 time=9.20 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=7 ttl=63 time=7.98 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=8 ttl=63 time=25.8 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=9 ttl=63 time=14.2 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=10 ttl=63 time=9.17 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=11 ttl=63 time=9.19 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=12 ttl=63 time=12.3 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=13 ttl=63 time=7.63 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=14 ttl=63 time=9.40 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=15 ttl=63 time=8.87 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=16 ttl=63 time=10.1 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=17 ttl=63 time=18.6 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=18 ttl=63 time=8.57 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=19 ttl=63 time=10.5 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=20 ttl=63 time=7.47 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=21 ttl=63 time=13.1 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=22 ttl=63 time=30.0 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=23 ttl=63 time=7.48 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=24 ttl=63 time=12.6 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=25 ttl=63 time=12.7 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=26 ttl=63 time=26.7 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=27 ttl=63 time=8.39 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=28 ttl=63 time=8.07 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=29 ttl=63 time=9.00 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=30 ttl=63 time=7.96 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=31 ttl=63 time=7.52 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=32 ttl=63 time=7.26 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=33 ttl=63 time=9.32 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=34 ttl=63 time=6.96 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=35 ttl=63 time=16.3 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=36 ttl=63 time=7.85 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=37 ttl=63 time=10.7 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=38 ttl=63 time=8.32 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=39 ttl=63 time=10.6 ms  
1208 bytes from x.x.x.x: icmp\_seq=40 ttl=63 time=18.1 ms

-– x.x.x.x ping statistics —  
40 packets transmitted, 40 received, 0% packet loss, time 39069ms  
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6.959/11.720/29.989/5.401 ms  
$ mtr -rwc 100 x.x.x.x  
Start: 2026-10-12T15:03:50-0400  
HOST: dante Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev  
1.|-- [local.mshome.net](http://local.mshome.net) 0.0% 100 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.1  
2.|-- x.x.x.x\_full\_name 0.0% 100 6.4 8.8 3.6 131.0 13.1  
15:24:49 up 45 days 9:00, 5 users, load average: 0.12, 0.09, 0.08

I also tried to check the load on the server when during a session. But I could not indentify anything that could justify the lag. Here are some of the numbers. Rebooting one of the Linux machines did not help.

$ vmstat 1 10  
procs -----------memory---------- —swap-- -----io---- -system-- -------cpu-------  
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st gu  
1 0 0 10828272 1976 16666476 0 0 44 422 378 0 0 0 99 0 0 0  
0 0 0 10828272 1976 16666508 0 0 0 0 395 956 0 0 100 0 0 0  
0 0 0 10823736 1976 16666528 0 0 0 304 674 1735 1 0 98 0 0 0  
0 0 0 10825416 1976 16666488 0 0 0 0 252 576 0 0 100 0 0 0  
0 0 0 10825416 1976 16666488 0 0 0 0 287 619 0 0 100 0 0 0  
0 0 0 10825416 1976 16666492 0 0 0 0 500 981 0 0 99 0 0 0  
0 0 0 10825416 1976 16666492 0 0 0 0 294 650 0 0 100 0 0 0  
0 0 0 10825416 1976 16666492 0 0 0 160 323 577 0 0 100 0 0 0  
0 0 0 10825416 1976 16666492 0 0 0 1292 500 608 0 0 100 0 0 0  
0 0 0 10825416 1976 16666492 0 0 0 0 302 560 0 0 100 0 0 0

$ top -o %CPU -b -n1 | head -20  
top - 15:25:46 up 45 days, 9:01, 6 users, load average: 0.04, 0.08, 0.08  
Tasks: 404 total, 1 running, 403 sleep, 0 d-sleep, 0 stopped, 0 zombie  
%Cpu(s): 0.0 us, 1.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 98.8 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st  
MiB Mem : 32003.88+total, 10626.20+free, 6097.465 used, 16275.57+buff/cache  
MiB Swap: 22427.99+total, 22427.99+free, 0.000 used. 25906.42+avail Mem

```auto
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND

```

1553363 gkamend+ 20 0 10528 7520 5264 R 9.313 0.023 0:00.01 top  
1 root 20 0 55804 47924 17144 S 0.000 0.146 1:57.25 systemd  
2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.000 0.000 0:05.53 kthreadd  
3 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.000 0.000 0:00.00 pool\_wo+  
4 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.000 0.000 0:00.00 kworker+  
5 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.000 0.000 0:00.00 kworker+  
6 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.000 0.000 0:00.00 kworker+  
7 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.000 0.000 0:00.00 kworker+  
8 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.000 0.000 0:00.00 kworker+  
13 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.000 0.000 0:00.00 kworker+  
14 root 20 0 0 0 0 I 0.000 0.000 0:00.00 rcu\_tas+  
15 root 20 0 0 0 0 I 0.000 0.000 0:00.00 rcu\_tas+  
16 root 20 0 0 0 0 I 0.000 0.000 0:00.00 rcu\_tas+  
$ free -h  
total used free shared buff/cache available  
Mem: 31Gi 5.9Gi 10Gi 542Mi 15Gi 25Gi  
Swap: 21Gi 0B 21Gi  
$ df -h  
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on  
/dev/mapper/suse-root 748G 84G 661G 12% /  
devtmpfs 4.0M 0 4.0M 0% /dev  
tmpfs 16G 101M 16G 1% /dev/shm  
tmpfs 6.3G 63M 6.2G 1% /run  
tmpfs 1.0M 0 1.0M 0% /run/credentials/systemd-journald.service  
/dev/mapper/suse-root 748G 84G 661G 12% /root  
/dev/mapper/suse-root 748G 84G 661G 12% /opt  
/dev/mapper/suse-root 748G 84G 661G 12% /srv  
/dev/mapper/suse-root 748G 84G 661G 12% /tmp  
/dev/mapper/suse-root 748G 84G 661G 12% /usr/local  
/dev/mapper/suse-root 748G 84G 661G 12% /var  
/dev/mapper/suse-home 3.0T 115G 2.9T 4% /home  
/dev/sda1 960M 178M 783M 19% /boot  
tmpfs 1.0M 0 1.0M 0% /run/credentials/getty@tty1.service  
tmpfs 3.2G 104K 3.2G 1% /run/user/454  
tmpfs 3.2G 5.8M 3.2G 1% /run/user/1000  
tmpfs 1.0M 0 1.0M 0% /run/credentials/getty@tty5.service  
tmpfs 1.0M 0 1.0M 0% /run/credentials/getty@tty6.service

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CendioOssman](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/community.thinlinc.com/cendioossman/32/385_2.png) [@CendioOssman](https://community.thinlinc.com/u/CendioOssman)\
**Post date:** [14 October 2026 07:00 UTC](https://community.thinlinc.com/t/slow-thinlinc-screen-refresh-since-a-couple-of-weeks/2086/8 "2026-10-14T07:00:23Z")

</div>

No, I’m afraid this does not sound familiar. It’s not something we’ve heard of from other users.
