All I can offer given what you have provided is to check the network between the ACS and LMS servers. Rule out obvious performance issues like faulty cabling, duplex mismatches, etc. Also, check that both servers meet minimum requirements, and check the load to make sure there aren't any processes monopolizing CPU time.
We als o had the same problem with LMS 3.0 & ACS 401 appliance. Also bad performance seen. When changed form ACS mode to Non CS mode this cpu problem dissapeared. Could you explain under what circomstances you worked or set this up. How can I check this?
I checked the network, nothing found.
This is the first I've heard of a CPU problem. What processes were taking up a lot of CPU? What are the stats of the CiscoWorks server
Lab tests will LMS/ACS integration were done with servers on the same LAN or otherwise ethernet connected. We tested with ACS on Windows and on the appliance platform.
I personally have LMS 2.6 and 3.0 integrated with ACS 4.0 running on a Windows server. Both ACS and LMS servers are in the same subnet interconnected on 100 Mbps ports on 2960 switches. I have not seen any unusual performance problems with this setup.
I integrate LMS 3.0 with ASC 4.1 solution engine today and the same situation appeared. Before the ASC integration (with local CW authentication) everything worked fine. Now the performance of the GUI is poor. The network connection of the CW even ACS didn't changed and both servers are on the same LAN. I also tried different web browsers and the CW GUI performance is always poor.
We have seen this kind of problem if LMS is installed on Windows. In that case, if the IP address of the ACS server is not resolvable, then LMS ends up sending directed NetBIOS queries to the ACS box. Try adding the ACS server's hostname and IP address to C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts, and see if that helps.
Actually I am having the same problem in a similar installation (LMS 3.0 and ACS). The initial problem persists after applying this suggestion. Is there any other solution? Our customer had changed to a more powerfull server in order to improve the response time of LMS Navigation but no improved results.