Thanks guys,
So really the outcome from this thread is what I expected…
Unfortunately in the ideal world I would have a centralized datacenter,
but in this case it's physically impossible due to a number of constraints,
business and technology wise.
One thing I've been possibly considering is the use of a traffic shaping
appliance like an Exinda optimizer to quantify IMA traffic and then shaping
it to reduce impact on the WAN, and also from there look at compressing it
further.
*Tony Lyne
Consultant*
*Senior Systems Engineer*
+64 6 353 7300
<http://www.gen-i.co.nz>
+64 6 356 6800
+64 27 472 0696
tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.gen-i.co.nz
172-174 Broadway Avenue, PO Box 1470,
Palmerston North, New Zealand
"This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you
are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me
immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this
communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that
this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes
of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002."
------------------------------
*From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
Behalf Of *Andrew Wood
*Sent:* Tuesday, 23 May 2006 8:07 p.m.
*To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN
At pubforum the citix guys mentioned an NHS site that had a large number
of zones (over 10 iirc). The citrix guys thought it would fall over, but
they set it up in the labs and it didn't.
That wasn't a wan per se tho' .... just popped it in for the large number
of zones.
I would have thought besides the high levels IMA traffic going backwards
and forwards, the many policies you'd probably have to put in place and then
manage, the distributed/replicated(?) nature of the licensing services and
access to the datastore, the difficulty in ensuring standardised
deployment patching and application updates across wan links, possibility of
difficulty in managing the user loads in the event of a disaster, and
depending on the nature of the apps scary problems with home drives,
printing and profiles, and increased costs of adding in bandwidth
optimisation technologies it should be absolutely fine.
------------------------------
*From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
Behalf Of *Steve Greenberg
*Sent:* 23 May 2006 06:21
*To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN
I have to agree this is odd. It is more common to build two highly fault
tolerant data centers and then have the 27 sites access the data centers. In
fact, this would be a significantly better approach for many reasons! Sorry,
I realize you weren't asking for an alternate design J
Steve Greenberg
Thin Client Computing
34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
Scottsdale, AZ 85262
(602) 432-8649
www.thinclient.net
steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------
*From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
Behalf Of *Joe Shonk
*Sent:* Monday, May 22, 2006 9:26 PM
*To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN
Odd ball indeed... Most corporations have their WAN links go to their
primary Data Center and to their DR site... So only two sets of servers are
required.
The key will be to keep the number of zones to a minimum.
Joe
On 5/22/06, *Tony Lyne* <Tony.Lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Mark,
Yes it's a bit of an odd ball design request.
The driver behind this particular design is they need a 24x7 uptime and
have each site totally autonomous in the case of a WAN failure. But don't
want the hassle of having 27 separate farms to manage (understandable).
*Tony Lyne
Consultant*
*Senior Systems Engineer*
+64 6 353 7300
<http://www.gen-i.co.nz>
+64 6 356 6800
+64 27 472 0696
tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.gen-i.co.nz
172-174 Broadway Avenue, PO Box 1470,
Palmerston North, New Zealand
"This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you
are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me
immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this
communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that
this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes
of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002."
------------------------------
*From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
Behalf Of *Landin, Mark
*Sent:* Tuesday, 23 May 2006 9:26 a.m.
*To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN
That seems like one ... unorthodox? ... architecture to me. Care to
clarify the details that are leading to this design? (Not saying it's wrong,
just saying I can't think of the real-world problem this solution is looking
for...)
------------------------------
*From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
Behalf Of *Tony Lyne
*Sent:* Monday, May 22, 2006 4:02 PM
*To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [THIN] Citrix farms over a WAN
Guys/Gals,
I've been given a project to scope out a citrix farm design which consists
of 27 sites with 2 load balanced Citrix servers on each site. The client
needs it in this configuration for specific redundancy reasons (ie WAN
redundancy etc…)
Does any one know what the limitations on having a single farm span across
27 sites (limited bandwidth available as well).
I was planning on specifying a zone for each site, and disabling load
balancing across zones in MPS 4.
Any other pointers would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
*Tony Lyne
Consultant*
*Senior Systems Engineer*
+64 6 353 7300
<http://www.gen-i.co.nz>
+64 6 356 6800
+64 27 472 0696
tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.gen-i.co.nz
172-174 Broadway Avenue, PO Box 1470,
Palmerston North, New Zealand
"This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you
are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me
immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this
communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that
this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes
of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002."
