[THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN

Or politicians?

 

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andrew Wood
Sent: 24 May 2006 15:07
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN

 

Are they, for instance, mad?

 

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Steve Greenberg
Sent: 24 May 2006 12:56
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN

Tony, 

 

I fully understand the validity of providing a non-standard solution
based on client needs. Could you explain what type of factors drive this
type of design requirement?

 

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 Tony Lyne
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:30 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN

 

Well in this case it is and really the only solution given their
business drivers behind things.

 

T.


 

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Joe Shonk
Sent: Wed 24/05/2006 3:23 p.m.
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN

Or prehaps Citrix isn't the best solution in this senario.... As much as
we all love and know citrix, it's not always the ideal solution.

Joe

On 5/23/06, Tony Lyne <Tony.Lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

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 <mailto:tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

www.gen-i.co.nz <http://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
<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 <mailto:tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

www.gen-i.co.nz <http://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
<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 <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 <mailto:tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

www.gen-i.co.nz <http://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."

         

         




 




 

JPEG image

JPEG image

Other related posts: