[THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN
- From: "Tony Lyne" <Tony.Lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:29:45 +1200
Thanks Jeremy,
Itâs an interesting project due to this particular requirement. I've done the
sums and it does look like it will work fine over a WAN, given their WAN is
light on utilization 2M each site and 100M in the Datacenter. QoS is also setup
which we can manipulate a little if need be as well.
I would have to say though, doing this on MF XP 1.0 would have been next to
impossible, but 3 and 4 make it possible.
Tony Lyne
Consultant
Senior Systems Engineer
+64 6 353 7300
+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."
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Jeremy Saunders
Sent: Thursday, 1 June 2006 1:31 p.m.
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN
I missed this post because I was away for the 2nd half of last week, but I
do agree with Mark and Steve. I realise that my initial reply came across
as rude, and I didn't mean that. I guess I was shocked to see a design like
this. And for those of us that build/architect solutions like this, it's
difficult to understand the business drivers behind this, without being
told the exact reasons.
Sorry Tony.
Cheers.
Kind regards,
Jeremy Saunders
Senior Technical Specialist
Infrastructure Technology Services
(ITS) & Cerulean
Global Technology Services (GTS)
IBM Australia
Level 2, 1060 Hay Street
West Perth WA 6005
Visit us at
http://www.ibm.com/services/au/its
P:Â +61 8 9261 8412 F:Â +61 8 9261 8486
M:Â TBA E-mail:
jeremy.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Steve Greenberg"
<steveg@thinclien
t.net> To
Sent by: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
thin-bounce@freel cc
ists.org
Subject
[THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN
24/05/2006 11:05
PM
Please respond to
thin
Well stated- I agree. I am genuinely curious about what business conditions
drive this type of design. I have seen all kinds of weird situations where
the proper design is the âwrongâ design based on the unique requirements of
the environment.
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 Landin, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:19 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN
OK guys we are starting to sound a little condescending, perhaps. Let's
presume for a moment that the business decided their business needs, and
Tony's solution is the best solution.
Tony, we ask for more details about your needs not to try to tear down or
critique your architecture (although if somebody does have a constructive
suggestion, I would expect them to communicate it), but, in my case at
least, I've not been in a situation where your particular architecture is
demanded, so I'm interested in learning what the driving factors are behind
it. It's going to be more of an education for me, than me trying to educate
you!
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andrew Wood
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:07 AM
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 expectedâ
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
+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
+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 etcâ)
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
+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."
ÈI+R{nÇ&8zËVjØjzzZ)zXÊ
ŠÀÈb½ëI+hR{.nÇ+‰·’¹» ®&Þ» ´8 zËhVœjØžj zë ¶›zZ0–)ä†Ûiÿü0ÁúÞzX¬¶Ê+ƒùb²ßí†)
Other related posts:
