[THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN
- From: "Steve Greenberg" <steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 22:20:52 -0700
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 :-)
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
<mailto:tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx> tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx
<http://www.gen-i.co.nz> 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: <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
<mailto:tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx> tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx
<http://www.gen-i.co.nz> 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."
Other related posts:
