[THIN] Re: Desktop
- From: "Steve Greenberg" <steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 21:34:24 -0700
I agree with all that. The issue I have with the hypervisor approach is that
is simply is not very efficient in terms of RAM, CPU and disk space. Also
just because people know how to install and manage PC does not mean it is a
good paradigm :-)
I think this will improve though as hardware steadily improves and the 64
bit OS becomes supported for day to day tasks. Think about the hyper
efficiency you will get out of Virtuozzo in the future running 64 bits,
better isolation and remote client tools- that will rock!!
Steve Greenberg
Thin Client Computing
34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
Scottsdale, AZ 85266
(602) 432-8649
www.thinclient.net
steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Joe Shonk
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 6:59 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Desktop
Yes, I will agree that this would the best solution considering the
requirements. You do have to admit that this is a fairly unique situation.
For most implementations, I would say either a traditional SBC or
traditional VDI solution would be the way to go. One of the nice things
about a traditional hypervisor based VDI is the
delivery/deployment/management of applications does not have to change. The
admin can use the same packages and installation method to install and
manage those applications. With Terminal Server based solutions and
Virtuozzo, the installation and management processes change and require a
higher skill set to implement and maintain. There is also a political
battle that is avoided. SBC solutions are generally managed by the Server
Team. A VDI solution with Virtuozzo would also need to be maintained by the
Server team and now that you are dealing with Desktops then it becomes a
threat to the Desktop team. A Hypervisor based solution would allow the
server team to be managed the hypervisor while the desktop team manages the
VMs.
Don?t get me wrong, I like Virtuozzo. I think it has it place, but I don?t
think it?s the #1 choice for VDI. If they had an XP and/or Vista version
then I would be speak a different tune.
Joe
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Mads Sørensen
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:10 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Desktop
Yes.. but that you also would if you are using some other VDI application..
By using Virtuozzo you can start more Desktops on one server, because of the
little overhead - when we are talking Virtuozzo vs. XenServer or VMWare.
And if you are talking about XenApp vs. Virtuozzo, the user in Virtuozzo
will have there own desktop(server) they could play with, have local admin
rights etc. and if they f.. there desktop up, they will simply get a new
fresh one in no time.
We have a big school as a customer and they complain about the students not
having permissions to access the computers with admin rights when they are
teaching IT classes. So by giving them there own VDI desktop they can do
what ever they want. This you can't do with XenApp.. but again I don't see
XenApp and Virtuozzo as competitors
In my opinion Virtuozzo is on the sideline , they are not direct competitors
to any of Citrix's or VMware products. But it really has some potential in
the right environment.
/Mads
2008/4/1, Joe Shonk <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx>:
If you do Application Virtualization (XenApp or Softgrid) with Virtuozzo you
will essentially loose one of the big benefits you gain by using the
Virtuozzo product. No longer will the application have a single footprint
in memory, it will be duplicated for each session.
And if you publish the applications what did you gain by using Virtuozzo
that you could not have already done with published desktop from XenApp?
Joe
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Mads Sørensen
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:45 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Desktop
I hear what you are saying.. but I don't have any experience with Provision
Network products, so I don't know what they could add to the environment, do
you have a link (Presentation) or a demo video with Provision Network VAS
used in a Virtuozzo environment?
Regarding Applications there are many options:
Streaming:
- Citrix XenApp
- Microsoft Application Virtualization(Softtricity SoftGrid)
Publish Application:
- Citrix XenApp
- Windows Server 2008 TS (or maybe not.. :-)
You could also create the application as templates on the Virtuozzo server
and then add them to the containers. Applications can be added "on-the-fly"
by the users self via the web interface and here they could also start a new
desktop, depending on there access rights.
Yes we are missing the USB redirection... guessing that's were Citrix or
Provisioning Networks walks into the picture.. :)
Steve, I'm not sure I understand you setup with both Virtuozzo and VM's ??
will you install VMWare inside the containers? or just PS inside the
containers?
Now I haven't tested XenDesktop yet, but will it be able to integrate that
technology into the Virtuozzo containers and then use the ICA protocol to
connect to the "VDI" instead of using RDP?
/Mads
2008/4/1, Steve Greenberg <steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
This is an interesting distinction. I think you probably should classify VDI
on Virtuozzo as SBC, yet it isn't truly shared in the same way as TS. It is
really an in-between hybrid. It is not truly SBC because if you customize
the registry or file system in a virtual machine, it does copy on write,
they are in fact represented as a distinct registry and file system to the
machine. It is not truly VDI because important elements of the host OS are
shared.
For those who don't know this, Joe and I work together so we have discussed
this many times. I really want the chance to do a production system which
you described which uses Virtuozzo with VM's running PS but treat the VM's
as single user machines. This would give you the best of all worlds-
efficiency, a dedicated machine per user and the features of PS applied to
the "VDI" session. Of course you could substitute Provision Networks
potentitally feature wise. I don't know their license model, but I do know
that since PS has no per-server cost that you can do this and only pay for
concurrency of users.
The potential downfall of this would be the MS licensing. You really would
need to use Data Center edition of WIN2K3 (not sure about 2008) to allow the
density of virtual machines that this could potentially host. So, once
again, it all hinges on the economics of the MS portion?..
Steve Greenberg
Thin Client Computing
34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
Scottsdale, AZ 85266
(602) 432-8649
<http://www.thinclient.net/> www.thinclient.net
steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Joe Shonk
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:57 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Desktop
I still say it would be better if there was a XP version of Virtuozzo
instead of a skinned version of Windows 2003. What advantage would
Virtuozzo for VDI have over a conventional SBC Desktop? I would say from a
Presentation Server vs XenDesktop standpoint, PS with Virtuozzo would be a
better solution that Virtuozzo and XenDesktop. Why? Because you can
publish applications (set up each VE as a 1 user terminal server for
application isolation).
I'm not disputing that Virtuozzo isn't efficient and scalable but you have
to consider why it is you're choosing a VDI solution over a SBC solution.
What is it you're getting out of a VDI solution that you can't get out of
SBC? Virtuozzo is a moot point because everything it offers for a VDI
solution, it also offers for SBC.
Joe
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Rick Mack
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:19 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Desktop
Hi Mads,
NO argument, Virtuozzo is brilliant from a scalability and efficiency
viewpoint, particularly when compared to using hypervisors.
Because you're doing operating system partitioning instead of hosting
separate instances of an operating system, it's nearly as scalable as
terminal services.
I was a fan of Virtuozzo years before SWsoft became Parallels.
Nevertheless, it's more a virtualization platform than a VDI product because
it's missing a lot of the little bits that round out a complete solution VDI
solution. Stuff like published applications, UPD USB redirection,
multi-media support etc.
If you add Provision Network's VAS, which links into Virtuozzo, then you
have a real VDI solution ;-)
regards,
Rick
--
Ulrich Mack
Quest Software
Provision Networks Division
On 3/31/08, Mads Sørensen <gasmadske@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now we are talking VDI products, I think one of the best VDI products out
there right now is "Parallels Virtuozzo 4.0", The beauty is that it uses the
container technology on a Windows Server 2003 and with almost no overhead.
So with a Windows Server 2003 Datacenter license and the XP Theme service,
you can start as many desktops as you want or twice as many as you could
with some other VDI software on one server :-). It has a really good
management interface and I could go on. But as Rick also writes it may not
be the place to discuss this.. so I'll stop her.. but it's really worth
taking a look at.
/Mads
Other related posts:
