[THIN] Re: ICA Gateway between MF 1.8 and MF XP (What about NFUSE??)

Magnus,
 
How are you providing the IE browser to your clients? Is this being
accomplished from a Windows desktop or are you using a thin client with a
built-in browser? Is it practical to even consider a double-ICA session (ICA
to a browser published app and then a second ICA session to get to NFUSE)?
My gut feeling is that a double-ICA session is a kludgy implementation,
although if I read your response correctly, it sounds like you might be
doing that very thing. A "published IE" seems to indicate that this IE is an
ICA session and then other published apps are accessed through NFUSE.
 
Is that the case in your configuration? Are you running IE from an ICA
session and then initiating additional ICA sessions within that session?
Could you describe that aspect of your implementation in a little more
detail?
 
This is one of the dilemmas with which I am currently faced. My manager is
leaning toward the deployment of this "new" farm within the context of the
old farm by implementing on MF 1.8, although it would be Windows 2000 on MF
1.8 versus NT 4.0-TSE. I desperately want to implement the new farm on MF-XP
to develop the knowledge and experience to migrate and manage the larger
farm on MF-XP possibly next year. We have diligently kept current our
Subscription Advantage so we have the MF-XP upgrade path but it would still
require the large expense of updating 3800+ CALS to W2K and TSE CALs.
Microsoft licensing is our stumbling block moving that farm forward and not
Citrix, though it is admittedly due to our lack of updating our MS licensing
last year when we had the opportunity.
 
One other thing, does this require any particular version of the ICA client?
I believe the majority of our thin clients are using an older version of the
ICA client.
 
Thanks again for the responses. I used to subscribe to the list several
years ago but our environment was so static that I dropped off the list. I
have been very encouraged in having re-discovered the list to find
knowledgeable Citrix experts so willing to offer their advice and
experience. It is unfortunate that this implementation is such a high
priority that it cannot wait until after iForum! I am certain that the
opportunity to network with dozens of Citrix experts at iForum would help
immensely with selecting the proper implementation for this project.
 
Thanks again!
 
rob
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Oglesby [mailto:roglesby@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 1:55 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA Gateway between MF 1.8 and MF XP (What about
NFUSE??)
 
It is my recommended deployment method internal and external.
 
Ron Oglesby
Senior Technical Architect
 
RapidApp
Office 312.372.7188
Mobile 815.325.7618
email roglesby@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:roglesby@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus [mailto:magnus@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 2:42 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA Gateway between MF 1.8 and MF XP (What about
NFUSE??)
 
I have done the below (running IE to access Nfuse then launch sessions from
the Published IE) and it worked quite well.  Just ensure that you load
balance everything and adjust the LB parameters for the apps (in XP) and the
servers (in 1.8) 
 
Nfuse works great (in my opinion) although we have modified the
template.ica(or the vb script in the newer version of nfuse) to handle
performance a bit better
 
magnus
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Rob Slayden
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 3:17 PM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA Gateway between MF 1.8 and MF XP (What about
NFUSE??)
Hmmm... That seems like it would work as well. I could add a published
application to the existing MF 1.8 farm, which is a single pub app that runs
Netscape Navigator 4.78 to access a web-based Fitness Membership
application. Actually, this web app has become a portal for us as it
contains links to other applications, including Communigate Pro for limited
email at the clubs. This solution would end up being an ICA session to run
Netscape Navigator within which a published application to a Windows desktop
would run, also in an ICA session. I wonder if the double-ICA session access
would experience any performance degradation? I have used a double-ICA
session remotely administrate the farm but I was not particularly interested
in performance as much as getting the remote access to perform management
functions and cluster administration. Anyone doing this "double-dipping" in
a production environment?
 
How many on the list are serving up apps via NFUSE and how satisfied are you
with its performance, capabilities, and (most important of all!)
supportability? Any feedback on NFUSE will be most appreciated!
 
Thanks!
 
Rob
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus [mailto:magnus@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:53 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA Gateway between MF 1.8 and MF XP (What about
NFUSE??)
 
Actually another thing that you can do with out worring to much about the
Thinclient hardware and OS is to publish a locked down IE Session for those
users that goes directly to your Nfuse site.  
 
Magnus
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Rob Slayden
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 2:41 PM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA Gateway between MF 1.8 and MF XP (What about
NFUSE??)
Ron,
 
Thanks for the info, though that is somewhat disconcerting news. I just had
a conversation with a Wyse engineer though and he has offered up another
"potential" solution that I want to throw out for feedback. He indicated
that if I have 3360 Wyse Winterms with 16MB flash and the 3.51 code, I can
run I.E. 4.0 on the Winterm and access two different MF farms through NFUSE
published apps. Does this sound like a viable option? It might be a lot
easier for us to identify 90 3360 terminals and ensure they have enough
Flash memory than deploying 90 new terminals, which we are hoping to avoid.
 
We have never previously had a need for the NFUSE product so I have not
really looked that closely at it. Anyone running it and able to extol its
benefits?
 
Thanks!
 
Rob Slayden
24 Hour Fitness, Inc.
 
 
----Original Message-----
From: Ron Oglesby [mailto:roglesby@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 8:44 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ICA Gateway between MF 1.8 and MF XP
 
Sorry to break the bad news but this isn't going to happen. MF XP needs to
run in mixed mode. And the Gateway 1.8 was a two way thing between 1.8
servers There is no gateway feature in XP since it is not needed. 1.8 needed
it since its browse list was built by broadcast and therefore limited to the
local subnet and you needed this to span subnets with the farm. XP does not
use this method so it will not work. 
 
So the only thing to do (in your case) Is create an XP farm in mixed mode to
incorporate the 1.8 servers. At least one of the XP servers will have to
reside on the same subnet as the 1.8 servers. This will allow you to migrate
from the existing 1.8 farm to XP since Mixed mode is not meant for long term
use (best practice not longer than a month, Longest I have seen it
successful before problems start to occur 8 weeks.   Longest I have SEEN it
run. 5 months but the farm was falling apart by my standards at that point.
 
In anyway you are going to have to upgrade or keep two different farms.
 
 
Ron Oglesby
Senior Technical Architect
 
RapidApp
Office 312.372.7188
Mobile 815.325.7618
email roglesby@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:roglesby@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Slayden [mailto:rslayden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 10:29 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] ICA Gateway between MF 1.8 and MF XP
 
We have a fairly large MF 1.8 farm (27 servers-NT 4.0 TSE/3800 Wyse Winterm
users) and we are about to deploy a small MF XP farm (3 servers-W2k3/90
users). We use Wyse Winterms (3350 and 3360) and we want to enable access to
BOTH farms from the same Winterm. It appears that the ICA gateway will fit
the bill nicely. My question is the ability of the ICA gateway to function
across disparate versions of MetaFrame. I have two questions related to this
problem:
 
Has anyone used the ICA Gateway functionality across MF 1.8 and MF XP?
As each farm will reside in its own subnet, is there a better solution than
the ICA Gateway to enable this access?
 
Note that the option to upgrade the MF 1.8 farm is cost-prohibitive as we
would need to purchase a LARGE number of TS CALs and W2K3 CALs (not
currently in the budget!).
 
On another note, I FINALLY get to attend Citrix iForum after 4 years of
managing a large MF farm. I am looking forward to networking with others of
"my kind" and hearing about the different implementations of Citrix
MetaFrame, not to mention the technical breakout sessions! I will be taking
my family and am wondering if anyone has any good family-oriented hotel
recommendations. The Swan and Dolphin look like they would be fun for the
family but the rooms are a little pricey, even with the iForum-attendee
discount. Is it just me or does anyone else think Citrix could have worked
out a better deal than $239 per night??!!
 
Thanks for any and all responses.
 
Rob Slayden  <><
NT/Citrix Systems Engineer
24 Hour Fitness, Inc.
2234 Rutherford Rd.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-918-4787 - Work
760-802-8498 - Cell
760-918-4854 - Fax
rslayden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: