[THIN] Re: Server spec's
- From: "Webster" <webster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:17:17 -0500
#3 - Since I don't use XA5/2008 except for writing a future article I really
don't know the answer. I will let Joe Shonk answer that question when he
wakes up from his beauty sleep (which he needs extremely badly so I hope he
doesn't wake up until Labor Day).
#4 - the XA5/2008 team did not, does not and will not test components
combined on servers. So if you combine components and run into issues, you
are in untested territory.
Example, if you look at the XenApp 6 hotfixes, you will see that most of
them say if you install this hotfix AND you have the license server
component installed, the license registry keys are deleted. You need to
install hotfix 002, IIRC, to prevent this. Why a hotfix would just delete
registry keys is beyond me. At least the XA6 team recognized this specific
issue and addressed it.
That is also one of the issues I found with XA5/2008. If you run the
license server on a XA5/2008 server and apply a product update or hotfix,
ALL the license server registry keys are deleted!!! Which causes you to
immediately start getting license error popups. Simple fix, reinstall the
license server stuff and reimport your license file. When I reported this
to Citrix, I was told "we do not test the license server installed with any
other components". In other words, not our problem. That was one of many
issues I ran up against.
Webster
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Matt Kosht
Subject: [THIN] Re: Server spec's
#1 Well that settles it for me :) WWJD What would Joe do?
#2 OK they share code base but 90% of the Vista stuff was FUD IMO. I ran it
for 2 years myself with 0 issues.
#3 Does that still hold true? The only big feature that I thought was
missing was HDX Flash redirection which was added in FP3/2008 some time ago.
#4 Haven't hit any show stoppers myself, but then my farm is pretty small
(<200 concurrent users)
Biggest issues with me sticking with 2003R2 is it's age, needs much more
tuning on XA than 2008, and it's butt ugly to look at. Issues with XA6 is
x64 is a huge jump for some of the apps we run. So this was the best
compromise.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Webster <webster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
#1 - Joe Shonk doesn't like it (if you can't tell, Joe and I love to pick on
one another)
#2 - Server 2008 equals Vista Server
#3 - XenApp 5 on 2008 does not have the feature set of XenApp 5 on 2003
#4 - I gave up writing my book on it because of all the bugs I found and I
couldn't get Citrix to address the issues
I made it to Chapter 5 in my book and gave up on the product.
Carl Webster
Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional
http://dabcc.com/Webster
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Matt Kosht
Subject: [THIN] Re: Server spec's
OK Carl I'll bite. What is wrong with XA5/2008? I run this now in
production. I find it to be stable and performing well.
-Matt
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, <webster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I personally think that XenApp 5 on Server 2008 is the ugly red-headed
step-child of the XenApp family tree. My apologies to all you good
looking red-headed step-children on the list.
Other related posts:
