[THIN] Re: Server spec's

I’m afraid it depends on your apps have a look at paged pool and non paged pool 
limits in 32bit @ 
http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2009/03/26/3211216.aspx

If you can get a baseline of what your existing servers are like, then 2003 x32 
Enterprise might be an option.

2008 / XenApp 5 x64 has been with hotfixes very stable
2008R2 / XenApp 6 has been next to useless.
2008R2SP1 / XenApp 6 has massively improved reliability, few issue’s still with 
apps namely Adobe CS Suite breaking autocreated client drives but this still 
needs retesting.



From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Hamilton, Ronnie
Sent: 03 June 2011 12:37
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Server spec's

OK one more …

….Is it worth looking into Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition to allow it 
to user more than 4Gb

I know the best solution is to probably virtualise until I get to play with 
XenApp 6 on 2008 R2 but I may not be able to as yet.

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Magnus Hjorleifsson
Sent: 03 June 2011 04:19
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [THIN] Re: Server spec's

Ima instability XML instability and according to some in CCS scalability stinks 
and do jot recommend it for any infrastructure server

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:17, "Hamilton, Ronnie" 
<ronnie.hamilton@xxxxxxx<mailto:ronnie.hamilton@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
Good to here that as it looks like my next two servers is going to be 2008 with 
office 2010 and XenApp5.

Have you mixed 2003 and 2008 in the same farm ?

I will be using two separate published desktops one for Office 2010 users and 
the other for the rest.

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matt Kosht
Sent: 02 June 2011 14:14
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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<mailto: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.


Webster

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Server spec's
> To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>
> Bit of a result here
>
> Looks like I can go 2008 on my new servers with XenApp 5 it will apps +
> Office 2010.
>
> Office 2010 being the reason for the new toys.
>
> Any big issues to look out for missing OS's in the same XenApp farm?

************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************






Visit our website : www.ltai.ie<http://www.ltai.ie>

__________________________________________

Lufthansa Technik Airmotive Ireland Limited. Registered in Ireland. Reg. No. 
45999. Registered Office: Naas Road, Rathcoole, Co.Dublin.

Lufthansa Technik Airmotive Ireland Leasing Limited. Registered in Ireland. 
Reg. No. 140891. Registered Office: Naas Road, Rathcoole, Co.Dublin.

__________________________________________

The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and may be 
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message, 
delete any copies held on your systems and notify the sender by return email. 
You should not read, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, disclose or use 
this email or its contents in any way. Any such action is strictly prohibited. 
Thank you.




Other related posts: