[THIN] Re: Visual Studio .NET
- From: "Braebaum, Neil" <Neil.Braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:55:40 +0100
Well if you want the most grunt out of the hardware, TS / Citrix is a
better match than VMware.
And stability *shouldn't* be a problem - as I've been stressing,
virtualise the app, and manage the app. The user shouldn't be able to
take down the server.
Neil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> elliot.stapleton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 13 July 2005 22:58
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Visual Studio .NET
>
> Thanks for all this chat... it has been useful. Sometimes
> forget that most things have been done or attempted by some
> brave soul on these forums at some point, so i appecriate that!
>
>
> I have been thinking more and more along a VmWare route to
> deploy this. I am looking at around 20 developers off-shore
> and need to provide a 24/7 environment which I can run with
> stability and reliability. I think giving each dev their own
> virtual machine and access to a repository for saving away
> apps is the way to go rather than the pain of a Citrix server
> which anyone could blue screen and destroy on a nightly
> basis! Much more trouble than it is worth.
>
> I had heard rumours of being only able to run with 4/5 users
> anyway on a decent spec server , which degrades any business
> case for doing it totally!
>
> Cheers for that, re-affirmed what I was thinking.
>
> Elliot
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Henry Sieff
> Sent: 13 July 2005 20:00
> To: thin
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Visual Studio .NET
>
>
> Yeah, we talked about doing that. Build a server with virtual
> server and simply give each developer there own vm built from
> an identical image.
>
> I suspect it's the next step.
>
> --
> Henry Sieff
> Network Engineer
> ph. 504-620-3420
> mob. 504-931-4638
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Mangan
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:14 PM
> > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [THIN] Re: Visual Studio .NET
> >
> > Yeah - that would get messy. That is why giving them a virtual
> > machine makes sense. Either Virtual PC or Server, or the VMWare
> > equivalents would work for what they need - it needn't be high end.
> >
> > tim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Columna, Melvin
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 2:06 PM
> > To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> > Subject: [THIN] Re: Visual Studio .NET
> >
> > And what about un/registering DLLs?
> > If your developers are doing COM stuff, they might need to
> Reg/unreg
> > DLLs
> >
> > Which could theoretically pull the rug from under somebody else's
> > feet.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Henry Sieff
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:46 PM
> > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [THIN] Re: Visual Studio .NET
> >
> >
> > How does it deal with controls - if you need to add a new
> third-party
> > control, do you go back and re-sequence it, since this is
> considered
> > part of the environment?
> >
> > --
> > Henry Sieff
> > Network Engineer
> > ph. 504-620-3420
> > mob. 504-931-4638
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Mangan
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:56 AM
> > > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [THIN] Re: Visual Studio .NET
> > >
> > > Not deploy, but I did sequence it and test it under
> SoftGrid and it
> > > worked great.
> > >
> > > tim
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Henry Sieff
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:38 PM
> > > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [THIN] Re: Visual Studio .NET
> > >
> > > If I needed to support more developers, or deploy the app on
> > > general-use servers, I probably would opt for the
> softricity route.
> > >
> > > Has anyone used Softricity to deploy vs.net?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Henry Sieff
> > > Network Engineer
> > > ph. 504-620-3420
> > > mob. 504-931-4638
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Braebaum, Neil
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 10:53 AM
> > > > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: [THIN] Re: Visual Studio .NET
> > > >
> > > > For something like this virtualising or isolating the apps
> > > is almost
> > > > certainly a requirement (see: Softgrid or app isolation
> > > environments
> > > > in PS4), and performance optimisation software (tscale,
> armtech,
> > > > appsense).
> > > >
> > > > Neil
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Henry Sieff
> > > > > Sent: 13 July 2005 16:09
> > > > > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: [THIN] Re: Visual Studio .NET
> > > > >
> > > > > I run a server with this for a development team of
> > about 16, but
> > > > > rarely do we see more than 4-6 users at a time. I saw
> > performance
> > > > > degradation when I had 10 users compile a large app at the
> > > > same time,
> > > > > but its been pretty stable and that useage pattern isn't
> > > > normal, so I
> > > > > would feel pretty confident putting 20 or so users on
> > there doing
> > > > > normal development, anything more and things may get
> > interesting
> > > > > because the IDE is very inefficient for running apps.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would strongly recommend, if you plan on pushing it to 20
> > > > users and
> > > > > beyond, that you use a CPU and/or memory optimization
> > > package like
> > > > > tscale or armtech because your developers will starve each
> > > > other and
> > > > > the OS.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/academic/techdown/techprod/netframew
> > > > > ork/devsys
> > > > > /devsysws03/default.aspx is a link to a bunch of stuff
> > > about doing
> > > > > just this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Permissions can be hard - for some tasks (debugging
> > > asp.net apps in
> > > > > IIS5) they need to be local admins (whidbey is supposed
> > > to fix this
> > > > > problem). I simply use a runas and set up a local admin
> > > > which they run
> > > > > the app as once they log in if they need to do this. When
> > > I migrate
> > > > > this to Win2k3, I can use II6 which allows me to give each
> > > > developer
> > > > > their own app pool which runs as them, and then they
> > can debug to
> > > > > their hearts content.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sysinternals is crucial since when they aren't running as
> > > > local admin
> > > > > they still need extra perms to HKCR, et al.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, and take images a lot, since at some point a third
> > > > party control
> > > > > will get installed that will fuxor everything.
> > > > >
> > > > > SourceSafe (I assume that's what you mean) was very
> > easy and runs
> > > > > great.
> > > > > VS.NET is tougher, but as long as you are willing to spend
> > > > some time
> > > > > tweaking registry permissions and take steps to control
> > > > changes (third
> > > > > party control installation etc.) it can be pretty stable.
*****************************************************************************
This e-mail and its attachments are confidential and are intended for the above
named recipient only. If this has come to you in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete this e-mail from your system. You must take no
action based on this, nor must you copy or disclose it or any part of its
contents to any person or organisation. Statements and opinions contained in
this email may not necessarily represent those of Littlewoods Group Limited or
its subsidiaries. Please note that e-mail communications may be monitored. The
Registered Office of Littlewoods Group Limited and its subsidiaries is 100 Old
Hall Street, Liverpool, L70 1AB. Registered number of Littlewoods Group Limited
is 5059352.
*****************************************************************************
This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl -
www.blackspider.com
********************************************************
This Weeks Sponsor: Lakeside Software
SysTrack is the easiest to use, most complete way to monitor system and
application performance. SysTrack combines comprehensive monitoring
capabilities with hardware/software inventory, change management, user/web
auditing, and reporting to create a total management solution.
Evaluation at: http://www.LakesideSoftware.com
**********************************************************
Now available BriForum-The Video!
http://www.brianmadden.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=1&idaffiliate=3
Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
http://thin.net/links.cfm
ThinWiki community - Excellent SBC Search Capabilities!
http://www.thinwiki.com
***********************************************************
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://thin.net/citrixlist.cfm
Other related posts:
