[THIN] Re: 64 bit Citrix Presentation Server!
- From: <steverae@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:26:02 -0400
I wanted to start a thread in regards to 64 bit Presentation Server.
I understand a 64 bit PS can exist in a farm with regular 32 bit PS 4.0.
Apparently you need to go to 4 processors to start being able to justify
performance.
What is your experience in working with 64 bit PS? (No marketing please.)
Positives?
Negatives?
I imagine Citrix and TS is really working on this in Longhorn and in PS 4.5
or whatever.
Thanks, Stephen
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Eldon
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:12 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VMWare Farm
Thanks to all providing very good info so far. Now, which features
specifically in PS 4 would resolve my DR needs (not totally up to speed with
PS 4). Also, isn't running 15 VMs running on only 5 servers improving my
farm based upon consolidation?
On 7/31/06, Jeff Pitsch <jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mm, i would argue that you probably have space to consolidate anyway but
moving to 64-bit OS and hardware would allow you to consolidate very easily
and the features that are in PS4 would allow for exactly what your looking
for from a DR perspective. Just remember that you will not get the same
performance out of a VM that you would out of pure hardware. Now there are
obvious considerations here like you may be using really old hardware, etc
but do not be surprised that you could very easily end up running more than
15 VM's to handle the same amount of users in a virtualized environment.
As well, don't agree to anything until you can actually test all of thi
sout. Anyone can promise the world, it's up to you to make sure that it's
actually the world you want. I've seen to many people fall into this trap
and only listen to what they are being told, then sign the agreements, then
live to regret because they didn't do due diligence to make sure that the
solution would actually work.
Jeff Pitsch
Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
Forums not enough?
Get support from the experts at your business
http://jeffpitschconsulting.com <http://jeffpitschconsulting.com/>
On 7/31/06, Eldon <u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Being the OP, the lure of VMware to me is twofold: 1 - to consolidate
hardware in my current deployment of HP G1 hardware (15) to support 250
concurrent connections to a published dekstop and other siloed apps; and 2 -
to allow failover to our DR site by using our current EMC SAN located in our
main site and a future EMC SAN (Centerra) at our DR location. Portability
of moving VMs between SANs in a DR scenario is very appealing.
I am in the process of waiting on a quote from a Solutions Architect, but
the way it was explained to me is that I would be looking at consolidation
of 3 current servers into 1 (3 VMs per server).
On 7/31/06, Jeff Pitsch <jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
Hence my statement of lightly used servers. Most companies care about
getting more users on a system vs less. Now granted the OP didn't say how
many users, how many servers but in the end if you try to take an entire
farm and port it to VM's, you will typically end up using more VM's than
phsyical boxes. VM's simply cannot get the same amount of users on a system
as physical hardware can at this point in time. If you aren't utilizing
your servers to their full potential or even close to their potential, then
yes you could move to VM's and not notice much of difference. But let's be
realistic for a moment, most people move to VM's to consolidate servers. As
well, many many companies that do this with Presentation Server aren't using
their boxes to nearly their potential anyways so moving to VM's for that
reason is simply ridiculous. I would be willing to bet that many PS
implementations have never taken the time to benchmark or stress test their
servers to see how many users they can get on a system. They have no idea
what their sytems can handle and therefore over buy on the systems required.
Now overbuying isn't necessarily a bad thing (for redundancy) but I've been
into many many companies that do it because they simply don't know what
their systems can handle.
whew, gotta get off that soapbox. Sorry everyone
Jeff Pitsch
Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
Forums not enough?
Get support from the experts at your business
http://jeffpitschconsulting.com <http://jeffpitschconsulting.com/>
On 7/31/06, Selinger, Stephen <SSelinger@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
Jeff,
Respectively I hope that you are only taking about highly utilized
production Citrix servers and not other servers as VMs. There are many
companies including where I work that have production VMs of various sorts
and flavours. ESX is absolutely a production ready product that is capable
of running production VMs. Yes there will be servers that have too high of
utilization to be running on ESX but there are tons of over powered
underutilized servers out there.
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Pitsch
Sent: July 31, 2006 11:29 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VMWare Farm
I believe the general concesus is is that for production, VM's are not the
way. Lightly used servers are fine, but for an entire farm the performance
is ismply not there yet.
Jeff Pitsch
Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
Forums not enough?
Get support from the experts at your business
http://jeffpitschconsulting.com <http://jeffpitschconsulting.com/>
On 7/31/06, Eldon < u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Currently running FR3 on 2000 SP4, and am beginning to evaluate and look at
building a separate Windows 2003 CPS 4.0 Farm on the VMWare ESX platform.
Just wanted to get an idea if anyone on the list has something similar in
production today, what hardware you deployed to support published apps on
ESX and VMotion, and how you designed your farm (including Data Collector
and Database). Also looking for Best Practices and Things to Avoid!
Thanks!!
This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is
addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and or privileged
information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
recipient. Do not copy, distribute or take action relying on it. Any
communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or
destroyed.
Other related posts:
