[THIN] Re: A definitive registry information source?
- From: "Jim Kenzig" <jkenzig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 12:42:13 -0400
And correct me if I am wrong Rick, you mention XP desktops. Microsoft does
not offer a server virtualization license for XP. Only Vista Vecd can be
used. You'd need to buy that and downgrade to XP.
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Jim Kenzig <jkenzig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've never disputed the fact that VDI is a great idea and a useful
> technology. I just can't bring myself to see how it can be called a cost
> savings to any corporation attempting to use. I'm not going to be able to
> convince a board member that we need to make a million dollar investment
> even based on the great points you make below. : ) It's real desktops for
> me for the foreseeable future. Sigh.
> Jim
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:10 AM, Rick Mack <ulrich.mack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> I used to be a terminal server (TS) bigot too because I could get almost
>> any application going on TS. I'd spend days and nights finding out how
>> applications worked, and how to modify the application or environment to
>> make it happy. But not everyone has the skill, experience, time, tenacity or
>> stupidity to do that. I did it because it was fun and I've learned an
>> incredible amount of stuff. Other people are sensible and have a real life
>> :-)
>>
>> Things are a lot easier than they used to be. Application verifiers, the
>> Microsoft Standard user analyser, the new TS application compatibility
>> analyzer and application isolation and streaming have made the whole process
>> of porting applications to TS a lot easier.
>>
>> But it's still not as easy as installing an application on a Windows XP
>> desktop and unfortunately the major skill set in a lot of
>> organizations resides in the desktop management team.
>>
>> You know them, they're the people who reboot a TS server with 50 users
>> logged on because the spooler has stopped. They often just can't or won't
>> come to grips with TS and actively hate it. They're the ones that have made
>> Citrix a dirty word in a lot of organizations.
>>
>> Anyway, lets get down to the real stuff.
>>
>> Server based computing (SBC) is about delivering a remote GUI to users
>> while running the users' "virtual" desktops or applications in the data
>> center. Remote doesn't necessarity mean far away, just that the desktop or
>> applications aren't running on the device in front of the end user.
>>
>> SBC coupled with thin clients is widely acknowledged as a brilliant way to
>> keep desktop management costs in check, and to get away from the 2-3 yearly
>> desktop refresh cycle.
>>
>> So if that's such a good idea, why do so many people hate TS?
>>
>> Because it's different, and it's often just too hard.
>>
>> It needs different skill sets, more experience and a much better
>> understanding of how everything hangs together. The people who do TS well
>> are the IT equivalent of rocket scientists.
>>
>> SBC used to be solely about TS, but not any more. We've now got all sorts
>> of ways to give users remote access to their virtual desktops and
>> applications. We have user session isolation (TS), operating system
>> partitioning (Virtuozzo), virtual machines (VMware, Virtual Iron, Xen,
>> Hyper-V etc) and even blade PCs (DDI) that weakly qualify under the SBC
>> blanket because they're racked machines running in a data center. That's
>> ignoring stuff like VWware ACE and Moka5 where the difference between "real"
>> and virtual user sessions is just too vague.
>>
>> So we've got a lot of different alternatives for delivering virtual
>> desktops, but which one is THE best way to do things?
>>
>> Let's look at our SBC options.
>>
>> At one extreme, if you've got a lot (200+) of interesting
>> (challenging/frustrating etc) applications, then the implemetation costs you
>> incur to get all those applications going on TS can be horrendous. And then
>> along comes something like Cisco Presence that won't run multi-user at all.
>> Oh, and the corporate application tha the CEO loves that is having problems
>> and isn't supported on TS.
>>
>> So what do we do? Go back to fat clients for some of the users?
>>
>> At the other extreme DDI is brilliant from the viewpoint that you can run
>> anything on a blade PC, even stuff like AutoCAD with 3D rendering etc. Any
>> super-heavy resource hungry application can be accomodated and we're still
>> using a thin client in front of the user. But the cost of having a thin
>> client AND a blade PC for every user is pretty horrendous.
>>
>> Then there's VDI which is kind of a compromise. The number of user virtual
>> machines you can support on a given host is a lot less than TS but VDI on
>> virtual machines hosted on VMware etc will run almost any application that
>> will run on a desktop. No file sharing and locking issues, no problems with
>> privileges, no support issues. If you're crazy enough (which I hope no-one
>> is) you can even let your users be local administrators.
>>
>> If I use Virtuozzo for VDI as an "intermediate" VDI solution, it's not
>> quite as "good" as a windows XP virtual machine. We're still running on
>> Windows Server 2003, but the user session isolation is heaps better than TS
>> and the number of users I can host on a server is nearly as good as TS.
>> That's "VDI" at almost the same hardware cost as TS.
>>
>> So we've got a lot of alternatives that are right for different reasons.
>>
>> Whever we quoted to do a fat client to terminal server migration project,
>> we used to go nuts trying to estimate how long it would take to port all a
>> customer's applications to TS, and worry like heck that we didn't cover
>> everything, and that some of them wouldn't port at all. With VDI/DDI as a
>> backstop, and particularly if you can publish seamless applications via VDI
>> (did I mention Provision :-)), I can run the bulk of my applications and
>> desktops on TS, and silo the applications that don't run or aren't supported
>> on TS on my VDI machines. Or if users have to run a huge java application
>> that uses several gigabytes of RAM, I can throw in a few blade PCs.
>>
>> In an ideal world we would use each technology as is most appropriate to
>> end up with the best possible mix. Use TS for easy apps and lowest cost,
>> VDI for the apps that need a single-user desktop environment, and DDI for
>> the stuff that doesn't belong on a server. Imagine an SBC/thin
>> client environment where everything works, where it's easy to put everything
>> together and it's the most cost effective solution you can offer.
>>
>> Then there's the real world.
>>
>> Getting applications to run acceptably on TS can be a huge job with huge
>> risks whereas doing the same thing on virtual machines is dead easy with
>> minimal risk. Whether we like it or not there have been enough well
>> publicised failed TS implementations that the perceived risk is unacceptable
>> for many organisations.
>>
>> What a decision for a CTO, a defined high hardware cost with very
>> tight implementation costs at a minimal risk, or a lower hardware cost
>> with undefined, possibly huge implementation costs and an equally huge risk.
>> P2V a standard SOE machine and you're nearly there with VDI, ingnoring all
>> the stuff you should do to get decent scalability.
>>
>> And we can't forget the basic fact that for people who are used to
>> managing desktops, VDI doesn't require much of a change of mindset whereas
>> TS does. People can cope with the idea of virtual machines because you can
>> manage them the same way you always have, and aside from the VMware etc
>> infrastructure, nothing has to change very much.
>>
>> It's this scenario that means people will often opt for VDI instead of
>> TS when they have a requirement for remote access, simplicity and the cost
>> saving associated with thin clients.
>>
>> But it's not all bad news. VDI is still SBC, and where are the SBC
>> experts, the people that know about thin clients, profile management,
>> lockdown, tuning etc, all that stuff that makes VDI even more viable?
>>
>> That's us.
>>
>> We've only just begun to make a difference.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> --
>> Ulrich Mack
>> Quest Software
>> Provision Networks Division
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/6/08, Jim Kenzig <jkenzig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes but if I did VDI I would need about 75 servers versus the 8 I
>>> currently use with TS, not to mention the additional VECD licenses and
>>> Vista licenses that must be purchased on the workstations.
>>> At 15k a piece for the servers then that is another 850,000 addittional.
>>> It doesn't add up. I'd just as soon as buy them all laptops, ; )
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Joe Shonk <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Think of it this way Jim. 1000 users x 450 for a Presentation Server
>>>> Enterprise License will cost $450,000 dollars.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joedee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Jim Kenzig
> Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services
> Citrix Technology Professional
> Blog: http://www.techblink.com
>
--
Jim Kenzig
Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services
Citrix Technology Professional
Blog: http://www.techblink.com
Other related posts:
