[THIN] Re: A definitive registry information source?
- From: "Rick Mack" <ulrich.mack@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 17:10:50 +1000
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
>>
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
