[THIN] Re: Citrix - Harddisk Specification
- From: Jan <tinybeetle@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:55:32 -0500
I am presently running a 32 bit W2K3 PS4 server on ESX3.5 in my published
app. My users do not know the difference between it and the physical
servers. Performance is the same, if not better. The host ESX server is a
Dell 1950 2GHz dual quad-core XEON. The Citrix server has 2GB of RAM
allocated to it. The Virtual Citrix server lives on an iSCSI Dell EqualLogic
SAN.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Matt Kosht <matt.kosht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Joe Shonk <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I would have to disagree... What kind of RAID controllers are you using?
> If
> > I experienced faulty RAID controllers like that, I would be on the phone
> > with the vendor. If there is no resolution, then it's time to switch
> > vendors.
>
> Of course I have and would try to resolve such issues, but by then
> it's too late... it didn't work! This was an issue with early Dell
> servers I used in the past (We're talking NT 4.0). I haven't had it
> since. My point was simply that no technology is bulletproof.
>
> > Second, it's a nice idea that Autosaves and checkpoints are going to save
> > the user's work.. But it's simply not practical... It doesn't work quite
> > that way. Data gets losts, databases/indexes get corrupted, users get
> > frustrated.
> I don't disagree. My point is it may be marginally safer to run RAID
> on term server, but at a direct cost to performance.
>
> >
> > If you are using blades, all the more reason to use raid. Drives placed
> in
> > blades have a higher failure rate.
> >
> I didn't know that. Why is that? 2.5" drives fail more than larger
> ones? Does that still hold true of the newer blades that have SSD's?
>
> > Personally, I'm from the boot from SAN methodology. And with most
> projects
> > going virtual we will see more and more of this.
>
> Nobody has been able to sell me on boot from SAN for Term servers
> specifically. Though being able to just slap in a new server and have
> it boot without much setup is appealing. What kind of performance hit
> is there to read/write to page file on a SAN volume vs. using a
> direct attached 15K SAS?
>
> Virtualizating a Term Server? I have thought about it, but just can't
> get past 15-20% hypervisor overhead hit on something I know is going
> to run full tilt disk and CPU. I also run a few test term servers on
> VMWare ESX from a SAN and they run very slowly.
>
> I have thought about getting a dual quad core with 16GB RAM , SSD's
> and using a bare metal hypervisor to have 4 32 bit term servers each
> dedicated with 2 VCPU's, 4GB RAM. I would do all of it locally on the
> SSD's as I am thinkin that this would give the best performance. Just
> on paper mind you. Anyone tried this or something similar?
> ************************************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
> set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
> //www.freelists.org/list/thin
> Follow ThinList on Twitter
> http://twitter.com/thinlist
> Thin List discussion is now available in blog format at:
> http://thinmaillist.blogspot.com
> Thinlist MOBILE Feed
> http://thinlist.net/mobile
> ************************************************
>
Other related posts:
