Tony, It is true that one farm looks more manageable, however it is more related to the limitations with the management tools when dealing with a large number of farms. If WAN throughput, stability and latency are an issue, I would try not to deprive the business data flow as well as pure ICA traffic by introducing additional overhead of farm synchronization. Looks like your task is not that simple :) , make sure you consider all the variables - not just Citrix. ALEX Subject: [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WANDate: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:47:17 +1200From: Tony.Lyne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Hmmm, I like the look of that ishadow application suite. Must look more into it. What made you go to separate farms over 1? Was it WAN limitations? Was that on a MPS 1 farm or 3 or 4 farm? Tony LyneConsultant Senior Systems Engineer +64 6 353 7300 +64 6 356 6800 +64 27 472 0696 tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx www.gen-i.co.nz 172-174 Broadway Avenue, PO Box 1470,Palmerston North, New Zealand "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex .Sent: Friday, 2 June 2006 6:14 p.m.To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN Tony,27 sites with 2 servers each over the WAN - I would go with 27 farms. Although you will definitely have a few challenges and not exactly with Citrix or TS - I suspect mostly with business data replication and application maintenance. I did a similar project once - 560+ sites, one sever each - scenario for autonomous offices like independent clinics, for example. Regarding managing 27 farms - check iShadow Application Suite from http://www.ishadow.com Some valuable aspects relevant to your project:1. iShadow supports multiple farms on the same or different AD with one (or many) unified session screen displays. Allows a mix of pure TS servers along with Citrix farms.2. Delegated administration with filtering when users of one farm, one group etc. might not be privileged to see users outside preselected farm, servers, user groups, protocol, etc.3. Session enumeration can be done over HTTPS with additional MFCOM/IMA redundancy - will fail over to API session enumeration if these services go down. It will definitely help to reduce your WAN traffic plus will allow simplified firewall setup in-between the sites (no DCOM :) ALEX Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:53:29 +1000From: simondavidmorgan@xxxxxxxxxxx: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: [THIN] Re: Citrix farms over a WAN Hi Tony, Given the cost incurred in implementing and maintaining 2 servers at each geographocal site, why not look at deploying an access gateway solution with Advanced Access Control.? Simon On 5/23/06, Tony Lyne <Tony.Lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Guys/Gals, I've been given a project to scope out a citrix farm design which consists of 27 sites with 2 load balanced Citrix servers on each site. The client needs it in this configuration for specific redundancy reasons (ie WAN redundancy etc…) Does any one know what the limitations on having a single farm span across 27 sites (limited bandwidth available as well). I was planning on specifying a zone for each site, and disabling load balancing across zones in MPS 4. Any other pointers would be much appreciated. Thanks,Tony LyneConsultantSenior Systems Engineer +64 6 353 7300 +64 6 356 6800 +64 27 472 0696 tony.lyne@xxxxxxxxxxx www.gen-i.co.nz 172-174 Broadway Avenue, PO Box 1470 ,Palmerston North, New Zealand "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002."
Attachment:
image001.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
image002.gif
Description: GIF image
