[THIN] Re: SV: Re: Virtualizing Citrix Boxes
- From: Mario Nicoletatos <muray_n@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
I have a few Citrix servers on VMware (about 15)
Not having a very good time.............slow and reduced load
Regards
Johan Martens <johan.martens@xxxxxxx> wrote:
What exactly does 'snappiness' means?
Best regards...
Johan Martens
Agdadrift avdelningen.
Agda Lön AB
Långskeppsgatan 9, 262 71 Ängelholm
Tel 0431-44 94 00
Fax 0431-160 13
mailto:johan@xxxxxxx
www.agda.se
________________________________
Från: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx genom Steve Greenberg
Skickat: on 2007-09-19 18:35
Till: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ämne: [THIN] Re: Virtualizing Citrix Boxes
Exactly, "snappiness" is very often perceived as worse on VM. Even when
there is plenty of cycles and RAM available the user experience is that VM
instances of PS feel a bit laggy....
Steve Greenberg
Thin Client Computing
34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
Scottsdale, AZ 85262
(602) 432-8649
www.thinclient.net
steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Andrew Wood
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:11 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Virtualizing Citrix Boxes
Sorry -
Is it that they are reporting that performance and 'snappiness' is better
than on raw hardware or not? I'm interested in what you were saying I just
couldn't work out if the users were reporting that its just a little bit
worse (on the VM) - and did that problem become more acute when you ramped
up the users?
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Steve Greenberg
Sent: 19 September 2007 16:59
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Virtualizing Citrix Boxes
Not sure where the "not" would be, but I do agree that you could get 10 vm
servers on that hardware with the only comment that the users counts per vm
would be fairly low
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Andrew Wood
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 8:41 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Virtualizing Citrix Boxes
Should there be a 'not' in that last sentence..or not?
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Steve Greenberg
Sent: 19 September 2007 16:43
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Virtualizing Citrix Boxes
I would agree with the 10-ish number, but the per user count on each vm
server would on the lower side in this scenario. PS on VM is cool for all
the consolidation benefits and we have good results in smallish
environments. We have found that overall users report noticeably overall
performance and "snappiness" than on raw hardware especially when you ramp
the user counts up into the hundreds and higher.
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Chad.M Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:43 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Virtualizing Citrix Boxes
Rough estimate, we are using similar hardware....@ 10 +/-.
>>> jon.e.luchette@xxxxxxxxx 9/19/2007 9:35 AM >>>
I know it is almost impossible to say without knowing more information,
but
does anybody have any good "rule of thumb" numbers to expect for how
many
Citrix servers can be consolidated onto an ESX 3.x server?
I have an ESX 3.0.2 Server with 16GB of RAM and 2 Quad Core CPU's with
SAN
Storage. We are going to run Vmware's Capacity Planner tool to get
more
information about the Citrix servers, but for now, how many normal
Citrix
Presentation Servers would you expect to be able to run as
virtual machines on this hardware configuration? Just a guestimate
would be
fine for now...
Thanks guys!
************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
//www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************
************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
//www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************
************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
//www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************
************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
//www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************
************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
//www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************
************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
//www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************
---------------------------------
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on
Yahoo! TV.
Other related posts:
