[THIN] Re: VMWare
- From: "Bob Coffman Jr. - Info From Data" <bcoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:57:50 -0400
Is there further information on this? I'm running NT4 TSE Servers on ESX as
uniprocessor (no NT4 support for SMP in VMWare) and as I migrate to 2003
Server I was going to explore the possibility of SMP.
Seems to me VMWare really starts to dog when proc queue length (measured
inside the VM) starts to climb, which SMP _should_ help with. But I may be
seeing a symptom and not the cause.
- Bob Coffman
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Tom Howarth
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:21 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VMWare
Tim makes good point when he points out uni-processor. the SMP module
places another large overhead into the environment. if you were to
virtualise Citrix boxes I would recommend 2 uni-processor VM's rather
than 1 dual processor VM. however that said if you can go base tin on
the citrix boxed do so.
********************************************************
This Weeks Sponsor: Cesura, Inc.
Know about Citrix end-user slowdowns before they know.
Know the probable cause, immediately.
Know it all now with this free white paper.
http://www.cesurasolutions.com/landing/WPBCForCitrix.htm?mc=WETBCC
********************************************************
Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
http://thin.net/links.cfm
ThinWiki community - Excellent SBC Search Capabilities!
http://www.thinwiki.com
***********************************************************
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://thin.net/citrixlist.cfm
Other related posts:
