[THIN] Re: VMware & CPS 4.5
- From: "Jon Luchette" <jon.e.luchette@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:03:46 -0500
I understand completely, and when given the chance I will always recommend
customers test it out with their applications before making the decision.
However, as we all know many times customers are not able to test ahead of
time, so a good place to start your servers at is 4GB of RAM...
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Dobry, Wes <Wes.Dobry@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bingo.
>
>
>
> I didn't mention, but I guess I should have. Your mileage may vary
> considerably and it really should be tested in your own environment. I did,
> however, want to express that in our environment we did see significant
> improvements by upping the RAM in our presentation servers.
>
>
>
> *-Wes Dobry *
>
> *(321) 843-5590*
>
>
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Steve Greenberg
> *Sent:* Friday, February 01, 2008 12:34 PM
>
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: VMware & CPS 4.5
>
>
>
>
>
> This is entirely dependent on application and system utilization. The
> additional RAM gives you more user space memory but the 2GB kernel limit is
> still there so in some cases it works and in others it does not
>
>
>
>
>
> *Steve Greenberg*
>
> Thin Client Computing
>
> 34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
>
> Scottsdale, AZ 85266
>
> *(602) 432-8649*
>
> www.thinclient.net
>
> *steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Dobry, Wes
> *Sent:* Friday, February 01, 2008 9:36 AM
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: VMware & CPS 4.5
>
>
>
> We get about a 35% increase in users when tossing 8gb of RAM instead of
> 4gb in a CPS4.5 server using PAE.
>
>
>
> *-Wes Dobry *
>
> *(321) 843-5590*
>
>
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Jon Luchette
> *Sent:* Friday, February 01, 2008 11:28 AM
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: VMware & CPS 4.5
>
>
>
> In general I have seen that 4GB of RAM is the maximum amount of memory
> that Citrix boxes will efficiently use on a 32 bit Terminal Services Windows
> server operating system. This has to do with the 2GB kernel memory
> limitation:
> http://www.brianmadden.com/content/article/The-4GB-Windows-Memory-Limit-What-does-it-really-mean
> -
>
>
>
> As a result, there are two options if you want to use more powerful boxes
> with much more RAM in a Citrix / TS environment, either run 64 bit windows
> terminal servers, or virtualize with ESX. The customer did not have
> applications that would have taken advantage of a 64 bit architecture, so
> the only other option was to go with ESX and virtualize for them.
>
>
>
> They made the decision on their own to not look at VDI as an alternative
> solution...
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Malcolm Bruton <
> malcolm.bruton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> Silly question but why would you just not run the apps natively on the box
> instead and isolate instead if you have app co-existence issues? Seems like
> you could fit more users on again?
>
>
>
> We have taken the decision to use VMWare for small apps (where we can't
> isolate) of low user numbers but typically only dev as we don't believe it
> scales as well on VMware for heavily used prod servers.
>
>
>
> Malcolm
>
>
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Jon Luchette
> *Sent:* 01 February 2008 14:53
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: VMware & CPS 4.5
>
>
>
> I just set it up for a customer in a production environment: 2 HP DL380
> G5 boxes, with dual quad core CPU's and 16 GB RAM, backended with an HP EVA
> 4000 FC SAN. We have 3 PS 4.5 virtual machines on each host getting 20
> users on each vm comfortably. They have a pretty heavy application load too
> (Oracle, Lotus Notes, etc...) and they are publishing full desktops to all
> users on WYSE SX10 thin clients. We did bring DRS automation down to
> manual. All in all, so far so good!
>
>
> HTH,
>
> -Jon
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Chris White <Chris.White@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for everyone's help/advice on this, most helpful.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of TSguy92 Lan
> *Sent:* Thu 31/01/2008 18:34
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: VMware & CPS 4.5
>
> Our current production CTX environment = MPS 4.0, Win2k3 sp2 hosts on
> VMware ESX 3.5.
>
> Our standard VM build has 2 procs, 3gb ram and we average about 45+ user
> connections per host. Our environment is published app based, which lets us
> spread the load around a bit better, no full desktop. Physical boxes running
> VMware are HP blades, 16gb ram, 4 proc. Dependant on app load and usage, (we
> silo off the heavy use stuff) your mileage may vary.
>
> That link Greg sent has some good recommendations; from my own experience:
>
> - the vmware tools install by default adds a component into user profiles
> "hgfs.dat" which can be a pain to deal with. (greg's article covered
> this). Sort out how to handle this before allowing users to login.
> - Use manual DRS automation if you have a Citrix specific cluster setup in
> your ESX environment. Automated DRS vmotion during production hours with
> dozens of users connected can hang up a VM.
>
> We have virtual MPS 4.5 boxes in testing, but I can't say we've put any
> serious user load on them yet.
>
> HTH
>
> Lan
>
> On Jan 31, 2008 7:07 AM, Kelsey, John <JCKelsey@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> We tried it in an ESX 2.5 environment and the performace was horrible.
> Supposedly its been greatly improved in an ESX 3 environment but we haven't
> gotten back to try it yet.
>
>
>
>
>
> *******************************
> *John C. Kelsey
> *DuBois Regional Medical Center
> (: 814.375.3073
> *: jckelsey@xxxxxxxx
> *******************************
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Chris White
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2008 08:58
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] VMware & CPS 4.5
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I've a customer who wants to run CPS 4.5 in a VMware ESX environment. This
> will be for production.
>
>
>
> Has anyone set this up in a live environment before? I've only ever set it
> up for a dev environment. Any tips or recommendations? Should I discourage
> them for doing this and use straight tin instead?
>
>
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
> Chris.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Basilica Computing Ltd *is registered in England, Registered Office
> Number 1, Avenue One, Letchworth Business Park, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 2HB, Company Number 2624451, VAT Number 245719348*
> Confidentiality:* This email, sent from Chris.White@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx to
> thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Thu Jan 31 14:01:51 2008 , is confidential and may
> contain privileged or copyright information. You may not present this
> message to another party without consent from the sender. If you are not
> thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx please notify Chris.White@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and delete
> this email and you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or
> taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
> strictly prohibited. *2) Liability:* This email is not a binding agreement
> and does not conclude an agreement without the express confirmation by the
> sender's superior or a director of the Company. *3) Viruses: *The Company
> does not certify that this email is free of viruses or defects. *4)
> Requested:* The Company does not consent to its employees sending
> non-solicited emails which contravene the law. In the event that you feel
> this email is such, please notify the Company in order for the appropriate
> corrective action to be taken. *5) Advice: *Any views or opinions
> presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
> necessarily represent those of the company. Any actions taken on the basis
> of this email are at the readers own risk. *6) Other: *The sender of this
> email is expressly required not make any defamatory statements. Any such
> communication is contrary to company policy and outside the scope of the
> employment of the individual concerned. The company will not accept any
> liability in respect of such communication, and the employee responsible
> will be personally liable for any damages or other liability arising.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Basilica Computing Ltd *is registered in England, Registered Office
> Number 1, Avenue One, Letchworth Business Park, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 2HB, Company Number 2624451, VAT Number 245719348
>
> * **
> Confidentiality:* This email, sent from Chris.White@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx to
> thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Fri Feb 1 13:44:01 2008 , is confidential and may
> contain privileged or copyright information. You may not present this
> message to another party without consent from the sender. If you are not
> thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx please notify Chris.White@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and delete
> this email and you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or
> taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
> strictly prohibited. *2) Liability:* This email is not a binding agreement
> and does not conclude an agreement without the express confirmation by the
> sender's superior or a director of the Company. *3) Viruses: *The Company
> does not certify that this email is free of viruses or defects. *4)
> Requested:* The Company does not consent to its employees sending
> non-solicited emails which contravene the law. In the event that you feel
> this email is such, please notify the Company in order for the appropriate
> corrective action to be taken. *5) Advice: *Any views or opinions
> presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
> necessarily represent those of the company. Any actions taken on the basis
> of this email are at the readers own risk. *6) Other: *The sender of this
> email is expressly required not make any defamatory statements. Any such
> communication is contrary to company policy and outside the scope of the
> employment of the individual concerned. The company will not accept any
> liability in respect of such communication, and the employee responsible
> will be personally liable for any damages or other liability arising.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are
> intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not
> the intended recipient, any review, use, or distribution of this e-mail
> message and any attached files is strictly prohibited.
>
> This communication may contain material protected by Federal privacy
> regulations, attorney-client work product, or other privileges. If you have
> received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original
> message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to:
> postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .
>
> If this e-mail message concerns a contract matter, be advised that no
> employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf
> of Orlando Regional Healthcare by e-mail without express written
> confirmation by an officer of the corporation. Any views or opinions
> presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not
> necessarily represent those of Orlando Regional Healthcare.
>
> This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are
> intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not
> the intended recipient, any review, use, or distribution of this e-mail
> message and any attached files is strictly prohibited.
>
> This communication may contain material protected by Federal privacy
> regulations, attorney-client work product, or other privileges. If you have
> received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original
> message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to:
> postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .
>
> If this e-mail message concerns a contract matter, be advised that no
> employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf
> of Orlando Regional Healthcare by e-mail without express written
> confirmation by an officer of the corporation. Any views or opinions
> presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not
> necessarily represent those of Orlando Regional Healthcare.
>
Other related posts:
