Would you see equivalent results if you went from 8GB to 16GB in the same environment? On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Dobry, Wes <Wes.Dobry@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. >