[THIN] Re: Virtualizing Citrix
- From: "Greg Reese" <gareese@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:38:39 -0500
throw a storage virtualization appliance on top of that like IBM's San
Volume Controller and you could make some pretty cool stuff. mix that with
ZFS and you could really scale out on the cheap. Not that an SVC is cheap
but you see where I'm going here.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Steve Greenberg <steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Evan wrote……> the storage side doesn't have to be as expensive as it once
> was.
>
>
>
> This is an excellent point, a sea change in storage is underway right now.
> I like DataCore SAN Melody software because you can take any Intel based
> Windows server and any type of storage and create an iSCSI and/or Fiber
> Channel SAN. It doesn't have to be expensive anymore, that is definitely
> true. However, it is still going to have a cost and involve some complexity
>
>
>
>
>
> Joe wrote………> I don't understand why shared storage is a necessity for
> virtualizing Citrix. HA, vMotion and DRS are way oversold features that are
> nice to have but not necessary for virtualizing PS/XenApp
>
>
>
> I wonder this all the time, many people have a large investment in SAN to
> allow VMotion type capabilities, but when is it really necessary? Don't
> people reboot servers as needed now? Isn't that what maintenance windows are
> for? I am not saying I don't see the value, I am just questioning how many
> environments really need it where it is worth the cost and complexity of the
> storage infrastructure behind it.
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *Evan Mann
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 26, 2008 5:32 AM
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: Virtualizing Citrix
>
>
>
> While there is no way to avoid the ESX costs themselves, the storage side
> doesn't have to be as expensive as it once was. Back in the day, you had to
> use a true SAN, but with full support for iSCSI in ESX, you do storage on
> the cheap. The cost savings on internal server storage from dedicated boxes
> can easily pay off the costs of a low-end iSCSI solution. If you want to
> wonder outside of the HCL for storage, you'll find that most any device that
> can give you some form of storage with an iSCSI or FC front end will work
> just dandy with ESX 3.5. I'm using 1st gen Apple X-Serve RAID's which is
> nothing more then a RAID array with a FC front end. Works like a charm, but
> not on the HCL. I see VMware has added HP AiO's to the HCL. The AiO is
> just Windows Storage Server in an HP box with some HP tools. Given that, I
> don't see why a roll –your-own Windows Storage Server wouldn't work like a
> champ, giving some really interesting options to build your own storage.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Carl Stalhood
> *Sent:* Friday, July 25, 2008 4:49 PM
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: Virtualizing Citrix
>
>
>
> Virtualizing Citrix usually means you have to pay for two new things that
> you didn't have to pay before: the virtualization layer (ESX) and shared
> storage. Does the server hardware savings make up for the additional cost of
> these other items? For non-Citrix servers the answer is normally "yes" since
> most are underutilized. Citrix servers are not underutilized so you probably
> won't get much savings from hardware consolidation.
>
>
>
> Some people say: "we have already invested in VMware and the SAN and have
> excess capacity", thus not considering those costs. I think this is a
> fallacy since the costs will be paid eventually if you add anything else to
> the system and wish you had the extra capacity that is now being used by the
> Citrix servers.
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Merino, Ormond <Ormond_Merino@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> The balloon driver is actually called the 'Memory Control Driver', and
> you can choose to not install it as part of the vmware tools. The
> settings at the bottom are ESX host configuration settings, located in
> 'Advanced Settings' on the 'Configuration' tab of a host in Virtual
> Center.
>
> Hope this helps...ormond
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>
> Behalf Of George Wasgatt
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:13 PM
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Virtualizing Citrix
>
> The tips at virtrix.blogspot.com refer to a memory ballooning driver in
> VMWare tools that I can't seem to locate. I think that some of those
> tips
> are just a tad out of date.
>
> And then there's this which is mostly a copy of the virtrix.blogspot
> page
> but with additional information at the bottom:
>
> http://knmi.wordpress.com/best-practices-for-deploying-citrix-on-esx/
>
> Now if I can just figure out what all that stuff at the bottom is...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf
> Of msemon@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:01 AM
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Virtualizing Citrix
>
> if you are virtualizing Citrix you are going to get less people on per
> virtual machine. Count on about 30. Here is a link to some Citrix tips
> on
> VMware.
>
> http://virtrix.blogspot.com/2007/03/vmware-best-practices-for-deploying.
> html<http://virtrix.blogspot.com/2007/03/vmware-best-practices-for-deploying.html>
>
> Anyone else have some tips?
>
> Mike
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Minero, Hector B CIV NSWCDD, K55 hector.minero@xxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:28:48 -0400
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Virtualizing Citrix
>
>
>
> Hi all,
> I see all these messages going back and forth about virtualization, but
> not much information on how Citrix/TS behaves in a virtualized
> environment.
> A tech./sales person from Dell came yesterday and told me that I could
> probably replace 7 of my PowerEdge 2850 with one beefed up PowerEdge
> R900 and virtualize the 7 Citrix servers. I find that kind of hard to
> believe.
> Each of my 2850's can handle about 30 to 40 users concurrently. I just
> don't think that an R900 could handle 200 + users with virtual Citrix
> servers.
>
> Is anyone out there using VMWare to virtualize Citrix servers in a
> production environment?
> What kind of hardware?
> How many virtual servers per physical server?
> How many users?
>
>
> I would greatly appreciate your advice as I am new to VMWare.
>
>
> _______________________________
> Hector Minero
> NSWCDD K55
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
>
>
> ************************************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
> set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
> //www.freelists.org/list/thin
> NEW! Follow Thin List on Twitter!
> http://twitter.com/thinlist
> Thin List discussion is now available in blog format at:
> http://thinmaillist.blogspot.com
> HOT! Thinlist MOBILE Feed!
> http://thinlist.net/mobile
> Thinlist quick pick
> http://thinlist.net
> ************************************************
>
> ************************************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
> set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
> //www.freelists.org/list/thin
> NEW! Follow Thin List on Twitter!
> http://twitter.com/thinlist
> Thin List discussion is now available in blog format at:
> http://thinmaillist.blogspot.com
> HOT! Thinlist MOBILE Feed!
> http://thinlist.net/mobile
> Thinlist quick pick
> http://thinlist.net
> ************************************************
>
> -----------------------------------------
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of
> the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended
> recipient or an authorized representative of the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, notify the sender immediately by return
> email and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
>
>
> ************************************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
> set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
> //www.freelists.org/list/thin
> NEW! Follow Thin List on Twitter!
> http://twitter.com/thinlist
> Thin List discussion is now available in blog format at:
> http://thinmaillist.blogspot.com
> HOT! Thinlist MOBILE Feed!
> http://thinlist.net/mobile
> Thinlist quick pick
> http://thinlist.net
> ************************************************
>
>
>
Other related posts:
