[THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
- From: "Rick Mack" <Rick.Mack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:44:24 +1000
Hi Malcolm,
Sounds like the Java scheduling app run by one of the airlines here in
Australia. With a footprint of 1 GB per instance it provides one or two
scalability challenges.
When I said I was looking forward to bigger machines, it wasn't really with the
hope that we could run lots more users on them. Considering the "obesity" of a
lot of newer apps designed for desktops with at least a GB of RAM, I'm just
looking forward to being able to support the usual 30-40 users on an 8 core box
with 32 GB ;-)
regards,
Rick
Ulrich Mack
Volante Systems
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of BRUTON, Malcolm, GBM
Sent: Thu 20/07/2006 20:09
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
Rick
Couldn't agree more. /3GB is ugly and brings problems. However there are
sometimes just no other way. If you can't reprogramme the app and it has to
happen it does. We only scale to 4-5 users per server for this particular
application per server so in this case it works for us. Of course this will be
worst case for us. Moving to 2003 advanced will help for this app as well as
sometime in the future either 64 bit or a new app. It sounds expensive but
when you have people in worldwide locations who need this app then it does
become cheap.
I agree with not wasting money but the hardest part is to plan for the future.
Who knows what will happen. x64 is just not quite there yet for us. The
bigger problems is all the infrastructure surrounding it such as virus scanners
and monitoring software etc etc. The way we try and compensate for this is
making sure everything we get is 64 bit compliant including having a lot more
memory than what we would if we didn't have to plan. Looking at 64 bit my
understanding is that about 16GB will be the "sweat spot" for Citrix boxes. We
need to do more testing to quantify this though.
Not looking forward to the bigger servers that much really. Always easier to
have small amounts of servers with siloed apps that are heavily utililised.
Hate to think of having 6 or 8 monsters with 200 apps on each running your
entire farm. Might be time to bring on VMWare at that stage which is just
another layer of complexity that sometimes is easier to do without.
Malcolm
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Mack [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick
Mack
Sent: 20 July 2006 10:43
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
Hi Malcolm,
It's just I've got this mental thing about large memory configurations
because they're so wasted on a 32-bit o.s if you're running more than a few
dozen applications.
If you "steal" memory from the kernel to accomodate ugly applications
using the /3GB switch, you're really reducing the scalability of the systems
with regard to the number of applications that can be run because all kernel
resources are reduced and memory constraints just got that much tighter.
PTEs are limited as is the paged pool allocation so unless you're
accomodating a relatively small number of large applications even PAE doesn't
actually help all that much in terms of user scalability.
RAM disks aside, about the most useful scalability assist that I've
come across for 32-bit windows, aside from DLL remapping/rebasing, is the
ability of Appsense Perf manager to trim working sets of backgrounded or
disconnected applications. That really does something useful and coupled with
PAE might actually make that extra memory worthwhile.
I guess I owe Michael and you an apology because planning for the
future is a very valid point that I'd conveniently forgotten.
But we can't afford to forget that in the Intel space x64 isn't going
to be all that exciting compared to x64 on AMD until the next batch of Intel
cpus hit the streets. And that'll be together with faster memory, faster
chipsets etc to let x64 start really moving.
I really don't know whether we can future-proof ourselves at all in a
scenario where the landscape is about change so radically.
I'm hanging out for the first dual cpu quad core 1 RU system with 32 GB
of RAM. But the scarey part is that it might be a Dell ;-)
regards,
Rick
Ulrich Mack
Volante Systems
Level 2, 30 Little Cribb Street
Coronation Drive Office Park
Milton Qld 4064
tel: +61 7 32431847
fax: +61 7 32431992
rick.mack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of BRUTON, Malcolm, GBM
Sent: Thu 20/07/2006 17:51
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
I think the bigger problem is that you normally need hardware to last a
large number of years. Most organisations try and keep there hardware till it
dies. Although we only use 32 bit OS's at present we already spec our Citrix
servers with 8GB and Dual core Procs. If we didn't do this now we would never
get the money latter to upgrade. The thought process here is that when you go
to 64 bit in a year or 2 when it has much more support in theory your hardware
will cope without upgrades. Looking back at some of our older servers it
sometimes cost more to upgrade memory (you have to discard all of it and buy
all new ram) than what it does to buy a new complete server.
We currently use 2000 Enterprise with PAE and in extreme cases the /3GB
switch because of horrible apps already.
Malcolm
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Mack [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Rick Mack
Sent: 19 July 2006 21:39
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [THIN] XP, Windows and RAM
Hi Michael,
If you look at the Microsoft documentation, you'll find the
maximum amount of physical memory you can use on the 32-bit 2003 standard
edition is 4 GB. While using enterprise edition and PAE etc let's you lift that
limit, a well-specced terminal server system is likely to be limited by kernel
memory constraints.
Unless you're running the X64 version of PS4 and Windows server
2003, or using those machines to run VMWare ESX and multiple Citrix servers as
VMs, you've just watsed a large amount of money on hardware that isn't going to
be used.
regards,
Rick
Ulrich Mack
Volante Systems
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Michael Boggan
Sent: Thu 20/07/2006 1:49
To: thin list
Subject: [THIN] XP, Windows and RAM
We have several new servers that we are adding. They are
Windows 2003 and Citrix XP. We have loaded them out with 16gig of Ram. I have
seen forum messages about servers not using that much RAM or applications not
using it etc. and was wondering if anyone knows of any legit articles covering
this. I have noticed on these boxes that about 3 gig is actually being used
and our paging files are being used up to 50 to 70%. I am trying to determine
if it is actually buying us anything by putting that much ram. Or if there is
something else we need to do to get the systems to use the Ram.
If you know of any articles or information I would much
appreciate it.
Thanks,
Michael Boggan
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or
privileged. Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this
e-mail has been sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any
use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received
it in error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and
indirect loss arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed
to the extent permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or
privileged. Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this
e-mail has been sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any
use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received
it in error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and
indirect loss arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed
to the extent permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
***********************************************************************************
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc. Registered in Scotland No 90312.
Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB.
Authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the
addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other
than the addressee, please return the message to the sender
by replying to it and then delete the message from your
computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The
Royal Bank of Scotland plc does not accept responsibility for
changes made to this message after it was sent.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the
transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this
message and any attachments will not adversely affect its
systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by The Royal
Bank of Scotland plc in this regard and the recipient should carry
out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
Visit our websites at:
http://www.rbos.com
http://www.rbsmarkets.com
***********************************************************************************
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or
privileged. Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this
e-mail has been sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any
use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received
it in error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and
indirect loss arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed
to the extent permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or
privileged. Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this
e-mail has been sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any
use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received
it in error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and
indirect loss arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed
to the extent permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or privileged.
Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has been
sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in
error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and
indirect loss arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed
to the extent permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
Other related posts:
- » [THIN] XP, Windows and RAM
- » [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
- » [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
- » [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
- » [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
- » [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
- » [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
- » [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
- » [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
- » [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
- » [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
- » [THIN] Re: XP, Windows and RAM
