[THIN] Re: if you could only choose one...
- From: Nick Smith <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:51:44 +0100
Do you have hard numbers on this? Running Vanilla (non-Citrix) TS on W2k8, I am
seeing less users on an 8GB box than on a 3GB 32-bit one. The issue is that the
thunking quadruples the RAM used by Office and other apps. This has been
discussed here a few times and I'm not aware of a solution to it.
As far as I can see, you would need to be at 12GB Ram before you start to get
user/box gains. For that, you can get 4 virtualised 32-bit OSes. Sure, you lose
a small amount of users/Vm to the VM overhead, but it's small.
On my numbers, for a 16GB box, I'd expect to get:
32-bit vanilla W2k8: 50 users
64-bit vanilla w2k8: 75 users
5*32-bit VM W2k8: 200 users (Assuming 40 users per box).
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Greg Reese
Sent: 19 August 2009 23:17
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: if you could only choose one...
You will come out waaaaay ahead with your Citrix servers running on Windows
2008 x64. If you want to stream apps, you can still do it with XenApp and it
works just fine. You don't have to pick one over the other.
Your gain with Citrix and x64 is in the number of users you can get per server
and not necessarily that apps run better because of the architecture.
This is why good projects include a proof of concept. Load x64, try XenApp
streamed apps. It is your cheapest and fastest scenario to test out.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Wilson, Christopher
<CMWilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CMWilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Good point. In this case, app deployment across all platforms is not a
requirement. It is just for the Citrix environment.
I see app virtualization adding a lot of value. I wasn't considering Citrix
"client side virtualization", I think it's called, for this. Perhaps I should.
What I would rather avoid is a case of trying the citrix solution to see what
I get, and then being faced with local install or a second app virt solution if
the packaging success rate is too low.
So to frame it another way, is the performance gain from 64bit Windows 2008
significant enough that I would want to live with what app virt XenApp can buy
me and live without App-V all together?
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf
Of Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:47 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [THIN] Re: if you could only choose one...
To be fair the original question was appv vs 64 bit - everyone keeps moving the
goalposts :)
While ctx app streaming is indeed free isn't it only 'free' if you've a ctx
solution
Ideally IMO you need an application delivery method that'll work across your
platforms so you've a consistent delivery method be it a terminal server as the
device or a laptop
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Aug 2009, at 20:18, Matt Kosht
<matt.kosht@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:matt.kosht@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I am only experimenting with app virtualization, but initial thoughts are yes
it can do what App-V can do. App-V does seem to have a lot more
options/flexibility than Citrix does. Citrix solution does seem to have a lower
learning curve. I am no expert so I would certainly get more educated opinions
than mine.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Christopher Wilson
<christofire@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:christofire@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Okay so on that angle, would you put XenApp streaming on the same level as
App-V? I've not used the former, but employed softgrid/app-v with great
benefit in the past.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Matt Kosht
<matt.kosht@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:matt.kosht@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Also under Xenapp 5 with SA I believe even the Advanced Edition (needed
Enterprise Edition before that) now allows application virtualization.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Greg Reese
<gareese@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gareese@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
or use XenApp to virtualize your apps which runs just fine on 64Bit gear and is
included in the priced of licensing XenApp already. Why spend for features you
already paid for.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Andrew
<andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
App-v; separating apps out and creating a transportable app deployment across
devices (servers/desktops/laptops) is of greater benefit than 2008r2; and I can
migrate to that when appv goes 64bit
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Aug 2009, at 17:09, "Wilson, Christopher"
<CMWilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CMWilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Windows 2008 R2 is 64-bit only. App-V is 32-bit only (presently). If you had
to pick one which would it be - 64-bit arch or app virtualization? (and why?)
64bit means more memory and more users per server, but possibly some
compatibility issues
App-V means less app conflicts and hence less silos, but 32 bit only.
I'm planning for a Citrix farm upgrade and curious about your thoughts.
________________________________
SUBJECT TO CONTRACT
Other related posts:
