1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Virtualising Everything in a Data Centre

Discussion in 'Business & Enterprise Computing' started by r3sist4nce, Jun 4, 2013.

  1. scrantic

    scrantic Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,780
    Location:
    3350
    I Don't get this, So if you're prepared to invest in fibre so that you get bigger bandwidth to support the VDI/Remote platform why don't you look at doing the same for your current situation.

    All you'll do is if you have an "internet outage" with your proposed solution VDI without true redundant links is prevent people from doing any work rather than just activity that relies on the internet.

    These days it is so simple to get HA/Redundancy with VM/SAN platforms.
     
  2. kom

    kom Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    101
    This isn't going to end well :Paranoid:
     
  3. person

    person Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    344
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Unfortunately I'm yet to see an example of where this has saved the money that it's promised...


    Click to view full size!
     
  4. kaotickelly

    kaotickelly Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    236
    Location:
    Sydney
    A BYOD solution would be much cheaper if that's what you are going for. Sometimes it pays to ask yourself how often does the desktop environment change, if it doesn't, then it may be easier to just have a support staff provision the software required on each user's device, and making sure standard policy is to include antivirus/malware software and it is password protected.

    VDI environments aren't cheap and everytime a new software comes along it must be packaged and tested. And server capacity becomes an issue very quickly and you have to have good capacity plan in place.

    Good luck.
     
  5. Phatboy69

    Phatboy69 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    787
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    There are so many choices and options for thin client solutions these days and I have seen several large scale implementations work really well (200+) I have also seen many more poorly implemented solutions, so it is hard to get right that's for sure.

    Citrix solutions tend to be the most expensive and the best performing. But even MS terminal services and RDP can be designed to run well for smaller implementations. Planning network capacity and latency is the first thing to get right. That means using a private MPLS Wan or, as a minimum, point to point network. Internet and VPN should only be used for travelling or highly mobile users and as a backup to the WAN. Thin client was never designed to run with the latency and out of order network packets that happen on the internet. You can improve internet with network and application acceleration devices but its not the same as a high speed low latency network where you can control and prioritise network traffic.

    Going thin client isn't necessarily about saving money. Control, security, ease of management, reduction in licensing are all goals for thin client which can reduce the total TCO but the upfront technology spend and implementation costs will most likely be more than a traditional fat client solution if you doing on premise.

    Going with a cloud solution or hosting provider that can provision a dedicated or multi tennant Citrix solution can reduce the start up costs for thin client significantly. But you need to make sure they don't over subscribe.

    The other thing to consider is how many of the apps can run as Web apps to avoid typical performance issues of traditional fat client apps over a thin client network.

    I can access 99% of my business apps from a native Web interface and with the advent of MS Web apps using html 5 (office 365) even the Web experience rivals the desktop for functionality and performance. Only a couple of legacy apps in our business require VPN or Citrix (notes and an expenses app). Wyse terminals or the like can come with various thin client options and windows embedded. You can also publish apps or desktops with Citrix so users can have the best of both worlds if using a pc and access both full desktop apps and published apps. I happen to work for a company as the practice manager for cloud and Infrastructure and we have many successful thin client implementations with customers, both on premise and hosted. If your interested I'd be happy to meet for a coffee and a chat.
    Keep in mind for certain industries and user types I would not put them on thin client due to the nature of the apps and the data throughput required.
    (media or cad for example)
    Cheers
    Hilton (aka Hosting_Guru )
     
  6. rainwulf

    rainwulf Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,275
    Location:
    bris.qld.aus
    Make sure you have fat pipes and fast servers!
     
  7. rainwulf

    rainwulf Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,275
    Location:
    bris.qld.aus
    non-redundant servers are thus not servers btw.
     
  8. Phatboy69

    Phatboy69 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    787
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I think he meant not clustered or HA'd. A single server with redundant power supplies doesn't cut it for redundancy these days either.
     
  9. Long Haired Git

    Long Haired Git Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    2,667
    Location:
    Hornsby, Sydney
    Publishing apps (not desktops) via Terminal Services/Citrix is a reasonable compromise. Enables a reasonable amount of local activity and a very bland COE (or BYOD) and then you host centrally the stuff that "matters".

    COE:
    • Windows 7/8 (we all know you run XP)
    • MS Office including Outlook and Lync
    • Internet Explorer and Chrome
     
  10. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    14,678
    I don't think it is, as long as the hosting data center has a good link, RDP or PCOIP will work fine over any standard ADSL link. I've tested it over 56K modem and crappy Mobile data links, and it's been usable for task workers.

    I'm interested in seeing a BYOD setup that doesn't use some sort of VDI or at least published applications?...

    Any setup like that would place some level of trust in the BYOD'd machines... I'm not sure how that would sit with many people. It would be a support nightmare if someone has to configure a home users device to comply with policy and make sure all the apps are installed and work properly.

    VDI environments cost savings come in support and management overhead... New software needs to be packaged and tested for SOE inclusion in non-VDI setups, so theres no real cost there. With some of the improved versioning controls that things like thinapp provide, there can be a real saving (no downtime required for app updates. easy to rollback if something is not as expected).
     
  11. Rass

    Rass Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,179
    Location:
    Brizbekistan
    I disagree. The network link is going to be tested like it's never been tested before. Your virtual desktop is streamed and is very sensitive to latency, jitter, packetloss and everything else under the sun. If something is wrong, you will see it, and it will cause no end of heart ache for the staff at the site.

    You need to have an *excellent* understanding of what your clients are actually doing, how many people are on site, how many more are likely to turn up onsite and what QoS policies are configured.. and if they are configured correctly.

    A Single user on any modern comms link can deal with most issues, as soon as you start adding users, phones, printers you end up with a mess.
     
  12. itsmydamnation

    itsmydamnation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    10,712
    Location:
    Canberra
    I will just say the last time i looked at PCOIP it was shit. ICA decimates it. no HDX equivalent on the Vmware side ( vmware try to spin this as a "good thing" :rolleyes:). But the big one is no multisteaming. This is the single feature that makes ICA an order of magnitude better then PCOIP.

    this is my perspective as someone who designs networks for a living. Once it hits the tin I have no idea how they compare.
     
  13. Mone

    Mone Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    137
    I have seen good and bad implementations of cloud and of on premise systems. Each has their considerations. Execution is the key to success here not the technology you choose. The technology choice will enable different stuff than it working or not.
     
  14. GumbyNoTalent

    GumbyNoTalent Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    10,463
    Location:
    Briz Vegas
    Obviously their solution had no DR, putting stuff into th e"cloud" still requires for provisioning of a DR solution.

    VDI's work extremely well but DO NOT OFFER A COST SAVING, most times they will be more expensive, but they do offer other benefits such as better remote access, BYOD, published applications, services on demand and reduced licensing costs of software by pooling licenses costs on some applications.
     
  15. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    14,678
    VDI can offer a cost saving... but should not be implemented as a cost saving measure is probably the best way of putting it.

    The cost saving is rarely in capex, but more obvious in opex, especially if you chalk up power savings to the project.

    Getting of a 3 year desktop refresh cycle is also a pretty decent cost saving that is not immediately apparent for most. (although this is somewhat offset by increased server costs). That said, VDI offers much better hardware utilisation than a Phat Desktop on everyones desk.
     
  16. GumbyNoTalent

    GumbyNoTalent Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    10,463
    Location:
    Briz Vegas
    Perhaps you should revisit your MS licensing as it is a yearly sub on VDI now days.
     
  17. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    14,678
    $100/yr/device for thins.

    Roaming rights covers any other devices users might want to access the infrastructure from (ipads etc).

    I wonder if this will change in the future, (i expect it will for MS-Based VDI tech, while continuing to ream users of vmware or other hypervisors).
     
  18. Kodaz

    Kodaz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Messages:
    940
    Location:
    Brisbane 4124
    It's already way cheaper on MS. RDS licensing is about half that of Horizon. Not to mention that the cost of a Server 2012 license is about a quarter that of a standard vSphere license. Both require VDA however.

    The question is "Is Horizon\vSphere better and if so that much better than an MS solution".

    Add in Citrix solutions and it gets very hard to choose a virtualisation platform that satisfies desktops and servers.
     
  19. GumbyNoTalent

    GumbyNoTalent Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    10,463
    Location:
    Briz Vegas
    I loath people that tout cost saving as a reason to choose a technology, the choice should be first made on the capabilities of the technologies in question vs your requirements then cost. No point in buy a solution that doesn't meet your needs, this is why business should decide on business requirements and IT on technical.

    EDIT This is why so many VDI solutions that have been rolled out have failed, cost cutting. If you are trying to save money in the short term do not invest in VDI as it is a long term ROI, your hardware costs for a decent VDI are expensive, especially if you want performance.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2013
  20. scrantic

    scrantic Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,780
    Location:
    3350
    While the debate/discussion in this thread are interesting it's disappointing that the OP has dropped any interest in the thread. I'd love to know their thoughts now based on some of the comments here.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: