Is it worth it? 2

[Jarex]

I have a network with 65 users all at one location. We're in the process of deciding whether or not to switch to citrix with thin clients. I'm not at all familure with citrix and I don't have a clue what the cost of this type of change would be. Would it be worth the cost or are we so small that citrix would be a waste?

Thanks in advance

 

[wmg]

Hello Jarex,

It kinda depends on a few more factors than the number of users. I'm not sure of the exact cost as I've never had to pay for it myself but I have put in a few systems.

An advantage is that you can stay with the hardware you have on the workstation (ie you won't need to upgrade for a while longer - if ever) - as long as you have a grunty server. For 65 users, you'd most likely want a couple of servers in your farm (depending on the type of apps that are running). Each one should be a dual-CPU with at least 1Gb of RAM (more RAM if possible). You'd most likely want another server to store users home/group drives and terminal server profiles.

On the client side, you could even load a bare bones linux boot (even off of a CD if you wanted) that basically just loads X and the ICA Client and then straight into a full screen session on the Citrix server. ie zero license cost for the client side - you'd just need to have TS/Citrix licenses for the 65 users.

Say you wanted to upgrade from Office 2000 to XP or 2003 - you just install the Office upgrade onto each of the Citrix servers (either manually or via the Citrix package manager) and - presto - all 65 users have the upgrade as well!

It can also be useful for remote access - you can stick an NFuse portal server on the outside and use the Citrix Secure Gateway to connect in from the internet and run the same as you would in the office - but from home.

Good luck with your descision!

wmg

"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other human invention in history...with the possible exception of handguns and tequila."

-Mitch Ratcliffe

 

[DDILL]

Most of the advantages outlined by Mitch can also be seen when utilizing Terminal services without Citrix. For instance an RDP client does exist for Linux, An upgrade would be almost as simple without Citrix, Since you are talking 2/3 servers you would not really need the installation benifits of Citrix. If your users use VPN you may not need the Citrix Secure Gateway.
I would look at it from the angles of what does Citrix add to native terminal services. That answer is the ability to publish applications, The secure gateway does offer a nice seemless connection over the web if you do not have a vpn today. Server load balancing is far better and much more scalable than any other solution. Management of the server farm is much simpler and as a final benifit you get the Resource Manager to give you reporting/trending.

 

[Jarex]

Thanks for the help.
I don't want this to transition into the wrong topic for the forum but since DDILL brought it up, I've been looking into using Win2k3 terminal services also. Would TS be a better solution for our company? As far as I can tell, TS's server hardware requirements are much less than Citrix. Can it still deliver a complete windows environment to a thin client?

My other option is to just upgrade our standard network from nt4 to win2k3 and process as usual. Maybe this is the best bet. Any thoughts?

 

[stuhall8]

As an alternative to Linux you can also use:

http://www.terminalsoft.net/

Just get a bootable network CD, edit a config file and off you go.

TermServices is supposed to be completely revamped in 2003 SP1. I even saw a powerpoint that said it would include some load balancing options. If you can, I'd try to verify that and then go with the 2003 TS and bootable network CD's.

Here's your main advantage and disadvantage:
-all clients get upgrades the moment you upgrade your Servers (patches, new software etc)
-you disadvantage is if you have network problem or a server problem it will affect your entire user population.

 

[DDILL]

Windows 2003 offers a higher performance than 2000 but as for Citrix on 2003 vs native 2003 I would have to challenge a statement that Citrix will get a lower performance. The 2003 server does not have any advanced load balancing that will allow it to span very many servers. Load balancing has been available with Windows server for some time but it is not very scalable not is it configurable to the level Citrix is.

 

[JohnTcolo]

Citrx has always been behind TS, a lot of people seem to have the misconception that it is a Microsoft product and a robust alternative to Citrix. That is hardly the case, Citrix, Not Microsoft, developed Terminal Services.

 

[CitrixEngineer]

"Load-Balancing" on Terminal Services is just a basic form of DNS round-robin, which is why it is not scalable. Citrix Load Management is completely different.

As JohnTcolo says, Citrix originally developed Terminal Services (for OS/2! - IBM weren't interested), and Microsoft liked it so much, they bought it.

ICA is better developed than RDP, because Citrix put more development effort into this aspect of their software. It also uses less bandwidth. I have heard stories from people who have actively measured ICA using more bandwidth - but they forget that they have every Virtual ICA Channel switched on. The additional features cause ICA to consume more bandwidth - of course! This is why every implementation needs to be planned, and measurements made before going live.

Terminal Server's hardware requirements are only just less than MetaFrame - you're talking maybe 100Mb disk space and 32Mb RAM (for the CMC). This is a non-argument, IMO!

For an organisation of the size you are talking about, MetaFrame would come into its own if you have a lot of remote users, and if you would rather give users access to applications than servers. The big disadvantage of giving everyone a desktop is that it needs to be well locked down.

Also, if you have a lot of non-Windows clients (Macs, PDAs, UNIX, etc.), or remote users, who require secure access, then MetaFrame is what you need.

Hope this helps