citrix metaframe

[aidanjm]

what is it, what does it do?

 

[ktwebb]

At it's core it's terminal server software. Allows clients to run software from there machine but the server does the work. It's gotten pretty sophisticated.

At our shop we publish quite a few applications via citrix and browser based front end. Typically we only pubish the app, not the desktop so the user authenticates to AD in a browser, is taken to a page with icons, double click them and the app opens up. Uses few local resources and leverages server horsepower. We have a citrix farm made up of over 30 citrix servers. Half or more of them dedicated to one app.

Too broad a question for a forum like this really but that is a fundamental base. Googling will provide much more detailed information.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: ktwebb
At our shop we publish quite a few applications via citrix and browser based front end. Typically we only pubish the app, not the desktop so the user authenticates to AD in a browser, is taken to a page with icons, double click them and the app opens up. Uses few local resources and leverages server horsepower. We have a citrix farm made up of over 30 citrix servers. Half or more of them dedicated to one app.

is it possible to serve up an entire Windows desktop environment, complete with various applications, via Citrix?

so somehow the citrix "farm" shares the workload across server CPUs? what type of computers or CPUs would be used to run a citrix farm? would they be opterons or xeons?

 

[ktwebb]

If you wanted to run it as a standard terminal server environment you can do that yes. You could run a completely diskless workstation, booting up into the network and attaching to a citrix terminal session.

There was a time when alot of people thought thin clients would replace the standard workstation. Didn't really play out like that though I am sure there are those environments are out there.

 

[aceO07]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
is it possible to serve up an entire Windows desktop environment, complete with various applications, via Citrix?

so somehow the citrix "farm" shares the workload across server CPUs? what type of computers or CPUs would be used to run a citrix farm? would they be opterons or xeons?

Yes and yes. You can run Citrix on almost any decently fast computer.

There are a lot of things to consider. Among them are application requirements, user requirements, security, licenses...

I would recommend reading a book. Go to a book store, and skim the first chapter of any Citrix book and the table of contents. That should give you a better idea. Also, there are probably decent documents or guides on the Citrix website.

 

[Mavtech]

We have 16 Metaframe servers here. On the production floor, they use Wyse terminals to access and Windows desktop. This way, a full size computer is not needed and many users can use the same terminal. On some of them, like what was mentioned above, the terminal can only access a single application. With a farm, you can also implement Load Balancing, which is how users are set up here. This way, the load on the servers is divided evenly among the servers. We also use Metaframe for our IT Test environment.

 

[spikespiegal]

There was a time when alot of people thought thin clients would replace the standard workstation. Didn't really play out like that though I am sure there are those environments are out there.

I'm working in one of them. Trust me, nothing is more retarded than using a brand new Dell workstation to do nothing but connect to a Metaframe box. Chances are the new workstation also has more horsepower.

I still have several 486 based workstations running Citrix sessions along with thin clients, but as I've so artfully expressed to management, I can get a new workstation for about the price of an additional Terminal Server CAL and Citrix License.

Another gripe is that Citrix Corp has been selling their productr as an operating system when it hasn't been the case since Winframe. Current Citrix version are nothing more than a strap on for basic Windows Terminal Services, and the Citrix product increasingly results in less productivity over basic RDP.

RE: loadbalancing. Another marketing techique from Citrix that you are gaining something when you aren't. The fast majority of Citrix boxes I've worked on run out of RAM long before CPU resources, unless your running on a dual P-200 or something. Load balancing along with Published apps tend to be welfare projects for Citrix admins who are afraid they'd lose their jobs if they had to justify why the company can't use simple Terminal Services. I have no opposition to publishing a specific application for custom use, but when I see common applications like Microsoft Office in program neighborhood I want to hire a sniper for Citrix Admin because he's created a reason for his job vs any increased productivity for end users.

 

[spikespiegal]

This way, a full size computer is not needed and many users can use the same terminal

Ah, the 'it has no hard -drive' so it's more durable myth.

First, the lowest end piece of junk PC's I have tend to outlast any thin client I've every used, and they are less proprietary. I've got a pile of dead WYSE's in my closet to prove it.

Thin clients also have big problems when it comes to graphics intensive apps like CAD drawings, and they have issues with printing. Given a choice of sticking a laser printer on a thin client, or putting a network server on the printer sitting next to the thin client, I'll use the network server.

 

[Mavtech]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

This way, a full size computer is not needed and many users can use the same terminal

Ah, the 'it has no hard -drive' so it's more durable myth.

First, the lowest end piece of junk PC's I have tend to outlast any thin client I've every used, and they are less proprietary. I've got a pile of dead WYSE's in my closet to prove it.

Thin clients also have big problems when it comes to graphics intensive apps like CAD drawings, and they have issues with printing. Given a choice of sticking a laser printer on a thin client, or putting a network server on the printer sitting next to the thin client, I'll use the network server.

Not necessarily more durable, just cheaper and easier to support. When a user has an issue, you swap it out and that's that. No sitting at their desk troubleshooting or having to back up any files they may have stupidly saved to the workstation. The terminals have seemed to last a decent amount of time for my company. As for CAD, no one on a terminal is doing anything graphic intensive. That would be silly for any company. Anyone doing graphic intensive apps is using a Mac. Also, no printers at all are connected to a thin client. All printers are on a print server and the users profile has a printer mapped. When you have tons of users spread throughout a large manufacturing facility, you cannot beat the ease of use and cheap cost of the terminals. Supporting a single application with hundreds of users is much easier with a few servers than with hundreds of desktops.

 

[spikespiegal]

Your funeral for arguing.

That would be silly for any company. Anyone doing graphic intensive apps is using a Mac.

My plant users have to occasionally pull up simple CAD drawings for referencing part schematics, not do CGI for George Lucas. The WYSE units I have trash the fonts in the CAD drawings regardless of resolution and render them useless for viewing. The oldest. piece of junk 486 Gateway machine I have running a 13yr old video card doesn't have this problem.

Supporting a single application with hundreds of users is much easier with a few servers than with hundreds of desktops.

If that's the case you should be using the embedded OS to directly access the application being used rather than waste money and licenses with Citrix and Terminal Server licensing. If the app you are delivering is that light weight, the developer should have a browser based version of it.

Also, thin client failure rates I've encountered are far higher than low end workstations. I can build a basic PC for $300, and it will be far easier to manage on a Windows network that fartin' around with the Thin client management software which tends to suck and require goofy FTP extensions to drop images.