Archive
Organizational Challenges with #VDI – #Citrix
And yet another good blog post by Citrix and Wayne Baker. This is an interesting topic and I must say that the blog posts still goes into a lot of the technical aspects, but there are more “soft” organisational aspects to look into as well like service delivery/governance model and process changes that often are missed. And as Wayne also highlights below and that’s worth mentioning again is the impact on the network that also was covered well in this previous post: #Citrix blog post – Get Up To Speed On #XenDesktop Bandwidth Requirements
Back to the post itself:
One of the biggest challenges I repeatedly come across when working with large customers attempting desktop transformation projects, is the internal structure of the organisation. I don’t mean that the organisation itself is a problem, rather that the project they are attempting spans so many areas of responsibility it can cause significant friction. Many of these customers undertake the projects as a purely technical exercise, but I’m here to tell you it’s also an exercise in organisational change!
One of the things I see most often is a “Desktop” team consisting of all the people who traditionally manage all the end-points, and a totally disparate “Server” team who handle all the server virtualization and back-end work. There’s also the “Networks” team to worry about and often the “Storage” team are in the mix too! Bridging those gaps can be one of the areas where friction begins to show. In my role I tend to be involved across all the teams, and having discussion with all of those people alerts me to where weaknesses may lie in the project. For example the requirements for server virtualization tend to be significantly different to the requirements for desktop virtualization, but when discussing these changes with the server virtualization team, one of the most often asked questions is, “Why would you want to do THAT?!” when pointing out the differing resource allocations for both XenApp and XenDesktop deployments.
Now that’s not to say that all teams are like this and – sweeping generalizations aside – I have worked with some incredibly good ones, but increasingly there are examples where the integration of teams causes massive tension. The only way to overcome this situation is to address the root cause – organizational change. Managing desktops was (and in many places still is) a bit of a black art, combining vast organically grown scripts and software distribution mechanisms into an intricately woven (and difficult to unpick!) tapestry. Managing the server estate has become an exercise in managing workloads and minimising/maximising the hardware allocations to provide the required level of service and reducing the footprint in the datacentre. Two very distinct skill-sets!
The other two teams which tend to get a hard time during these types of projects are the networks and storage teams – this usually manifests itself when discussing streaming technologies and their relative impacts on the network and storage layers. What is often overlooked however is that any of the teams can have a significant impact on the end-user experience – when the helpdesk takes the call from an irate user it’s going to require a good look at all of the areas to decipher where the issue lies. The helpdesk typically handle the call as a regular desktop call and don’t document the call in a way which would help the disparate teams discover the root cause, which only adds to the problem! A poorly performing desktop/application delivery infrastructure can be caused by any one of the interwoven areas, and this towering of teams makes troubleshooting very difficult, as there is always a risk that each team doesn’t have enough visibility of the other areas to provide insight into the problem.
Organizations that do not take a wholesale look at how they are planning to migrate that desktop tapestry into the darkened world of the datacentre are the ones who, as the project trundles on, come to realise that the project will never truly be the amazing place that the sales guy told them it would be. Given the amount of time, money and political will invested in these projects, it is a fundamental issue that organizations need to address.
So what are the next steps? Hopefully everyone will have a comprehensive set of requirements defined which can drive forward a design, something along the lines of:
1) Understand the current desktop estate:
Simplified VDI Architecture – #Citrix, #XenDesktop
This is a great start of a blog series from Citrix!
There’s a perception that VDI is complicated. I’m far from being a rocket scientist, and I’ve managed to implement many successful VDI projects over the past ten years. I truly believe that VDI is one of those things that is only as complicated as you make it.
It’s like saying that driving is complicated. You’d have to be crazy [or very brave] to take your first lesson in Manhattan…during rush hour. That’s why your driving instructor starts you off on a quiet street. You need to know your boundaries. Being successful with VDI is the same – keep things simple to start with and slowly increase complexity at your own pace, when you’re ready for it.
This raises the question – what’s the quiet street equivalent of a beginner’s VDI architecture? It might not be the most optimized and efficient solution, but it would be quick to implement, do the job well and wouldn’t require specialist knowledge or skills. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, and I’d like to share my thoughts.
There’s a lot to consider, so I’m going to break this up over four different blog posts:
- Simplified VDI Architecture – Introduction & FlexCast
- Simplified VDI Architecture – Storage
- Simplified VDI Architecture – Provisioning
- Simplified VDI Architecture – Reference Architecture
Martin Zugec will be helping me out with this blog series and will be referring to his experience on actual customer projects that followed many of these recommendations.
XenDesktop or VDI in a Box?
First up, you need to make a decision on VDI in a Box or XenDesktop. VDI in a Box is easier to setup but does have some limitations. Check out Allen Furmanski’s excellent blog post for guidance on how to make this decision. I’m going to concentrate on XenDesktop for this post.
FlexCast
Although each FlexCast model has its own unique advantages, each additional model included adds complexity to the overall project. There is a great table in the Virtual Desktop Handbook (FlexCast Model Selection – Table 11) that provides guidance on the capabilities of each model. The main thing to note is that all scenarios, apart from offline, can be accommodated using the Hosted VDI model (XenDesktop), either with or without a Personal vDisk. It may not be the optimal selection in every instance, but it is almost always a viable solution.
There are a number of reasons why I think that XenDesktop is simpler than XenApp, including:
- Desktop applications are developed to run on desktop operating systems such as Windows XP or Windows 7. There aren’t many developers that test their applications on Windows Server 2003 or 2008. Therefore, you’re far less likely to run into application issues with XenDesktop than you are with XenApp. Even if your applications run okay on 2008 with XenApp, you’re probably going to have issues getting support from the application vendors.
- Hosting applications on multi-user operating systems can introduce additional application compatibility challenges. Users may share the same configuration files and registry hives, especially if the applications are not multi-user aware. This means that one user may change a setting that affects all other users of that server. There are a ton of tips and tricks to get these apps working correctly but we want to keep things simple and choosing XenDesktop helps us achieve this goal.
- As multiple users are hosted on the same operating system, it is important that XenApp desktops are locked down to prevent security breaches and misconfiguration that could impact all users sharing the environment. Typically, this results in an extremely controlled and restricted user experience, hindering user satisfaction and acceptance.
- With XenApp desktops, a single user can consume a disproportionate amount of resources, impacting the performance of other users sharing the same XenApp server. XenDesktop, on the other hand, allows vCPU and RAM assignments to be controlled on a per-user basis. For this reason, I strongly recommend that heavy users are hosted on XenDesktop rather than XenApp.
- With XenDesktop, it is possible to provide users with fully personalized desktops. This includes the ability for users to install their own applications.
- Unlike XenApp, XenDesktop supports generic USB redirection:
I’m a huge fan of Remote PC, especially when you consider just how simple it is to deploy. However, there are some things Remote PC just can’t do, including:
- You don’t have the flexibility to quickly provision or de-provision desktops based on business demands.
- Image management is more complicated than a virtual desktop because you can’t use MCS and PVS can be challenging with desktops outside of the data center
- You need to have a good connection between your XenDesktop Controllers and the physical desktops. Something not always available for WAN users.
Regardless, Remote PC is a great solution in many scenarios. Consider deploying Remote PC at the very start of your project. It allows you to realize immediate value while you’re designing and implementing your full VDI solution.
If XenDesktop is so much simpler why do so many projects still standardize on XenApp? It all comes down to cost – XenApp offers significantly higher levels of scalability than XenDesktop (some sources quote 300% more users). Let’s take a look at this in more detail.
Processor
The Virtual Desktop Handbook provides us with guidelines on processor requirements for both XenApp and XenDesktop (Processor Requirements by Workload – Table 22):
If processor is the bottleneck, we can estimate the scalability of XenApp and XenDesktop for a fairly typical server configuration (2×8 cores):
As you can see, XenApp offers between 17% (heavy user) and 28% (light user) more users than XenDesktop – but nowhere near 300%! Let’s put this into context, if you had 1,000 concurrent normal users, you would need seven physical servers for ‘XenDesktop: Windows 7’ and six physical servers for ‘XenApp: 2008 R2’. Is one additional server per ~1,000 users enough to justify the additional complexity of XenApp?
RAM
For RAM, the Virtual Desktop Handbook table (Memory Requirements by Workload – Table 23) shows us that ‘XenDesktop: Windows 7’ requires significantly…
Continue reading here!
//Richard
#Windows #Azure Virtual Machines and Virtual Network now are generally available
As I use to write; THIS IS INTERESTING! I think that Microsoft will take some market share for sure with their cloud service offerings!
Windows Azure Virtual Machines and Virtual Network now are generally available. We have new prices for Virtual Machines, Virtual Network, and Cloud Services.
Today is a major milestone for Windows Azure and all of our customers and partners. We are excited to announce that Windows Azure Virtual Machines and Windows Azure Virtual Network now are generally available. We also want to update you on new prices for Virtual Machines, Virtual Network, and Cloud Services.
Virtual Machines and Virtual Network help you meet changing business needs by providing on-demand, scalable infrastructure. These infrastructure services enable you to extend your data centers and workloads into the cloud while using your existing skills and investments. With these services, you can:
- Provision Microsoft SharePoint farms in minutes without up-front hardware investments. Integrate full-trust code to run rich apps and provide Internet-facing collaboration sites.
- Prototype your newest app or extend data marts into the cloud using Virtual Machines as a robust infrastructure for Microsoft SQL Server software. Scale on demand and connect to your on-premises infrastructure using Virtual Network.
- Embrace rapid innovation using the cloud for development and test scenarios. You can spin up any test lab or sandbox quickly, and be agile in your learning, development, and prototyping.
Let’s take a closer look at the news that we are announcing today with general availability.
New high-memory instances for Virtual Machines
When your apps need more memory, new 28-gigabyte (GB) and 56-GB instances deliver.
Updated SLA
When you deploy multiple instances of Virtual Machines, Microsoft provides a financially backed 99.95 percent monthly service level agreement (SLA).
Customer support
Our customer support team is ready and available to help you troubleshoot 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We have several support plans tailored to meet your needs—from basic developer support to Premier Support. When you work with Microsoft, you have a single vendor to call for cloud and on-premises needs.
Validated workloads
The best of Microsoft server products are validated to run on Virtual Machines, including Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013, SharePoint Server 2013, BizTalk Server 2013, and more. We also offer prebuilt virtual machine images—such as BizTalk Server and SQL Server—through the Windows Azure Virtual Machines Image Gallery with hourly pricing. Prebuilt Linux images—such as CentOS, Ubuntu, and Suse Linux Enterprise Server (SLES)—are available in the Image Gallery from commercial distributors. In addition, a wide variety of the most popular open source applications are available as prebuilt images in VM Depot, a self-service community portal. Read more…
The IT Melting Pot! 