Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.termserv.apps,microsoft.public.windowsnt.terminalserver.applications,microsoft.public.windowsnt.terminalserver.misc,microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services (
More info?)
I think Citrix and other add-ons are good fits on any system needing to
support multiple load balanced terminal servers. This is not tied to a
certain number of users, because I've seen some applications where you can
only put 20-30 users on a single server, meaning a 200 user company is
already hitting 6-10 servers.
These situations are not common, but do exist. For a normal installation of
400 users you're looking at 4-8 servers, so you'll probably want some kind of
add-on to help you load balance and manage sessions.
http://www.workthin.com/tshw.htm
"Jim Vierra" wrote:
> I would say that at the 400 user level that the price/feature value may not
> be met for using Citrix. Most studies I have seen don't factor in Citrix
> until about 2000 users. Of course if the environment is very rich and
> complex then Citrix becomes a better value sooner.
>
> I support one larger Windows 2003 TS with 80 users, file services, SQLServer
> client, Office, Perfect Office, Sybase Infomaker, and more. We haven't seen
> a need fro Citrix at this time. We will move to a load balancing server set
> (2) and expand to close to 200 users with still no need for Citrix.
>
> I could see out system set up on an array of 4 blades with little or no
> change to the existing layout.
>
> Again. It is necessary to asses the complexity of the application
> environment and user requirements that is responsible for the choice. When
> the analysis requires, Citrix is a very good value.
>
>
> --
> Jim Vierra
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/theshow/Episode048/default.asp
> "Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EFB25A6D-6C8D-493D-85AA-C3164932EB29@microsoft.com...
> > Please see your second post. Citrix offers much better load balancing, a
> > central management console, seamless local drive redirection/mapping,
> > faster
> > remote file-system access, better sound, Secure Gateway (exposte your
> > entire
> > farm to internet clients over SSL using 1 IP Address), application
> > publishing, seamless windows, content redirection, program neighborhood
> > agent
> > (allows users to click on local files and automatically launch a published
> > application that supports that file type, i.e. user doesn't have Word
> > locally, but double clicks a doc file, which automatically opens Word via
> > Citrx), printer bandwidth management, Universal Printer Driver (EMF Based
> > in
> > MetaFrame 4.x to be released later this year), restrict users to published
> > apps only (so users can't logon to a full desktop)... The list goes on...
> >
> > "Peter Schaback" wrote:
> >
> >> Hello newsgroup,
> >>
> >> my company plans to offers an application for 400 users (80 % over WAN).
> >> We think about, to realize this over Citrix since all clients are
> >> running
> >> Windows 98,
> >> the application however dont. First test were ok, but the prices of
> >> Citrix
> >> shocked us.
> >> We need Terminalserver CAL and Citrix CAL. The application will be
> >> published over
> >> the Desktop, it's not running seamless.
> >> The application will run on 8 Blade-Server. The application also works
> >> fine
> >> under Windows of 2003
> >> terminal servers. In the case we need only Terminalserver CAL.
> >> About 300 Euro less per Client. Which advantage do I have, if I use
> >> Citrix instead of Windows terminal server?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter Schaback
> >> ps-spam-2005@online.de
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram