Re: Virtualizing Terminal Server 2003
Hello.
Some of you have real world example of max users per server
physical vs virtual? I understood that virtualizing bring down from
70-80 users, to something around 20-30 users. But under which
conditions more specifically? VMWare (ESX, ESXi, Server), HyperV? I´m
talking about it, because here, we have only physical, but only for
some applications without using desktop (i use Remote Application
Center, a Freeware, to fire the apps) with no Office apps. Now we
intend to use Office. I know it could run fine, but to how many users.
I know too it´s a hard job to measure because depends of our
environment, that´s why i´d like to have real examples. Here i have
for example, two examples, of hardware differences... two dell
poweredge 1950... one with 2 dual cpu´s (5160), that holds a maximum
of 70 users (after that terrible things happened to users
) and one
1950 too, this time with 2 quad cpu´s (5310). This guy holds a maximum
of 130 users, before ask for physical memory (i know they can pass
this number of users, but swapping). the average user, uses 32mb
medium.
The Most Kind Regards,
Germano.
Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil.
On Aug 17, 9:04 pm, "Jeff Pitsch" <j...@jeffpitschconsulting.com>
wrote:
> On that we can definitely agree.
>
> --
> Jeff Pitsch
> Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services
>
> "Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>
> news
C49676C-9150-4167-BAA1-A83EFE7BEA86@microsoft.com...
>
> > For an X64 vs Virtualized comparison, you're absolutely correct, but for
> > 32
> > bit physical vs multiple 32 bit physicals it's not so simple, and depends
> > on
> > what the original borrleneck was. Typically it;s the 32 bit OS
> > limitation,
> > which is easily rectified by scaling out to multiple 32 bit guests on the
> > same server with > 4GB RAM.
>
> > --
> > Patrick C. Rouse
> > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
> > SE, West Coast USA & Canada
> > Quest Software, Provision Networks Division
> > Virtual Client Solutions
> >http://www.provisionnetworks.com
>
> > "Jeff Pitsch" wrote:
>
> >> If performance was based strictly on CPU/RAM then maybe, just maybe but
> >> it's
> >> not. All the shared components of that one server are a slowdown and
> >> I'll
> >> still put a physical against virtual any day when it comes to simply user
> >> count on the server.
>
> >> --
> >> Jeff Pitsch
> >> Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services
>
> >> "Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >>news:B31432A5-FDBA-430C-9293-36EB1DCE8879@microsoft.com...
> >> >A typical TS is 2 CPUs with 4GB RAM on 2003 Standard. The 2 CPUs was
> >> >back
> >> > when we had only single cores, and the 4GB or RAM is because it
> >> > generally
> >> > doesn't pay to go with Enterprise edition to take advantage of >4GB as
> >> > the
> >> > bottleneck is often the 2GB Kernel Memory Limit.
>
> >> > So theoretically one could carve up a Dual-Quad Core box with 16GB to
> >> > 32GB
> >> > of RAM into 4 to 8 x 2003 Standard Guests on Hyper-V (or VMware,
> >> > Virtual
> >> > Iron...) each with 1 or 2 cores and 2 to 4GB or RAM.
>
> >> > Assuming you've got fast storage you should be able to scale higher
> >> > than
> >> > you
> >> > did on physical, unless your bottleneck was CPU, which I highly doubt.
>
> >> > --
> >> > Patrick C. Rouse
> >> > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
> >> > SE, West Coast USA & Canada
> >> > Quest Software, Provision Networks Division
> >> > Virtual Client Solutions
> >> >http://www.provisionnetworks.com
>
> >> > "Jeff Pitsch" wrote:
>
> >> >> I should also say that companies can get up to over 100 users per
> >> >> server
> >> >> (like you said depending on applications and usage patterns) with
> >> >> around
> >> >> 50-75 pretty typical. so 20-30 isn't all that great from just a user
> >> >> count
> >> >> standpoint. Most people also do never benchmark there servers to
> >> >> begin
> >> >> with
> >> >> so they never have a clue as to how many users they could potentially
> >> >> get
> >> >> on
> >> >> a server anyway. They simply make guesses.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jeff Pitsch
> >> >> Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services
>
> >> >> "Roger Crawford" <rcrawf...@nospam.scci.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:E14EAEFF-6578-4D76-AF69-25B31FCBAE34@microsoft.com...
> >> >> > We are using 2008 HyperV Quad Dual Core AMD CPU's and 32 gig of RAM
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > host machine and have Virtualized our 2 2003 Terminal Servers with
> >> >> > good
> >> >> > results. We have had one of the bosses actually say that it responds
> >> >> > much
> >> >> > faster than when the servers was on physical hardware for her
> >> >> > accounting
> >> >> > software. We are just doing Office 2007, Dynamics, Quoteworks,
> >> >> > Connectwise
> >> >> > and some other minor programs and printing to the remote locations.
> >> >> > We
> >> >> > probably run 20 to 30 users on each server at one time so I am sure
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > would all depend upon applications needing to be run.
>
> >> >> > Roger Crawford
> >> >> > HTS
>
> >> >> > "Jeff Pitsch" <j...@jeffpitschconsulting.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:%23lL$%23V0$IHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> Comparative to physical hardware, it's still not that good. but
> >> >> >> there
> >> >> >> are benefits to virtualizing so it's a matter of what's important.
>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Jeff Pitsch
> >> >> >> Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services
>
> >> >> >> "Pearl" <Pe...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>news:8D4A3494-7E70-44E3-A2B9-057B3EE53ACE@microsoft.com...
> >> >> >>> What's the latest word on virtualizing Windows 2003 Terminal
> >> >> >>> Server?
> >> >> >>> The
> >> >> >>> last thing I heard ...it wasn't a good idea....no net gain from
> >> >> >>> doing
> >> >> >>> it
> >> >> >>> and
> >> >> >>> you limit yourself to around 20 users before it starts to suffer
> >> >> >>> performance
> >> >> >>> issues. True?