Comments on: Citrix on VI3.x recommendations

By: VMware:Citrix on VMware Recommendations « ACC

VMware:Citrix on VMware Recommendations « ACC — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:02:40 +0000

[...] Many Citrix shops do a good deal of work maintaining multiple images – deploying applications in ‘stovepipe’ configurations… that is to say, multiple small groups of Citrix servers, each dedicated to a specific set of applications. Frequently, this is due to largely due to application incompatibility. However, it results in the Citrix admin being required to maintain several different images for the Citrix farm. Even if the shop has standardized on a single Citrix image, they will not be using the company’s standard application deployment methodology… Terminal Services is too funky with regards to application deployment, and requires much handholding. Most Citrix shops has compeletely separate processes for packaging applications for a PC versus a Citrix server. VMware ThinApp (http://www.thinstall.com) can be used to image your applications separately from the Citrix image… In fact, an application that has been packaged with ThinApp on Windows 2003 will work on Terminal Services, Citrix, Windows XP, and Vista, eliminating the need to package that application for the different platforms. Furthermore, ThinApp includes a ‘sandbox’ to prevent applications from conflicting with each other. You simply place the packaged application on a file share on the network, accessible to the Citrix servers (or PCs, or both), and you are done. Your users simply execute the application from the shared directory, and they are off and running. This results in a win-win for the customer – the ability to package an application once, and use it for either a PC environment or a Citrix environment. Bron: http://virtualfuture.info/2008/07/citrix-on-vi3x-recommendations/ [...]

By: Recent Links Tagged With "citrix" - JabberTags

Recent Links Tagged With "citrix" - JabberTags — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:04:03 +0000

[...] public links >> citrix Citrix on VI3.x recommendations Saved by hulkimania on Wed 22-10-2008 The Next 5000 Days of the Web Saved by Lurktopia on Sat [...]

By: Matthijs Haverink

Matthijs Haverink — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:08:14 +0000

Hi Dollia,

Assigning 2 vCPU’s isn’t always a guarantee for better performance. You should always analyze that per server installation. At the customer site where I am now we found out that a 1 vCPU VM with SharePoint 2007 performs better then a 2 vCPU VM with SharePoint 2007!

By: J House Consulting / Citrix on VI3.x Recommendations

J House Consulting / Citrix on VI3.x Recommendations — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:24:30 +0000

[...] a pretty good article posted by Sven Huisman on behalf of Verron Martina from VMware: http://virtualfuture.info/2008/07/citrix-on-vi3x-recommendations/ Post a comment — Trackback URI RSS 2.0 feed for these comments This entry (permalink) was [...]

By: Dollia Sheombar

Dollia Sheombar — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:41:15 +0000

Nice article Sven,
But why allocate only one vCPU per VM. What is going to happen with that VM if a certain app or process is going to hog the cpu. I always use a minimum of two cpu’s.

Regards,

Dollia Sheombar

By: VMware: Citrix on VMware Recommendations « ICT-Freak

VMware: Citrix on VMware Recommendations « ICT-Freak — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:14:54 +0000

[...] Huisman heeft weer een goede post geplaastst op zijn weblog. Verron Martina from VMware dropped me an e-mail with a lot of recommendations for running Citrix [...]

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (72.232.131.31) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (72.232.101.42) and so is spam.

By: Citrix XenApp in combinatie met servervirtualisatie « EarlyBert

Citrix XenApp in combinatie met servervirtualisatie « EarlyBert — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:31:37 +0000

[...] toch liever de hypervisor van VMware gebruiken in plaats van XenServer, dan heeft Sven Huisman een mooi overzicht gemaakt van aanbevelingen en best practices. Omdat daarbij gebruik gemaakt wordt van multi-core [...]

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (72.233.69.64) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (76.74.254.125) and so is spam.

By: Matthijs Haverink

Matthijs Haverink — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:29:12 +0000

Nice stuff Sven, thanx for sharing !