Guest Pearl Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 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?
Guest Jeff Pitsch Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Re: Virtualizing Terminal Server 2003 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" <Pearl@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?
Guest Roger Crawford Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Virtualizing Terminal Server 2003 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" <jeff@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" <Pearl@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? > >
Guest Jeff Pitsch Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Virtualizing Terminal Server 2003 How many users did you have on when it was physical? User count today will not come close to physical. That's all i was saying but user count isn't the only thing to look at it when deciding to virtualize terminal servers or not. -- Jeff Pitsch Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services "Roger Crawford" <rcrawford@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" <jeff@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" <Pearl@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? >> >> >
Guest Jeff Pitsch Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Virtualizing Terminal Server 2003 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" <rcrawford@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" <jeff@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" <Pearl@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? >> >> >
Guest Patrick Rouse Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Virtualizing Terminal Server 2003 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" <rcrawford@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" <jeff@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" <Pearl@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? > >> > >> > > > > >
Guest Jeff Pitsch Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Virtualizing Terminal Server 2003 32 or 64 bit? -- Jeff Pitsch Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services "Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@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" <rcrawford@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" <jeff@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" <Pearl@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? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >>
Guest Jeff Pitsch Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Virtualizing Terminal Server 2003 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" <PatrickRouse@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" <rcrawford@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" <jeff@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" <Pearl@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? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >>
Guest Patrick Rouse Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Virtualizing Terminal Server 2003 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" <PatrickRouse@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" <rcrawford@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" <jeff@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" <Pearl@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? > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >
Guest Jeff Pitsch Posted August 18, 2008 Posted August 18, 2008 Re: Virtualizing Terminal Server 2003 On that we can definitely agree. -- Jeff Pitsch Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services "Patrick Rouse" <PatrickRouse@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:DC49676C-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" <PatrickRouse@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" <rcrawford@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" <jeff@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" <Pearl@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? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Guest X-Fire Posted August 18, 2008 Posted August 18, 2008 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:DC49676C-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?
Recommended Posts