Server 2008 RemoteApp

RobertKaucher

I just deployed this for a few users. Are any of you using this in production? If so, what applications are you publishing? We are mostly concerned with remote workers using Dynamics SL ( :: Places index finger in mouth, feigns gagging:: ).

it_consultant

I publish an EMR program and a line of business application for another client. Its pretty good - doesn't have the smooth acceleration that Citrix has and doesn't have automatic load balancing among servers serving the same app. It also doesn't have the cost and complexity overhead of Citrix. Big +1 for MS on this one.

RobertKaucher

Were using it for maybe 7 employees, so we don't need the load balancing or complexity! Good to know you like it.

kalebksp

it_consultant wrote: »

doesn't have automatic load balancing among servers serving the same app.

You can set it up with NLB/Session Broker/Gateway for load balancing.

I've had a few clients that ran into an issue where the screen would go black (usually when connecting over the internet), there's a hotfix for this if you run into it: RemoteApp applications are displayed as black windows when you restart the applications in a Remote desktop connection in Windows Server 2008 R2

it_consultant

kalebksp wrote: »

You can set it up with NLB/Session Broker/Gateway for load balancing.

I've had a few clients that ran into an issue where the screen would go black (usually when connecting over the internet), there's a hotfix for this if you run into it: RemoteApp applications are displayed as black windows when you restart the applications in a Remote desktop connection in Windows Server 2008 R2

Yes but in Citrix when you publish and app and specify the servers that serve the app, the load balancing happens automatically according to load as determined by citrix. Not just the number of connections but the weight behind those connections. It is a much smoother experience in citrix than running simple terminal services. That's not to say that i don't love terminal services in 2008R2, it is fantastic.

kalebksp

it_consultant wrote: »

Yes but in Citrix when you publish and app and specify the servers that serve the app, the load balancing happens automatically according to load as determined by citrix. Not just the number of connections but the weight behind those connections. It is a much smoother experience in citrix than running simple terminal services. That's not to say that i don't love terminal services in 2008R2, it is fantastic.

Ah, I see. I haven't worked with Citrix.

crrussell3

We use it to support around 40ish remote users to publish a couple web apps, one of them java based. Our remote users love the simplistic/streamlined feel vs full rdp session they were using (we were still only launching IE and not a full desktop).

We typically only have 5-10 people using it at a given time, so don't have connection broker setup. Still need to find time to get rd gateway setup so I can tunnel over 443 and close down 3389.

it_consultant

crrussell3 wrote: »

We use it to support around 40ish remote users to publish a couple web apps, one of them java based. Our remote users love the simplistic/streamlined feel vs full rdp session they were using (we were still only launching IE and not a full desktop).

We typically only have 5-10 people using it at a given time, so don't have connection broker setup. Still need to find time to get rd gateway setup so I can tunnel over 443 and close down 3389.

SSL is not dependent on port, you should be able to secure 3389 connections with a certificate if that is your concern. Otherwise, if you want to get really nutty, you could require VPN for your terminal services connections.

crrussell3

it_consultant wrote: »

SSL is not dependent on port, you should be able to secure 3389 connections with a certificate if that is your concern. Otherwise, if you want to get really nutty, you could require VPN for your terminal services connections.

Already have it secured via ssl. We have issues where some of our remote users work in school districts that restrict 3389, so its a huge process to get them access with a computer that has static ip. This will bypass that issue if it uses 443.