VMWare View Question - Server Specs

SteveLord

If anyone around here uses View at work, can they share their server hardware specs? I am about to invest/create a system to support up to 30 virtual desktops with VMWare View 5. All remote. Need to know if the current hardware I have is good enough or if I need to buy new.
-HP GL380 G6
-(2) Intel X5560 Quadcore cpus
-24GB RAM -(8 HP 146GB 6G PLUG SAS
-(2) HP 72GB 6G PLUG SAS
-(SAN) HP StorageWorks Modular Smart Array 70 418800-B21
-HP Smart Array P800 Controller
-VSphere 4 Standard
-Provisioned Space: 932GB
-Used Space: 664GB
-Currently only running (1) 2008R2 File/Print server
-30MB synchronous Internet connection shared across approximately 60 machines. View is new technology to me. So feel free to speak noob.

meadIT

Your CPU's should be fine. Estimates are 12-15 desktops per core. RAM will probably need upgraded. I'm assuming Windows 7 will be your guest OS. It doesn't share memory as efficiently as XP did. For the 30 desktops, you'll probably want 48 - 64 GB RAM. Where will you be running vCenter and the View Connection server? If on this same host, you'll need additional resources for those.

The biggest bottleneck for VDI deployments is going to be storage IOPS. How many spindles are in your SAN? Type and speed of drives? You can estimate around 12 IOPS per second for a Windows 7 guest.

SteveLord

I also wanted to add, these desktops wouldn't always be in use at the same time. But I think I'd like to plan for that scenario anyway to achieve maximum performance today. Yes, they would Windows 7...as we are 100% Windows 7 shop. The desktops are going to be accessing large PDF files (most less than 100MB, but a few reach 600MB) and I'll use some third party ISO software so they can run disc ISOs off it. (We currently mail them, which sucks and is a waste.)

All my drives are 15k rpm. The 2 smaller 72gig drives are in the server unit. The rest are in the SAN.

This box currently just houses that file server, which I have using 12 gigs of memory (just cuz its there, it could probably be fine with 4.) It's also going to be using my mobile management software in the future as well as Microsoft System Center Essentials (poor man's SCCM.)

I believe I will be getting VCenter and View Connection as well. I told them to just lay out EVERYTHING I need.


(All of this equipment was setup no less than 2 weeks ago. It was originally purchased last summer, project delayed, long story.)

azjag

I would pick up another 1-2 servers with the same configuration. As MeadIT stated storage IOPS is going to be your biggest bottleneck, hopefully you have fiber between storage and server for the data. Add in a couple of teamed nics for data and mgmt traffic. I would also look into application virtualization rather than desktop virtualization. Pick up some Win7 embedded thin clients and stream the applications to the desktops. If all they are going to do is access the apps there is no sense setting up desktops and maintaining applications on them.

We have 4 HP DL980s for the view/citrix environment.
Each server has 8 quad core xeon 2.4ghz
2tb memory
SSD drives (Highly recommend this for caching)
4 4port GB nics
2 2port 8gb hba's
2 2port 10gb Ethernet.

SAN Storage XP24000 with 400tb

We are running a Proof of Concept between the two and have test devices with dell, HP and Wyse utilizing Thin and Zero clients as well as laptops and desktops. This project has actually taken over most of my time over the last 2 months.

SteveLord

I need that much more with only a maximum of 30 people accessing them? Again, this is not 5 days a week. This is maybe 1 week out of each month tops. With only 10-15 people at a time from 1 group using it, then another set of people from another group using it. Different files, desktops, etc though.

azjag

My environment is running 2k users 7/24 with growth plans up to 8k users in the next 2 years. I would advise you to run the desktop/application VM's apart from your server VM's.

Again, it depends on what the needs of the customer are. If all they are doing is logging in to access an pdf or word doc you can get away with application streaming. If you need to run a specific application that cannot be streamed or is a home grown app that requires a desktop or a specific environment to function (requires Java 6 u16) then I would stream a desktop. If you stream an app all you need to update is the app. If you stream a desktop with apps installed on it you need to update that desktop plus all the apps installed.

SteveLord

I think I would rather go full desktop so everything would be available to me/them from the start.

Looks like I will plan to get another server though. Especially since I just remembered this current one might be supporting a few other virtual file/print servers in the future, from other agencies.

azjag

SteveLord wrote: »

I think I would rather go full desktop so everything would be available to me/them from the start.

I would say that before you make any decisions on which direction to go in make sure you have a in-depth understanding of what the different technologies are, pros/cons and what it will take to support the chosen direction in the future. You work on servers now, do you really want to go back to doing desktop support as well?

http://support.citrix.com/servlet/KbServlet/download/21264-102-590479/Virtual%20Desktop%20or%20Virtual%20Applications.pdf

Microsoft Virtual Desktop 101

azjag

Where you able to get in touch with the contact I gave you?

SteveLord

So more disks are more important right? Like a higher quantity of smaller drives vs a smaller quantity of larger drives? Does the clock speed of the CPU typically matter or no?

azjag

SteveLord wrote: »

So more disks are more important right? Like a higher quantity of smaller drives vs a smaller quantity of larger drives? Does the clock speed of the CPU typically matter or no?

I was writing up a response but figured I would just link to this instead. Sorry if you have already seen it.

http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/VMware_VDI_Server_and_Storage_Sizing_120508.pdf

SteveLord

azjag wrote: »

I was writing up a response but figured I would just link to this instead. Sorry if you have already seen it.

http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/VMware_VDI_Server_and_Storage_Sizing_120508.pdf

Ah, thanks much.

SteveLord

Does anyone know if there is a huge performance gap between AMD's latest line versus Intel? I can really shave down the costs on this going a single AMD 8-12 core (Interlagos) versus anything Intel has put out recently. And using some of the money saved towards more disks. I believe our Workforce Development department uses all AMD servers and haven't had any performance concerns.

MrAgent

You should add some FusionIO hardware to that to achieve high IOPS.
www.fusionio.com
I work there... but Im not a sales guy by any means.

SteveLord

MrAgent wrote: »

You should add some FusionIO hardware to that to achieve high IOPS.
www.fusionio.com
I work there... but Im not a sales guy by any means.

I am trying to work with a $20k budget..give or take. These things are really expensive and probably overkill for a small shop.

ptilsen

SteveLord wrote: »

Does anyone know if there is a huge performance gap between AMD's latest line versus Intel? I can really shave down the costs on this going a single AMD 8-12 core (Interlagos) versus anything Intel has put out recently. And using some of the money saved towards more disks. I believe our Workforce Development department uses all AMD servers and haven't had any performance concerns.

The price/performance difference is pretty negligible. Given a current hyper-threaded Xeon, consider one core to be roughly equivalent to two Opteron cores. A quad-core Xeon with HT is going to be about the same as an eight-core Opteron, and a six-core Xeon is going to be similar to a 12-core Opteron.

SteveLord wrote: »

I am trying to work with a $20k budget..give or take. These things are really expensive and probably overkill for a small shop.

VDI for 30+ desktops on $20K is just not a good idea IMO. The good news is that any session, application, or desktop virtualization is typically going to scale well. The bad news is a small business is going to pay more per user to get it running effectively.

SteveLord

ptilsen wrote: »

VDI for 30+ desktops on $20K is just not a good idea IMO. The good news is that any session, application, or desktop virtualization is typically going to scale well. The bad news is a small business is going to pay more per user to get it running effectively.

Again, this is not for 24/7/365 operation, or even 40hrs a week of operation. And it is expected to only be 10 desktops initially and up to 30 a year after initial implementation. With all due respect, I think some are forgetting this. My Vmware and Microsoft software/licenses are going to cost me less than $5k based on quotes from VMware and my software vendor. Leaves me a healthy amount leftover for an adequate server + labor to help set it up based on my research.