Small Business VDI implementation (View?)

We're looking into proposing a VDI solution for a small business client. The intent is to utilize existing server and SAN hardware (with some upgrades) along with new HP thin clients to provide virtual desktops for about 15 users, with room for growth up to 30 concurrent users. We've done some very small scale desktop virtualization using RDP, but I'm wonder if it would be worthwhile to consider VMware View for this project. Current environment is roughly as follows:

HP StorageWorks P2000 G3 SAN with room for expansion (FiberChannel with HP-sold Brocades)
3 x Proliant DL360 G7 (dual six-core Xeons, lots of room, room for lots more RAM)
vSphere 4.1 Advanced cluster (will be upgraded to 5.0 Enterprise for free)
Full Gigabit network based on Procurve switches (multiple active NICs per host system)

The desktops largely run basic productivity applications, including Office, but some will need to run Photoshop. Other applications are served from an existing RDSH server.

The "easy way" for me to approach this would be to build a standard workstation, clone it 15 times in vSphere, and point thins via RDP, and go from there. However, I'm wondering if it is worth looking into VMware View at this stage, both to simplify deployment and potentially improve user experience (I'm thinking PCoIP might be the way to go with Photoshop).

As far as hardware goes, I was figuring a RAID10 array of six or eight 15K drives would be sufficient, but I'm open to suggestions. Obviously a View deployment may change that.

Any thoughts? I have not worked with View at all, and I'm not really considering Citrix or MS solutions since the virtual infrastructure is already VMware based. Obviously cost is a concern, particularly with the cost spent implementing View. I know how much time a solution using vSphere cloning or WDS will take, but I really have no concept for how long a view deployment will take, or if it makes sense to View on such a small scale.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

effekted

We're fixing to deploy 150 VDI stations using View 5 and HP Thin Clients using the same server (4 servers total, 2 in each location for HA) and possibly by the end of the year replace the remaining 800 or so stations so the costs made sense for us.

Since you're not going to need to purchase much infrastructure and just VMWare licensing and Thin Clients they may see it as a worthy investment. We needed to be able to have dual monitors so we paid I think 300-350 but that's with a nice discount through a reseller, but if you don't need dual monitor support then it's going to be cheaper.

AlexNguyen

ptilsen wrote: »

Any thoughts? I have not worked with View at all, and I'm not really considering Citrix or MS solutions since the virtual infrastructure is already VMware based. Obviously cost is a concern, particularly with the cost spent implementing View. I know how much time a solution using vSphere cloning or WDS will take, but I really have no concept for how long a view deployment will take, or if it makes sense to View on such a small scale.

Citrix VDI solution (XenDesktop) will work with a VMware vSphere backend. Don't limit yourself to VMware View.

Do you "really" need a VDI solution ? Have you considered Citrix XenApp ?

Ask a Citrix pre-sale rep for a demo or presentation. Do the same with a VMware pre-sale rep.

ptilsen

AlexNguyen wrote: »

Citrix VDI solution (XenDesktop) will work with a VMware vSphere backend. Don't limit yourself to VMware View.

Do you "really" need a VDI solution ? Have you considered Citrix XenApp ?

Ask a Citrix pre-sale rep for a demo or presentation. Do the same with a VMware pre-sale rep.

We already have an RDSH server in place, and I haven't seen that XenApp is really enough of an improvement to be justifiable for this type of environment (all access it local, over GbE). Part of this is tricky because we really can't add any servers. The way our contracts work, the client will pay $200/month more for each Windows server we implement. We also charge for desktops, but we're actually decreasing that count because some users will move to the RDSH server. The idea behind doing virtual desktops instead of session virtualization was A. To ensure good performance for Photoshop and the like on the desktops and B. To avoid having applications things like Photoshop impact performance on the the RDSH server.

Currently, the RDSH server is used primarily by retail employees. The physical desktops are used by other departments, e.g. marketing, accounting, HR, management. They have somewhat different needs and it doens't seem advisable to simply install everything on the RDSH server and call it a day.

Another concern is that we are supporting a poorly designed legacy LoB application that can only run on one system. It runs fine with multiple users, but not multiple computers. This prevents us from implement on RDSH (or XenApp) farm, so in turn we're basically stuck with the one server as a single point of failure. Once again, virtual desktops are nice because we can segregate those users and their performance impact from the RDSH server, as the LoB application is critical to the company.

All that being said, I'm not necessarily opposed to implementing another RDSH server if it will really be a better solution than a small VDI deployment. XenApp is pretty much out of the question though, due to ridiculous licensing costs. It's just an issue of how practical it is to run Photoshop and such over RDP.

I don't have any preference over View vs. XenDesktop at this point -- I'm more wondering if, indeed, I really need either for such a small deployment of heterogeneous systems.

Daniel333

I feel like I am missing vital data from your post. But I'll toss in my $.02

I helped with a couple XenDesktop setups along with XenApp with a bit of App-v for good measure. We used Dell thinclients. Generally, the cost savings are just not there for a client that small. Sure, selling them a setup like that is kind of cool and modern, but is it really the right move for the client.

There is a balance you have to strike your strategy. My happiest desktop optimized clients were XP machines with deepfreeze, with RemoteApp on there. No malware, no complains. Machines are replaced in seconds for hardware faults. In many cases we setup RAID-1 so these 7+ year old p4 machines have NEVER have had a hardware fault. We just come in and replace the drive during off hours when we get an alert from the monitoring software.

Sometimes the worst thing you can do is over design a small network. What will this company do if they can't afford IT support for 6months? Is that a possibility. Sometimes its one of those things that is hard to talk about, but is something that you need to discuss.

That said it might be right for your customer. I don't have the details. Just spend a few days computing with them. Get a feel for what they think they do, they say they do,vs what they really do. Draw up long term support costs based on that. Get a feel for where this client is going to be in 2..4..6 years.

Good luck!

ptilsen

Daniel333 wrote: »

I helped with a couple XenDesktop setups along with XenApp with a bit of App-v for good measure. We used Dell thinclients. Generally, the cost savings are just not there for a client that small.

This is what I'm thinking. I feel like in some ways, VDI is the right solution and is a good way to leverage largely existing infrastructure. However, for such a small deployment, it doesn't seem practical or cost-effective to use XenDesktop or View.

Daniel333 wrote: »

There is a balance you have to strike your strategy. My happiest desktop optimized clients were XP machines with deepfreeze, with RemoteApp on there. No malware, no complains. Machines are replaced in seconds for hardware faults. In many cases we setup RAID-1 so these 7+ year old p4 machines have NEVER have had a hardware fault. We just come in and replace the drive during off hours when we get an alert from the monitoring software.

We are similarly trying to get this client to the point at which all systems are thin clients. The biggest problem this client has had is downtime and consulting fees for troubleshooting and replacing failed desktops. We've already replaced most of their desktops with thin clients using the RDSH server, but we've avoided installing the applications needed for the remaining users for performance and manageability reasons. There are a few dreaded host-dependent multifunction devices (USB, needs software, etc.) that simply don't belong in a RDSH environment. For some, we've already implemented virtual desktops using USB Ethernet servers for the devices. Even with the complexity of that setup, it's brought stability and reduced costs, and the client had appreciated it a lot thus far.

Daniel333 wrote: »

Sometimes the worst thing you can do is over design a small network. What will this company do if they can't afford IT support for 6months? Is that a possibility. Sometimes its one of those things that is hard to talk about, but is something that you need to discuss.

I agree, and that is a great question. In this case, there's really not much chance of the money running out. They are growing, if anything. But really, what we're trying to do is ultimately reduce the costs (our labor and downtime) they incur from failed hardware.

Daniel333 wrote:

That said it might be right for your customer. I don't have the details. Just spend a few days computing with them. Get a feel for what they think they do, they say they do,vs what they really do. Draw up long term support costs based on that. Get a feel for where this client is going to be in 2..4..6 years.

I've been working closely with them for nearly two years, and have designed and implemented the vast majority of the infrastructure myself. I'm very familiar with the business and the technical environment. They will be growing a bit, but not that much. I would be shocked if they increased users/stations more than 50% over the next four years. The migration away from physicals will greatly reduce their costs with us (in fact, we're honestly shooting ourselves in the foot a bit and killing our own margin, but it's the right thing to do for the client), but in the SMB world cashflow is king, so we can't sell something with an outrageous up-front cost even if there should reasonably quick RoI.

Really, what I'm wondering is if if a XenDesktop, View, or similar solution is practical or necessary for this scenario. Again, we have different applications on different desktops, including Photoshop and some other high-performance/graphically intensive applications.

Like I said, I can just build a workstation, clone it in VMware, deploy the needed software via GPO, and configure thins to point RDP to the VMs. However, I'm thinking that is a clunky solution compared to PCoIP or ICA to a good VDI implementation, and that costs could even be higher. I just don't have a good feel for how costly or time-consuming it is to implement View or XenDesktop. I do have a concept of what XenApp will take, and to be honest I'm not crazy about it. That would be a more time-consuming approach.

AlexNguyen

ptilsen wrote: »

The idea behind doing virtual desktops instead of session virtualization was A. To ensure good performance for Photoshop and the like on the desktops and B. To avoid having applications things like Photoshop impact performance on the the RDSH server.

Currently, the RDSH server is used primarily by retail employees. The physical desktops are used by other departments, e.g. marketing, accounting, HR, management. They have somewhat different needs and it doens't seem advisable to simply install everything on the RDSH server and call it a day.

Another concern is that we are supporting a poorly designed legacy LoB application that can only run on one system. It runs fine with multiple users, but not multiple computers. This prevents us from implement on RDSH (or XenApp) farm, so in turn we're basically stuck with the one server as a single point of failure. Once again, virtual desktops are nice because we can segregate those users and their performance impact from the RDSH server, as the LoB application is critical to the company.

All that being said, I'm not necessarily opposed to implementing another RDSH server if it will really be a better solution than a small VDI deployment. XenApp is pretty much out of the question though, due to ridiculous licensing costs. It's just an issue of how practical it is to run Photoshop and such over RDP.

I don't have any preference over View vs. XenDesktop at this point -- I'm more wondering if, indeed, I really need either for such a small deployment of heterogeneous systems.

Have you considered to virtualize the LoB application ? i.e. with VMware Thinapp, MS App-V or Citrix Streaming Profiler.

Heavy graphic intensive applications like Photoshop or AutoCAD are not a good use case for VDI. But every VDI vendor will tell you the contrary.

It will cost you more to implement a VDI solution. You can't pay just once. You have to pay annual maintenance fee. You also have to acquire Windows OS license for each virtual desktop or you can purchase a Windows Data Center license for your VMware host.

In our company, we have implemented virtual applications and virtual desktops with Citrix XenApp and VMware vSphere. But we did not implement it for all employees, only for the secretaries and SCADA operators (NERC CIP compliance requirements). We're using HP and Wyse as thin clients.

We have implemented VMware View 2.0 as VDI for developpers and external consultant VPN access. It was not a good experience with that product. We're now outsourtcing the implementation of a new VDI solution with XenDesktop for more use cases, like BYOD.

ptilsen

AlexNguyen wrote: »

Have you considered to virtualize the LoB application ? i.e. with VMware Thinapp, MS App-V or Citrix Streaming Profiler.

I would love to, assuming it's feasible. It would be preferable to have it off of the RDSH server. I'm not up to speed on how application virtualization is implemented, the costs, or the caveats.

AlexNguyen wrote: »

Heavy graphic intensive applications like Photoshop or AutoCAD are not a good use case for VDI. But every VDI vendor will tell you the contrary.

That's what I was worried about. I may end up leaving those desktops physical as a result. I was hoping View would be enough of an improvement over RDP to make it feasible.

AlexNguyen wrote: »

It will cost you more to implement a VDI solution. You can't pay just once. You have to pay annual maintenance fee. You also have to acquire Windows OS license for each virtual desktop or you can purchase a Windows Data Center license for your VMware host.

Makes sense. Buying ten or fifteen Windows licenses, thin clients, and the server upgrades won't be too expensive, but an actual VDI solution sounds like it will be.[/QUOTE]

onesaint

AlexNguyen wrote: »

We have implemented VMware View 2.0 as VDI for developpers and external consultant VPN access. It was not a good experience with that product. We're now outsourtcing the implementation of a new VDI solution with XenDesktop for more use cases, like BYOD.

What lead to the poor experience with View 2.0 over VPN?

AlexNguyen

onesaint wrote: »

What lead to the poor experience with View 2.0 over VPN?

That was an old version of VMware View. I think the current version is now 5. I did not participate in the implementation. I've tried it as an user experience a few years ago. I had problems to install the View client on a Windows Vista machine. The graphic refresh is not as smooth as a RDP session.

My use case experience was I had to connect to a Juniper box for VPN SSL. Then, from the Juniper portal, I have to start a VMware View session inside a web browser.

From what I've heard from the guys who implemented and operated it, they had performance issues when there are many VDI sessions in concurrent.

kalebksp

Keep in mind that you can't just buy a normal client OS license and use it in a VDI environment, there are seperate licensing considerations for VDI, which can get quite complex.

I typically take the approach of looking at terminal services first and only look at VDI if there's a constraint that can't be solved with terminal services.

You can setup NLB clusters for a pair of terminal servers (you'll probably also want to use Session Broker in that case) but for many of my small business clients that have virtualization I just rely on on VMware HA to keep things simple.