What Compaq server to use

[sandpiper]

I am currently looking to install Metaframe 1.8 into our school district for 300 clients. I have been given three proposals or configurations. I would like some input or advice on what is the best solution.<br>1. 4 Proliant DL580 Pentium III 700mhz , 2.5 gigs per server<br>Raid 5, Citrix Load Balancing .<br>2. 6 Proliant DL380 Pentium III 866mhz, 2.5 gigs per server<br>Raid 5, Citrix Load Balancing.<br>3. 6 Proliant ML530 Pentium III Xeon 800 mhz, 2.5 gigs per server, Raid 5, Citrix Load Balancing.<br>I would like to have some advice on what would be a good solution... Thanks Gary<br>&nbsp;

 

[oneworld]

There are a few things to think about when considering citrix and what server to use.&nbsp;&nbsp;Here are a few things that may help you out:<br><br>Do you expect all three hundred to be connecting at the same time?&nbsp;&nbsp;Citrix shares memory and processor of the server to each client.&nbsp;&nbsp;Each processor requires more overhead so for example...1 processor supports 20 concurrent users 4 processors may not handle 80 that well.&nbsp;&nbsp;Internal cache can determine that.&nbsp;&nbsp;As far as memory is concerned you will need to add between 5-15MB per user connected.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is on top of the normal amount that you would put in to run your server.<br><br>Do some research on your own to determine what Citrix is looking for.&nbsp;&nbsp;There is a great book called &quot;Windows NT Terminal Server and Citrix Metaframe&quot; by New Riders Publishing and Ted Harwood.&nbsp;&nbsp;This book outlines some of the features that you seem to need to know to make a judment on what you are looking for.&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 5 page 61 talks about what I was mentioning previously.<br><br>Cost...If cost is a big problem 6 servers may not be what you need.&nbsp;&nbsp;Again it should be based on users and how critical the applications will be.&nbsp;&nbsp;Load balancing is definitly an issue.<br><br>If you have more questions please feel free to post or take it off line.<br><br>Oneworld <p> <br><a href=mailto: oneworld@goes.com> oneworld@goes.com</a><br><a href= > </a><br>

 

[CUSNET]

Sandpiper,
Oneworld is correct, that is the book I used to setup our farm. We have the Compaq 1850R's with dual P3 550 Xeon, 1gb of RAM and (4) 9.1 GB drives on 3200 series controllers. We alos have around 300 users and we are averaging around 40-50 users per server. We have four configured indetically and need one more to lighten the load on the other four. The Ted Harwood book from New Riders does have a good formula for terminal server. All the advice I have recieved (and from the classes I took) is to spread the users out over servers. If you have a server crater you don't want the others to strain under the load. I know it might be expensive up front but you will save time and money in the long run. It is myself and another admin who handle 300 users plus some outside users from other companies across 26 sites and 14 states and I am home most weekends.

 

[Nostferatu]

Only a suggestion, but I have always used the RAIS model for my server farms, &quot;Redundnat Array of Inexpensive Servers&quot; more kit, possibly a little more expence but much more diversity for load balancing and fall-over recovery. The problem with loading all your eggs into a few baskets is that should one of the baskets bottom drop out, the remaining baskets will be overflowing with eggs, which in turn can generate more porblems (ever tried cleaning dried egg off the comms room floor...), the remaining servers will be under considerable strain to support the additional clients, where as with the RAIS model a few extra clients scattered around each of the systems makes little or no impact.

Just my 2p worth... Good luck with the project

 

[H2K]

Depends if the server will be used just as a application server or application and file storage (database) server.
If it is only for application, I.E. Microsoft office, then I would use DL380 as it takes a lot less phisical space than the other two. But if you will be storing data on them then you may need more HD space so you may need the 530 or 580. I would go with 530 or 380 becouse they are 2 cpu servers and 580 is 4 cpu server. 580 is obviously more powerfull but if one of the 4 you have goes down you automaticaly loose about 80-100 user when with 2 cpu server you only loose about 40-60. Also I would go with 2 mirrored drives for a system partition and if you need storage then on second raid chanel I would put raid 5.
Mirrored hd's have better performance on Terminal server than raid5. As was said in previous responses your decision should be based on how you gona use those servers.

Henryk

 

[wybnormal]

Lets throw something else into the mix. I do not run Compaq servers ( gasp!) I deployed my Metaframe servers on a Cubix chassis and processor cards. Takes up alot less rack space and is readily managable via web. So far( 2 years) it's been bulletproof compared to some of my standalone boxes. Just a thought ;-)

Mike S
&quot;Diplomacy; the art of saying 'nice doggie' till you can find a rock&quot; Wynn Catlin

 

[CitrixEngineer]

I agree with henryk - there's little point having an expensive RAID controller to deliver RAID 5 on a terminal server - you'd be better off having a separate server with RAID 5 as a file/printer server, and a pair of mirrored drives on your terminal server.

I hope this helps