SIMS + Terminal Server

[adamf]

We are due to have SIMS installed in a couple of weeks and we have already decided to go down the terminal server route for accessing it. The question is, has anybody already done this and what kind of impact has it had on the server running SIMS on it and it being a terminal server.

 

We will have approx 200 clients connecting to it - not all at once, but I would estimate maybe 150 at any one time.

[bjeffery]

We also use SIMS over Terminal Server and I have had no issues at all - although I would have a server with alot of RAM - we have 2 servers with 4gb in each but plan to upgrade this to 8gb in both

[cookie_monster]

SIMS does run on terminal server but it's quite a heavy app you'll need some steam to run 150 instances of it on one box.

[bjeffery]

I would also advise NOT to use the SIMS DB server as the termnal server.

[GrumbleDook]

Oh yes .. plenty of RAM ... and look at load balancing your TS as well ... pretty key to be honest. This is the voice of bitter experience.

[GrumbleDook]

I would base the number of servers you need as 30 concurrent connections per server. SIMS is a hog, especially as staff create SIMS reports or complete marksheets in Assessment Manager .. then disconnect leaving an open connection (usually without saving the marksheets they are working on!)

[adamf]

I would also advise NOT to use the SIMS DB server as the termnal server.

 

So have SQL Server on another server hosting the DB and the main app + ts on a server together?

[adamf]

I would base the number of servers you need as 30 concurrent connections per server. SIMS is a hog, especially as staff create SIMS reports or complete marksheets in Assessment Manager .. then disconnect leaving an open connection (usually without saving the marksheets they are working on!)

 

Based on that figure, I need 5 servers

[cookie_monster]

Yes probably. You will need x64 if you want to use less servers as 150 concurrent sessions on a single server and you will hit the 2GB Kernel Memory Limit. Not that i can see any server running 150 SIMS instances.

[localzuk]

Yes probably. You will need x64 if you want to use less servers as 150 concurrent sessions on a single server and you will hit the 2GB Kernel Memory Limit. Not that i can see any server running 150 SIMS instances.

 

Not to mention SIMS.net not being supported on x64... Although there is no reason you can't have multiple 32bit virtual installs of windows on a 64bit host OS.

[PhilNeal]

Oxfordshire run SIMS on Terminal Services for most of their schools. I will try to find out how many servers they use but I think its around 6 for 150 schools including secondaries.

[adamf]

Not to mention SIMS.net not being supported on x64... Although there is no reason you can't have multiple 32bit virtual installs of windows on a 64bit host OS.

 

Exactly. I might have to re-think this one slightly. Has anybody run SIMS in a virtual environment?

[cookie_monster]

Is SIMS still not supported on x64? Poor very poor

[adamf]

Oxfordshire run SIMS on Terminal Services for most of their schools. I will try to find out how many servers they use but I think its around 6 for 150 schools including secondaries.

 

It would also be nice to know how many concurrent connections they have, if poss.

[linescanner]

We have a load of schools running SIMS (including FMS)on TS via both Sun Ray and Secure Global desktop.

 

You need to look very carefully at the concurrency.

 

I would listen to bjeffery and Grumbledook as they have been running it in anger for sometime.

 

Is it going to be straight RDP connections ? If so you will need to loadbalance. Do not use the MS loadbalancer as it sucks. 2x is a good option if hardware loadbalancing is too expensive (which for most it is)

 

Based on our experience 5 servers is about right, you may get away with 4 if the loadbalancer does a good job.

[linescanner]

We are not convinced that virtualisation of TS is the way to go with this either.

 

You will need to go to big boys Virtualisation to get the performance required out of the TS units. The added cost and complexity of this may be too much.

 

4-5 1U dual dual core servers is probably the best bet if 150 is going to be the concurrency you are looking for.

[Gatt]

I'm looking at trialling SIMS.net via Windows 2008's remoteApp

 

So far it runs well with a few machines.

We have it on a 2k3 Terminal Server as well though only used by 5 Thin Clients and 1 VPN (myself for testing)

[localzuk]

We are not convinced that virtualisation of TS is the way to go with this either.

 

You will need to go to big boys Virtualisation to get the performance required out of the TS units. The added cost and complexity of this may be too much.

 

4-5 1U dual dual core servers is probably the best bet if 150 is going to be the concurrency you are looking for.

 

The added cost and complexity should be outweighed by the reduced power consumption, reduced equipment outlay and reduced cooling.

[DMcCoy]

I wouldn't virtualise terminal services unless you really have to. There have been considerable gains in performance for recent releases of the various products, but it's still one of the worst possible candidates for virtualisation.

 

Also keep an eye on Microsoft office licensing if you have it on the terminal server - every client that accesses it needs it's own office license, and there are some heavy restrictions on which licenses are valid for remote office use.

[GrumbleDook]

I wouldn't virtualise terminal services unless you really have to. There have been considerable gains in performance for recent releases of the various products, but it's still one of the worst possible candidates for virtualisation.

 

Also keep an eye on Microsoft office licensing if you have it on the terminal server - every client that accesses it needs it's own office license, and there are some heavy restrictions on which licenses are valid for remote office use.

 

I would not virtualise TS either ... even on big boy kit like yours.

 

Also ... I will double check again on the license, but the last conversation I had with MS (and included in the licencing thread) was that if the connecting client had a full office pro client then you did not need to pay for the licence again on the TS. Obviously, if you use a thin client a licence is needed (and no ... I never did get to the bottom of the reference to per user Office licences ... I may start digging at that again after I have gotten this week's work out of the way ... so, sometime in June then!)

[DMcCoy]

I would not virtualise TS either ... even on big boy kit like yours.

 

Also ... I will double check again on the license, but the last conversation I had with MS (and included in the licencing thread) was that if the connecting client had a full office pro client then you did not need to pay for the licence again on the TS. Obviously, if you use a thin client a licence is needed (and no ... I never did get to the bottom of the reference to per user Office licences ... I may start digging at that again after I have gotten this week's work out of the way ... so, sometime in June then!)

 

I think we worked it all out

 

If the machines you access the TS from have a vol office license then you don't need to spend any money. If they don't then they will need a vol or full retail (ultimate!) license to access a TS with office (all other versions of office license prohibit remote access *with 2007*, 2003 is a little better). I think there are some links at the end of the licensing thread.

 

I might still use the blade and SAN setup, or even just the blade setup for the front end servers to save a bit on space and power, more, less powerful blades. Just without the virtualisation.

[PhilNeal]

Apologises, my posting last night was incorrect. The actual position is as follows:

 

To service 285 schools in Oxfordshire they have:

 

• 6 SQL servers for .net. Schools are not evenly distributed on these. 2 are mainly the 27 secondary schools.
  
• 13 terminal services servers
  
• 1 file server with the .net and FMS program files on (1 per school)
  
• 3 SQL FMS servers fairly evenly distributed
  
• 2 domain controllers and an IIS server
  

[adamf]

I've had a slight re-count on the concurrent connetions. Approx 12 lessons in a faculty during any one period, 6 faculities, that makes a potential 72 concurrent connections via the TS (mostly using lesson monitor) and then 30-40 admin staff that will have the sims client installed on their local machine.

 

Looking at what hardward I have currently available, i'm thinking about load balancing 2 TS servers and then hosinting the DB somewhere else.

 

Does that sound ok given the new number of concurrent connections?

[wesleyw]

Close just make sure you have plenty of ram (3gb - 4gb) and they should handle it without too much trouble just think about a little redundancy though 3 TS servers should do it and they won't be heavily worked unless a TS server dies.

 

 

Wes

Edited April 21, 2008 by wesleyw

[GrumbleDook]

2 TS boxes sounds good for the 72 connections but beware ... the staff will leave themselves logged in and hog the server. If the staff have a laptop or desktop can I ask what your criteria are for having them connect to TS to access SIMS? Ease of administration? Remote Access? You may be challenged about the additional cost that TS would cause (initially) rather than just using the SIMS.net client on a local machine.