Thin client basic question

[pooneej]

Hello: we're running citrix presentation server 4.0 and thinking about switching out PCs to thin clients - is it possible to have the thin client use citrix desktop seamlessly - that is when a user boots up the thin client they are on the citrix desktop and not the thin client desktop?

 

thanks.

[CyberNerd]

yes, you publish the desktop.

It's not the most efficienct way of doing things - it uses more resources, and rather defeats the point of purchasing those expensive citrix licenses.

[pooneej]

yes, you publish the desktop.

It's not the most efficienct way of doing things - it uses more resources, and rather defeats the point of purchasing those expensive citrix licenses.

 

thanks: the desktops are published applications but a user would have to go into citrix PN to get to that desktop. the thinking here is to make the thin client look just like a normal PC to the end user.

[CyberNerd]

you could create an .ica file that has the full screen published app. then have then run it from startup or. (HKLM/software/windows/currentversion/run)

 

A neater trick would be to pull all the hardisks out of the PC's and have them boot directly of the network. less moving parts.

http://thinstation.sourceforge.net/

[pooneej]

you could create an .ica file that has the full screen published app. then have then run it from startup or. (HKLM/software/windows/currentversion/run)

 

A neater trick would be to pull all the hardisks out of the PC's and have them boot directly of the network. less moving parts.

http://thinstation.sourceforge.net/

 

the HP thin client we are testing with does not allow me to get into startup or registry so the second option you suggested is pretty slick. we can keep existing desktops that way while achieving managed solution

 

thank you!

[Axel]

We'd be happy to send you an Axel thin-client for testing/comparison. It has no "local" desktop, or operating system.

 

Simply switch on and after 10 seconds it connects to a published application, which in your case would be the Citrix desktop. (Which is how most users run Citrix)

 

There are various other posts about the M70w in this forum, other benefits it has over the HP model is:

 

-much smaller - comes with bracket to attach to rear of screen

-no local admin - ie you don't log into the terminal so easier setting up

-intuitive remote management s/w (free)

-costs less !!!

[cookie_monster]

The Axel is an interesting looking device, what price do they start roughly?

[joe90bass]

The Axel is an interesting looking device, what price do they start roughly?

 

My thoughts exactly. I'm in the market for a 110 Thin clients to talk to our nice shiny 2008 server boxes we'll have in our new school in the summer

[Axel]

The RRP for the M70wis £136 ex VAT.

 

We do have a special "Education Price" which if you send me an email I will gladly pass on. I am not permitted to post it "publicly".

 

[email protected]

[cookie_monster]

@ Axel: These look pretty good. What is the process for them working do they PXE to a server to download a minimal OS and then connect to Citrix/TS?

 

Why do HP thin clients not work like this and what are the plus points of your units over other thin client offerings (other than price which seems pretty keen).

 

 

 

@ CyberNerd: We don't use Citrix yet so can you explain why a published desktop uses more resources and if was are talking a large increase?

 

Thanks.

Edited May 9, 2008 by cookie_monster

[CyberNerd]

@ CyberNerd: We don't use Citrix yet so can you explain why a published desktop uses more resources and if was are talking a large increase?

 

A published application only uses the application that is being streamed from the server, other application such as web-browsers will run happily on the thin clients. It depends upon what extent this is done, if the client is capable of running basic application it would be prudent to do so as this spreads the load better.

most of the functionality that differs citrix from MSTS are things like application isolation environments, where individual application load can be tailored. In a way - not using this functionality is a waste of resources , as it was a rather expensive investment. I'm only talking citrix here, with TS2008 it is arguably more expensive to run published apps because the high needed for the clients

[Axel]

@Cookie Monster

 

.....we have simply written the RDP/ICA protocols in assembly language and embedded in hardware.... So no network booting, no linux, no CE, no Xp, no LTSP. It could be described as an RDP/ICA standalone appliance.

 

ICA/RDP requires 3Mb to run in - Linux at least 128Mb, WindowsCE at least 256 and XP a lot more. If you remove the operating system from the TC you need a lot less hardware to do the same job. This approach wouldn't work for PCs as PCs need flexibility to run 100s of different applications so need an operating system to provide this flexibility - thin-clients only need run RDP & ICA so don't need the flexibilty.

 

I guess you could draw a vague parallel between gaming on PC's and consoles - PCs can do everything a gaming console can do equally well - but a console designed specifically for games is cheaper and faster (better) than a PC. Console developers optimise their hardware specifically to run games, Axel develop specifically to run RDP/ICA. In both examples you lose fexibility over the PC, but if you only want to play games or RDP/ICA this is not a problem....

 

HP are predominantly a PC manufacturer and are relatively new to the TC market, I can't speak for them, but I guess it was easier for them to modify their PC hardware into a TC - rather than design a TC from scratch.

 

The benefits of Axel's technology are desribed in the "Axel - New Forum Sponsor" post.

 

Axel have been manufacturing terminals for 20 years and have sold approaching 1,000,000 devices - so although we don't have the immediate impact of a well known name like HP - we have been designing and manufacturing terminals for well over a decade longer....

[nut-ed]

surely the benefits of Citrix are for Citrix to perform load balancing, and being able to quickly and easily publish applications to new users and create farms by combining multiple servers....

 

So to take advantage of this you would want everyone to run the browser on the server - not have dozens of local "uncontrolled" browsers from each TC.

 

It must also be easier to control content, viruses, access and keep updated one central browser on the server than multiple browsers spread around the estate.

 

Regarding resources - running 50 instances of IE will take a certain amount of computing resource - it must be more efficient to focus that "resource" as extra shared hardware on the server than having it spread around the network - only being used when the TC user is actually surfing...

 

Maybe I am missing the point.....

[CyberNerd]

Citrix does do load balancing very nicely, and adding servers to a farm is a real bonus. But some of the advantages are taken away if it running pure dektop mode because the servers have to be set up identically - with published apps they dont, and some servers can have some apps and other servers have other apps.

 

I take the point with centralised web-browsers. it's pros and cons. I see it as a downside to have hundreds of 1Ghz clients that only run a 8-10MB operating system , but if the webbrowser ran from a thinstation and was booted PXE it can be centrally controlled (there is a firefox plugin for thinstation)

[cookie_monster]

@ CyberNerd: so are you saying that with the Axel box that all of our Citrix boxes would have to be identical and we couldn't have one hosting a different application?

[CyberNerd]

@ CyberNerd: so are you saying that with the Axel box that all of our Citrix boxes would have to be identical and we couldn't have one hosting a different application?

 

I guess you could publish an app and run it in TS desktop session, but then you would be running a TS session from a TS session, it's not ideal.

[Geoff]

Well you can, but you have to separate things out. You have 'Farm A' which consists of identically configured servers that have published desktops. Then you have 'Farm B' that has all the extra software setup as published applications. You then load the PNAgent on your 'Farm A' Desktops and hey presto, they can get to the extra applications.

[cookie_monster]

Are 'farms' containers as far as the software is concerned so you could have a 'farm' of one server (Farm B) hosting a particular application that's different to the rest?

 

Not long now untill we get our new Citrix toys so i'll be able to have a play, we'll be getting 12 HP boxes to start but the Axle devices look interesting for the future.

[Axel]

If I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me - I am not an Citrix administrator and I am sure some of you out there are far more knowledgable than me on the Citrix server side...

 

If running published applications and load balancing, which are the two main reasons for spending all that money on Citrix, when the ICA request comes from the client (whatever type it is) and whatever the application, the load balancing mechanism will connect that user to the server least used. ie if you had 5 servers in your farm, the incoming connection could connect to any of them. Citrix decides which server to connect to based on the balancing critera you have set. So for this to work you would clearly need to have the applications installed on all the servers.

 

The Citrix Desktop IS 100% equivalent to a published application so treated same as any other published application.

 

If you just want to attach to one application installed on one server you are probably better off saving your money and using Terminal Services which can do this very well. (IE by definition this is not using load balancing or pub apps)

 

The above applies to all ICA clients - whatever the hardware based on...

[Geoff]

A farm is just a logical grouping of servers. Once servers are in a farm, it's easy to synchronise their settings as you set configuration at the farm level, rather than per server.