You are here: Home > Blog

What Licenses Do I Need….

May 16th, 2012 | Posted by Sid Herron in Application streaming | Application Virtualization | Citrix | Licensing | Microsoft | Remote Access | VDI | Virtualization | XenApp | XenDesktop - (0 Comments)

Earlier this week, I had a long discussion with a client (you know who you are) about what licenses they would need for a deployment of “zero client” devices. We’ve written a lot about Microsoft and Citrix licensing, about XenDesktop and XenApp, about the Citrix trade-up, etc., but it occurred to me that it might be beneficial to pull all the licensing information together into one post instead of expecting you, gentle reader, to have to sort through multiple posts to pull it all together.

So, let’s discuss Citrix licensing first, then move on to the Microsoft licensing.

First of all, if all you want to do is to deploy VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure), and you have a limited number of users, then you should probably purchase VDI-in-a-Box. You can read more about this in our April Moose Views article about XenDesktop vs. VDI-in-a-Box.

If you decide that VDI-in-a-Box is not the right fit foryou, the next question you need to answer is whether to use XenApp licenses or XenDesktop licenses. Beginning with the introduction of XenDesktop v4.0, Citrix concluded, reasonably enough, that an organization that was deploying VDI probably wouldn’t get much leverage from a concurrent-use licensing model, because their concurrency ratio (by which I mean the ratio of total users to concurrent users) would be pretty close to 1:1. So XenDesktop v4.0 was introduced with a per-named-user or per-device license model. These licenses were roughly half the cost of the comparable XenApp concurrent-use license: XenApp Enterprise Edition, for example, carries an MSRP of $450 per concurrent user. XenDesktop Enterprise Edition carries an MSRP of $225 per user/device.

At the same time, Citrix made the decision to include XenApp rights in the XenDesktop license. So if you buy XenApp, you get only XenApp. But if you buy XenDesktop, you get both XenDesktop and XenApp – so you can use XenApp to stream applications to your virtual desktops, or have your virtual desktops function as client devices that run published applications that execute on the XenApp servers, or simply deploy a mixture of XenDesktop and XenApp to your user community depending on what delivery method is best for a particular use case. This is what Citrix refers to as the “FlexCast” delivery model.

This created the interesting situation where, because of the difference in license cost, if your concurrency ratio was less than 2:1, you were better off financially to purchase XenDesktop licenses even if all you really wanted to run was XenApp. And, since delivering what Citrix calls “hosted shared” desktops from XenApp servers makes more efficient use of the underlying hardware and storage infrastructure, the bias should probably be toward XenApp unless there is a clear use case for why users need to connect to individual desktop OS instances rather than a shared XenApp desktop (and it isn’t just appearance, because with XenApp v6.5 on Windows Server 2008 R2 we can deliver a XenApp desktop that looks and feels like a Windows 7 desktop). But, for the sake of this discussion, let’s move on down the XenDesktop trail.

Citrix has re-introduced a concurrent-use license option for XenDesktop, which is a better choice for organizations who want to deploy both XenDesktop and XenApp, but have a concurrency ratio greater than 2:1, but so far, I haven’t seen very many use cases where that license model made sense.

If you already have XenApp licenses, and want the ability to deliver VDI as well, you can take advantage of the Citrix trade-up program to transform your XenApp licenses into XenDesktop licenses. And if you trade up all of your XenApp licenses, you can get two XenDesktop user/device licenses for each XenApp license. So 250 XenApp licenses would become 500 XenDesktop user/device licenses. If you want more information on how the trade-up program works, and what your trade-up options are, check out the handy Citrix Trade-Up Calculator.

As of the release of XenDesktop v5.0 Feature Release 1, the license service got pretty smart in terms of how it managed those user/device licenses. This is good news for, say, a hospital, which may have devices that are used by multiple users and other users who use multiple devices. The license server can intelligently and dynamically reassign licenses between users and devices to make the most efficient use of the available licenses. For example, consider the following scenario for a brand-new environment where no licenses have yet been assigned:

  • User 1 logs on from client Device 1. The license server will, by default, check out a license to User 1.
  • User 1 logs off, and User 2 logs on from the same client device. The license server, now sensing that two different users have logged on from the same device, will take the license that was assigned to User 1, and reassign it to Device 1. Any subsequent users who log in from Device 1 will not cause any action by the license server, because Device 1 is already licensed.
  • If User 1 logs on again from a different client device, the license server will again check out a license to User 1 (so, at this point, two licenses are checked out: one to Device 1 and one to User 1). Since User 1 has logged on from two different devices, the license will remain assigned to User 1 unless/until manually released by an administrator (e.g., in the case of the employee leaving the organization), or unless User 1 doesn’t log on for a period of 90 days, in which case it will be automatically released due to inactivity.
  • Likewise, since two different users have logged on from Device 1, that license will remain assigned to that device unless manually released or automatically released due to 90 days of inactivity.

So…how do you know how many licenses you really need? There is actually a formula that will tell you that. You need to know how many total users you have (let’s call that number “A”), how many shared devices you have (let’s call that “B”), and how many of your users will use only shared devices (let’s call that “C”). The formula is A – C + B. So, if you have 1,000 total users, 300 shared devices, and 600 of your users will use only shared devices, you need 1,000 – 600 + 300 = 700 total licenses.

For more information on exactly how this works, see the Citrix Community Blog post by Christophe Catesson, which in turn links to a recorded session from Synergy 2011 that was a deep dive discussion of XenDesktop licensing.

Now for the Microsoft licensing component.

If you have users who will be executing applications on a XenApp server, you will need a Remote Desktop Services (RDS) CAL for that user, or for the client device that user is using. It is very difficult to manage a mixture of user CALs and device CALs in a Remote Desktop Services environment, so, in most cases, you’re going to be better off purchasing user CALs.

If you have users who will be attaching to a virtual desktop instance, the licensing requirements are different, depending on the client device. If the client device is a Windows PC whose Operation System is covered by Software Assurance, you do not have to purchase any additional Microsoft license to use that PC to connect to a virtual desktop. If the client device is not a Windows PC, or that copy of Windows is not covered by Software Assurance, you need a Virtual Desktop Access (VDA) license for that client device. VDA licenses are only available under the Open Value Subscription license model at present, meaning that you will continue to pay for them every year. Forever.

But wait! That’s not all! As Gabe Knuth outlines in a recent article on Techtarget.com, there is a very strange loophole in the VDA license terms. If you have a VDA license for your primary device (or if it’s covered by Software Assurance), you have what Microsoft calls “Extended Roaming Rights,” which allow you to also use your home computer to access your virtual desktop, or use your iPad when you’re at home or traveling. But, technically, it does not entitle you to bring your iPad into the office and use it there! To solve that (using the term “solve” loosely), Microsoft recently announced something called a “Companion Device License” (CDL) which allows you to use up to four other devices (in addition to the primary licensed device) to access your virtual desktop. No word yet on what the CDL will cost.

So let’s see if we can summarize what our client would need for a deployment of “zero client” devices (like, for example, the Wyse Xenith thin client).

  • You’re going to need some kind of Citrix license, either VDI-in-a-Box, XenDesktop, or XenApp.
  • Since the thin client is not a Windows PC, and therefore cannot be covered by Software Assurance, you would need to purchase a Microsoft VDA license for it.
  • If the thin client will be used only to attach to a virtual PC desktop and execute applications within that desktop OS environment, no additional Microsoft license is needed. However, if the thin client will also be used to attach to applications that are executing on a XenApp server – either directly or indirectly by having the Citrix client baked into the virtual PC desktop – you will also need a Microsoft RDS CAL.
  • You do not need an RDS CAL if you are only using XenApp to stream packaged applications to a virtual (or physical, for that matter) desktop for execution there. Since you are not actually utilizing Remote Desktop Services by executing code remotely on a Remote Desktop Server, no RDS CAL is required.
  • If you want to institute a BYOD program, where users can bring whatever client device they wish into the office and use it to access your VDI, you’ll probably need some of the new Microsoft CDL licenses.

If I’ve overlooked anything, feel free to submit questions via comments on this post, and we’ll try to get them answered. Let the discussion begin!

, , , , , , , , ,

Best Practices for Provisioning XenDesktop

May 11th, 2012 | Posted by Sid Herron in Citrix | Citrix Synergy | VDI | Virtualization | XenDesktop - (0 Comments)

We’ve written a lot here regarding XenDesktop’s two provisioning methods: Provisioning Services and Machine Creation Services. Earlier this week, at the Citrix Synergy Conference in San Francisco, there was a session specifically devoted to discussing those two provisioning methods, providing a high level overview of how they worked, the best practices for deploying each of them, and even some guidelines for how to determine which approach is best for your organization. For the benefit of those who couldn’t make it to Synergy – or those who did make it, but would like a better way to share that information with others in their organizations – that session was recorded and is available on Citrix TV. You can view it below:

, , , , , ,

What the Heck Is a “Storage Hypervisor?”

August 25th, 2011 | Posted by Sid Herron in DataCore | Storage | Virtualization - (0 Comments)

Our friends at DataCore ran a press release yesterday positioning the new release (v8.1) of SANsymphony-V as a “storage hypervisor.” On the surface, that may just sound like some nice marketing spin, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it made – because it highlights one of the major differences between DataCore’s products and most other SAN products out there.

To understand what I mean, let’s think for a moment about what a “hypervisor” is in the server virtualization world. Whether you’re talking about VSphere, Hyper-V, or XenServer, you’re talking about software that provides an abstraction layer between hardware resources and operating system instances. An individual VM doesn’t know – or care – whether it’s running on an HP Server, a Dell, an IBM, or a “white box.” It doesn’t care whether it’s running on an Intel or an AMD processor. You can move a VM from one host to another without worrying about changes in the underlying hardware, bios, drivers, etc. (Not talking about “live motion” – that’s a little different.) The hypervisor presents the VM with a consistent execution platform that hides the underlying complexity of the hardware.

So, back to DataCore. Remember that SANsymphony-V is a software application that runs on top of Windows Server 2008 R2. In most cases, people buy a couple of servers that contain a bunch of local storage, install 2008 R2 on them, install SANsymphony-V on them, and turn that bunch of local storage into full-featured iSCSI SAN nodes. (We typically run them in pairs so that we can do synchronous mirroring of the data across the two nodes, such that if one node completely fails, the data is still accessible.) But that’s not all we can do.

Because it’s running on a 2008 R2 platform, it can aggregate and present any kind of storage the underlying Server OS can access at the block level. Got a fibre channel SAN that you want to throw into the mix? Great! Put fiber channel Host Bus Adapters (HBAs) in your DataCore nodes, present that storage to the servers that SANsymphony-V is running on, and now you can manage the fibre channel storage right along with the local storage in your DataCore nodes. Got some other iSCSI SAN that you’d like to leverage? No problem. Just make sure you’ve got a couple of extra NICs in the DataCore nodes (or install iSCSI HBAs if you want even better performance), present that iSCSI storage to the DataCore nodes, and you can manage it as well. You can even create a storage pool that crosses resource boundaries! And now, with the new auto-tiering functionality of SANsymphony-V v8.1, you can let DataCore automatically migrate the most frequently accessed data to the highest-performing storage subsystems.

Or how about this: You just bought a brand new storage system from Vendor A to replace the system from Vendor B that you’ve been using for the past few years. You’d really like to move Vendor B’s system to your disaster-recovery site, but Vendor A’s product doesn’t know how to replicate data to Vendor B’s product. If you front-end both vendors’ products with DataCore nodes, the DataCore nodes can handle the asynchronous replication to your DR site. Alternately, maybe you bought Vendor A’s system because it offered higher performance than Vendor B’s system. Instead of using Vendor B’s product for DR, you can present both systems to SANsymphony-V and leverage its auto-tiering feature to automatically insure that the data that needs the highest performance gets migrated to Vendor A’s platform.

So, on the back end, you can have disparate SAN products (iSCSI, fibre channel, or both) and local storage (including “JBOD” expansion shelves), and a mixture of SSD, SAS, and SATA drives. The SANsymphony-V software masks all of that complexity, and presents a consistent resource – in the form of iSCSI virtual volumes – to the systems that need to consume storage, e.g., physical or virtual servers.

That really is analogous to what a traditional hypervisor does in the server virtualization world. So it is not unreasonable at all to call SANsymphony-V a “storage hypervisor.” In fact, it’s pretty darned clever positioning, and I take my hat off to the person who crafted the campaign.

, ,

Beware of Vendor-Sponsored “Analysis” Reports

June 16th, 2011 | Posted by Sid Herron in Citrix | VDI | Virtualization | VMware | XenDesktop - (2 Comments)

Mark Twain allegedly came up with the famous line: "Figures don’t lie, but liars figure." That’s a good thing to keep in mind any time you’re looking through a report that was sponsored ("sponsored" = "paid for") by a vendor that concludes that their product is better than the other guy’s.

Maybe it is better than the other guy’s. But you might want to look closely at what was tested, how it was tested, and whether they were, shall we say, selective in the facts they present.

Case in point: The Tolly Group’s report, released May 27, comparing VMware View 4.6 Premier Edition to Citrix XenDesktop 5 Platinum edition. There are several interesting aspects to this report, which are dealt with in detail in Tal Klein’s blog over on the Citrix Community blog site. Here are a few of the more egregious items:

  • VMware View 4.6 Premier licensing costs less than XenDesktop 5 Platinum. Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant. That’s like pointing out that if you load every possible dealer option onto your new car, it’s going to cost more than the basic model. Thank you, Captain Obvious. If you want an "apples-to-apples" comparison, you need to compare VMware View to the XenDesktop VDI Edition. But wait, if you do that, XenDesktop is actually less expensive, and that would be an awkward point to publish in a paper that’s being paid for by VMware.
  • VMware’s PCoIP provides a more consistent multi-media experience than XenDesktop 5. (Over a LAN. Using a single thin client device that did not support any of the Citrix HDX media acceleration features.) Sorry, guys, but once again this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. And did they publish any results of testing across a WAN link? Nope…and for the same reason they didn’t use XenDesktop VDI Edition for their price comparison.
  • It’s easier to upgrade View 4.5 to View 4.6 than it is to upgrade XenDesktop 4 to XenDesktop 5. Once again, both true and irrelevant. It’s easier to give your kitchen a new coat of paint than it is to rip out the cabinets and completely remodel it. Anybody surprised by that? There are significant architectural changes from XenDesktop 4 to XenDesktop 5. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that this will involve more effort than a "dot release" upgrade.

I’ve always been skeptical of vendor-sponsored "analysis" reports, and, to be fair, Citrix has used the Tolly Group in the past for its own sponsored reports – but it seems to me that this one is just over the top. Apparently, former Gartner analyst Simon Bramfitt agrees. His pithy assessment of the report: "There are undiscovered tribes lost in the darkest parts of the Amazon jungle that would know exactly what to do if a vendor airdropped a pile of competitive marketing literature authored by the Tolly Group; send it back, and asked [sic] that it be re-printed on more absorbent paper."

What do you think?

, , , , , ,

Thin Clients vs. Cheap PCs

June 1st, 2011 | Posted by Sid Herron in Licensing | Microsoft | VDI | Virtualization | Windows 7 - (1 Comments)

We have, for a long time, been fans of thin client devices. However, if you run the numbers, it turns out that thin-clients may not necessarily be the most cost-effective client devices for a VDI deployment.

Just before writing this post, I went to the Dell Web site and priced out a low-end Vostro Mini Tower system: 3.2 GHz Intel E5800 dual-core processor, 3 Gb RAM, 320 Gb disk drive, integrated Intel graphics, Windows 7 Professional 64-bit OS, 1 year next-business-day on-site service. Total price: $349.00.

When you buy a new PC with an OEM license of Windows on it, you have 90 days to add Microsoft Software Assurance to that PC. That will cost you $109.00 for two years of coverage. You’re now out of pocket $458.00. However, one of the benefits of Software Assurance is that you don’t need any other Microsoft license component to access a virtual desktop OS. You also have the rights, under SA, to install Windows Thin PC (WinTPC) on the system, which strips out a lot of non-essential stuff and allows you to administratively lock it down – think of WinTPC as Microsoft’s own tool kit for turning a PC into a thin client device.

Now consider the thin client option. A new Wyse Winterm built on Embedded Windows 7 carries an MSRP of $499. There are less expensive thin clients, but this one would be the closest to a Windows 7 PC in terms of the user experience (media redirection to a local Windows Media Player, Windows 7 user interface, etc.). However, having bought the thin client, you must now purchase a Microsoft Virtual Desktop Access (VDA) license to legally access your VDI environment. The VDA license is only available through the Open Value Subscription model, and will cost you $100/year forever. So your total cost over two years is $699 for the Wyse device vs. $458 for the Dell Vostro.

After the initial two year term, you’ll have to renew Software Assurance on the PC for another two years. That will continue to cost you roughly $54.50/year vs. $100/year to keep paying for that VDA license.

Arguably, the Wyse thin client is a better choice for some use cases. It will work better in a hostile environment – like a factory floor – because it has no fan to pull dust and debris into the case. In fact, it has no moving parts at all, and will likely last longer as a result…although PC hardware is pretty darned reliable these days, and at that price point, the low-end PC becomes every bit as disposable as a thin client device.

So, as much as we love our friends at Wyse, the bottom line is…well, it’s the bottom line. And if you’re looking at a significant VDI deployment, it might be worth running the numbers both ways before you decide for sure which way you’re going to go.

, , , ,

IntelliCache and the IOPS Problem

May 20th, 2011 | Posted by Sid Herron in Best Practices | Citrix | Provisioning Services | VDI | Virtualization | VMware | XenDesktop - (0 Comments)

If you’ve been following this blog for any length of time, you know that we’ve written extensively about XenDesktop, and spent a lot of time on best practices and problems to avoid. And one of the biggest problems to avoid is poor storage design resulting in poor VDI performance.

In a nutshell, the problem is that a Windows desktop OS uses disk far differently than a Windows server OS. Thanks to the way Windows uses the swap file, disk writes outnumber disk reads by about 2 to 1. You can build your virtual desktop infrastructure on the latest and greatest server hardware, with tons of processing power and insanely huge amounts of RAM, but if all of the disk I/O for all of those virtual desktops is hitting your SAN, you’ve got a scalability problem on your hands.

Provisioning Services (“PVS”) can help to mitigate this in two ways (assuming for sake of argument that you’re provisioning multiple virtual systems from a common, read-only image): First, if you build your Provisioning Servers correctly, you should be able to serve up most of the OS read operations from the Provisioning Server’s own cache memory. Second, you can use the virtualization host’s local disk storage as the required “write cache” – because all of those write operations have to go somewhere while the virtual system is running.

But XenDesktop 5 introduced a new way to provision desktops called “Machine Creation Services” (“MCS”). We wrote about this in the April edition of our Moose Views newsletter, so if you’re not familiar with all the pros and cons of MCS vs. PVS, I’d encourage you to take a brief time out and read that article. Suffice it to say that, despite all the advantages of MCS, the biggest downside of using MCS to provision pooled desktops was that all of the IOPS hit your SAN storage, which limited the scalability of an MCS-provisioned VDI deployment.

But all of that just changed, with the release of XenDesktop 5 Service Pack 1, which was made available for download a week ago (May 13). With SP1, XenDesktop 5 is now able to take advantage of the “IntelliCache” feature that was introduced as part of XenServer v5.6 Service Pack 2. Using MCS with the combination of XenDesktop 5 SP1 and XenServer SP2…

  • The first time a virtual desktop is booted on a given XenServer, the boot image is cached on that XenServer’s local storage.
  • Subsequent virtual desktops booted on that same XenServer will boot and run from that locally cached image.
  • You can use the XenServer’s local storage for the write cache as well.

The bottom line is that you can move as much as 90% of the IOPS off of the SAN and onto local XenServer storage, removing nearly all of the scalability limitations from an MCS-provisioned environment.

With most of the IOPS for running VMs taking place on local storage, it’s pretty straightforward to figure out how many VMs you can expect to support on a given virtualization host. Dan Feller’s blog post does a great job of walking through the process of calculating the functional IOPS that your local XenServer storage repository should be able to support, and inferring from that number how many light, normal, or power users you should be able to support as a result.

This also means that using XenServer as the hypervisor for your XenDesktop 5 deployment is going to yield a significant performance advantage over any other hypervisor, unless or until the other guys come out with similar local caching features. So, if you’re a VMware shop, my advice is this: Go ahead and virtualize all of the supporting XenDesktop server components on your VSphere infrastructure. Run your XenDesktop 5 VMs on XenServer hosts, and just don’t tell anyone! If you’re asked, just say, “Oh, yeah, these are my XenDesktop host systems – they’re completely separate from our VSphere infrastructure, because we don’t need the (insert favorite VSphere feature) function for these systems.” Your infrastructure will run better, and no one will know but you…

, , , , , , ,

How’s That “Cloud” Thing Working For You?

April 28th, 2011 | Posted by Sid Herron in Application Hosting | Best Practices | Business Continuity | Cloud Computing | Disaster Recovery | High Availability | Virtualization - (7 Comments)

Color me skeptical when it comes to the “cloud computing” craze. Well, OK, maybe my skepticism isn’t so much about cloud computing per se as it is about the way people seem to think it is the ultimate answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything (shameless Douglass Adams reference). In part, that’s because I’ve been around IT long enough that I’ve seen previous incarnations of this concept come and go. Application Service Providers were supposed to take the world by storm a decade ago. Didn’t happen. The idea came back around as “Software as a Service” (or, as Microsoft preferred to frame it, “Software + Services”). Now it’s cloud computing. In all of its incarnations, the bottom line is that you’re putting your critical applications and data on someone else’s hardware, and sometimes even renting their Operating Systems to run it on and their software to manage it. And whenever you do that, there is an associated risk – as several users of Amazon’s EC2 service discovered just last week.

I have no doubt that the forensic analysis of what happened and why will drag on for a long time. Justin Santa Barbara had an interesting blog post last Thursday (April 21) that discussed how the design of Amazon Web Services (AWS), and its segmentation into Regions and Availability Zones, is supposed to protect you against precisely the kind of failure that occurred last week…except that it didn’t.

Phil Wainewright has an interesting post over at ZDnet.com on the “Seven lessons to learn from Amazon’s outage.” The first two points he makes are particularly important: First, “Read your cloud provider’s SLA very carefully” – because it appears that, despite the considerable pain some of Amazon’s customers were feeling, the SLA was not breached, legally speaking. Second, “Don’t take your provider’s assurances for granted” – for reasons that should be obvious.

Wainewright’s final point, though, may be the most disturbing, because it focuses on Amazon’s “lack of transparency.” He quotes BigDoor CEO Keith Smith as saying, “If Amazon had been more forthcoming with what they are experiencing, we would have been able to restore our systems sooner.” This was echoed in Santa Barbara’s blog post where, in discussing customers’ options for failing over to a different cloud, he observes, “Perhaps they would have started that process had AWS communicated at the start that it would have been such a big outage, but AWS communication is – frankly – abysmal other than their PR.” The transparency issue was also echoed by Andrew Hickey in an article posted April 26 on CRN.com.

CRN also wrote about “lessons learned,” although they came up with 10 of them. Their first point is that “Cloud outages are going to happen…and if you can’t stand the outage, get out of the cloud.” They go on to talk about not putting “Blind Trust” in the cloud, and to point out that management and maintenance are still required – “it’s not a ‘set it and forget it’ environment.”

And it’s not like this is the first time people have been affected by a failure in the cloud:

  • Amazon had a significant outage of their S3 online storage service back in July, 2008. Their northern Virginia data center was affected by a lightning strike in July of 2009, and another power issue affected “some instances in its US-EAST-1 availability zone” in December of 2009.
  • Gmail experienced a system-wide outage for a period of time in August, 2008, then was down again for over 1 ½ hours in September, 2009.
  • The Microsoft/Danger outage in October, 2009, caused a lot of T-Mobile customers to lose personal information that was stored on their Sidekick devices, including contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists, and photos.
  • In January, 2010, failure of a UPS took several hundred servers offline for hours at a Rackspace data center in London. (Rackspace also had a couple of service-affecting failures in their Dallas area data center in 2009.)
  • Salesforce.com users have suffered repeatedly from service outages over the last several years.

This takes me back to a comment made by one of our former customers, who was the CIO of a local insurance company, and who later joined our engineering team for a while. Speaking of the ASPs of a decade ago, he stated, “I wouldn’t trust my critical data to any of them – because I don’t believe that any of them care as much about my data as I do. And until they can convince me that they do, and show me the processes and procedures they have in place to protect it, they’re not getting my data!”

Don’t get me wrong – the “Cloud” (however you choose to define it…and that’s part of the problem) has its place. Cloud services are becoming more affordable, and more reliable. But, as one solution provider quoted in the CRN “lessons learned” article put it, “Just because I can move it into the cloud, that doesn’t mean I can ignore it. It still needs to be managed. It still needs to be maintained.” Never forget that it’s your data, and no one cares about it as much as you do, no matter what they tell you. Forrester analyst Rachel Dines may have said it best in her blog entry from last week: “ASSUME NOTHING. Your cloud provider isn’t in charge of your disaster recovery plan, YOU ARE!” (She also lists several really good questions you should ask your cloud provider.)

Cloud technologies can solve specific problems for you, and can provide some additional, and valuable, tools for your IT toolbox. But you dare not assume that all of your problems will automagically disappear just because you put all your stuff in the cloud. It’s still your stuff, and ultimately your responsibility.

, , , , , ,

DataCore Lowers Prices on SANsymphony-V

April 22nd, 2011 | Posted by Sid Herron in DataCore | High Availability | Storage | Virtualization - (0 Comments)

Back at the end of January, DataCore announced the availability of a new product called SANsymphony-V. This product replaces SANmelody in their product line, and is the first step in the eventual convergence of SANmelody and SANsymphony into a single product with a common user interface.

Note: In case you’re not familiar with DataCore, they make software that will turn an off-the-shelf Windows server into an iSCSI SAN node (FibreChannel is optional) with all the bells and whistles you would expect from a modern SAN product. You can read more about them on our DataCore page.

We’ve been playing with SANsymphony-V in our engineering lab, and our technical team is impressed with both the functionality and the new user interface – but that’s another post for another day. This post is focused on the packaging and pricing of SANsymphony-V, which in many cases can come in significantly below the old SANmelody pricing.

First, we need to recap the old SANmelody pricing model. SANmelody nodes were priced according to the maximum amount of raw capacity that node could manage. The full-featured HA/DR product could be licensed for 0.5 Tb, 1 Tb, 2 Tb, 3 Tb, 4 Tb, 8 Tb, 16 Tb, or 32 Tb. So, for example, if you wanted 4 Tb of mirrored storage (two 4 Tb nodes in an HA pair), you would purchase two 4 Tb licenses. At MSRP, including 1 year of software maintenance, this would have cost you a total of $17,496. But what if you had another 2 Tb of archival data that you wanted available, but didn’t necessarily need it mirrored between your two nodes? Then you would want 4 Tb in one node, and 6 Tb in the other node. However, since there was no 6 Tb license, you’d have to buy an 8 Tb license. Now your total cost is up to $21,246.

SANsymphony-V introduced the concept of separate node licenses and capacity licenses. The node license is based on the maximum amount of raw storage that can exist in the storage pool to which that node belongs. The increments are:

  • “VL1″ – Up to 5 Tb – includes 1 Tb of capacity per node (more on this in a moment)
  • “VL2″ – Up to 16 Tb – includes 2 Tb of capacity per node
  • “VL3″ – Up to 100 Tb – includes 8 Tb of capacity per node
  • “VL4″ – Up to 256 Tb – includes 40 Tb of capacity per node
  • “VL5″ – More than 256 Tb – includes 120 Tb of capacity per node

In my example above, with 4 Tb of mirrored storage and 2 Tb of non-mirrored storage, there is a total of 10 Tb of storage in the storage pool: (4 x 2) + 2 = 10. Therefore, each node needs a “VL2″ node license, since the total storage in the pool is more than 5 Tb but less than 16 Tb. We also need a total of 10 Tb of capacity licensing. We’ve already got 4 Tb, since 2 Tb of capacity were included with each node license. So we need to buy an additional six 1 Tb capacity licenses. At MSRP, this would cost a total of $14,850 – substantially less than the old SANmelody price.

The cool thing is, once we have our two VL2 nodes and our 10 Tb of total capacity licensing, DataCore doesn’t care how that capacity is allocated between the nodes. We can have 5 Tb of mirrored storage, we can have 4 Tb in one node and 6 Tb in the other, we can have 3 Tb in one node and 7 Tb in the other. We can divide it up any way we want to.

If we now want to add asynchronous replication to a third SAN node that’s off-site (e.g., in our DR site), that SAN node is considered a separate “pool,” so its licensing would be based on how much capacity we need at our DR site. If we only cared about replicating 4 Tb to our DR site, then the DR node would only need a VL1 node license and a total of 4 Tb of capacity licensing (i.e., a VL1 license + three additional 1 Tb capacity licenses, since 1 Tb of capacity is included with the VL1 license).

At this point, no new SANmelody licenses are being sold – although, if you need to, you can still upgrade an existing SANmelody license to handle more storage. If you’re an existing SANmelody customer with current software maintenance, rest assured that you will be entitled to upgrade to SANsymphony-V as a benefit of your software maintenance coverage. However, there will not be a mechanism that allows for an easy in-place upgrade until sometime in Q3. In the meantime, an upgrade from SANmelody to SANsymphony-V would entail a complete rebuild from the ground up. (Which we would be delighted to do for you if you just can’t wait for the new features.)

, ,

Machine Creation Services and KMS

March 30th, 2011 | Posted by Sid Herron in Citrix | Licensing | Microsoft | VDI | Virtualization | Windows 7 | XenDesktop - (0 Comments)

We’ve written extensively here about the challenges of using Citrix Provisioning Services to provision VMs that require key activation (i.e., Vista, Win7, and Server 2008/2008R2). We publicly rejoiced when the news broke that PVS v5.6, SP1, supported both KMS and MAK activation.

But now, with the advent of XenDesktop 5, there is a new way to provision desktops: Machine Creation Services (“MCS”). As a public service to those who follow this blog, I thought I’d share Citrix’s official statement regarding MCS and KMS activation:

MCS does not support or work with KMS based Microsoft Windows 7 activation by default, however the following workaround has been provided and will be supported by Citrix Support should an issue arise.

For details on the workaround, click through the link above to the KB article.

It does not appear that there is a workaround that will allow MCS to be used with MAK activation, and I saw a comment by a Citrix employee on a forum post that indicated that there were “no plans to support it in the near future.” So…MCS with KMS, yes; MCS with MAK, no.

Not having MAK support probably isn’t a big deal, since the main reason why you would go with MAK activation rather than KMS activation would be if you had fewer than 25 desktops to activate, and if you have fewer than 25 virtual desktops, you may as well just stick with 1-to-1 images instead of messing around with provisioning anyway. But we thought you should know.

You’re welcome.

, , , , , , ,

The Future Is Now

March 21st, 2011 | Posted by Sid Herron in Application streaming | Application Virtualization | Best Practices | Branch Repeater | Citrix | Mobile Computing | Remote Access | VDI | Virtualization | XenApp | XenClient | XenDesktop - (0 Comments)

I recently discovered a video on “Citrix TV” that does as good a job as I’ve ever seen in presenting the big picture of desktop and application virtualization using XenApp and XenDesktop (which, as we’ve said before, includes XenApp now). The entire video is just over 17 minutes long, which is longer than most videos we’ve posted here (I prefer to keep them under 5 minutes or so), but in that 17 minutes, you’re going to see:

  • How easy it is for a user to install the Citrix Receiver
  • Self-service application delivery
  • Smooth roaming (from a PC to a MacBook)
  • Application streaming for off-line use
  • A XenDesktop virtual desktop following the user from an HP Thin Client…
    • …to an iPad…
    • …as the iPad switches to 3G operation aboard a commuter train…
    • …to a Mac in the home office…
    • …to a Windows multi-touch PC in the kitchen…
    • …to an iPhone on the golf course.
  • And a demo of XenClient to wrap things up.

I remember, a few years ago, sitting through the keynote address at a Citrix conference and watching a similar video on where the technology was headed. But this isn’t smoke and mirrors, and it isn’t a presentation of some future, yet-to-be-released technology. All of this functionality is available now, and it’s all included in a single license model. The future is here. Now.

I think you’ll find that it’s 17 minutes that are well-spent:

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Latest Blog Feeds
Go to our Blog Page
Testimonials
“Our business is all about process and margins; we rely on Moose Logic to install and manage network solutions that enable us to control both. Moose Logic created solutions that transformed our business relationships and processes.”
Ron Horowitz
Birchwood Park Homes
Read our Newsletter
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved.
Wordpress Delicate template designed by NattyWP