VDI Options - Modernization
-
@jimmy9008 said in VDI Options - Modernization:
You can take outdated infrastructure and modernize it in many ways - just because ya'll believe in narrow minded dogmatic BS like 'my way is the right way' you think this is a contradiction in terms. LOL. WOW.
You can take old VDI infrastructure and modernize it. Contradiction my ass! If this is what I can expect from this forum I may as well post on Spiceworks. Gosh.Of course you can. THat's OUR point. We were telling you that there are other options and you need to evaluate. But VDI IS legacy, it's entire purpose is legacy. It is conceptually legacy. You can't modernize legacy, by definition. You can deploy legacy systems fresh, but that's not modernizing. You can manufacture a brand new Model T, but it's still a legacy car, even if you build it from scratch today. It's new, but not modern.
You can make new VDI, but you can't make modern VDI.
-
@jimmy9008 said in VDI Options - Modernization:
Just had a very quick look at Azure Virtual Desktop and the calculator for 3 years up-front shows around 1.5m usd. Were looing upper limit of 1m usd, which would cover us for the next 5-7 years, making Azure look expensive.
Azure is generally the most expensive solution you can imagine for anything. Azure has a brand name that is worth a fortune regardless of what they do under the hood, so MS will always capitalize on that. If you want to consider price (as you should), you can generally just rule Azure out. Once in awhile they will come in with similar prices to other solutions, but never cheaper (that I've seen) and often like this, wildly more expensive.
Cloud, in general, is a price premium solution. If you haven't already totally modernized your network, cloud should mostly be off of the table. Moving legacy apps and designs to cloud is the worst of all worlds. If you need like a single VDI instance and have no office, sure, Azure will kick butt. But at any scale, building your own and even putting it in colocation will be far, far better.
-
@travisdh1 said in VDI Options - Modernization:
@jimmy9008 said in VDI Options - Modernization:
@travisdh1 said in VDI Options - Modernization:
@jimmy9008 said in VDI Options - Modernization:
I get what ya'll are saying but thats just not how it is here. My options are replace what is there with new, or keep what is there and let it grow older.
I'll keep looking at options on my own, but thanks folks.
If you just want to buy a solution without doing your homework to figure out what's right for the business, just get new servers and keep paying the crazy license fees for VMWare/Citrix (I'm assuming you've got the HA VMWare license.)
Without knowing what apps are running in the VDI, all we can do is generalize.
Are you stuck with VMWare and/or Citrix because of management? Big cost savings in moving away from those, even if you keep paying for support IE: Scale or Starwind
More details would be needed to make any solid recommendations.
I am more than capable of being able to appraise solutions to meet our business needs. My question was asking for a list of solutions "What would you suggest we look at?", not to be told to not look at VDI as its wrong. I'll decide that. I was hoping the community could point me to solutions, vendors, resources which you have used and had experience of. I see the people on here as experienced so wanted to ask here, I should have just looked at g2.
Well, I think @scottalanmiller already explained much better than I ever could that VDI Modernization is a contradiction in terms. If you're stuck using VDI, then you by definition are not modernizing.
As to different platforms to run it on, that's why I suggested Scale or Starwind to run the Citrix solution.
We have a small amount of legacy VDI and we do it on Scale. It's not at scale, just on Scale. For our small scale this works really well.
One MAJOR question is reliability. Scale you pay extra for high reliability. VDI often doesn't need that level of reliability. So that can be a huge decision factor (And one of the reasons we HAVE to know what the use of the VDI is to understand what approaches even make sense.) The majority of our VDI is application testing, so a huge mix of operating systems (hence why VDI instead of terminal services.)
So a highly available VDI approach vs. a normally available VDI approach will make a huge difference in recommendations.
-
@jimmy9008 said in VDI Options - Modernization:
I’ll take a look at Starwind, but not Scale. Unless I am mistaken Scale do not use ESXi as the hypervisor layer. Don’t they use KVM? I didn’t write previously but we have to stay standardized to VMWare. That would remove Scale as an option.
Scale is KVM. That you need to be on VMware changes everything. It's not really VDI (so much) that you are evaluating but ways to deploy VMware for use as VDI. That's a wholly different picture as that rules out basically everything, and certainly all of the interesting stuff.
Starwind could be a great PART of the solution, but they are not the VDI portion. So while I love Starwind, it's not necessarily applicable, at least not entirely, to the discussion as it's the storage component of the hypervisor that you will use for VDI.... so two steps away from the conversation.
If you are stuck on VMware, I'd just install VMware on your own servers, use Starwind IF you need HA, and stick to the VMware stack. Not a lot of other pieces to consider.
Since VMware was a requirement for one piece, are there other requirements also like VMware vSAN instead of Starwind?
-
@jimmy9008 said in VDI Options - Modernization:
For Starwind, I do not see a specific VDI product. The site seems to say they can build for VDI, but it feels a bit ‘Mum and Dad’ shop. The highest model stack listed, well the one on their site, seems a lot smaller than we would need.
Starwind is the top end of the industry. It doesn't get better and they are part of Veeam, so about as far from "Mum and Dad" as you can get. They are who you turn to when VMware's own solutions can't cut it.
However, they are not a VDI vendor. Their storage improves the underlying performance of VMware deployments that are HA to allow for better VDI, that's all. So while they are built "for VDI", it's in the same way that Intel and AMD CPUs are "built for VDI". Any VDI solution might use AMD and Starwind, but they could use Intel and VMware vSAN, too. It's just pieces of the underlying platform on top of which your VDI will be built.
VDI doesn't require any toolset at all, but obviously benefits from them in almost all cases. VDI is a way of licensing and deploying end user systems that's all. So from the context of this conversation, we'd be looking at designs or products existing above the hypervisor (VMware) while the server hardware, storage, hypervisor itself, etc. are components below that level.
-
@pete-s said in VDI Options - Modernization:
I would try to keep the VDI solution separate including it's storage. Besides technical reasons like noisy neighbor and security there is also management reasons - for example the other department ripping out the storage is one such reason to avoid having all your eggs in the same basket. With software and OS you have dependencies and you have the same type of dependencies in the organization when it comes to who manages, who pays, who decides when to upgrade etc.
Starwind actually addresses both of those concerns in their design. Not saying that their design is always best, just saying that noisy neighbour and "other department ripping stuff out" are both able to be protected against with Starwind even in a single pool environment.
-
A key example of where NTG is stuck on something legacy is our financial systems. Due to reasons I don't totally agree with, we are currently on QuickBooks (and I could write a lot about what I think about that and how my suppositions played out, but that's for another time). For now, it is a legacy app, deployed on a legacy platform (by the vendor), hosted in a legacy way. It's SaaS, but legacy (SaaS has existed for a REALLY long time and doesn't have any modernization suggested in its use.) We are stuck with it. But we know it is legacy and causes network design complications. It is isolated and we can work around it mostly. But it is annoying and a red flag, we know it is a place that needs to be modernized and we regularly discuss plans around it.
QuickBooks Online is a modern replacement to QuickBooks, but more limited. We can't use it as it is less capable. In this case, legacy is better. We hate it, but it is better.
-
I know much of what Scott posted most recently in this thread is things he's said before - but why not start out this way - instead of the - that's legacy way... after reading the broken wall of text it definitely comes off much less - you way is dumb, and is more inviting.
-
Now with that said - I'm amazed management is willing to spend over a million dollars updating that PITA of a VDI solution instead of paying developers to make a new system that wouldn't require that VDI knife to do to the job - with the expectation that the long term costs would be much lower.
-
@dashrender said in VDI Options - Modernization:
Now with that said - I'm amazed management is willing to spend over a million dollars updating that PITA of a VDI solution instead of paying developers to make a new system that wouldn't require that VDI knife to do to the job - with the expectation that the long term costs would be much lower.
But 1 million dollars is not much if you have 600-1000 employees using it and it will get the job done for 5 years.
It will be from $17 to $28/month per user.If you make big changes it will impact the business in other ways such as cost for training, lower productivity while getting up to speed etc.
What I've seen is that companies replace their VDI solutions by doing things differently, but it's done over several years.
So when companies have the long term goal of getting rid of their VDI solution they would one by one remove the reasons for it's existence and as a result get fewer and fewer users on it. Eventually they can retire it.
-
@pete-s said in VDI Options - Modernization:
That's what I mean about overconsolidation. Just because it's technically possible to put everything into one box, doesn't mean you always should.
This is a valid point. Our current infrastructure is migrating to more "smaller" servers, rather than a few beefier ones. (We're going from 2U ESXi hosts to 1U hosts with more CPU and RAM). Our Storage Systems are largely staying the same, unless we need to add more to it.
It gives us the ability to shuffle things around more for host maintenance / hardware replacement, etc.
-
@pete-s said in VDI Options - Modernization:
It will be from $17 to $28/month per user.
That's a pretty hefty price tag for a single IT system in most businesses.
-
@dafyre said in VDI Options - Modernization:
Our Storage Systems are largely staying the same, unless we need to add more to it.
All lots of unimportant baskets all being carried around in a single big basket? lol
-
@pete-s said in VDI Options - Modernization:
If you make big changes it will impact the business in other ways such as cost for training, lower productivity while getting up to speed etc.
Exactly, which means that modernization's value is biggest when done early. The longer you linger on old systems that are outdated (that is IF the determination is that they WILL be modernized at some point, not saying that everyone should) the more you invest in technical debt, the higher the cost of moving to the modernized system, and the less time to get the increased value from the modernization.
When you know a system will be modernized, you have a huge training / productivity benefit to making the switch right away and not holding out.
-
@pete-s said in VDI Options - Modernization:
What I've seen is that companies replace their VDI solutions by doing things differently, but it's done over several years.
So when companies have the long term goal of getting rid of their VDI solution they would one by one remove the reasons for it's existence and as a result get fewer and fewer users on it. Eventually they can retire it.That can be better, but can also lead to a lower benefit overall. It helps to hide the pain and cost of the modernization, but rarely removes it. Making people not realize it might solve an emotional need, but typically (again, just typically) is actually more costly than just ripping off the bandaid all at once and making the leap forward. COntinuing to pay for old systems for fewer and fewer users often has an increasing price tag on it.
-
I'm really curious to know what is running on this VDI platform that makes it needed in first place - especially for 600-1000 users.
-
@dashrender said in VDI Options - Modernization:
I'm really curious to know what is running on this VDI platform that makes it needed in first place - especially for 600-1000 users.
Dollars to donuts, I bet it is ERP related or similar.
-
@scottalanmiller said in VDI Options - Modernization:
@dashrender said in VDI Options - Modernization:
I'm really curious to know what is running on this VDI platform that makes it needed in first place - especially for 600-1000 users.
Dollars to donuts, I bet it is ERP related or similar.
Do you think this is because the ERP is so horrible it's pulling data to the local session and working locally on it - or are they doing it simply for security reasons?
-
@dashrender said in VDI Options - Modernization:
@scottalanmiller said in VDI Options - Modernization:
@dashrender said in VDI Options - Modernization:
I'm really curious to know what is running on this VDI platform that makes it needed in first place - especially for 600-1000 users.
Dollars to donuts, I bet it is ERP related or similar.
Do you think this is because the ERP is so horrible it's pulling data to the local session and working locally on it - or are they doing it simply for security reasons?
I'm guessing just because ERP is the biggest reason (to my knowledge) for any company to use VDI. ERPs are the single largest LOB application period, and are the biggest legacy apps that still do 1990s style client/server applications that require a fat client to operate (the main reason that apps need VDI.)
VDI isn't good for security (it's not horrible, but it isn't something you ever do FOR security) so that would not make any sense and could just be modernized in a heartbeat if that were the case. But if there is a client/server app running like a pre-Internet application that has high latency sensitivity at the fat client / database interface, then VDI is the primary way that that is addressed while providing remote access options. It also requires that the app need sole sessions or desktop licensing which is only common in ERP clients.
This is exactly what is done in the veterinary space (except without the licensing requirement so TS is used instead of VDI) because of the legacy ERP-style client/server apps that are in use that haven't been updated in 30+ years (literally).
-
@dashrender said in VDI Options - Modernization:
so horrible it's pulling data to the local session and working locally on it
This statement is the "entire" reason for remote desktops sessions to exist across the board
BUT, that said, it doesn't have to be "horrible." If this is a medical system, that would be pretty pathetic. But what if it was something like video post processing and attempting to distribute CPU and GPU processing to the edge for end user performance? There are cases where these models, while older, can still make sense. They are fewer over time, but they remain and will remain for a long time.
