Windows VM in the cloud
-
@StuartJordan said in Windows VM in the cloud:
surely If you want to use Remote Desktop Services, then you are going to need more then 1 VM?, if you want to setup a session based RDS desktop solution you will need a connection broker,RD web Access,licence server and session host that your users will use? also have you thought about licencing etc?
This VM is just for offshore workers to connect back "home"
-
you mentioned RDS? will you not be using Remote Desktop Services?
-
@StuartJordan said in Windows VM in the cloud:
surely If you want to use Remote Desktop Services, then you are going to need more then 1 VM?, if you want to setup a session based RDS desktop solution you will need a connection broker,RD web Access,licence server and session host that your users will use? also have you thought about licencing etc?
Only one is needed, all those services run on a single VM.
-
@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:
Unfortunately, this LOB is Windows only, hence the need for RDS.
Why would it require RDS for a Windows LOB software solution? Is it from the 1990s and doesn't have a web interface or some other way to access it without RDS?
Unfortunately, the only options are "Fat client" or "Thin client aka RDS"
I, personally, use that as a reason to heavily question why the business is depending on an application that has such a limitation. What possible reason would their be for important software to require a fat client on a Windows desktop (or any desktop.) There can be reasons, but they are rare. Sounds, most likely, that it is bad software that is not fully maintained for the last decade or so? That's the stuff I worry about. If they don't have a post-1990s interface and haven't freed themselves of desktop entanglements, do they have any support left?
-
@StuartJordan said in Windows VM in the cloud:
you mentioned RDS? will you not be using Remote Desktop Services?
RDS = Remote Desktop Services. One is just the initials of the other.
-
@scottalanmiller - I understand the abbreviation, what I was meaning is, if he is using RDS session based desktops he will probably want more then 1 VM. if he is not using RDS then fair enough.
-
@StuartJordan said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@scottalanmiller - I understand the abbreviation, what I was meaning is, if he is using RDS session based desktops he will probably want more then 1 VM. if he is not using RDS then fair enough.
RDS is always session based desktops, that's what RDS is. Why would you want more than one VM for that, though? I mean... large scale, sure. But assuming under 40 users and no need for failover, why have more than one?
-
@scottalanmiller I would personally like to keep the session host VM separate from the other roles, but I'm aware you can install all roles on same machine.
When installing the RDS role you can select Session Based Desktops or VDI Based Desktops. -
In a lab Environment I don't see any issue with installing all roles on same VM but I've seen many people say they also wouldn't in production.
-
@StuartJordan said in Windows VM in the cloud:
When installing the RDS role you can select Session Based Desktops or VDI Based Desktops.
True.
-
@StuartJordan said in Windows VM in the cloud:
In a lab Environment I don't see any issue with installing all roles on same VM but I've seen many people say they also wouldn't in production.
But why not? What's the benefit to splitting out the roles as they are all versioned together and all interdependent? Keeping them together means that the fail together, which makes more sense, are more performant and easier to maintain. Until you scale past one most, which is a lot of RDS, I don't really know of a benefit to splitting the roles but a fair number of negatives.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows VM in the cloud:
I, personally, use that as a reason to heavily question why the business is depending on an application that has such a limitation. What possible reason would their be for important software to require a fat client on a Windows desktop (or any desktop.) There can be reasons, but they are rare. Sounds, most likely, that it is bad software that is not fully maintained for the last decade or so? That's the stuff I worry about. If they don't have a post-1990s interface and haven't freed themselves of desktop entanglements, do they have any support left?
Unfortunately, it's an EMR system & Windows is the only option.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@StuartJordan said in Windows VM in the cloud:
In a lab Environment I don't see any issue with installing all roles on same VM but I've seen many people say they also wouldn't in production.
But why not? What's the benefit to splitting out the roles as they are all versioned together and all interdependent? Keeping them together means that the fail together, which makes more sense, are more performant and easier to maintain. Until you scale past one most, which is a lot of RDS, I don't really know of a benefit to splitting the roles but a fair number of negatives.
I'm not saying you cant, it's kind of Microsoft Guidelines though?
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askperf/2015/04/09/remote-desktop-services-rds-2012-session-deployment-scenarios-quick-start/ -
@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:
Unfortunately, it's an EMR system & Windows is the only option.
But.... is that relevant to what I said? That it IS EMR doens't mean that it is a viable, supported EMR. And the issue is not that it is Windows, but that the design is archaic and suggestive of deep rooted support problems.
-
@StuartJordan said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@StuartJordan said in Windows VM in the cloud:
In a lab Environment I don't see any issue with installing all roles on same VM but I've seen many people say they also wouldn't in production.
But why not? What's the benefit to splitting out the roles as they are all versioned together and all interdependent? Keeping them together means that the fail together, which makes more sense, are more performant and easier to maintain. Until you scale past one most, which is a lot of RDS, I don't really know of a benefit to splitting the roles but a fair number of negatives.
I'm not saying you cant, it's kind of Microsoft Guidelines though?
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askperf/2015/04/09/remote-desktop-services-rds-2012-session-deployment-scenarios-quick-start/"Guideline" only sort of. That's the "guidelines" of the performance team, not MS as a whole. And MS themselves provide the single VM deployment model not just as an option, but a built in and ready to go one. If you don't need the performance, then the guideline to split doesn't exist. I'd argue that that very link actually suggests, through implication, that the single server deployment is best when not needed for performance needs - which is what I said above.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:
Unfortunately, it's an EMR system & Windows is the only option.
But.... is that relevant to what I said? That it IS EMR doens't mean that it is a viable, supported EMR. And the issue is not that it is Windows, but that the design is archaic and suggestive of deep rooted support problems.
I'm not disagreeing w you, I'm just stating what it is.
It is viable, it is supported by the vendor but it exist's as 100% Windows only -
@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:
It is viable, it is supported by the vendor but it exist's as 100% Windows only
Is it? What I am asking is.... how can you tell that it is viable when it appears that they are unable to maintain support for the product? Why is it languishing in such an archaic state if they are still able to support it?
What I'm questioning is... how can you feel confident that it is viable or supportable? Just because they sell you support says nothing about if they can actually support it. I've written recently about this business model - selling abandoned products that are unsupportable and charging for support and giving the money back if they have to walk away unable to support it. The customer holds all the risk, so it works really well.
-
This article looks at the issue from the position of not being able to virtualize, but the questions remain the same.... basically your vendor doesn't appear to either have support for the product or doesn't care that it doesn't work well. So you need to determine.. why? Are they unable to support it? Are they out of money? Do they think that they can just take advantage of customers who don't question them or shop around? Are they no longer able to hire the talent that they need to keep developing? Something is causing this software to fall below common standards (from over a decade ago.) Whatever reason that is is one of great concern to anyone in your business because it very, very likely is a huge piece of risk for you.
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2016/10/you-cant-virtualize-that/
-
It is 100% virtualized, it just happens to be 100% windows!
-
@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:
It is 100% virtualized, it just happens to be 100% windows!
That's why I stated that you needed to read it and not get caught up in the virtualization bit. All of the logic still applies. And again, it has nothing to do with being Windows, it's about being legacy. You are getting caught on the wrong details. It's the issues around support and modernity, not that it uses Windows or is virtual, that we are discussing.
