Rackmounted Desktops
-
@Joel said:
they came back and said a rackmounted server with VDI for each user....makes sense...
My knowledge on VDI is limited....whats the pro's / con's over this solution in your option?How does VDI work exactly? the server has the applications on and each user simply uses a remote app to open the application thats running on the server?
It sounds like someone's heard buzz words and is on a fishing expedition - are you getting this from management or IT senior to you?
-
Probably NOT what you're looking for, but Dell has a line of rack mount workstations:
http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/precision-r7910-workstation/pd?oc=cupr7910w7pOur one division uses these in rack media cabinets for school auditoriums
-
Not advocating for this, but you could use a KVM over IP set up to actually make this work without all the crazy cabling.
-
A Rack Mounted PC is something I have thought of a time or two, only to consolidate all the gear in a cabinet. I have a RM Server that I guess I will just scrap (a PE 1850) and would like to see a RM server and Desktop and NAS all together in on central location and off my desk.
I guess to some degree to it's the 'sleek' coolness of having all the blinky lights in one place, and ability to filter the air more.
-
@Joel said:
Maybe a silly Q, but what are the pro's / con's about rack mounted desktops?
Pro: Fits great in a rack.
Con: Super annoying when sitting on your desk. -
@Joel said:
TBH, I didnt even know about these until a new opportunity came to me wanting to setup a new office and wanted costs for new PCS....After providing costs, they said they were discussing the options of rack mounted them....How would this work? If they are all rack mounted they'd have cables running from the rack to each work station and it would look messy no?? Unless the rack is in the middle of the desks??? Can someone explain how users would connect eg monitors, keyboards etc and what the pro's/cons are???
Before VDI, people used rack mounted PCs for the same goals. You would use RDP, ICA or PCoIP to connect to them. No different than any other remote system.
-
@Joel said:
I cant imagine a rack mounted situation? How on earth would that be possible without running extra long cables all around the office!!! am i missing something obvious with this???? Or having a senior moment!!!
Thin clients. How do you access remote desktops normally?
-
@Joel said:
How does VDI work exactly? the server has the applications on and each user simply uses a remote app to open the application thats running on the server?
VDI means nothing more than virtualized desktops.
Remote apps is not VDI, that's terminal services (like RDS and XenApp.) VDI means you run a full desktop VM for each user and they get a remote desktop.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Joel said:
TBH, I didnt even know about these until a new opportunity came to me wanting to setup a new office and wanted costs for new PCS....After providing costs, they said they were discussing the options of rack mounted them....How would this work? If they are all rack mounted they'd have cables running from the rack to each work station and it would look messy no?? Unless the rack is in the middle of the desks??? Can someone explain how users would connect eg monitors, keyboards etc and what the pro's/cons are???
Before VDI, people used rack mounted PCs for the same goals. You would use RDP, ICA or PCoIP to connect to them. No different than any other remote system.
But you still had to have a connection device of some type on the person's desk.
The OP said they asked about VDI after getting the pricing for desktop - FYI VDI is ALWAYS more expensive (when using windows) than desktop/laptops. So if they are considering it because of possible cost savings.. just stop right there.
-
@Dashrender said:
The OP said they asked about VDI after getting the pricing for desktop - FYI VDI is ALWAYS more expensive (when using windows) than desktop/laptops. So if they are considering it because of possible cost savings.. just stop right there.
Not always, just 99% of the time.
-
that was mostly tongue in cheeck, @Dashrender is correct, if someone thinks VDI is about saving money, they are really lost.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
that was mostly tongue in cheeck, @Dashrender is correct, if someone thinks VDI is about saving money, they are really lost.
They just see the smaller price tag of the desktops (zero/thin clients) and don't consider licensing etc.
-
@wirestyle22 said:
They just see the smaller price tag of the desktops (zero/thin clients) and don't consider licensing etc.
And apparently don't see the server costs either. There are costs everywhere. And thin clients are often as much as desktops.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
They just see the smaller price tag of the desktops (zero/thin clients) and don't consider licensing etc.
And apparently don't see the server costs either. There are costs everywhere. And thin clients are often as much as desktops.
Scott beat me to this - Correct, thin clients are expensive. but when you toss in licensing and the servers, etc there it little to no savings..
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
They just see the smaller price tag of the desktops (zero/thin clients) and don't consider licensing etc.
And apparently don't see the server costs either. There are costs everywhere. And thin clients are often as much as desktops.
Scott beat me to this - Correct, thin clients are expensive. but when you toss in licensing and the servers, etc there it little to no savings..
Right. Not to mention the man hours maintaining said server. Everything has a cost.
-
@wirestyle22 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
that was mostly tongue in cheeck, @Dashrender is correct, if someone thinks VDI is about saving money, they are really lost.
They just see the smaller price tag of the desktops (zero/thin clients) and don't consider licensing etc.
It's sad when the one person whose job it is is to understand the cost of things and what value really means is the business managers, and they are the ones routinely completely misunderstanding how much things cost and just wasting money like crazy.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
that was mostly tongue in cheeck, @Dashrender is correct, if someone thinks VDI is about saving money, they are really lost.
Definitely not about saving money. Ease and management and time to deploy are the two big ones for us... although we have a few hundred in production.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
that was mostly tongue in cheeck, @Dashrender is correct, if someone thinks VDI is about saving money, they are really lost.
They just see the smaller price tag of the desktops (zero/thin clients) and don't consider licensing etc.
It's sad when the one person whose job it is is to understand the cost of things and what value really means is the business managers, and they are the ones routinely completely misunderstanding how much things cost and just wasting money like crazy.
I argue about this every day. I think thin clients make sense for my developmentally disabled client computer labs as security is a very real concern. I could also just buy Intel NUC's
and throw Linux on them while locking them down "completely" -
Things to consider with VDI costing:
- The level of skill needed is dramatically higher. VDI is specialized skills. Assume that you will be spending $50K minimum on specialists just to get your project off of the ground. Everyone that does desktop support today will need a lot of training. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you have questions about how VDI works, you don't have the staff necessary to support it, it's that simple. VDI is way more complex and would never be viably approached in this way. So assume that new support staff will be needed ongoing. You need system admins, not desktop support people after this. So either new staff or an MSP to do the support is needed.
- New server infrastructure, almost certainly high availability as the traditional risk mitigation of desktops will be gone. You can use products like Scale for this (we are testing this with them right now, in fact) and eliminate a lot of the needed expertise by letting a high end hyperconverged platform handle this for you. But you need a serious server infrastructure to make this work. All of the horsepower that has been in your desktops needs to be purchased again, and redundantly, in servers.
- Microsoft licensing. This is the killer. You need a lot of licensing expertise and will need to spend a lot of money as VDI licensing is crippling.
- Networking. You will easily do a 1,000 fold increase on your network demands.
- Access Clients. You can keep using your old PCs, but if you need to replace them you still need thin clients, zero clients or new PCs. So while you might save some money here, likely you won't since you need Windows licensing anyway for the VDI. So mostly you keep using PCs as before because you spend more getting thin clients. So don't expect to save any money here.
- GPU and performance issues. You are used to individual users having their own resources and lots of them. Now those are all shared and some things like GPUs that were simple before will now be hard, expensive or impossible. Expect lots of apps to perform badly and require a lot of work to get working or a lot of cost, both or exceptions so that you have VDI and regular desktops both.
- 24x7. If a desktop failed before, whatever, no big deal. If VDI servers fail, expect to be on call around the clock because a failed server will be catastrophic to your environment.
- VDI Management Platform. Not strictly required but always assumed and VDI is generally useless without it. Citrix XenDesktop would be the obvious choice here, but there are many. These are costly too but needed to make VDI effective.
-
@wirestyle22 said:
I argue about this every day. I think thin clients make sense for my developmentally disabled client computer labs as security is a very real concern. I could also just buy Intel NUC's
and throw Linux on them while locking them down "completely"Where is the security concern with a thin client?
