XenDesktop Bandwidth: The complete set
Part 1 - Prologue: Methodology and Infrastructure
Part 2 - by the Numbers: Take the time to optimize
Part 3 - Bringing it All Together: average daily users and general recommendations
Part 4 - What XenApp is
part 5 - Do It Yourself - Starter Kit
part 7 Who needs a part 6 when discussing XenDesktop 7.x [1945004(andXenApp75!)]
Analysis customer Bonus!
Bonus HDX 3D Pro
Part 4:!? What XenApp
In my last post, I discuss general recommendations for a WAN deployment of XenDesktop 5.6, XenApp but what?
In this post I will compare the bandwidth requirements between XenApp and XenDesktop and XenApp can show how to have a role in the planning of an extensive network. Tests were performed using XenDesktop 5.6 FP1 FP1 and XenApp 6.5.
XenApp or XenDesktop Hosted Shared Desktop
I started repeating some of the tests described above performed on Windows 7, but this time on Server 08 R2. Again, there were three configurations; . Listed below
- OOBE : A default "out of the box" configuration
- Office Style A configuration as close to that of the default configuration previously tested for XenDesktop on Windows 7
- Max Optimized such a configuration similar to that of "Pushing the Limit" previously tested configuration for XenDesktop on Windows 7
Note: There is no guarantee that the 08 R2 configurations are identical to those of Windows 7 since the operating systems are different.
These configurations were tested with the same tests described in post 2. The results are summarized in the tables below and as you can see again, the bandwidth can be significantly reduced with optimizations and policies. Interestingly, the office-style configuration has not added significant bandwidth compared to the default configuration, although no policies have been set for one of the configurations. When you turn off all visual parameters and reducing frames per second (FPS) bandwidth has decreased significantly.
Comparing XenDesktop and XenApp desktops, I decided to focus on the more restrictive than the configuration that would be of interest when bandwidth is biggest problem. In doing so, I have found mixed results. 1.536Mbps on a network, XenApp presented as low as 14kbps bandwidth for Microsoft Excel and Word, less than about 20kbps to see XenDesktop. Note that the user experience in both cases were similar for XenApp and XenDesktop. When looking PowerPoint and Adobe, however, the bandwidth was slightly higher proving once again that you should test, test, test before production. Where XenApp can really play a role in a WAN deployment is only when applications are needed and are discussed below.
Post what you need
What if users do not require a complete desktop? In some cases, a single application is necessary at a remote location with extreme grid conditions. If so, simply provide what is needed. By accessing an application directly, there is no effect in terms of bandwidth when reducing or dragging the window. This reduces the amount of required screen updates that may lead to the use of lower bandwidth. Moreover, now that the whole office is not delivered, all the visual effects can be disabled without affecting the user experience (think of Max Optimized configuration discussed in the second post in the series). To illustrate this consider the images below.
The first image is a hosted shared desktop delivered by XenApp 6.5 FP1. To conserve bandwidth Max Optimized configuration was used, as seen by the lack of screen background and the classic taskbar. As mentioned earlier in this series, users expect a rich, classic look that experience should be considered in the most extreme network conditions. A user can connect to this computer to edit documents on Microsoft Word and Excel and can be disappointed by the basic appearance. Since nobody wants the disappointed users, I present an alternative.
In the second image, the same applications that were opened on-demand applications. Again Max Optimized configuration was used, but this time the applications were launched and the user can use his local office. This can help reduce bandwidth further by eliminating most of the other tasks that the user can perform within the virtualized infrastructure because they are no longer available. The model applications FlexCast demand is not always practical depending on the situation, but it is a great option for users with limited network conditions and a small number of active applications.
As always, this scenario has been tested to confirm the use of bandwidth. See the results summarized below for a 1.536Mbps network. the differences were minimal bandwidth between the published desktops and applications on demand (MS Word was less than a difference of 1kbps!) the same workloads were tested for comparison.
The results are also very similar because workloads Login VSI had no interaction with the desktop. The user, however, as mentioned above, would have a different experience in both scenarios. In the case of the published desktop, the user would see a bare office. For seamless applications, the user would see his personal office with all the customizations are in effect. All this is achieved with the same bandwidth requirement for the application without additional bandwidth to interact with the desktop.
Now you may be thinking, "wait my application is not compatible with XenApp for reason XYZ". In this case, I present two additional options. You can either Citrix AppDNA application management software leverage to help test and sanitation compatibility problems, or you can use the VM Hosted Apps feature of XenDesktop.
Next Time
In the next post, I will share specific policy settings and registry to get you started with optimizing your own environment WAN.
Thanks for reading,
Amit Ben-Chanoch
Worldwide Consulting
Desktop Team & Applications
Accelerator Project
Manual Virtual Desktop
Follow @CTXConsulting
also make sure to check the brand new 7 XenDesktop Virtual Desktop Manual!
0 Komentar