[itdiscuss] 64-bit Windows 2003 Terminal Server

Tue Feb 10 14:44:10 EST 2009

I would prefer not to virtualize the Terminal Server.  I virtualize
everything else but no the Terminal Server.  It's too heavy of an app for VM
in my opinion.  I know of many who disagree but I stick with that setup.  I
also prefer VMware Server on a separate physical for my Server VMs :)  If I
find the Terminal Server isn't using all of the resources then I will shift
them to the VMware server.

The pricing scheme for licenses is tempting but in this case I'll pay a
little more for higher performance with VMware Server. :)

Anyone using the Hyper-V server for VMs?  How do you like it?  Any
problems?  How does it compare to VMware?  Is it possible to virtualize
other operating systems with the Microsoft Hyper-V?  Linux plays an
important role for me.  :)

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Dayron Daugherty <ddaugherty at precept.org>wrote:

>  With those specs why not build a Windows 2008 Datacenter Hyper-V server
> (we went with data center for the reasons mentioned previously about
> unlimited virtual instances of any Windows server product) and then make one
> of your VM's the terminal server? Then create all other VMs you need on
> demand any time ya want.
>
>
>
> For the virtual terminal server you then could use Windows 2008 Enterprise.
>
>
>
>
> Also someone mentioned Windows 2008 remote apps. I've seen some demos of it
> and it's pretty impressive.
>
>
>
> Keep in mind on Windows Data center licensing it's licensed per processor.
> For a 1 processor license it's $350 or so. So if you have 2 processors
> you'll need 2 licenses. However… even for $600… unlimited virtual instances
> of all the current and past server products… sky is the limit.  Of course
> Terminal server may be heavy on the resources so you could go with Windows
> 2008 Enterprise 64 and that comes with 4 virtual licenses. That is only $340
> and isn't just for a single processor.
>
>
>
> After awhile I think you'll see your terminal server isn't using all the
> RAM. I'd be shocked if it uses 8GB. If you go the virtual route you could
> then create another VM or 2 using the remaining unused RAM. Might as well
> build in the ability to use resources vs. looking at all that unused RAM in
> task manager J.
>
>
>
> *From:* discuss-bounces at itdiscuss.org [mailto:
> discuss-bounces at itdiscuss.org] *On Behalf Of *Thompson, Ken
> *Sent:* Monday, February 09, 2009 1:32 PM
>
> *To:* IT Discussion Forum
> *Subject:* Re: [itdiscuss] 64-bit Windows 2003 Terminal Server
>
>
>
> We're on 64-bit OS installs and not having any "major" issues. Probably the
> biggest issues we've had are with print drivers. We're pretty much past
> these now too.
>
>
>
> We've had only one issue with a legacy app – all others (and we have quite
> a few) have worked fine. The legacy app was one that was developed in house
> several years back but we're even looking at a different build.
>
>
>
> Oh, and IE 64-bit has an issue with Flash – keeps popping up saying "not
> installed". But, you can install it on the 32-bit IE app (is on Server 08)
> and it works fine.
>
>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> *From:* discuss-bounces at itdiscuss.org [mailto:
> discuss-bounces at itdiscuss.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeffrey Thompson
> *Sent:* Monday, February 09, 2009 11:10 AM
> *To:* IT Discussion Forum
> *Subject:* Re: [itdiscuss] 64-bit Windows 2003 Terminal Server
>
>
>
> How long ago were you having problems?  Is anyone else still having these
> problems on the 64-bit Windows Enterprise Server OS?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Dan Barber <dbarber at kirkofthehills.org>
> wrote:
>
>  Jeffrey,
>
> We deployed 64-bit on 2003 and had tons of problems. First, many
> applications don't install well because they only run via 32-bit mode. Even
> though it *should* still work, it didn't. We also had problems with IE and
> Firefox.
>
>
>
> Ultimately, we killed all our 64-bit servers for TS and went back to
> 32-bit. Much better. I don't think I am comfortable at this point running
> everything on 32-bit. Maybe if it was only Office and Windows, but with any
> other programs (Shelby, for example) I say a no-go.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* discuss-bounces at itdiscuss.org [
> mailto:discuss-bounces at itdiscuss.org <discuss-bounces at itdiscuss.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Jeffrey Thompson
> *Sent:* Monday, February 09, 2009 8:11 AM
> *To:* IT Discussion Forum
> *Subject:* Re: [itdiscuss] 64-bit Windows 2003 Terminal Server
>
>
>
> I prefer to stay with a system I know can deliver.  However maybe as you
> experience Server 08 you can share your experiences.  I expect they will be
> positive.  I'm building a system with this capacity because it has become
> economically feasible to do so and for a small to medium sized organization
> I think this represents best value.
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Thompson, Ken <Ken.Thompson at mtw.org>
> wrote:
>
> Whew -- that's big. Why / what's calling for a TS with these specs?
>
> Also, have you looked into Server 08? The non-profit licensing for the
> datacenter version is like $300 and will allow you to build unlimited (well,
> limited by hardware) virtual servers on one CPU (we use quad cores).
>
> Feel free to talk to us 'cuz we're just moving all our TS's to Server 08
> and have built it all out with all the new features of 08.
>
> Ken
> IT Manager, MTW
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at itdiscuss.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at itdiscuss.org]
> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thompson
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:26 AM
> To: IT Discussion Forum
>
> Subject: [itdiscuss] 64-bit Windows 2003 Terminal Server
>
> I'm in the process of building a 64-bit Windows 2003 Terminal Server
> that will start with 16GB of RAM and 2.5TB of RAID storage.
>
> Which version of Windows 2003 Server do I need to get so My terminal
> server can address all of the memory?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> _______________________________________________
> it discuss mailing list: discuss at itdiscuss.org
> Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss
> Web Discussion Board: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss-forum
> Wiki: http://itdiscuss.org/wiki
> Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc. <http://irc.freenode.net/citrt>
> freenode.net/citrt
>
> _______________________________________________
> it discuss mailing list: discuss at itdiscuss.org
> Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss
> Web Discussion Board: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss-forum
> Wiki: http://itdiscuss.org/wiki
> Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc. <http://irc.freenode.net/citrt>
> freenode.net/citrt
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> it discuss mailing list: discuss at itdiscuss.org
> Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss
> Web Discussion Board: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss-forum
> Wiki: http://itdiscuss.org/wiki
> Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc.freenode.net/citrt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> it discuss mailing list: discuss at itdiscuss.org
> Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss
> Web Discussion Board: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss-forum
> Wiki: http://itdiscuss.org/wiki
> Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc.freenode.net/citrt
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://optimus.thompsonic.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090210/5ccf5d4d/attachment.htm 