Using as desktop replacement for remote users

[crimson5]

Hello,

I am new to virtualization and was wondering if this would be an appropriate usage before I spend money on the hardware.

I currently have 3 remote users (Windows XP), who connect in to our local office from across the U.S.. They each have a computer always running in the office for them to Remote Desktop into. If I can consolidate my server and their 3 computers into 1 system, I should be able to save about $90 a month in electricity plus the other benefits of virtualization.

My main concern is performance. Would a virtual instance suffice for day to day desktop usage. They mostly use Firefox, MS Access, Quickbooks, nothing very graphics intensive. I tested on my own computer and found decent results, but just wanted to see if anyone else has done something similar and hardware recommendations.

Thanks!

[mobcdi · Accepted solution]

Just wondering are you intending on using vmware server or esx to provide the hosting platform?

[crimson5]

I was looking at VMWare Server for now. My server is pretty low cpu usage, the main usage is hosting the MS Access database (400 MB) for internal usage (not web serving) and running backups of the files on the server. So, it would have Windows Server 2003, and eventually 4-5 Windows XP installs. I might move my file sharing to a Samba share eventually as well. Unless I need to go to ESX for this type of usage.

Thanks.

[mobcdi]

While not in exactly the same boat as yourself I have vmware installed on windows 2003 server and have a few desktops vm's on it. I would be the main user of the desktop vms so can't swear to performance issues but saying that i haven't made any specific changes to the 2003 server to improve its hosting performance either like changing the hardware raid.

• Are you considering rebuilding your server or just going to install vmware server on it?

• Would all your users be required to be accessing the desktops at the same time or would the load be more random then that?

My 2003 server has the following spec

• 1 x XEON 3.0GHZ/2MB Processor

• 3GB SINGLE RANK DDR2 Memory

• 2 x 73GB SCSI Hard Disks (Raid1) for the windows OS and programme files

• 4 x 300GB SCSI Hard Disks (Raid5) for data

[Texiwill]

Hello,

This is a valid way to go... Please note that you can do this using VMware Workstation, Server, ESX, or ESXi. The underlying tool will let you know how fast things can go with ESX/ESXi being the fastest. If you plan on doing compiles or other types of disk intensive things performance WILL degrade. So what will these users be running?

I often create a VM just for people to use, otherwise I have to have a host, etc just for them. So the basic answer is yes it works and is very good. BUT this depends on the applications in use.

Best regards,

Edward L. Haletky

VMware Communities User Moderator

====

Author of the book 'VMWare ESX Server in the Enterprise: Planning and Securing Virtualization Servers', Copyright 2008 Pearson Education. CIO Virtualization Blog: http://www.cio.com/blog/index/topic/168354, As well as the Virtualization Wiki at http://www.astroarch.com/wiki/index.php/Virtualization

[TomHowarth]

VMware Server, should be more that capable of handling three XP desktops. a quad core host with about 4GB of memory should be more than adequate, I would install VMware server on a Linux Desktop for better performance due to the lower performance overhead of Linux over Windows.

Tom Howarth

VMware Communities User Moderator

[crimson5]

Thank you everyone, that helps alot, i think I will go down this route with VMWare Server and host it on a Linux OS as suggested for best performance. I am not that familiar with Linux, but will give an opportunity to learn it..

For hardware I will probably buy a Dell quad core server. My server is currently on a Dell Poweredge 830 Pentium D server, but if I go down this route, I will need the quad core it seems for best performance.

My users won't all be on it at the same time. Overlapping at times, and they are using very light CPU, mainly accessing the Access DB from the server via the LAN and Firefox. I may eventually move to SQL Server and have read in the forums that some have had issues with that and don't recommend running it virtually. Not sure what to make of that.

For licensing, my desktops all have OEM XP and Office 2003 Installed. I assume I would have to buy new retail copies to install them in the VMWare instances to be compliant.This is the only cog in the system, but will save money in the long term I think.

[mobfusion]

If you are in the market for a new server it might be worth looking at the hardware compatibility guide for esx just in case you decide to move that way later on.

http://www.vmware.com/support/pubs/vi_pages/vi_pubs_35.html

[Texiwill]

Hello,

If they will only accessing a database via the web, then the underlying OS should not make much of a difference within the VM. You can deploy Linux to do the same thing actually. I have done it a few times. Yes there is a learning curve but it is possible..... With something like 'CodeWeavers CrossOver Office' you can install Office 2003 if necessary. Depends if you want to go the open source route or not.

Best regards,

Edward L. Haletky

VMware Communities User Moderator

====

Author of the book 'VMWare ESX Server in the Enterprise: Planning and Securing Virtualization Servers', Copyright 2008 Pearson Education. CIO Virtualization Blog: http://www.cio.com/blog/index/topic/168354, As well as the Virtualization Wiki at http://www.astroarch.com/wiki/index.php/Virtualization

[crimson5]

Thanks for the compabitility link. I don't see any of the lower range of Dell servers on there, so I guess ESX only works on the higher end servers and racks.

The CrossOver link is interesting, but they indicate that Access is not compatible. it is actually a shipping application in Access that has a lot of forms and reports. I use it from a third party so don't have any control over the setup. It works great, but unfortunately, that is the only bit of software that ties me down to this solution.