Would You Move to Windows Thin Clients?

mcck asks: "My workplace is getting ready to study this problem in depth. From my preliminary research, there is very little savings when moving to a thin client environment that isn't based on Linux. Current thinking is that we will have to stick with Windows, so Linux is out for now. Citrix maxes out at around 10-25 users per server. I haven't studied Windows Terminal Server as deeply, but it looks to be about the same. Once we buy the 100 servers we would need to support 1000 or so of our users that would be migrated, plus increase our system administration staff to adequately support those servers, it looks doubtful that we would save much money at all, if any. Plus, if we upgrade all of the related desktop hardware to snazzy new official thin client boxes instead of trying to get more life out of old hardware (which is what they want to do right now), costs go up even more. So here's a question for anyone who has studied this issue, or seen its consequences at their workplace: Is thin client really a cost-saving approach to a large user environment?"

"Most users will be running basic MS Office apps, Groupwise for e-mail, and accessing some Oracle databases. A consultant hired for preliminary recommendations is saying that we should run Windows XP on the thin client boxes, not even the embedded version but the full one. Additionally, some of our users have more powerful applications like AutoCAD and ArcMap. We have already determined that those users will not be moving to the thin client machines.

Our department has spoken with a Citrix support/sales person who claims you can support up to 1000 clients on a single Citrix server. That seems so far from what I have generally read that I have a hard time buying it. Can anyone corroborate that claim? Again, most users will be using Office, Groupwise, and accessing Oracle DBs.

Does anyone have any experience with a workplace making this sort of migration? I would love to find a way to make it work, but from the research I have done so far, it doesn't look like we are going to get any cost-savings (unless they miraculously decide to go with Linux)."

Comments

A couple of considerations

[Future Man 3000]

Thin clients have less hardware to break. By their nature, it isn't likely a person using a thin client can mess it up from the software side such that a reboot won't fix the problem. The whole setup is more centralized, making it easier to address Windows patches and virus updates.

The savings would be better with Linux, but they may very well be worthwhile anyway. Determine how much IT time you're going to save against the cost of the setup.

Some observations and rules of thumb.

[sybarite]

I deploy and support this type of environment for a living (until I can earn my living with Open Source). While the number of users per server depends largely on what applications that you are running, a good (conservative) average number is about 50 users per dual-processor server. I tend to deploy dual-processor machines as their are diminishing returns on quad-processor servers (For example going from dual- to quad- processor increases your user count per server from 50 to only about 75 or so). These rules of thumb are on your average Pentium III server with about 1.5 to 2 GB of RAM. The Office software and Groupwise will conform well to this rule of thumb. Not sure on the Oracle apps, but if they are well-behaved 32 bit applications (read no DOS, 16Bit) they will run fine. Obviously you will want to pilot this environment to bench mark your specific results. Servers with Pentium IV Xeons will probably scale much better.

You will definitely want Citrix here for the advanced management and capabilities over Terminal Services alone (application publishing, advanced load balancing, managment console, etc).

If you take the benchmark numbers I mentioned earlier and add 20% or so for redundancy, you are looking at a farm of about 24 servers vice 100. Using the management capabilities of Citrix and server cloning techniques, administration of this farm will be be pretty easy. A single, experienced Citrix administrator can handle most of the level 2 and 3 support for this farm. With server cloning, adding additional identical servers for growth/redundancy down the road is easy.

You have correctly identified users of AutoCad and ArcMap as poor candidates for this type of environment due to the heavy requirements and graphics of these applications.

I disagree with the consultant that full blown XP is the best solution for the client. He/she may be hedging their bet for any Windows based applications that would not run well under Terminal Services/Citrix. If this is not the case, there are several Linux-based thin clients that would work well and would have a lower cost.

Would you move to windows thin clients?

[nocomment]

No.

Looking at it as well

[mrscott]

I've been looking at this as well but on a smaller scale. First, Citrix doesn't support 10-25 users per server -- it's per processor. So a 4 way processor can conceivably handle 40-100 users and since you don't seem to be running hard core apps like CAD (you mentioned that these users would not be migrating), etc, let's say 20 users per processor or 80 users on a 4 way box.

That puts you at 12 Citrix servers.

Next, according to the Citrix folks I've worked with, Windows Server 2003 handles Citrix MUCH more efficiently than Windows 2000 resulting in -- according to them -- a doubling of the number of users possible on each server. Since I don't quite buy that, let's go with a factor of 1.5 times the users rather than doubling. But let's stick with 12 4-way Citrix server to account for redundancy which you will surely want for this solution. Heck -- let's go with 15 even. It's still a lot fewer than 100.

I agree that -- at the beginning, using old hardware would save money initially. But, consider the support angle for a second. Rather than new, identical thin clients, you'll still have whatever you currently support for desktops. If you just maintain the copy of Windows that's on there, when one breaks, it's a total reload. If you use the new thin clients, it's a matter of swapping out the unit and they're less expensive to buy initially as well as more reliable due to fewer moving parts. You should see support costs drop dramatically with this rollout.

The Citrix guy that mentioned 1000 users on a single box had to be talking about something much larger than 4 processors... personally, I would recommend a cluster of 4 ways servers for teh redundancy that it would provide in the event of a hardware failure.

Going with Linux won't necessarily save in the long run. Sure -- you'll save on the initial software acquisition. But consider the support, end-user retraining and other problems that could crop up. Even if you use Cross Over office or something like that, your users WILL require retraining and you will suffer a productivity issue initally.

Not going with a Linux solution won't automatically doom the project nor will it prevent savings from the implementation.

I'm all for Linux (I have it deployed where it makes sense), but am wary of making generalizations that it automatically saves money.

Hell no! Don't go there!

[Zocalo]

I work in an office that has a mix of Wyse thin clients to front-end Citrix and traditional Windows and Unix workstations at a large utilities company. When we have a problem with an application; we go direct to the source for on-site support; Microsoft, Citrix, whoever, no questions asked, so I can be pretty damn sure that our Citrix install is up to spec. Despite all this, the thin clients suck. Big time. I'm just glad I only have to use one of the damn things and not administer them. Warning: Everything below this may be an Anti-Citrix rant - I positively despise the fucking things, so things may degenerate!

Let me reiterate one point: This is a user's perspective of Citrix from someone with a predominantly UNIX and networking technical background. I do *not* have a clue about the finer points of managing Citrix installations, nor do I wish to after the last few hateful months with it!

The big selling points of thin clients are supposed to be a lower TCO and better security and management. In short, for WinTerms at least, this is pure marketing bullshit. Sure, it's a couple of hundred bucks a seat cheaper for your hardware and your end users can't install a macro virus or whatever. Well, actually, that last point is wrong. It's perfectly possible to have a user trash your Citrix server if the code happens to get executed there because your AV vendor wasn't on the ball or a patch was broken, only now they can effectively take down twenty other users at the same time.

Another thing that they don't tell you is that software licensing is a fricking nightmare - 1,000 users and 500 seats still equates to 1,000 licenses in many cases. We use Microsoft apps a lot, and they are totally inconsistent in their licensing requirements for thin clients, so much so that we now have full time staff just looking into thin client software licensing issues. Some other vendors are better, others are worse. Others are MUCH worse. More $$$ on the TCO.

Let's look at that TCO a little, while we are here. A tier 1 Windows corporate PC (after bulk discount) is roughly 1000 for us, including all of your office apps (cheap because they are bundled). A Wyse term is setting us back around 700, including your hopefully per-seat software licenses (not as cheap because they are unbundled, but on a bulk purchase scheme). *But* for each 10-20 users, you need a server. We run at 15 and still have performance issues, and we are talking dual Xeon boxes with 2GB of ECC RAM here; not cheap. The hardware/software costs are, in fact, about the same per seat, if anything thin clients are more expensive.

So, that leaves the management aspect of TCO. OK, there's less patching to be done, right? Well, actually no, since all the updates on our traditional desktops and laptops are handled either by the AV application directly or via a systems management package. No savings there. Warranties? Nope. That evens out in the same way that the hardware costs do. First line support costs? No, users still have the same problems with Office and what not. Second and third line support costs then? Ah! Finally a difference; you get to cut back on all your school leaver PC techies at near minimum wage and hire some Citrix Consultants instead, sure you only need half as many, but they come at three times the salary.

Citrix itself comes across a horrible hack to anyone who has used UNIX thin clients over X11. Performance sucks if you try and do moving video; even VNC managed to do better. And by moving video, I mean a flash animation like you get in a web page, not DVD quality FMV. The screen update code is nothing short of appalling; quite often a webpage is unreadable because the *entire* screen is updating to display one lousy Flash advert, and I've even seen mouse rollovers on links cause this. Whatever happened to atomic updates? While I'm slating the Citrix code, lets take a look at some of the other issues I've had the misfortune to experience:

• One random key stops working in one application session and nothing short