No, there IS a single point of failure because you have to put all of your
users in a farm. I know because we are doing it today for over a l00 local
and remote users.
Now, you have two servers with 50 users on each. You have a server load of
50 people that have to move over to the other server while one is down for
maintenance. Tell me that the current 50 users aren't going to notice the
additional 50 users in terms of performance. Unless you have a good backup
server (about $25000), you are on a single point of failure.
What I was referring to as "a single point of failure" is in terms of code.
If the code is no good (app problem, service packs, etc), you have a server
that is no good. You can't check objects out on a TSE while people are
using it. With 50 fat clients, you have one or two users that cannot work.
My point is that TSE proponents want to put everyone on TSE because they
can't manage the code base. My point to Melo is that Local users (and I did
not say remote users) DO NOT HAVE to be TSE users just because a consultant
says so. 75% of consultants say this because they cannot manage the code
base when the software is initially installed. It is not because it
functions better and is certainly not because it cheaper or easier to
support long term.
I have worked on over 30 different OneWorld installs and I have absolutely
no idea where you got the crazy idea that 90% of OneWorld users (non-power
users / no-developers) use this client. This is simply not true. Maybe
25%, maybe a third, but definitely not 90%.
----- Original Message -----
From: "altquark" <
[email protected]>
To: <
[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: citrix and windows 2000 terminal services on clients --- do we
need to buy ~~2299:2493
> Hello Melo,
>
> I was one of the people responsible for introducing Citrix and Terminal
Server to JD Edwards - and my name is on many of the whitepapers that are on
the Knowledge Garden for Terminal Server benchmarking and testing.
>
> Citrix is important. Much more so than others in this forum think. The
FAT Client technology performs perfectly ok on a local area network - very
close to the Enterprise Server - but it does NOT perform across any sort of
WAN. See my whitepaper entitled "WAN and Distributed CNC Architecture" -
dated 1997 on the JDE Knowledge Garden.
>
> Terminal Server is a technology that allows multiple Windows sessions to
run on a single machine. Screenshots and keyboard strokes are streamed
across the network connection. Citrix built this technology for Microsoft
and MS introduced it initially with Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition.
It is now part of Windows 2000 Server.
>
> The RDP protocol used by Microsoft, however, is not as efficient and as
easy to manage as the Citrix ICA protocol. The reasons for this are
obvious - Citrix left several holes in the product that they could fill so
as not to bankrupt themselves. A number of whitepapers exist on the
knowledge garden including "ICA vs RDP" by Bernard Douthit - dated 1998
>
> I believe that 90% of PRODUCTION OneWorld users (not development users or
'POWER' users) run using a thin-client technology of some sort or another
for WAN connectivity. Since Java/HTML client is relatively new and has not
been deployed widely - I am forced to conclude that almost all these users
now run on Citrix/Terminal Server connections.
>
> As a reply to hotm6654 - you are correct - it may be an excuse not to keep
the code base in shape - but it works. Your other comments about a "single
point of failure" obviously shows a lack of knowledge of JD Edwards CNC
architecture and the complementary architecture that Citrix provides. With
TSE alone - it certainly provides single points of failures - but with
Citrix Loadbalancing, there is NO single point of failure - especially with
nFuse.
>
> More people are comfortable deploying clients with 4gb space for each user
than a couple of floppies for Citrix ? If I have 100 workstations that need
access to OneWorld - without Citrix I have to deploy 400Gb of client code
AND I have to try and keep it working. With Citrix I deploy 2 terminal
servers - and 8Gb of code (4gb ea). The workstations can then access the
Citrix Terminal Server through a browser !
>
> Melo - do not make the mistake that hotm6654 is obviously making
currently - deploy Citrix from scratch and you will guarantee both
performance and Total Cost of Ownership advantages.
>
> Jon Steel
> Chief Technologist
> ERP Sourcing LLC
> (303) 883 9168
> email :
[email protected]
>
> Jon Steel
> Xe Upgrade Specialist - AppzBiz
>
> --------------------------
> Visit the forum to view this thread at:
>
http://198.144.193.139/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=OW&Number=2
493
> *************************************************************
> This is the JDEList One World / XE Mailing List.
> Archives and information on how to SUBSCRIBE, and
> UNSUBSCRIBE can be found at
http://www.JDELIST.com
> *************************************************************
>
>