Running Web Client through Citrix/WTS

Since this topic has started on another thread, thought i'l make a new one. Has any one tried this approach- running 8.11 Web Clients thru citrix. If yes , whats the optimum no of users that you put on one box....

In the FAT client scenario one could put say 40-60 users on a Xeon Dual Processor 4 GIG machine. Again depends on the type of users and their activity.

Going by the MTR recommendations for Web Client desktops (P3 800 MHz or higher and 256 MB RAM) I think its gonna be similar to the FAT client numbers

So what kind of numbers are you'll looking at for Web Client users on citrix/wts

Thanks

By the way, I really am revising my figures on how many users can fit on a dual processor machine.

Recently I was able to witness 120 users on a dual processor machine running Windows 2003 server and 8Gb of memory. Thats a LOT of users. Everyone seemed to be running fine !

One day I'll get around to running the benchmark tests again - but don't think that the 40 users mark is an absolute anymore.

As for number of web clients running under citrix ? gazillions ! Since all of the processing is being done on the web server, and the client uses minimal memory (although it does need certain amounts of CPU) - I'd expect that a large amount of users could run.

HOWEVER

Did you know that the latest service packs is making the memory footprint of JDE (Web) almost as large as the memory footprint of JDE (Win32) ???

Take a look in your task manager. After a good session jumping in and out of applications, a web client can easily use 100mb of memory !! Thats certainly as much as the Win32 client uses !

So is the "thin client" becoming a "fat client" ? One day we'll get a real answer from JDE about their foolhardy decision to go 100% web.

Jon,

I have begun to come to terms with the fact that the web client is no longer really "thin". It would appear that the driving reason(s) for web applications has changed from the "thin" memory footprint to the ubiquity of the browser, the user familiarity of browser operation, and most importantly, the ability to rapidly deploy the application and changes...all without having to install or change the application on the user's PC.

I think that the reasons for embracing HTML technology have drifted as the paradigm is developing but the goal remains valid.



[ QUOTE ]



Take a look in your task manager. After a good session jumping in and out of applications, a web client can easily use 100mb of memory !! Thats certainly as much as the Win32 client uses !

So is the "thin client" becoming a "fat client" ? One day we'll get a real answer from JDE about their foolhardy decision to go 100% web.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what I find interesting? Is that the JdOraSofties are hyping the web client run directly from the desktop as opposed to running it on a Citrix farm. They are touting the cost savings of not having to purchase Citrix. They are not addressing the downside issues that this thread is capturing. I wonder how long it will take them to wake up and smell the java?

Gregg Larkin
JDE System Administrator (CNC) / North America
Praxair, Inc.

[ QUOTE ]
and most importantly, the ability to rapidly deploy the application and changes

[/ QUOTE ]

ummmmm

Don't you have to do a regen AFTER the package build ?

How is that more rapid ?

I guess the DEPLOYMENT is faster, though theres not much hope of a rollback - but what I am suggesting (especially with 120 users per citrix server) is that deployments is a LOT faster under citrix - AND is a lot more manageable.

Lets time a full package/deployment under 8.10

Under Citrix :

Full package build (Client & Server) takes 6 hours
Deployment to each enterprise server takes about 5 minutes
Modification of install batch script takes 1 minute
kick out all users in citrix farm
run silent install batch script on 50 citrix servers (30 minutes)
send message to all users to log back in

Total time - package build = 6 hours
Total time - deployment = 36 minutes

ok - now lets look at the web

Full package built (Client & Server) takes 6 hours
Deployment to single JAS workstation (10 minutes)
JAS Regeneration (Full - to stage tables) takes 3 hours
kick out all users in web
Copy of PD7333.F98999* tables to backups - 5 minutes
Copy of STAGE.F98999* tables to PD7333.F98999* - 5 minutes
send message to all users to log back in

Total time - package build = 9 hours
Total time - deployment = 20 minutes

So it IS faster to deploy (slightly) - but WAY longer to complete (bleagh)

Now - do the same comparison with update packages, and your into far more build times than with the citrix method.

I don't subscribe that the web is faster to deploy. Its a LOT longer, its a LOT more complicated, and it performs like crud.

[ QUOTE ]


I think that the reasons for embracing HTML technology have drifted as the paradigm is developing but the goal remains valid.


[/ QUOTE ]

the goal being to make tons of money for IBM and to get them on JDE's "nice" side.....!

Who the heck does full builds/deploys anymore unless it is a large ESU or SP?

I do update packages and bulk gens. I build and deploy changes in less than an hour and that would be less if I were on 8.10/11 and could flush cache instead of restart the instance.

Thansk for all your replies.

Jon, yes the newer service pack web clients do eat almost the same amount of resources as a Win32 client. The only difference being hard disk space, but that is one of the cheapest of hardware resources today. I have seen and others have also mentiond that all the grid operations in the E1 Web client are pretty resource hungry

So one could look at a number like 80-100 E1 web users on a Dual CPU 4 GIG citrix box..?

I'm actually uncertain how many users on the client boxes these days. We always worked from benchmarks that were done under JDE - but the last benchmarks were done using OneWorld Xe on a REAL early service pack (13.1 I think). We're 10 (full) service packs beyond that these days, and I haven't seen or heard a benchmark in a long, long time.

What I was considering a while back was to independently benchmark some of the technical requirements of JDE - and to publish the findings for a cost (say, $200-$500 for the document) to attempt to recoup some of the expenditure of performing a benchmark. However, I'm not certain that I would garner much response from customers - they've noticeably been a little "light" in supporting causes such as this in the past until they "absolutely must have them". Given the fact that JDE used to do benchmarks and it cost them at least $300,000 to $1,000,000 depending on the size of the benchmark - paying between $200 and $500 might be worth it.

Just some thoughts.

In the meantime, the solution would be "add as many users as you can, and when you hit a threshold - buy another box" !

[ QUOTE ]

Who the heck does full builds/deploys anymore unless it is a large ESU or SP?


[/ QUOTE ]

I was just trying to demonstrate one instance - I'm positive that update packages also take longer on HTML than Citrix - proportionally. Secondly, on a citrix deployment I sit there and run a nice script that goes out, grabs the latest update package and installs it, then goes and copies down the data dictionary each time. Its all automated in effect.

Oh yeah, and Pastuhov has that nice deployment utility that helps even more !

I'm not trying to come down on this thread hard - but I'm trying to show that my opinion for the stated JDE reason to go to HTML has been thrown completely out of the window, across the parking lot, down the street and is heading into another state. Running internet explorer under a citrix session isn't a "solution" to anything. Its ludicrous.

[ QUOTE ]
Running internet explorer under a citrix session isn't a "solution" to anything. Its ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Jon, why don't we just boil it right down - running an ERP client on internet explorer is ludicrous. But that's the direction the industry is taking us.......

I understand Jon. I just think that JDE used whatever the current excuse was for the time for moving to HTML. There is no way that any major ERP company could have stuck with Win32 applications and survived. First they would have been left behind by the herd and two, they would have been perceived as being "behind the times". I agree that not much of this may make rational sense but what the heck does these days? Sit back and enjoy it, because when it is done the MS dominance of the platform will be gone.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who the heck does full builds/deploys anymore unless it is a large ESU or SP?


[/ QUOTE ]

I was just trying to demonstrate one instance - I'm positive that update packages also take longer on HTML than Citrix - proportionally. Secondly, on a citrix deployment I sit there and run a nice script that goes out, grabs the latest update package and installs it, then goes and copies down the data dictionary each time. Its all automated in effect.

Oh yeah, and Pastuhov has that nice deployment utility that helps even more !

I'm not trying to come down on this thread hard - but I'm trying to show that my opinion for the stated JDE reason to go to HTML has been thrown completely out of the window, across the parking lot, down the street and is heading into another state. Running internet explorer under a citrix session isn't a "solution" to anything. Its ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I fully support both the original Jon's statement and your extrapolation ;-).

Most sites and users just do what they are told to do by the vendor, without much thinking. And thinking about this direction, inevitably leads to the same conclusion as in your replies.

"Pure WEB" is but another kind of marketing-driven madness. I guess, it makes it easier to sell to the executive management, already primed by the "e-" and "i-" media hypes.

Technically, all their arguments are rubbish and overall it is not a strategy, but a short-term response to the current market conditions.