Tim :
I prefer to define a Citrix farm, for the user point view it acts as an
(almost) high availability solution and its administration is easier
than on a Windows cluster.
I've said "almost" because Citrix farms can distribute user load among
several servers and redirect user connections to other servers when
one of them goes down, but can't dynamically redirect users that are
working on a box that suddenly crashes.
I've been working on more than 25 Citrix installations and none of
them had chosen to mirror their Citrix Servers.
On a farm, you can have more than 2 servers (as many as you need); while
Windows 2000 Advanced Servers clusters can't hold more than 2 nodes.
On the other hand, on a cluster you only need to install the client
package on a single disk (the shared storage disk) while farm needs the
package to be installed on every server local disk.
I'd never tested Citrix on a clustered environment, but theoretically
speaking it should be able to redirect users sessions dynamically when
a node crashes; nevertheless, I still think that a farm would be a
better idea.
Sebastian Sajaroff
