LTSP vs. Win Terminal Server vs. Citrix

[Scott H]

I administer several Win2K Terminal Servers, with
a few hundred clients of various kinds.  (True
thin clients, MS PCs with TS client software, MS
PCs with IE browser and the TSAC plug in for TS
connections, a couple of Linux machines running
rdesktop and Winconnect.)  Let me share a bit
about what I've seen.

> rDeskTop presents a Linux workstation to MS
> Terminal Server as if it (the
> Linux workstation) were a MS Terminal Server
> Client. 

True, and I've used it plenty.  It is a fair
client, but not as smooth as the MS client.  It
is slower (screen repaints take more time) but
not dramatically, and not even worth mentioning
if the boxes are on a LAN.  Over a VPN or dial
up, you notice it, though. It will also garble
some screen elements on occasion, and I haven't
found a way to fix this.  For that reason, I had
to go to a better Linux client- WinConnect - but
this is $59 for an individual license.  It is
really nice though. rdesktop has come up with a
new version, though -1.2.0 - and I haven't tested
that.  I'm talking about 1.1.0. 
(www.rdesktop.org)

> > 2 - Citrix runs on Windows Terminal Server to
> support thin clients.  What
> additional features does Citrix bring for the
> additional cost over a pure
> Terminal Server solution?

We do not run Citrix, though we may have to
consider it now, as standard Windows TS traffic
is bogging down our links, and we understand the
protocol Citrix uses ("ICA" I think) is smaller. 
We are analyzing TS traffic now to determine more
specifics, but we know that RDP uses much more
bandwidth than what is advertized.  That is an
issue!

> > 3 - What relative horsepower is needed at the
> server to achieve similar
> performance at the client?  I assume Citrix
> takes more than Terminal Server
> which is more than LTSP.

I can't compare because we don't run LTSP (yet -
I'm working on this!), but I know that all of
this varies so much depending on usage patterns
that it is VERY difficult to measure and compare.
 We use Dell multiprocessor servers, like
4x550MHz with 4GB RAM, or dual PIII 1.13G with
4GB RAM.  Boxes like this loaf running W2K and 50
or less users, even with all of them using the MS
Office Suite and Outlook.  CPU is usually under
5-10%.  Perhaps someone has comparable data for
an LTSP implementation.  (Matt?? where are you??)


> > 4 - I have some idea from reading and hearing
> what the maintainance effort
> of LTSP is.  How does the other two compare?

TS is fairly easy.  W2K comes with it, and
installing it is simple.  You must deal with the
MS tendency to make their machines very insecure,
though.  Regular users have WAY too much
permissions by default.  And tightening this down
isn't easy.  Of course, MOST of the time, MOST
users just make their Word docs and read their
email, and it isn't a problem.  But it is much
nicer to have nix machines where the users are
all blocked out of the stuff they shouldn't be
able to get to.  Any TS user on a default install
TS server can hose the machine without too much
effort, if they really have a mind to. 

> 5 - We are talking about a system of about 15
> - 20 thin clients, all PCs.
> Is Citrix overkill for that?

I would think Citrix would be overkill for just
20, especially if everyone is on one physical
LAN, or unless you have need of some of the
specific things Citrix offers, which others have
already discussed. TS works fine. 

> > There is a commercial (not free but much less
> $$$ than MS) equivalent
> > (Linux) to MS Exchange.  (per others)
> 
> OpenMail shows promise.

There are actually several trying to enter this
market.  Communigate Pro is another contender -
www.stalker.com. And check out Insight Server at
www.bynari.net.  There are more.  

> > Okay I know that if I'm on a Linux box I can
> pull a window to wins if I
> > use rdesktop. But what about the other way?

sure.  use vnc.

Also, I would say my experience with Open Office
shows it is very close now.  For most users, they
can't tell the difference if you set it up to
save docs by default to MS formats.  There are
still some diffs, though, and as has been pointed
out, sometimes reading complicated docs (with
tables, etc) from the MS Office suite doesn't
work quite right. 

Sometimes the best way to introduce non-MS stuff
into a company is not to go into the board room
and try to convince the shirts and ties that OSS
is better. Often just setting up something and
letting them try it will win the day.  It's not
so scary then.  Just hand them a laptop with Open
Office on it and let them open a Word doc.  

Hope this helps,

Scott

.





__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com