XenApp gurus... Virtual IP and MCS?

farscapesg1

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
2,648
Let me start by saying that our XenApp "guru" has left our company and our XenApp 7.6 environment has fallen into my lap to learn and support (yay on learning.. boo on supporting before I feel comfortable).

We have an application that was built under the 6.x version of XenApp that needs to be updated. With the newer version of XenApp we are using MCS with our VMWare infrastructure to create a "template" and then let MCS create replicas for scaleability. Unfortunately, this app requires Virtual IPs per session since it communicates back to the server and verifies the IP address before running. In the old version, the servers were configured with static IP pools (say 192.168.1.10 - 50 for Server A and 192.168.1.51 - 100 for Server B). I would prefer to use a DHCP scope so we can scale the replicas for performance (start with 2, increase to 3 if/when the app is used more).

Is this even remotely possible with MCS? Under the old way, we had to configure the registry with a static IP pool, add all the IP addresses to the NIC, and set the AdapterAddress for Remote Desktop IP Virtualization to the MAC on the server.

Or is this a use case where MCS can't really be used and we need to create each virtual server separately and not have it managed by MCS?
 
Let me start by saying that our XenApp "guru" has left our company and our XenApp 7.6 environment has fallen into my lap to learn and support (yay on learning.. boo on supporting before I feel comfortable).

We have an application that was built under the 6.x version of XenApp that needs to be updated. With the newer version of XenApp we are using MCS with our VMWare infrastructure to create a "template" and then let MCS create replicas for scaleability. Unfortunately, this app requires Virtual IPs per session since it communicates back to the server and verifies the IP address before running. In the old version, the servers were configured with static IP pools (say 192.168.1.10 - 50 for Server A and 192.168.1.51 - 100 for Server B). I would prefer to use a DHCP scope so we can scale the replicas for performance (start with 2, increase to 3 if/when the app is used more).

Is this even remotely possible with MCS? Under the old way, we had to configure the registry with a static IP pool, add all the IP addresses to the NIC, and set the AdapterAddress for Remote Desktop IP Virtualization to the MAC on the server.

Or is this a use case where MCS can't really be used and we need to create each virtual server separately and not have it managed by MCS?

Disclaimer: not a Guru at anyting and XenApp > 5.0 hasn't been in my lab for over a year.

I don't really see MCS as being a problem ...
I don't see you doing anything different than your XA 6.5 setup.

The settings are applied via policy (XenApp or AD GP) after the machine is up....so if you have tried it, what issues are you having?
Are your XA servers on their own DHCP scope?

Sorry I can't be more helpful .... but when it comes to Citrix products, the Citrix forums are probably your best bet (outside paid support).
 
Made it work. Built the "master" image and added a script to run at the startup that switches the server from dhcp to a static ip and adds 3 additional IPs to the server. Also sets the IPPool settings for the start and finish range. This is all based off of hostname, so server one gets a set IP and block of IPs, server 2 gets another IP and a separate block of IPs, etc.... up to 5 servers and a total of 150 IP addresses. That should cover our load. Not the most elegant solution.. but it works.
 
Made it work. Built the "master" image and added a script to run at the startup that switches the server from dhcp to a static ip and adds 3 additional IPs to the server. Also sets the IPPool settings for the start and finish range. This is all based off of hostname, so server one gets a set IP and block of IPs, server 2 gets another IP and a separate block of IPs, etc.... up to 5 servers and a total of 150 IP addresses. That should cover our load. Not the most elegant solution.. but it works.

Wow ... well... long as it works for you.
I appreciate the follow-up and solution you came up with.
I wish I still had my Citrix lab up to test it and alternate(s).
 
Back
Top