Terminal Server Spec

J

Jay_2

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
3,583
I am setting up a terminal server for about 30 users. (i will be adding a second server to take the load / redundencty at a later date)

What I need is a server that can take 30 users running basic word procesing aps (office probably) and it can only be 1U (as I only have 2U of space left and I need to add 2 servers in that space :( )

I was looking at a Xeon X3220 Quad Core 2.4Ghz, 4GB Ram, 2 x 250GB SATA drives (Harware RAID 1), Windows 2003 Server with 30 TS COA on the DC

I expect this could cope with the load but what do you think?
 
Should do fine...with Terminal server..thing to do is stuff it with ram, and you have the 4 gigs. Document storage on another primary file sharing source across the network? Gigabit connection? If so...leaving with SATA drives should be fine, if the file storage is locally....I'd consider upping the drives to snappier SAS.
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
Should do fine...with Terminal server..thing to do is stuff it with ram, and you have the 4 gigs. Document storage on another primary file sharing source across the network? Gigabit connection? If so...leaving with SATA drives should be fine, if the file storage is locally....I'd consider upping the drives to snappier SAS.
Click to expand...

Well we don't have a Gigabit network, The DC/file server will hold their data when they log off / on, NAS will host thier My Documents, but the terminal server will obviously host their desktop while they logged in. Every change they make during their session is copied to the TS hard drives while their session is live and when they log off copied over to the DC/file server
 
what brand you going with?

and no gig network? id put that in the budget to upgrade too =)
 
The server needs Gigabit. The clients only need 10/100.

Your specs are fine, although you'd probably get better performance if you dropped to a dual-core CPU and used the extra money to jump up to 8GB of RAM. I ran a 34-client Linux Terminal Server a few years ago on dual Opteron 240s (1.4Ghz) and 2GB of RAM, but it was touchy until I upgraded to 4. CPU power is nothing, really, but if you can avoid swapping for as long as possible that'll help your speed tremendously.
 
I am looking at Dell and HP at the moment.

The problem I have is that I am using a Cisco 2950 with no Gigabit ports so I would have to replace the entire switch. I could pigyback a Gigabit switch to the Cisco but it would all have to go via 1 x 100mb port so I don't fancy that.
 
Just think in math. Say the terminals are running 1024x768, 16bpp. Assume you want at least 10 frames a second to be a usable system. That's 1024x768x16x10=125,829,120bps for each terminal. Now, there are plenty of protocols and algorithms and other magical things for dramatically reducing that in real-world usage, but you get the point. Server bandwidth is going to be pushed to the limit and if you want to run 30 terminals, it just can't work without a gigabit port on the switch for the server.
 
Look at a HP DL 360... It'll meet your specs and give you room to add another CPU or more RAM later if you need it... And as others have said, you may want to load it with 8GB of RAM...

On the networking side... You may want to at least bond the NICs on the server and at the switch to give you 200 Mbps... Then you can upgrade the switch later when you get the budget.
 
I setup a new TS server for a customer last summer. We went with a new Dell server and I loaded an OEM copy (legit) of 2000 Server on it. With 2000 Server, you don't need additional TS CALS for XP Pro clients. We saved them a bundle on CALS that way.

It's been running fine.
 
Depending on your "redundency" needs you might consider putting Server 2003 Enterprise on the server.

With normal 2003 you can run terminal server, but when you add the second server you will need to setup two RDP connections (for fail-over) on the clients and manually load balance the users.

If you upgrade to Enterprise, you can use the Clustering and have all your clients point to the cluster, not a specific server. Then if one server is down, they will automagically sign into the other server.

I just know it will be much cheaper/easier/less nerve racking to install enterprise now, rather than normal server now and have to deal with upgrading it to enterprise when you add the second server.
 
Windows 2000 does need licences for TS on XP Pro unles its the first batch of XP Pro keys. They removed the 2000 TS licences after that.

I only have a 2mb up internet connection and to be honest I have made a mistake with my numbers. I imagine it will only be about 15 TS users, stupid me!
 
Jay_oasis said:
Windows 2000 does need licences for TS on XP Pro unles its the first batch of XP Pro keys. They removed the 2000 TS licences after that.
Click to expand...

Not trying to start anything here Jay...... ;)

That's not my understanding or experience though. I have several customers who run 2000 TS servers and all of their XP machines (from old to brand new) are issued TS licenses by the server. The only issues they had were home users running XP Home, but that was expected. Any Windows 2000 Pro desktop OSes are also covered.

At least two of these environments are SBS2003 with a 2000 TS server. Oddly enough, the TS Licensing Server has to run on the SBS2003 box in this arrangement (when SBS2003 doesn't even support TS by itself). I set both of those up and everything is working fine for them.

MS did have a limited program where they were issuing free Server 2003 CALS to XP Pro users based on newish keys. That expired last July I believe. I don't remember all of the details on that offer.

I don't think MS could just undo the licensing agreement they had on 2000 TS CALS, it would affect a huge installed base who already paid for the MS licenses with that agreement. Apparently, MS did feel that they were giving away too much and then changed the TS license terms for Server 2003.

All I can say is hang on to those 2000 Server CDs/licenses for cheap TS servers. :)
 
AS cheap as hardware is these days i would spend the extra $600-800 and get a second CPU. You will have to move up in series to get that tjough. the Xeon 3000 series only supports a single socket. Also I would upgrade to SAS drives.

As for OS my vote is Server 2008 (RTM last week). It has a lot of enhancments to Terminal Servers such as being able to deploy applications instead of just a full desktop (similar to published apps in Citrix).

Whatever you do do not use Windows 2000 to save money. Its just not worth it. Windows 2000 is just about gone from support.
 
oakfan52 said:
Whatever you do do not use Windows 2000 to save money. Its just not worth it. Windows 2000 is just about gone from support.
Click to expand...

Not worth it in what sense?

Many small biz's need the functionality of TS but don't have the huge amount of money MS wants in licensing fees for TS CALS on the latest Server OS.

Windows 2000 Server is a mature OS that still works very well for TS and certainly as a basic file server OS. It's not an obsolete OS simply because MS says so. Not everybody has the cash to feed the MS cow and keep upgrading on their schedule.

I have a growing list of small-mid biz customers who appreciate low cost solutions, especially in this economy. They don't care what the server OS is as long as it works and it's cost effective.
 
your right about 2000 server TS I was getting mixed up with the 2003 Server TS CALs that are free with some XP pro COAs.

I will need to use thin clients and I do have a full retail version of 2000 server with 25 CALs here.
 
Jay_oasis said:
your right about 2000 server TS I was getting mixed up with the 2003 Server TS CALs that are free with some XP pro COAs.

I will need to use thin clients and I do have a full retail version of 2000 server with 25 CALs here.
Click to expand...

That's a nice co-incidence.

Good luck on the project.
 
so what is peoples advice here?

2003 and pay for the 15 TS COAs or use 2000 Server and not pay for the TS COAs?

Also what is the cost of XP embedded thin clients? and do they come under this "free" 2000 terminal server COAs?
 
Personaly I would say not to use windows 2000 but if you have an extra license then it is a little harder to say drop it.

I would go with 2003 with software assurance so you can take it to 08 down the road if needbe. I really like 08's setup for ts as you can do it like the citrix seemless desktop.

As far as thin clients go they are expensive. An embedded xp thin client can cost as much as a desktop. You get the advantage of them pretty much having no moving parts, less power use, etc.

Used you can get them for 100 bucks a shot or so but they will not have support with them.
 
I will be buying second user thin clients anyway, support on them is not really a big issue!

If I was going with 2003 I would use the HP thin clients as I used them on a Citrix setup in the past and they where fantastic but they are CE.
 
Im so glad I work for a large company that has money to buy things, I couldnt sell someone a solution using Windows 2000 :eek: Dont think I could sleep at night :D

Oh and looks good, just go for SAS drives.
 
jonw757 said:
Im so glad I work for a large company that has money to buy things, I couldnt sell someone a solution using Windows 2000 :eek: Dont think I could sleep at night :D

Oh and looks good, just go for SAS drives.
Click to expand...


You guys make me LOL. :)

It's not like Windows 2000 is made in China and has lead content or something. :)

It was ok in 2002, but now that some calendar pages have rolled by it's no good any more?

I've worked in large corporate IT too (admin for international bank), and certainly if the budget is there to buy all shiny new stuff, then by all means go for it. The small-mid biz environment is different though (mostly budget wise). You have to be very creative and cost effective in finding solutions for the customer's needs.

That's not to say I just peddle old crap on them. Most of what I recommend and install is new servers with SBS2003, new workstations, & biz grade routers, switches, etc.

If I can save a small biz thousands of dollars by doing a 2000 TS server though, that is definitely going to be my recommendation for them. So far every time I've shown them an "A vs. B" cost comparison, they've always picked the less expensive way (2000 Server).

I sleep fine at night knowing I provide solid, reliable, cost effective solutions and my customers trust me.
I sleep fine knowing they will keep calling ME for their IT needs. :)
 
I understand your point, I still just have a personal issue providing an OS thats EOL. ;)
 
I have used TS and Citrix on Windows 2000 server in the past and I found it to be very good but now I have the chance to ditch 2000 all together I am wondering if I should just get 2003 on a new Quad core server and be done with it. What is 15 licences going to cost me? It doesn't seem worth using a EOL OS for th cost of 15 TS licences and 2003 server / 5 CALs.
 
For 15 TS users on 2003 server, you need the 15 TS CALS ($1770 @ Newegg), then you also need a total of 15 2003 user CALS ($346 @ PCMall) that assumes 5 CALS with the OS, so 2 additional 5 packs.

Looks like around $2100 in CALS plus the cost of the OS.
 
You're specs look good yo me. I would try to spring for SAS drives and a chassis that will let add another CPU later. As a previous poster mentioned, HP DL360 would do you just fine, or the DL320 if money is tight. One thing to consider with talk of 4+ gigs of ram is that you will need a 64bit OS to take advantage of that. Are your apps 64bit compatible?
 
its just for word processing, emails etc so I think office will be ok on a 64bit setup.
 
Spartacus said:
For 15 TS users on 2003 server, you need the 15 TS CALS ($1770 @ Newegg), then you also need a total of 15 2003 user CALS ($346 @ PCMall) that assumes 5 CALS with the OS, so 2 additional 5 packs.

Looks like around $2100 in CALS plus the cost of the OS.
Click to expand...

I have a per device setup on the DC to cover the number of thin clients so I woud not need any other CALs apart from the Terminal Service CALs
 
2000 server doesn't require a cal for ANY "professional" OS.

meaning windows 2000 professional, Windows XP Pro, and Windows Vista Business (and up), can log into a TS without TS CALs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top