Post to Twitter |
Comments (11) |
Views (3302) |
Windows Server 2003 is dominant today in Citrix XenApp environments. In fact we are currently at the peak (or nearly so) for a W2k3 installed base for Windows servers in general. As our customers look forward they will be faced with some potentially thorny issues when moving to Windows Server 2008. The main question is whether to go to the first W2k8 release (I will call it "R1" for the sake of simplicity) which includes both 32-bit and 64-bit versions or to skip R1 entirely and go with the recently released R2 which only supports 64-bit.
Based on several discussions we have had with partners and customers there seems to be a continuum of opinions. On the one extreme we hear folks saying that they will stick with 32-bit until it is ripped away from their cold, dead hands. These are among the more conservative who fear the expense and churn of having to validate all of their thousands of 32-bit applications on a 64-bit environment. They have told us they will stay on W2k3 until extended support is complete and then probably go to R1 and milk that for all it's worth to avoid the inevitable. That would mean sticking with a 32-bit OS until possibly 2018 (should we all be retired by then?) going by the Microsoft Lifecycle table for Windows Server 2008! On the other extreme are a few bleeding edge types who have decided to skip R1 and go directly to R2 and bite the 64-bit bullet at the same time as they migrate their environment from W2k3 to the newer OS. In between are those who will move cautiously if begrudgingly over time to the new OS version to avoid falling into the extended maintenance window.
One of the main concerns is, of course, that R2 is 64-bit only. While Microsoft has been stating for some time that Windows on Windows 64 (WoW64) will solve the problems associated with running 32-bit apps on x64 platforms, many customers are still worried about 32-bit apps with 16-bit installers and the ever-present 32-bit drivers. Not to mention, 16-bit apps. None of these will not work on WoW64 environments. On the other hand, don't customers have to test all their apps when transitioning from one OS platform (W2k3) to another (R1 or R2) anyway? What extra work is involved when validating apps on x64 versus just transitioning from one version of the OS to another? Of course out lives would be easier if everyone hopped to the new OS version ASAP so we did not have multiple platforms to support but the reality is quite different. We need to know what your thoughts and plans are on this one.
So this brings me to my questions for the community:
- What do you have to say as customers and partners?
- Will you stick to 32-bit as long as humanly possible?
- Do you have older apps with 16-bit installers or 16-bit apps? What is the plan there? Re-write or retire?
- What will you do about 32-bit drivers? Printer drivers? Will XenApp's Universal Print Driver solution be the answer?
- What has been the experience for those who have made the switch to 64-bit?
Give us your comments and take the poll below.
For future updates, follow me on Twitter.
Comments (11)
Sep 04
Jarian Gibson says:
When will XenApp be updated/supported to run on R2?When will XenApp be updated/supported to run on R2?
Sep 04
Orestes Melgarejo says:
Sorry, I can't give specifics on that at this time. We will have more informati...Sorry, I can't give specifics on that at this time. We will have more information later in the year.
Sep 07
Csaba Müller says:
I design a new Citrix farm for 3000 customers right now. Our PS 4.5 Farm runs un...I design a new Citrix farm for 3000 customers right now. Our PS 4.5 Farm runs under W3K3X64 over 2 years without probs. I would like to go to W2K8R2, but no support for XA 5.0 at time.
I must install R1 now. I dont like this...
Sep 07
Orestes Melgarejo says:
Understood. The situation under W2k3 was that we could support both 32-bit and ...Understood. The situation under W2k3 was that we could support both 32-bit and 64-bit with the same code base. The issue with W2k8 is that, as part of our long-term agreements with Microsoft, we needed to go to all public APIs in R2. This means a new/full release on R2 that is separate from our "R1" version. So it is taking a bit of time to make sure we iron everything out for what is a new platform for us.
Sep 08
Rene Vester says:
Hey Orestes, Will moving to the public APIs mean added value for customers in t...Hey Orestes,
Will moving to the public APIs mean added value for customers in the future or is this only to satisfy your agreements with Microsoft?
I would love to share with my community why the situation is as it is with the R2 and R1 2008 version and XenApp. So any insight you could share would be great
Rene Vester
Sep 08
Orestes Melgarejo says:
The release will do both - move to public APIs and deliver significant value to ...The release will do both - move to public APIs and deliver significant value to our customers with the functionality we bring to the platform.
BTW, public APIs also helps Citrix going forward because we are guaranteed that they will not change from OS release to release and this allows us to move more quickly when Microsoft releases a new platform.
Sep 08
Rene Vester says:
Just the insight i was hoping for, thanx ReneVesterJust the insight i was hoping for, thanx
ReneVester
Sep 10
Alan Osborne says:
As a Citrix hosting provider and CSP subscriber, VCIT virtualizes our Citrix far...As a Citrix hosting provider and CSP subscriber, VCIT virtualizes our Citrix farms and user density is an important factor in minimizing our costs. The problem for us with using a 64-bit OS is that it increases memory requirements with little or no added benefit to our end users. Yes, 64-bit XenApp VMs would support more user sessions but I'm not convinced (yet) that user density PER HOST increases when moving from 32-bit VMs to 64-bit VMs. In fact, I suspect the opposite is true.
Also, application virtualization (i.e. App-V) and app streaming with XenApp don't currently support 64-bit apps. Then of course there is the issue of dealing with 16-bit apps (a niche for VM hosted apps for sure, but that requires XenDesktop).
In short, where's the benefit in moving to 64-bit in a virtualized environment when 99% of apps out there are 32-bit? I'm not convinced.
Alan Osborne
VCIT Consulting
www.vcit.ca
Sep 11
Orestes Melgarejo says:
Good points! For environments like yours I would expect that you will stick wit...Good points! For environments like yours I would expect that you will stick with 32-bit as long as possible. Eventually everyone will have to move when Microsoft ends support for 32-bit at the End of Life for Windows Server 2008 "R1".
Sep 12
Victor Olaoya says:
I am inclined to agree with Alan on user density using 64bit OS in a virtual env...I am inclined to agree with Alan on user density using 64bit OS in a virtual environment. There is no apparent benefit for migrating to 64bit platform at this time in my opinion.
However, App Streaming is supported on 64bit and APP-V 4.6 is available for Beta testing. on same platform. There is progress in that direction and the only real solution for application deployment for 16bit apps etc.
Oct 29
Anonymous says:
No issues here. We've been running pure 64 bit on Win2k3 for almost three years....No issues here. We've been running pure 64 bit on Win2k3 for almost three years. We have about 2000 people running over 300 published applications. Aside from the occasional file and registry pathing tricks there's been no problems whatsoever with compatibility or reliability.
Add Comment