locked
App-V Server and Remote Desktop Services - Help Getting Started and Setup RRS feed

  • Question

  • What do you recommend for an App-V and Remote Desktop Services environment???

    From what i gather for Remote Desktop Services its nice to have seperate servers for Remote Desktop Session Hosts and then another server or two to split up the other Remote Desktop Services Roles. Now how exactly should App-V be setup?I see there are 3 things for App-V setup for the most part.

    App-V Server
    App-V Client
    App-V Sequencer

    Should App-V Server be on its own server and my Remote Desktop Session Host servers should be App-V Clients?

    For the time being we have 3 Windows 2008 R2 servers two are the Remote Desktop Session Hosts and the third hosts the other Remote Desktop Services Roles.Should App-V Server go on the 3rd server or would that be recommended not to do or thats too much for the server to host App-V server and the Remote Desktop Services Roles (other than Session Host)?

     

    What’s your overall general recommendation I guess? Thanks for any help!

     

    If you can please give me a verbal response and don't direct me to any White Papers.  I am more curious on other people's ideas.  Thanks!

    Monday, February 6, 2012 8:41 PM

Answers

  • Hello,

    As it sounds that you are trying to avoid to purchase additional licensing and using App-V as a way to achieve this - I suggest you setup a meeting with a Microsoft representative to discuss licensing.
    App-V will never alter the need for any licensing, so before investigating if App-V can assist you in anyway you would probably need to clarify what licenses you have and how you can use them for any software.

    Regarding your technical specification, I suggest you try it. It seems that you already have a technical solution inplace - wether this may or may not be suited will reveal itself fairly quickly.

    According to the whitepaper IPD (v2.1) you seem to already have determined task 1 (application scope) and task 2 (location scope), however you still investigate step 2 - which model required.

    Considering that you do not mention any requirement for using the Full-infrastructure that matches up its features and you seem to lack resources to support that sort of infrastructure - I am quite surprised you have suggested such a solution? Anything else that should be taken into consideration? (for example you do not mention rapid provision, additional reporting or an infrastructure to publish applications)
    Since lacking the resources - there is only the standalone model which would require no infrastructure setup.


    Nicke Källén | The Knack| Twitter: @Znackattack

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 8:45 PM
  • Although App-V can be used to run multiple versions of Office, there are some specific behaviours that will make running Office 2010 and Office 2007 side-by-side difficult. Office 2010 requires the installation of the Deployment Kit for App-V and this will end up making Office 2010 the default version of Office. Additionally only a single version of Outlook will work even though both versions will be virtualized.

    Because you have requirements for the two versions of Office for different sets of users, it would be recommended to keep them on seperate servers.

    The Management Server has streaming capabilities and thus the Streaming Server is not a requirement. If you are using some type of hardware virtualization solution (e.g. Hyper-V) you could dedicate the Management Server to it's own Windows instance.

    The Sequencer should be installed on a clean VM that can be rolled back to a clean snapshot after captuing an application - the Sequencer isn't something that you deploy permanently to infrastructure.




    Twitter: @stealthpuppy | Blog: stealthpuppy.com

    This forum post is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or view of Microsoft, its employees, or other MVPs.

    Please remember to click "Mark as Answer" or "Vote as Helpful" on the post that answers your question (or click "Unmark as Answer" if a marked post does not actually answer your question). This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 9:46 PM
    Moderator
  • Installed or virtalized, it's the same issue really. You could install Office 2010 (which would be the recommended approach) and deliver Office 2007 without Outlook to specific users.

    Note that file type associations can be overriden at the user level easily (so that Office 2007 FTAs can override the default Office 2010 FTAs per-user) but other options like the default MAPI client will require some custom scripting to set that per-user.

    Virtualization of Office is usually best for specific scenarios - install the user's primary version of Office and deliver other versions in packages where options such as FTAs are stripped and without Outlook out to ensure no conflicts.

    See this KB article for further discussion: Information about how to use Office 2010 suites and programs on a computer that is running another version of Office



    Twitter: @stealthpuppy | Blog: stealthpuppy.com

    This forum post is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or view of Microsoft, its employees, or other MVPs.

    Please remember to click "Mark as Answer" or "Vote as Helpful" on the post that answers your question (or click "Unmark as Answer" if a marked post does not actually answer your question). This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

    Monday, February 13, 2012 8:16 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Hello,

    I think you approach to designing an infrastructure needs to consider the business requirements first - as opposed to reviewing the technical possibilities first.

    Anyones guess on what todo with the technical specification you have given would be a pure guess work with no relationship at all inregards to what your business requires or wether or not you have utilized the resources best.

    The whitepapers usually recommend a solid and tested approach to designing an environment - that works very well for a numbers of scenarios. The reason for reading them is simple - the approach they offer work


    Nicke Källén | The Knack| Twitter: @Znackattack

    • Edited by znack Monday, February 6, 2012 8:55 PM
    Monday, February 6, 2012 8:54 PM
  • "Anyones guess on what todo with the technical specification you have given would be a pure guess work with no relationship at all inregards to what your business requires or wether or not you have utilized the resources best."

     

    Then maybe your question should have been . . . Sure! Definitely can help you, but could you elaborate more on what your business requires and what not . . . to help me through this instead of putting forth no valuable effort of helping and directing me to white papers.  Perhaps i would like some user input to ask more questions since i am new and white papers are somewhat helpful for myself or perhaps i find them confusing.  Who knows.

    Ask me the questions.

    As one of my first experiences on this forum i have found it very rude and unhelpful for someone who would just like a little user input and help.


    If you are going to take the time to respond . . . dont take the time to make a fool of my intial question and not bother to help me out or try to help me out.  Why waste your time with even typing it?
    • Edited by Nater41 Monday, February 6, 2012 10:25 PM
    Monday, February 6, 2012 9:36 PM
  • Hello Nate,

    I am terrible sorry you feel this way - I am glad to help you if possible. Unfortunately, I am still unable todo so as you haven't elaborated on any of your requirements.


    Nicke Källén | The Knack| Twitter: @Znackattack

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 7:13 AM
  • Thanks for taking the time.  Ask me any questions on what else you need from me.  Yes some of the stuff will be related to Remote Deskto Services.

    Currently my company has bought another company and we are merging everything.  What we have been planning to do is setup two servers that are each Remote Desktop Session Hosts.  A third server was going to host the remaining Remote Desktop Services Roles like  RD Connection Broker, RD Licensing, RD Web Access, RD Gateway. (Eventually we would like to breakup the roles on this third server to maybe some other 2008 R2 Servers)  Problem is now that we are merging companies one company has some applications and other other has different.  One company is licensed for Office 2007 and the other Office 2010.  One has licenses for Adobe Acrobat Pro and et cetera.  The two companies total about 250-300 employees with about 50 at a time using Remote Deskto Services and therefore those 50 would be using App-V if we plan to use it.

    I was directed towards App-V by some other people as a solution to have all applications together in an environment as a whole.  From what I am reading we wouldnt using the streaming feature to individual PC's but we were thinking of streaming the App-V to just the two Remote Desktop Session Host servers in which each user could login and get access.

    Does this sound right??  Would this work?  What else would need to be done?

    If this the case do I need a seperate server to install App-V Server and then would I just install the App-V Client part on the Remote Desktop Session Host servers?  If that is the case could that reside on the third server that hosts the Remote Desktop Services Roles or is that not recommended or will that be too much for a server?

    Am I in the ballpark with what we are thinking here?  Ask me questions.

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 8:25 PM
  • Hello,

    As it sounds that you are trying to avoid to purchase additional licensing and using App-V as a way to achieve this - I suggest you setup a meeting with a Microsoft representative to discuss licensing.
    App-V will never alter the need for any licensing, so before investigating if App-V can assist you in anyway you would probably need to clarify what licenses you have and how you can use them for any software.

    Regarding your technical specification, I suggest you try it. It seems that you already have a technical solution inplace - wether this may or may not be suited will reveal itself fairly quickly.

    According to the whitepaper IPD (v2.1) you seem to already have determined task 1 (application scope) and task 2 (location scope), however you still investigate step 2 - which model required.

    Considering that you do not mention any requirement for using the Full-infrastructure that matches up its features and you seem to lack resources to support that sort of infrastructure - I am quite surprised you have suggested such a solution? Anything else that should be taken into consideration? (for example you do not mention rapid provision, additional reporting or an infrastructure to publish applications)
    Since lacking the resources - there is only the standalone model which would require no infrastructure setup.


    Nicke Källén | The Knack| Twitter: @Znackattack

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 8:45 PM
  • Thank you very much for the help.  You are definitely helping some.

    I will look into licensing and schedule something with them, but its not really that we are trying to avoid purchasing additional licensing.

    We are just making use of what we have.  One company (Company A) has their Office 2010 CALs and the other (Company B) has their Office 2007 CALs.  Currently Company A has its own Remote Desktop Server with Office 2010 installed and Company B has its own Remote Desktop Server with Office 2007 installed.  We are trying to combine both companies to same Remote Desktop Servers and I was thinking of using App-V so that lets say when a user from Company A logs into the Remote Desktop Server . . . App-V will only provide them with Office 2010 access which is rightfully theirs and vice-versa for Company B user and Office 2007.

    Can that not be accomplished with App-V?

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 9:17 PM
  • Second response:

    "Considering that you do not mention any requirement for using the Full-infrastructure that matches up its features and you seem to lack resources to support that sort of infrastructure - I am quite surprised you have suggested such a solution? Anything else that should be taken into consideration? (for example you do not mention rapid provision, additional reporting or an infrastructure to publish applications)
    Since lacking the resources - there is only the standalone model which would require no infrastructure setup."

    How do you not know I dont have the resources???  Saying you are "quite surprised i havent suggested such a solution" doesnt make sense.  I am still learning.  You could have asked.  From what I am gathering Full Infrastructure Model would be nice.  It would be great and we could connect to our Active Directory and DNS infrastrucutre and we have another server that hosts a few SQL 2008 databases and we could use that to house the information from there since that is not really being taxed that much.

    That leaves us with Sequencer, Management Server, and Streaming.  Since the Streaming is optional install and I suggested that we most likely wont install or implement that so that wouldnt matter.  Could or would it make sense to have the Sequencer and Management Server together on the 3rd Remote Desktop Server that hosts the Remote Desktop Services roles.  Or would this be two much for one server with about 50 users?

    Am I in the ballpark with any of this?

    Or should we create another server with only App-V Squencer and Management Server on it.  Is it recommended to split those up?


    • Edited by Nater41 Tuesday, February 7, 2012 9:37 PM
    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 9:31 PM
  • Although App-V can be used to run multiple versions of Office, there are some specific behaviours that will make running Office 2010 and Office 2007 side-by-side difficult. Office 2010 requires the installation of the Deployment Kit for App-V and this will end up making Office 2010 the default version of Office. Additionally only a single version of Outlook will work even though both versions will be virtualized.

    Because you have requirements for the two versions of Office for different sets of users, it would be recommended to keep them on seperate servers.

    The Management Server has streaming capabilities and thus the Streaming Server is not a requirement. If you are using some type of hardware virtualization solution (e.g. Hyper-V) you could dedicate the Management Server to it's own Windows instance.

    The Sequencer should be installed on a clean VM that can be rolled back to a clean snapshot after captuing an application - the Sequencer isn't something that you deploy permanently to infrastructure.




    Twitter: @stealthpuppy | Blog: stealthpuppy.com

    This forum post is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or view of Microsoft, its employees, or other MVPs.

    Please remember to click "Mark as Answer" or "Vote as Helpful" on the post that answers your question (or click "Unmark as Answer" if a marked post does not actually answer your question). This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 9:46 PM
    Moderator
  • Aaron thank you very much for the reply!!!  That was definitely helpful.  Sorry I have been gone for a couple days here.  Alright I apollogize ahead of time . . . but bare with me . . . I am going to beat around the bush on this just a little bit more if you dont mind.

    Eventually we are going to make Office 2010 the default office.  We will slowly be buying up more licenses over time.  What if one is installed locally on the terminal sever like Office 2010 and Office 2007 is installed virutally.  Would that work or would that run into the same issues?  If you could elaborate.

    Also if not we are pondering the idea of really not installing Outlook altogther or just only for like Office 2010 users.  Other users will be directed or asked to use OWA.  For the most part people really dont use the Remote Desktop Servers to acces Outlook.  If this were the case could both be virtualized???  Or could one be locally and one virutalized?  Thoughts??

    Sorry just trying to think of ideas, since it could be hassle down the road to have seperate Remote Desktop Servers.

    Thanks so much for taking the time!!

    Monday, February 13, 2012 6:56 PM
  • Installed or virtalized, it's the same issue really. You could install Office 2010 (which would be the recommended approach) and deliver Office 2007 without Outlook to specific users.

    Note that file type associations can be overriden at the user level easily (so that Office 2007 FTAs can override the default Office 2010 FTAs per-user) but other options like the default MAPI client will require some custom scripting to set that per-user.

    Virtualization of Office is usually best for specific scenarios - install the user's primary version of Office and deliver other versions in packages where options such as FTAs are stripped and without Outlook out to ensure no conflicts.

    See this KB article for further discussion: Information about how to use Office 2010 suites and programs on a computer that is running another version of Office



    Twitter: @stealthpuppy | Blog: stealthpuppy.com

    This forum post is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or view of Microsoft, its employees, or other MVPs.

    Please remember to click "Mark as Answer" or "Vote as Helpful" on the post that answers your question (or click "Unmark as Answer" if a marked post does not actually answer your question). This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

    Monday, February 13, 2012 8:16 PM
    Moderator