locked
App-V procedures for laptop RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi all,

    We're currently studying processes for using an App-v architecture in a large organization with a significant number of laptops that can be disconnected from the network for long periods (they may never be reconnected after their first build). We have questions about the best process for initial application installation and for updates (SCCM is not an option short term for cost reasons) :

    - For initial installation, what is the best solution : use the app-v generated MSI to do a local install ? Push MSI using GPO deployment ? Let the user connect once on the network to get is profile and applications ? In this case, how to be sure that application are 100% cached ? 

    - For updates: if a user connects occasionally to the network, how to be sure that he didn't retrieve a partial update, which means he will find his Office broken during a long trip because he has connected his PC 5mn on the corp network ?

    Thanks in advance for your answers! 

     

     

    Thursday, December 8, 2011 1:56 PM

Answers

  • Hell,

    You can use any traditional ESD solution with the MSI - once the MSI completes the application will be 100% in cache.

    1. Should satisfy your requirements - but obviously you need to verify all the steps and test the entire scenario

    2. If using MSI with Group Policy and you cancel / interrupt an ongoing install with a shutdown / disconnect - the same thing will happen regardless if its traditional installation or virtual application deployment; it may fail with only partially available application. Again, I suggest you verify all steps and test all your applicable scenarios.

    App-V Whitepapers are available here, which includes a planning and design guide;

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/appvirtualization/cc843994


    Nicke Källén | The Knack| Twitter: @Znackattack
    Thursday, December 8, 2011 2:02 PM
  •  We'd rather use an App-V Management server and security groups.

    MSI deployment is for targeting devices rather than users. The App-V Management Server will enable you to target users, but if those devices are outside of the network, you will have to look into ensuring that the Management Server is available from the Internet. This means publishing RTSPS and possibly HTTPS, depending on what protocol you use for streaming.

    This forum post is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or view of Microsoft, its employees, or other MVPs.
    • Proposed as answer by znack Saturday, December 10, 2011 9:25 AM
    • Marked as answer by Aaron.ParkerModerator Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:13 PM
    Thursday, December 8, 2011 6:10 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Hell,

    You can use any traditional ESD solution with the MSI - once the MSI completes the application will be 100% in cache.

    1. Should satisfy your requirements - but obviously you need to verify all the steps and test the entire scenario

    2. If using MSI with Group Policy and you cancel / interrupt an ongoing install with a shutdown / disconnect - the same thing will happen regardless if its traditional installation or virtual application deployment; it may fail with only partially available application. Again, I suggest you verify all steps and test all your applicable scenarios.

    App-V Whitepapers are available here, which includes a planning and design guide;

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/appvirtualization/cc843994


    Nicke Källén | The Knack| Twitter: @Znackattack
    Thursday, December 8, 2011 2:02 PM
  • Nicke,

    Thanks for this quick answer, it makes a lot of sense.

    One problem I have with using the MSI, is that it defeats the ability to manage the applications on-demand at user connections using security groups: installation decision is made outside of App-V and it's not possible to simply revoke application usage, you have to uninstall it (I've tested this with App-V 4.6).

    Another drawback with GPO deployment (even if we're considering doing this), is the difficulty to manage those GPOs, with many applications, in many languages and multiple user profiles (for us it means at least 50 to 70 policies with complex filters just for Office).... We'd rather use an App-V Management server and security groups.

    Thanks

    GH

     

    Thursday, December 8, 2011 2:32 PM
  • Hello,

    Again - i really suggest you read the planning and design guide if you see it more managable to implement the Management Server infrastructure.

    As always - you should test and verify if your design meets your requirements.
    Nicke Källén | The Knack| Twitter: @Znackattack
    Thursday, December 8, 2011 2:46 PM
  • Is there any reason you have chosen MSI over using the APP-V Management Streaming Server setup? Restrictions in your environment. I know you say SCCM is currently not on the cards for you but it might be worth your while looking at the improved APP-V integration in SCCM 12 as it seems to be much more closely aligned with the APP-V Management Console and ties in with AD for setting access permissions on the applications.
    Blog: www.rorymon.com Twitter: @Rorymon
    Thursday, December 8, 2011 5:33 PM
  •  We'd rather use an App-V Management server and security groups.

    MSI deployment is for targeting devices rather than users. The App-V Management Server will enable you to target users, but if those devices are outside of the network, you will have to look into ensuring that the Management Server is available from the Internet. This means publishing RTSPS and possibly HTTPS, depending on what protocol you use for streaming.

    This forum post is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or view of Microsoft, its employees, or other MVPs.
    • Proposed as answer by znack Saturday, December 10, 2011 9:25 AM
    • Marked as answer by Aaron.ParkerModerator Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:13 PM
    Thursday, December 8, 2011 6:10 PM
    Moderator
  • Thank all.

    @Rorymon: our first choice is indeed  to use the management server, not MSI, but MSI is the fallback we see for very disconnected laptops. I've looked at SCCM integration, it probably would  be the best for us, but such a deployment may only be for 2013 or later here.

    @Aaron: the idea of having a public publishing server is interesting, it may be an idea for us.

    GH.

    Friday, December 9, 2011 8:03 AM