Persistent or non-persistent VDI? A debate between Andre Leibovici, Shawn Bass, Jason Langone, and Jason Mattox from VMworld 2013 - Brian & Gabe LIVE - BrianMadden.com
Brian Madden Logo
Your independent source for desktop virtualization, consumerization, and enterprise mobility management.
Brian & Gabe LIVE's Blog

Past Articles

Persistent or non-persistent VDI? A debate between Andre Leibovici, Shawn Bass, Jason Langone, and Jason Mattox from VMworld 2013

Written on Sep 13 2013 7,726 views, 2 comments

New! Listen to this post in our daily podcast. iTunes Podcast Podcast RSS Feed

by Gabe Knuth

Which VDI deployment strategy is the best, persistent or non-persistent? For years, we've been stating that the persistent approach is more appropriate in situations, mainly because RDSH is equally appropriate in situations where non-persistent VDI could be used. VMware has traditionally argued in favor of non-persistent VDI, which Brian recently called them out on. The argument has dulled slightly as technology has matured enough to bring density numbers more in line with each other (meaning you can support a similar number of desktops on like-hardware in either RDSH or non-persistent VDI scenarios), but there are still issues of complexity, management, infrastructure, and cost that make this a wildly divisive topic.

During the conference, Gunnar Berger organized a debate between two people in favor of persistent VDI–Andre Leibovici & Shawn Bass, and two people that prefer non-persistent VDI–Jason Langone and Jason Mattox. We're always happy to have this conversation, so we agreed to post the podcast after the show was over. Check it out and let us know what you think! VMware's EUC CTO Scott Davis and Brian Madden were both in attendance, no doubt biting their tongues as long as they could :)

 

 
 




Our Books


Comments

appdetective wrote re: Persistent or non-persistent VDI? A debate between Andre Leibovici, Shawn Bass, Jason Langone, and Jason Mattox from VMworld 2013
on Fri, Sep 13 2013 12:12 AM Link To This Comment

I'll summarize this:

- Persistent is what works today. Getting easier every day.

- Non persistent is something we should continue to do more of on a case by case basis with VDI as that's a better end game and will open up many new use cases.

- I don't agree with the argument that mixing the two is bad, since we do it today anyway for XenApp with persistent.

- VMware and Citrix have failed to deliver to date on non-persistent. Mirgage from VMware is not going to solve this problem, VMware are clueless.

rhelmer wrote re: Persistent or non-persistent VDI? A debate between Andre Leibovici, Shawn Bass, Jason Langone, and Jason Mattox from VMworld 2013
on Mon, Sep 30 2013 5:39 PM Link To This Comment

The arguments against persistent desktops wouldn't be happening if SCCM and "traditional PCLM tools" worked better.

IT pros aren't really that fond of these traditional tools, and it's fascinating listening to people rally to their defense as though we are loathe to part with them. I don't buy the "but we'll have to retrain IT!" argument as such a big problem. I also think it's faulty logic to say that having two approaches means an automatic doubling of operational costs. "Batting average," versioning, app packaging issues, etc.--these are areas where SCCM comes up short. If you still need SCCM for a certain percentage of apps, does that mean you've failed? Not at all.

(Note: You must be logged in to post a comment.)

If you log in and nothing happens, delete your cookies from BrianMadden.com and try again. Sorry about that, but we had to make a one-time change to the cookie path when we migrated web servers.