Brian Madden Logo
Your independent source for application and desktop virtualization.
Marketplace

advertisement

Citrix plans to enter VDI space: An analysis of their solution

Written on Aug 03 2006 10,969 views, 34 comments


by Ron Oglesby

Since my last article on the Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) topic, I have received a number of e-mails. Some show interesting tips, some are just angry at life (and me specifically at the time of their writing), and some point out some interesting solutions that are trying to fill the ‘pie in the sky’ VDI solution I discussed last time.

Now personally, I haven’t seen a solution that makes me jump up and down saying “this is the end all be all for VDI!” However, I have seen some interesting takes on the problems I pointed out previously. Because of the e-mails and calls I received, I’ve decided to do a series of articles on the different VDI solutions available today. In this article I’ll discuss a solution (forthcoming) from Citrix for VDI implementations, and in future articles I’ll look at packages from Leostream, Propero, and any others I can get my hands on.

Before I get into the Citrix solution I need to qualify it some. First of all, the Citrix solution is not on the street yet (while the ones from Propero and Leostream are). Second, the Citrix solution I’m going to describe is a “stopgap” solution. Citrix is working on a full featured solution for release at some point in the future and is targeting a solution that covers most of what I described in the first article. The solution they are going to release now is a stopgap to help their existing customers with the VDI issues they face and is not meant as the end-game.

Okay, with the qualifications out of the way let’s talk about Citrix’s stopgap solution they’re calling the “Remote Desktop Broker” (or RDB). The concept with RDB is pretty simple; it’s an application that can feed parameters into the RDP client and provide you a way to manage connections and create resource pools of desktops (VMs, blades, etc.). The RDB application is installed on a Citrix Presentation Server and then published as an application. Users execute the application which then connects them to the type of desktop they (or the app) is configured for.

I’ll get into more detail on HOW it works in a second, but for now understand that it’s an application, not a server, and because of this is it uses a double-hop scenario with ICA connecting to the Presentation Server and then RDP connecting from the Presentation Server to the virtual desktop.

If you imagine an exiting Citrix environment (shown above) using an ICA client to connect to a Presentation Server, you’ll note that you have some of the items you need to provide a really solid VDI solution. You have a web interface that will allow for “publishing of the desktop,” you have the inherent SSL connectivity for remote users that Citrix already provides, and you have some session management and some tools to show connections and their status. So what’s missing? A way to pool desktop resources, handle peripherals, etc. Citrix’s RDB will handle some of this for you.

Citrix’s RDB will sit on top of your existing Citrix infrastructure. The concept is that the desktop broker application will be installed on your Presentation Servers. This application will communicate with an RDB database that will contain connection information for different pooled desktops. As pooled resources are used, they will be noted in this database so that the desktop is noted as “in use” and the next user will be routed to an unused desktop. If you look at the image above you’ll see that a connection will look something like this:

  • User connects to a  Citrix Web Interface server (or uses some other Citrix client)
  • Based on the credentials, a published application is made available for that user (in this case the RDB application).
  • The user launches the RDB application and is connected to the Presentation Server via ICA
  • Once the application loads, the user is routed to virtual desktop based on information in the RDB application. This is basically passing parameters to the Microsoft RDP client on the Presentation Server to tell it what end desktop to connect to.
    • During execution RDB is going to check its database to determine which desktop is available from the pool the user is connecting to.
    • This information is passed to the RDB application which in-turn uses it to establish an RDP session to the Windows XP VM or blade.
    • When the application is closed the desktop is released.

In looking at this you’ll notice right off that be that this is a “one session for the price of two sessions” deal. It’s a double hop. While it gets you to the desktop, its obviously not the most optimal configuration around. Citrix knows this, and this isn’t their long term design, but with this should come some cautions.

  • Speed screen latency reduction features will not help here. Most functionality/assistance you get with speed screen latency reduction features focus on making the users think that latency is not effecting their ICA session. Basically it works by detecting the font and size and color of the text being typed in the Citrix session then instead of waiting for that text to appear on the client it shows it on the client before the round trip communication ever happens. In this case the RDP client is essentially an image or movie like application and typing within it is an image change, NOT text within a field or form on the Citrix server. (Check out this article for more details.)
  • Not all features available in Citrix will be available in the RDP session. There will be some features (noted later in this article) that you are used to with Citrix, but since it is not ICA to the XP Pro, it will not be full featured.

I could put a third point here about it being a double hop, and the cost of a Citrix license without getting full features, etc., but I think that’s implied with these two other cautions.

In caution number two I noted that you won’t get all of the features (Speed screen, good printer redirects, driver replication, pure session mgmt in the XP pro desktop etc), but you will get some. Citrix plans to offer the following:

  • Client Drives Access. Users can share drive mappings between their hosted desktop and server drives. I must note I had mixed results with Client drives mapped to the Citrix session then mapped to the XP Pro session, but server drives did show up in my XP Pro desktop.
  • USB Key Drives. Users can access USB devices through their hosted desktops; however, the key must be connected prior to session startup.
  • Audio. Users launching a hosted desktop the user can hear audio (for example, using Microsoft Media Player), though this may require some ICA channel reconfiguration if you use RDB on an existing application host.
  • Single Sign On. When the user logs into the Citrix Web Interface and connects to the published hosted desktop, they can be automatically logged into their virtual desktop using Citrix Password Manager. This one was kind of a pain for me as I do NOT use password manager and I was required to sign into the Web Interface and then Sign in again to the Virtual Desktop. (Suggestion: Password Manager for free would be nice!)
  • Printing. Users can print to locally installed printers as well as network printers. I had a couple of interesting issues with this that I believe are more related to the XP Pro desktop than the Citrix session. Again it leads back to not having a control agent with the XP Pro desktop and needing to do some manual configuration on the images used by the users.

The long and short of this solution is that it is a stop-gap. Basically it’s an application that will allow you to create pools of VMs or XP blades for your users, and use your Citrix servers as a proxy mechanism. Citrix is hoping that it can help its existing customers get over the big hurdles here by delivering a brokering mechanism and allowing them to leverage the existing Citrix tools to solve the other issues I’ve previously mentioned (secure remote access, web-based authentication, etc.).

The disappointment to me is that Citrix wasn’t out in front of this a long time ago. Last year at VMworld people were all over themselves talking about Citrix servers on VMs or about running VM workstation instances on Citrix (which, by the way, is a ridiculously stupid idea) instead of focusing on creating real VDI tools and solutions. Hopefully the time-to-market on this won’t be too long and the follow-on product that will solve most of this product’s issues will not be to long of a wait.

In my next article in the series I will take a look at Propero’s VDI solution.  I was going to use Leostream’s solution first but had a slight issue with it during configuration that I will have to discuss during the article. As always, e-mail or post comments, I look forward to most of them. J



Comments

Michel Roth wrote Don't forget about Wyse
on 08-03-2006 10:01 AM
Nice article Ron. No ETA on the RDB right?

You probably wrote this article before Wyse announced their VDI product. It seems like everybody's racing for VDI.
You should do an article on the Wyse Enterprise Desktop Virtualization Solution.


You will right? ( no pressure here )

Regards,
Michel.
Allan Harder wrote Why bother?
on 08-03-2006 10:13 AM
Good article. To enhance this series, I would love to read your analysis as to WHY a business would go to this model. It certainly does not seem for everyone. Citrix/TS has been doing virtual desktops since their beginnings. It appears that in this 'stopgap' solution, the user will still need to distinguish between their real desktop and their virtual one. Users don't get so confused about it like they did 10 years ago, but a lot can be said for just having one(1) Start Menu button.
It appears that this 'stopgap' will still have a 'real' full OS on the client with another virtual FULL OS running on top. I think Citrix would do well not to waste time with this and put more resources into extending their Virtual APPLICATION Infrastructure to push/pull self contained apps to the desktop. That would truly reduce management costs by allowing the desktop OS to be more locked down without hindering useability of the virtual app. Yes, I know Softricity already does this...
Guest wrote ICA over RDP issues
on 08-03-2006 10:32 AM
I hope citrix fixes some of the issues with RDP over ICA.
-Active X client double click issues.  Double clicks are not registered
-Java client icon issues and keyboard issues.
-Disconnect issues.  Disconnect from ICA session but RDP session still running.
 
 
Neil Spellings wrote RDP over ICA isnt that hot
on 08-03-2006 12:38 PM
We have been using this double-hop method for some remote users running the RDP client on presentation server with the users connecting to that over ICA and have observed the following:
 
- When users do anything that causes alot of screen updates, ICA session bandwidth is 2-3times more than if the same operation is performed over native ICA. We've had to cap ICA bandwidth via policy as a single user could easily saturate their link.
 
- We get very bad performance over very latent links (no speedscreen and higher bandwidth) whereas native ICA performs fine (even without speedscreen enabled!).
 
I suspect the RDP client is just screen-scraped in this double-hop scenario, which means none of the optimisations that ICA perform on the GDI calls will get used - it will just be sending a compressed bitmap'ed image of the RDP screen down to the ICA client.
 
I can see people running into lots of similar issues if they deploy this and expect performance to by anywhere near what they are used to running native ICA on presentation server. Make sure you pilot extensively!
 
Cheers,
 
Neil
Guest wrote Cost of RDP over ICA
on 08-03-2006 3:11 PM
Is it me, or would you still be limited to 20-30 users per Citrix CPU?  If that's the case, you're not really getting a good ROI on anything since you'd need a big Citrix environment to address a medium to large organization's VDI solution.  
 
I could see some value in VDI if an org replaced the phisical desktops with thin clients and accessed VMs using RDP, or the flip side, a solution that leveraged the existing desktop resources without the overhead of a terminal server proxying all that data.  Possibly something like a Route1 MobiKey, but instead of a one to one relationship between the client and the desktop, have a dynamic desktop resource pool that can be shared by all users, possibly in conjunction with a product like Softgrid so all desktops can be provisioned for any application the user needs access to upon login.
 
This VDI solution seems like it would add a lot of overhead for nothing... assuming the User/CPU ratio limitation of a standard Citrix server.
Guest wrote Citrix is already a VDI solution..
on 08-03-2006 3:34 PM
I don't know, I think this is starting to over complicate things..  Is it me or is Citrix not already a VDI solution a heart?  Really why bother..  If starting from scratch, you could provision thin clients to everyone and simply use Citrix for a centrally managed desktop infrastructure.  Who cares if the desktop is a VM or a terminal instance of a desktop, it's still a desktop.  Citrix already has a wealth of connectivity options so you don't need to address getting access to your desktop from anywhere.  This seems to me like a perpetual motion analogy, i.e. make things as complicated as you can so nobody notices the inhearent flaw in the design, until they try and get it to work...  VDI at this point is basically a solution looking for a problem, not vice versa...  There are plenty of solutions out there to address your problems, do we really need another promise that won't deliver?
cory feign wrote business problems solved by vdi
on 08-03-2006 4:05 PM
remote developers (here or in india) need access to a full standard-image developer desktop.  In a large company like ours the desktop team has a standard developer image which would be a pain to retrofit into the Citrix environment.  just give them RDP and put a developer desktop pc somewhere- they're ready to go. 
people who work remotely sometimes and want full access to their regular desktop (we have about 1000 concurrent workers on saturday mornings (currenlty they launch pub apps, i'm sure they'd prefer a fullscreen of their regular desktop)
Alternative to server-based remote seasonal capacity (e.g. add a bunch of claims adjusters with full desktops during hurricane season)
Pandemic insurance (e.g. a region is quarantined and people can't go into the office and the company is still fully operational)Me wanting to continue work from home and pick up where i left off (with about 25 different windows open)

We have server images that are built by a server team and desktop images that are built by a desktop team.  Unfortunately, we're in the middle as Citrix technologies.  We believe that all we do is provide virtual desktop machines, so to us a server is really 100 desktops, but we haven't been able to bridge the gap between the two teams.  So getting some desktop stuff to work on the servers takes some effort.  different packages, different SMS distro, have to start a project, test, buy servers, test more.  if a team of 20 people says they want to work remotely occasionally, we say "Ok, go ahead" and there's nothign that has to be done (we don't care what apps they use or whether or not we already support them on citrix) except to tell them to remember their computer name - which a VDI solution would automate.

From my experience and in those examples I think VDI will have some useful niches.

some consultant who used to be onsite at our company said eventually desktop computing will be a grid and you'll just be brokering memory and CPU from other machines.  this is kind of a step in that evolutionary direction.  i'm coming in, i'm saying i want to run a desktop, and a service is brokering for me where that provider will be.  maybe it is solution before a problem and like a previous post said it will change again by the time everyone figures out how to do it and i guess that's one of the ways we progress.
Guest wrote App Virtualization...
on 08-03-2006 4:36 PM
I still think app virtualization will outpace desktop virtualization and address all the VDI requirements using SBC/Citrix.  The average home user will never be interested in VDI, since set-top devices really haven't caught on much anyway and we're all box-huggers who like powerful video cards and lots of ram, but they'll definately want app virtualization to isolate them from the OS.  I would rather see advances in app virtualization like full context support (comunication between virtualized application suites) and support for any drivers and specific services.  That way you can have the best of both worlds without having to totally rip and replace everything you've invested in thus far.  I think MS and Softricity will come up with some very appealing solutions to address the SBC shortcomings before VDI claims any significant market place.  It just seems more logical.
Pat Bruns wrote All this for a flippin' desktop
on 08-03-2006 5:27 PM
Ron,
Just some thoughts...
Thanks for the analysis/information. I think we're all kind of looking at niche possibilities and making them a bit bigger than they are. The headlines get our attention (when a thin client vendor joins the VMWare VDI club, people listen), but what are they saying?  From a resource and complexity viewpoint, VDI is less efficient and cost-effective than SBC. Let's look at the backend resources,and ask questions. How much disk space does that VM need? How much RAM? And where is that diskspace? The last time I checked, SAN space was still more expensive than DASD. 
And the connector? Let's hope that RDP gets less latency-sensitive.
I think our collective problem is the pervasive focus on "the box".
Don't look now, but "the box" and it's collection of discrete software chunks are mutating.
It's STILL about the app...

 
Guest wrote Yes be worried about Wyse, please, niche market, niche player
on 08-03-2006 9:53 PM
but I digress, Ron in reading your article I was really confused on what Citrix is trying to accomplish.
They already have what you would call a VDI, and have had it for years.  What they are trying to do
confuses me from the standpoint, of what does it actually accomplish for them. So they build a broker to
to VM Workstations, doesn't this dilute the benefit of PS 4.0.  I believe it does.  THey can tought VMWare as
strong partner for this, but I truly believe VMWare will push Citrix aside.  If I have a thin client, or desktop, and I can RDP into a VM, please tell me why I need Citrix.  I have a desktop, I have VD, what is Citrix exactly bringing to me.  It is typical Citrix in the Johhny come lately, me to bandwagon, with a half baked solution.  THey should be defining this space, not figuring out what VMware is going to do.
Ron Oglesby wrote RE: All this for a flippin' desktop
on 08-03-2006 9:59 PM
ORIGINAL: Yonderbox

Ron,
Just some thoughts...
Thanks for the analysis/information. I think we're all kind of looking at niche possibilities and making them a bit bigger than they are. The headlines get our attention (when a thin client vendor joins the VMWare VDI club, people listen), but what are they saying?  From a resource and complexity viewpoint, VDI is less efficient and cost-effective than SBC. Let's look at the backend resources,and ask questions. How much disk space does that VM need? How much RAM? And where is that diskspace? The last time I checked, SAN space was still more expensive than DASD. 
And the connector? Let's hope that RDP gets less latency-sensitive.
I think our collective problem is the pervasive focus on "the box".
Don't look now, but "the box" and it's collection of discrete software chunks are mutating.
It's STILL about the app...



 
No doubt. If you had been in any of the sessions I did I briforum I stomped around and basically sounded like the biggest anti-VDI guy around (at least to some people). When the whole time I was jsut trying to say that unless you had specific needs for isolated, unique desktops there was no business driver (read cost savings) to goto VDI over SBC or other app deployment models.
 
Dont get me wrong I think it has its place. And being a Citrix, app virtualization and Vmware guy I think I have found myself in a great postion to objectivly (and with experience) talk to the potential solutions and when they fit an dont. Should be a good series of articles.
 
Ron
Ron Oglesby wrote RE: Yes be worried about Wyse, please, niche market, niche player
on 08-03-2006 10:04 PM
ORIGINAL: Guest

but I digress, Ron in reading your article I was really confused on what Citrix is trying to accomplish.
They already have what you would call a VDI, and have had it for years.  What they are trying to do
confuses me from the standpoint, of what does it actually accomplish for them. So they build a broker to
to VM Workstations, doesn't this dilute the benefit of PS 4.0.  I believe it does.  THey can tought VMWare as
strong partner for this, but I truly believe VMWare will push Citrix aside.  If I have a thin client, or desktop, and I can RDP into a VM, please tell me why I need Citrix.  I have a desktop, I have VD, what is Citrix exactly bringing to me.  It is typical Citrix in the Johhny come lately, me to bandwagon, with a half baked solution.  THey should be defining this space, not figuring out what VMware is going to do.

 
Really they have been messing with this concept for a year...  What they are really trying to do is keep their existing customers happy with a stop gap, until their full blown direct connect solution comes out, and keep them from going to other vendors to fill a need and thus risk loosing those customers.
 
From a why do I need Citrix perpective?  Well, read that first article of all the missing things in a simple thin client and XP pro desktop environment and you will see why all these software vendors are jumping on the bandwagon. Basically thign client to XP pro works if you have 10 or so clients. if you ahve 100 you have more on your plate and someone is going to write the code to make simple, easy to manage, load balanced, centrally configured, etc etc. Citrix jsut wants that action and if they can get a product out there fast enough they can get it to their existing client base before they buy another solution.
 
Ron 
Ron Oglesby wrote RE: Why bother?
on 08-03-2006 10:08 PM
ORIGINAL: Aiian

Good article. To enhance this series, I would love to read your analysis as to WHY a business would go to this model. It certainly does not seem for everyone. Citrix/TS has been doing virtual desktops since their beginnings. It appears that in this 'stopgap' solution, the user will still need to distinguish between their real desktop and their virtual one. Users don't get so confused about it like they did 10 years ago, but a lot can be said for just having one(1) Start Menu button.
It appears that this 'stopgap' will still have a 'real' full OS on the client with another virtual FULL OS running on top. I think Citrix would do well not to waste time with this and put more resources into extending their Virtual APPLICATION Infrastructure to push/pull self contained apps to the desktop. That would truly reduce management costs by allowing the desktop OS to be more locked down without hindering useability of the virtual app. Yes, I know Softricity already does this...

 
No doubt. but for multiple reasons business will use VDI. I see it running next to TS servers in the long wrong. Security would be one reason. a true need for desktop control by power users that have different apps could be another, centralization of unique desktops for DR, mgmt, recovery etc is another. Its a tool. Just like App Virtualization. I have had IT people int he alst couple of years tell me I was crazy for thinking app virtualization was a big deal.. They said "we just create silos or add servers or install the app on the desktop, why mess with app virtualization???"  Of course app virtualization isnt needed everywhere. but it is a valuable tool, just more valuable to some orgs than others.
 
Ron
Ron Oglesby wrote RE: Cost of RDP over ICA
on 08-03-2006 10:10 PM
Depends. Overhead I have seen in what I am running is minimal. I mean you have a session, and the RDP client running. On one of todays boxes you could get 50-60 or more users on a daul pretty easy. The trick I see is the licensing of the Citrix licenses to support this model. I mean a dual proc server can be picked up for 3 or 4K but 60 Citrix cals at 300 or350 a pop is 20K or so...
 
hardware is a commodity. Software is king, and we pay the tax to the king.
 
Ron
Ron Oglesby wrote RE: Citrix is already a VDI solution..
on 08-03-2006 10:11 PM
It is. Check out the original VDI article I wrote and we discuss why someone would use one over the other. TS is also a by far CHEAPER solution. but VDI fills a niche.
Guest wrote Ron ok, being an ex-citrite, I guess I take a different
on 08-04-2006 12:11 AM
view of Citrix, in the past which they defined a market to present. I believe that the PS business is in for
a rude awaking to due to many factors. First of all with the recent announcement of Citrix taking SA direct, they will
alienate partners, not all but quite a bit.  The channel is their extended sales force. They will lose some good partners.  Secondly, with Longhorn, will that kill Citrix in the enterprise most likely not, but in the small to medium business, with 3-10 TS servers, why exactly do I need the value of Citrix, and if you talk to a Citrix rep, they can't quite explain it either.  Third of all, VMware, will now be a competitor of the SBC.  I have seen several large scale deals first hand both choose hosted XP over RDP over Citrix.  VMware owns the Server Virtualization, but to grow and expand, you have to tackle the desktop, and they will position this again and again.  Fourth of All, with the recent buy of Softricity by Microsoft, this totally cuts Citrix at the knees with Tarpon.  I can tell you first hand that this way a big push by Citrix, much easier to beat up a small company from Boston, much harder to fight the hand that feeds you.  Microsoft wil fix app problems on TS, but the bigger issue for Citrix is if I am not a remote site, or connecting remotely, why again do i need Citrix to manage my internal apps.  I may be missing something, but the dys of being the only game in town are done....
Guest wrote RE: Ron ok, being an ex-citrite, I guess I take a different
on 08-04-2006 12:39 AM
So, this can be accomplished already by publishing an RDP client with an RDP file that points to your desktop and doing this per user.  So, basically, a whole lot of nothing.
Guest wrote RE: ICA over RDP issues
on 08-04-2006 12:41 AM
Don't hold your breathe, it's going to be tough enough for them to develop launching the RDP client!
Guest wrote Latency sensitive RDP?
on 08-04-2006 2:01 PM
Why bother, I'd expect to see the next iteration of this offering to have ICA direct from the XP (Vista) Image, with all the benefits an ICA session provides.
 
Add a whole host of management features over the top of that and it becomes a real strong offering to those areas where VDI is suited.
 
Place your bets for Q4 07 (Global iForum launch???)
Guest wrote RE: All this for a flippin' desktop
on 08-05-2006 6:00 AM
I have to say, for an extremely niche solution there's a lot of talk about VDI these days as if any business can make use of it.
 
In my view about 90% of the time a business can't exclusively work in an SBC environme