Persistent or non-persistent VDI? A debate between industry experts from VMworld 2013

Listen to this podcast

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.

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 :)

 

Join the conversation

2 comments

Send me notifications when other members comment.

By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Please create a username to 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.


Cancel

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.


Cancel

-ADS BY GOOGLE

SearchVirtualDesktop

SearchEnterpriseDesktop

SearchServerVirtualization

SearchVMware

Close