Will anyone use pure Terminal Server 2003 on load-balanced blades?

Hardware load-balancing solutions for pure Terminal Server environments.

I was talking with my buddy Gabe last night and he made some interesting comments about load-balanced Terminal Server 2003 environments. We were talking about the article I wrote last week discussing hardware load-balancing solutions for pure Terminal Server environments. Gabe pointed out that my old-standby design practice of "a lot of little servers" wouldn't work in a pure Terminal Server 2003 environment due to the fact that the session directory requires Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, and that costs $3,000 (after subtracting the value of the included CALs).

It's a really good point. I guess in pure Terminal Server environments, people will be better off building quad-processor servers that can each support 300-500 users instead of blades or 1U servers that can only support 50-200 users.

Join the conversation

1 comment

Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

300-500 users on a single box - thats a lot of fixing and angry users if it fails.