The Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Team has release a very intriguing article about Aero Glass Remoting with Windows Server 2008 R2. Being a tech guy, I have tested this on a development system and I must say that I am officially impressed.
In the last years, I joined the ranks of those migrating to Windows Vista and, later, to Windows 7 RC not only because it was the next incarnation of the Windows operating system but due to Aero which is part of the Home Premium (or higher) editions.
Continue reading ‘Who Needs Aero Glass Remoting? Although It’s Cool!’
In the first article of this series, I provided a short overview why performance monitoring is important, what subsystems are to be monitored and named some tools focussed on monitoring terminal servers.
Having been concerned with the performance analysis of terminal servers in many projects, I can draw some conclusions about terminal servers before diving deeper into the subject. I’d like to introduce two categories of terminal servers from a performance standpoint.
Continue reading ‘Performance Monitoring Part 2 – Terminal Servers’
After having published the XmlServiceReader, I have described how to use this tool to customize health check in XenApp Health Monitoring and Recovery (HMR). In this article I will cover health checks that to not apply to a single server but assure the operation of the farm as a service independently of individual servers.
Continue reading ‘Leveraging the XMLServiceReader for Custom Health Checks’
In my experience, terminal servers are not properly monitored resulting in administrators not knowing how a farm performs – neither concerning the peak performance nor the trend of the handled load. This leads to an inaccurate and often inadequate sizing of the terminal server environment because only rough estimates arise from such a negligence.
In this series of articles, I’d like to expand on the topic and stressing why monitoring is important for all environment (including terminal servers), what needs to be monitored and how is can be achieved.
Continue reading ‘Performance Monitoring Part 1 – Why and What’
When EdgeSight is set up correctly, all data is collected without any user interference especially no administrator credentials are required. Unfortunately, this is only true for historical reports generated from the EdgeSight database. As soon as real-time reports are used and workers are started manually on devices in trusted domains, the administrator’s job gets tricky.
Continue reading ‘EdgeSight in Trusted Domains Woes’
We all know that it is trendy to use a profile solution to rid Windows of some shortcomings of roaming profiles. And quite a number of you have looked at Citrix Profile Management (also known as User Profile Manager). In its current incarnation, UPM is configured using a group policy specifying the profile path. But similar to utilizing the “Set path for TS Roaming Profiles” for Terminal Services (soon to be Remote Desktop Services), this introduces the limitation that all users logging on to a server receive the same profile path – most most likely with some dynamically substituted components like environment variables or, in the case of UPM, fields from the user object in Active Directory.
Unfortunately, both solutions (UPM and “Set path for TS Roaming Profiles”) are inferior to managing profile paths in Active Directory user objects. The latter enables administrators to distribute users across several servers or use components representing an organisational affiliation. Wouldn’t it be neat to combine those to methods of maintaining profile paths?
Continue reading ‘The Combined Strength of Citrix Profile Management and the Active Directory Terminal Services Profile Path’
