Greg Twyford wrote: > One of my inhibitions about terminal services is that you become > absolutely dependent on the terminal server. The major choices become > a high-end 'real' server with redundant everything, like a fully > kitted HP ML350-G4, or a second terminal server online with double the > licensing, hardware and other costs, or relying on a system that will > go down big-time if the server fails with no prospect of an early > resumption of business, as all the clients will be terminals, not be > up to it and/or need major reconfiguration of the whole system. The > 'spare bits' strategy may save the day in the last scenario.
I was interested to learn that Microsoft have recently defined the computer as the motherboard http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Microsoft_changes_OEM_license,_forcing_new_purchases_after_motherboard_upgrade You can replace it but only if it dies. A spare bits strategy with Microsoft products therefore requires double the licensing as you note. This does not apply to sane databases on sane operating systems however. I've been playing with Xen. The docs say you can do live backups with downtime of 60 to 300 milliseconds. Kewl. > We need to remember that TS was thought up for big corporate > environments with redundant domain controllers and all that other stuff. I don't know who thought it up but the more computers you maintain the more sense it makes. A pool of redundant poor man terminal servers works for us. David -- For secure communication with the GMC see http://gmc.net.au gpg key Secure Mail (Current 10 February 2005) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x9CAE0C53 at keyserver.medicine.net.au _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
