Tim, This page details how it should be setup. Under this configuration Sun Rays have no issues.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc772418(WS.10).aspx Cheers, Craig ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Rault-Smith [[email protected]] Sent: 28 July 2010 22:01 To: SunRay-Users mailing list Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] uttsc and Win 2008 TS session broker - not load balancing Hi Craig, Thanks for clarifying. The Windows tech explained to me how they have it set up: - Session broker is running on one of the 5 nodes - The farm IP is configured on all 5 nodes. So it seems different from your suggestion, but the Windows tech insists it is correct for Windows 2008 and works fine with other thin clients and a software RDP client. Is there any particular reason I can give him why this *wouldn't* work with uttsc? Thanks, Tim On 27 Jul 2010, at 08:43, Craig Hummer wrote: > uttsc should connect to the farm name (not the session broker IP), the farm > name should be an A record that points to each TS so that it resolves using > DNS Round Robin. > > Regards, > > Craig > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Rault-Smith > Sent: 27 July 2010 08:32 > To: SunRay-Users mailing list > Subject: [SunRay-Users] uttsc and Win 2008 TS session broker - not load > balancing > > Hi all, > > We have a Windows terminal server 5-node farm where all the sessions are > being created on the first 2 nodes, most of them on the first. > > Configuration: > > - 2 Sun Ray servers (with Mitel UIPC kiosk mode) > - 5 Windows 2008 terminal servers with session broker (on VMware) > > Yesterday's session distribution: > > - WTS1 (running the session broker) - 46 users > - WTS2 - 19 users > - WTS3, WTS4, WTS5 - 0 users > > The set-up is pretty straightforward. I have configured uttsc (2.2, > currently no patches) to connect to the session broker IP address. My > understanding is that uttsc should be able to act on an RDP redirect and that > this is what the session broker should send. I have looked through the > latest patch and can't see any bug which directly relates to this scenario. > Happy to install the patch anyway. > > Am I missing anything? > > Thanks, > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > SunRay-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users > > This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely > for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions > expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent > those of CNT Ltd. > > If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you > must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. > > Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in > error. > > _______________________________________________ > SunRay-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users _______________________________________________ SunRay-Users mailing list [email protected] http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of CNT Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. _______________________________________________ SunRay-Users mailing list [email protected] http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
