In my environment, I've 10 session host servers and 400 users that'll be going to connect. I have a requirement of 10 users should have different session host servers at all the time. and the rest of 390 users can have any session host servers out of 10session hosts. Is there any way of dedicating these users a separate host server when they RDP\RDWeb access. Kindly share your views and suggestion. I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and answers
FYI
RDS setup has done on Windows server 2012
Gateways servers 2
Broker 1
Session host servers 10.
RDS is in working state not in production though
Related
from my customer I have the following requirement:
A VMware host shall manage VMs for application clients running on Windows Server 2016. In the plant of the customer there are 75 operators concurrently working with this application.
Therefore, my idea is to create a RDS Host VM which is providing many concurrent Windows sessions. The operators get thin clients and connect via RDP to the hosrt where the application is installed.
Unfortunately I have no experience how to correctly setup the architecture for RDS Host correctly.
From the application developer there is the recommendation to host at maximum 25 sessions per RDS Host. This would mean I need 3 RDS Hosts, that arrange somehow internally which operator is connected via which RDS Host.
How is this connection management performed within RDS? Is there a centralized instance managing it?
What are the virtual hardware requirements for such an RDS Host? Do I just multiply the single session application requirements by 25 ?
In case on host fails, is it possible to dynamically turn on an additional VM that takes over?
Is it correct that I need 75 Device CALs?
Thanks for you help!
Our solution stack consists of multiple services, each of which can be run on individual host machines. For a variety of reasons, the services are hosted as a windows service running under a virtual account. Many of these services need to connect to a MS SQL 2008R2 instance running on a remote host. Each of the host machines running the services thus need to added to the MS SQL2008R2 instances as logins. e.g if our services are running on hostnames machine1, machine2...machinen, machine accounts machine1$, machine2$... machinen$ need to be added to MS SQL as logins. I thought I could simplify this by adding each host machine to a machine group on the domain and add the machine group as a login on the MS SQL instance. This did not work. Am I missing some steps ? OR am I forever condemned to add each individual machine accounts to MS SQL instance ? I know that I can run the windows services under a domain user (or maybe have the services impersonate a domain user if possible) and add the domain user to the MS SQL instance but I do not want to try this approach as the password for the domain user now needs to be managed.
Any help appreciated
Once the server and workstation were rebooted, it worked. Now just having the security group on MS SQL and no individual machine account on MS SQL gets our solution stack up and running. Thank you SQLChao for keeping me on track.
Are there any difference in database connection speed (initial DB connection request, queries, etc.) at all if:
A. Website and database are on the same server. Basically host is localhost.
B. Website is on Server I and database is on Server II. Website will access database via remote IP address.
Actual speed test will really help.
It depends on the connection between the Servers. A connection within localhost is normally faster because you're staying on the same system and no request or connection has to go through the network.
We are building a client solution that will be hosted on servers in a data-centre. It consists of several servers all related to providing the client solution. There is no internal network to protect but for some reason our UAT environment has the notion of a DMZ in the server diagram.
We have an IIS box which will have a public IP. Then we have two servers DB(Sql Server) and APP that are only on the internal lan with no public IPs. You can only RDP to these servers via VPN. Our IIS server needs sql access so port 1433 is open from IIS box(DMZ) to the sql server. We are also opening several ports from the IIS server to the APP server which hosts WCF services.
My understanding was that a DMZ was meant to protect internal private networks and that these networks should not be accessible from the DMZ but we are now opening up ports to both our APP and DB servers so they are accessible from the DMZ. In the end most of our servers are accessible from the IIS server via certain ports.
We originally wanted to setup our SQL server for AD authentication only but since our IIS server is in the DMZ and has no AD access we will be forced to enable mixed mode authentication in SQL server. This might be another security issue in it's own since we are now forced to store passwords somewhere on the IIS server to be able to auth against sql server.
Are we not perhaps missing the idea of a DMZ?
So with a system where you have a DMZ, there is also a firewall involved.
So your system should look like this I think:
SQL-server hosting internal data
Other servers needed for the company
---- firewall ----
SQL-server hosting data for web solution
AD-server (if needed)
Web-server
FTP-server (could be on the web server also)
With this setup you don't expose company-sensitive database to the outside world and you also don't open up a port in the firewall making it possible for attackers to (maybe) get access to the internal database which has company sensitive data...
Just my suggestion based on the information provided.
I´m running 2 servers on Rackspace. I have set up a load balancer that balances the traffic between these two servers.
Each of these servers runs a Glassfish v3 server with a Java EE application on it, that offers a web interface to write some data into server database. The problem is that I need to have the same data on each database (server 1 database and server 2 database).
A resolution to this problem is mirroring of databases.
I would like to ask if there is some automated system to mirror these databases inside the rackspace?
Furthermore I ve found Xendros database cloud that is able to work with Rackspace Cloud. Is it possible to mirror these databases inside the Xeround?
Or are there any better solutions ?
Thanks for answers :)
With Xeround you do not need to mirror your database, you create a single database instance and direct your application servers to work with this instance.
For more information you are welcomed to visit our web site http://www.xeround.com