Termina Server - rule of thumb for number of users per Terminal Server

I would like to know the way one goes about figuring out how many users would it be optimal to put on a Terminal Server assuming that the only applications that users would be accessing on it would be Office applications, in particular, almost exclusively Word and Excel and Outlook (for Exchange).  Is there a difference brought into the equation with X64 technology on Windows 2003? Ditto for Server 2008, X64 and HyperV?  How much difference would Quadcore Xeon versus non-Quadcore Xeon systems make assuming that there is no budget limitation as to RAM or clock speed?
lineonecorpAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

andrew_aj1Commented:
The document on this page should help you determine these answers:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/techinfo/overview/tsscaling.mspx
Good luck.
0
lineonecorpAuthor Commented:
Thanks for this link. What about 2008 and X64 and HyperV - they don't seem to be addressed in this document.
0
andrew_aj1Commented:
Terminal services between 2003 and 2008 have not changed much, but it is harder to find information about HyperV and terminal services. I don't have experience with both at the same time, sorry.
0
Making Bulk Changes to Active Directory

Watch this video to see how easy it is to make mass changes to Active Directory from an external text file without using complicated scripts.

Rob WilliamsCommented:
It is a very tough number to calculate as it depends on applications, and type of use, but there are guides as others have suggested and I have posed a couple of more below.
Terminal server is very demanding of RAM, therefore with 64 bit you can take advantage of far more RAM. Also server 2008 offers many new features such as virtual apps, TS gateways, and better load balancing (if using multiple servers), which can make some improvent in performance. Hyper-V or other virtual server options make very little difference on performance, you just need a little extra "horsepower", mostly RAM, for the host. Virtual options such as VMware's ESX, ESXi, and Microsoft's Hyper-v server (not Server 2008 with hyper-v) have a much smaller footprint and require less resources for the host.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc786809.aspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb608286.aspx
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
lineonecorpAuthor Commented:
Thanks for the additional digging. The second of your articles was one I've never come across before and was pretty well exactly what I was looking for.  Your reference to Hyper-V server intrigued me as well. I wasn't aware of this distinction.  I'm going to do some Googling for it now but it seems you may have done some research already and two Googles is always better than one so if you have any references for it I would appreciate it. Again that 2nd article seems to have nailed it.
0
Rob WilliamsCommented:
To clarify, Hyper-v can be used in several ways:
-You can install Server 2008 and install the Hyper-V role
-You can also install Server 2008 core (command line mode only) and add the Hyper-v role
-Or you can use the new Hyper-V server 2008, which is a command line version as well, but has several advantages or differences.
http://www.microsoft.com/servers/hyper-v-server/default.mspx
The later can only be installed as a command line version. It can only be used as a host. i.e. you cannot add services from the command line like you can with Server 2003 with Hyper-v, such as DNS or DHCP server services and more. It is a smaller foot print. It uses less resources, and most importantly it is free. There is no need to buy any Microsoft license for the host. However, you cannot install or manage any VM's from the host either. You need to install the Vista Hyper-V management console, also free.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=BF909242-2125-4D06-A968-C8A3D75FF2AA&displaylang=en
Personally I have been very pleased with Hyper-V server so far. There are some features missing that are available with VMWare, but most are in discussion and development stages.
0
lineonecorpAuthor Commented:
Rob Will, Thanks for the wealth of information. I'll be burning the midnight oil for sure.
0
Rob WilliamsCommented:
Thanks lineonecorp, and good luck with your project.
Cheers !
--Rob
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Microsoft Server OS

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.