Development server hardware

[Guest]

I need to build a new .NET development server (Visual Studio) for 50 users
who will be accesing the server using Windows Server 2003 Terminal Service.
Do you have any advice in terms of how big/fast the box should be, how many
processors, RAM, disk drives, etc.? I appreciate anybody's input on this.

 

[Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu]

I need to build a new .NET development server (Visual Studio) for 50
users who will be accesing the server using Windows Server 2003
Terminal Service. Do you have any advice in terms of how big/fast the
box should be, how many processors, RAM, disk drives, etc.? I
appreciate anybody's input on this.

You are going to build a box for 50 developers to work remotely on and develop with VS 2003?


--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

Develop ASP.NET applications easier and in less time:
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/

 

[Guest]

Yes. This is exactly the case.

You are going to build a box for 50 developers to work remotely on and develop with VS 2003?


--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

Develop ASP.NET applications easier and in less time:
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/

 

[Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu]

Yes. This is exactly the case.

I'll be honest in asking - why? This isnt a very good idea. Are you sure you want to do it this way?


--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

Empower ASP.NET with IntraWeb
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/

 

[Guest]

Why do you think it's not a good idea to combine .NET and Terminal services
under one roof? You think it will overwload the server? What's the best way
to do it then?

 

[Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu]

Why do you think it's not a good idea to combine .NET and Terminal
services under one roof? You think it will overwload the server?
What's the best way to do it then?

I didnt say that .NET + Terminal services was bad. I said that having users users use Visual Studio
over Terminal services was not a very good idea - for a variety of reasons. One of them would be
load, but there are many other issues too such as they will be fighting each other with GAC entries,
IISE usage, and basically stepping on each others toes unless they are bulding just simplistic
applications.

What kind of connections will they have to the server? Why dont you want them to run VS on their
own machines?


--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

Get your ASP.NET in gear with IntraWeb!
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/

 

[Guest]

I thought with IIS6's ability to support multiple .NET application pools it
is not going to be a problem. Also, using the local user accounts will
simplify the deployment of VS (this was also recommended by Microsoft). I'm
just trying to figure out what hardware platform I need to build this
environment on. Was thinking about DL360 (dual processor, 4GB of RAM, 2
mirrored SCSI disks. Would like to build a RAID 5, not sure if budget allows
to spend another $2K on the disks). What do you think hardwarewise - will it
support it?
Thanks for your response.

 

[Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu]

I thought with IIS6's ability to support multiple .NET application
pools it is not going to be a problem. Also, using the local user

Its not a matter of running them. But developers need to test and do a lot of admin things - and
putting 50 *devlopers* on the same box is not something I would wnat to do.

accounts will simplify the deployment of VS (this was also recommended
by Microsoft). I'm just trying to figure out what hardware platform I

Microsoft recommended you run Visual Studio over terminal services? I know for end users it
makes a lot of sense - but for developers it rarely makes sense for developers not to have
their own machines.

Are there some other circumstances I dont know about?

processor, 4GB of RAM, 2 mirrored SCSI disks. Would like to build a

4 GB of RAM to run 50 users? I would not ask any of my developers to run on less than 1 G JUST
for their local machine. 512 is slow... I have 2G. And you are going to run 50 developers in 4 GB or
RAM?

RAID 5, not sure if budget allows to spend another $2K on the disks).
What do you think hardwarewise - will it support it?

Not in my opinion. I dont know the basic foot print of a terminal service session, but Im not sure
you'd get 50 normal users in that memory foot print. Thats 80 megabytes a piece, not including what
the system will use. Now Im sure TS will share some of that RAM and use it efficiently - but
have you ever un an XP box on 128? Its not very fast - and you want to run a developer environment
in this?

I'll be honest - I dont think it will even work. And if it does, I cannot imagine it will be anthing but
tragically slow. I could be wrong - but it just sounds very bad to me. I cant see any reason why
developers should not have their own machines, developers are not lightweight users.


--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

Make your ASP.NET applications run faster
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/

 

[Guest]

There is an article on msdn.microsoft.com where MS presents the following
configuration for the.NET development server (20 users) with VS and TS on the
same box: dual P4 Xeon processor, 1GB RAM, 2 IDE HD. In our scenarion this
config will be beefed up a little, so I was hoping it will work. But I see
your point too. We are going to have a conference call with MS this
afternoon, so we'll see what they have to say. I was looking for some real
world experience that is similar to our scenario.
Thanks.

 

[Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu]

There is an article on msdn.microsoft.com where MS presents the
following configuration for the.NET development server (20 users) with

20 concurrent users? Where is this article?



--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

Get your ASP.NET in gear with IntraWeb!
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/

 

[Guest]

http://msdn.microsoft.com/academic/techdown/techprod/netframework/devsys/devsysws03/default.aspx (Development System for .NET Build Cookbook2003).

 

[Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu]

http://msdn.microsoft.com/academic/techdown/techprod/netframework/devsy
s/devsysws03/default.aspx (Development System for .NET Build
Cookbook2003).

Its for academic use. If you are using it to teach students it will work yes. It will respond
reasonably well, but get all 50 on there and its not going to respond in a way that any professional
developer will want to work with.

Developers also will be connecting to local DB's, adding third party tools, etc. Even removing
admin rights from developers causes havoc. So if its for academic use then yes you should be ok,
if each developer is only loading VS. But professional developers dont just load VS, but many
other applications. I have about 15 applications running now not including database servers and other
processes I have running, and I easily push my memory usage above 1 G regularly. Much of mine is
code segments which can be shared in a TS environment, but a lot if it is not.


--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

Make your ASP.NET applications run faster
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/

 

[Guest]

Just got off the phone with MS. According to them this config should not have
any problems to run and is fully supported (they are aware of professional
developers accessing the .NET/TS box). I realize, that running .NET on a
local WS is a better solution, but it will bring other problems and
additional expense as well (licenses, HW upgrade, management of upgrades,
etc.). Tis is another reason we are trying to centralize this project. The DB
server could be located on another platform, this shouldn't be a problem.
I appreciate your opinion.