CB on a Citrix Server - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

CB on a Citrix Server

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Quintera
Jan 03, 2011 22:14:02
I'll just throw this out there to start, I really don't care for the new CB. That said, I would like to offer a solution that I would think would work for both parties. I'm not sure of all the technical requirements to do this, but I think it would work.

Could the old character builder just be placed on a Citrix Server? This would allow all of the functionality enhancements that they mentioned originally, would allow them to control access to the data (which I thought was a major $ concern for them), and would give us the old CB back that I thought worked real well.

If there is anyone out there with knowledge of this type of system setup (and I am sure there is), I would like to hear any possible concerns.

For those unfamiliar with Citrix, basically put, a server is set up with a program that runs on it. Your computer then has a program (a client) installed on it to access this server and run that program.

Let me Know
#2
RedSiegfried
Jan 04, 2011 0:49:27 Oh, it could be done, but only by WoTC unless you want to violate their copyright.

I always describe Citrix as just Windows Terminal Services on steroids. It can be used to serve out almost any app to any number of users as long as you have a beefy enough server. They'd have to supply the server infrastructure to accomodate this, redundant and load balanced.

Yeah, a Citrix client would be needed on the user end, and that's free, but it's cross platform and supports Windows, Mac, Linux? and many mobile devices.

You'd also have to modify things slightly to allow for per-user saving of character files locally (and only locally), but that's doable.
#3
calant
Jan 04, 2011 3:17:25 We use Citrix where I work, and we're lucky to get 50 users running off a heavy-duty server without performance issues. Granted, users run a number of different apps, so if there was just CB running off the server, you'd probably get away with 150 users connected per server.

So, first, you'd need to consider multiple servers (including citrix and terminal services licences) based on the max number of expected concurrent users. Then you need to consider paying for support staff to maintain the Citrix servers, as I doubt they have this skill in-house already.

At the end of the day, it could be done. But I doubt it could be cost effective.

In any event, rather than trying to come up with a new setup, Wizards should just go back to the one that worked - they should support the old CB until the web one is FULLY equivalent in functionality. This includes allowing unlimited characters and off-line use, a completely customisable character sheet, etc.
#4
Quintera
Jan 05, 2011 19:30:11 The cost of setting up the server was the real unknown for me. I use a Citrix at work also and though we only top out at about 40 people at a time, the program we are running is huge by comparison to this. I can't imagine the CB taking that much to run.

You would probably have the users in the 500-1,000 range I am guessing. I did some poking and I think that the program barely uses 250K of memory during normal operations. Multiply that by a 1,000 and you still aren't looking that bad. I could be completely off base with this.
#5
calant
Jan 06, 2011 4:42:44
I did some poking and I think that the program barely uses 250K of memory during normal operations. Multiply that by a 1,000 and you still aren't looking that bad. I could be completely off base with this.

Hmm... I think you left off a few zeros? Running the functional character builder on Windows 7 without loading a character shows memory usage hovering around 190,000 KB (or about 185 MB).

If the server were spec'd with 32GB of RAM (our blades are spec'd at 20GB), that'd cover about 175 connections.

Of course, that doesn't provide for the system's memory requirements or any other processes that need to run for each user, or having an open character and making changes to it.
#6
Quintera
Jan 06, 2011 17:49:30 Oops. You know, I read that and it went straight through my brain and obviously not onto the post. Point taken. I'm trying though.....

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Quintera Jan 03, 2011 22:14:02	I'll just throw this out there to start, I really don't care for the new CB. That said, I would like to offer a solution that I would think would work for both parties. I'm not sure of all the technical requirements to do this, but I think it would work. Could the old character builder just be placed on a Citrix Server? This would allow all of the functionality enhancements that they mentioned originally, would allow them to control access to the data (which I thought was a major $ concern for them), and would give us the old CB back that I thought worked real well. If there is anyone out there with knowledge of this type of system setup (and I am sure there is), I would like to hear any possible concerns. For those unfamiliar with Citrix, basically put, a server is set up with a program that runs on it. Your computer then has a program (a client) installed on it to access this server and run that program. Let me Know
#2 RedSiegfried Jan 04, 2011 0:49:27	Oh, it could be done, but only by WoTC unless you want to violate their copyright. I always describe Citrix as just Windows Terminal Services on steroids. It can be used to serve out almost any app to any number of users as long as you have a beefy enough server. They'd have to supply the server infrastructure to accomodate this, redundant and load balanced. Yeah, a Citrix client would be needed on the user end, and that's free, but it's cross platform and supports Windows, Mac, Linux? and many mobile devices. You'd also have to modify things slightly to allow for per-user saving of character files locally (and only locally), but that's doable.
#3 calant Jan 04, 2011 3:17:25	We use Citrix where I work, and we're lucky to get 50 users running off a heavy-duty server without performance issues. Granted, users run a number of different apps, so if there was just CB running off the server, you'd probably get away with 150 users connected per server. So, first, you'd need to consider multiple servers (including citrix and terminal services licences) based on the max number of expected concurrent users. Then you need to consider paying for support staff to maintain the Citrix servers, as I doubt they have this skill in-house already. At the end of the day, it could be done. But I doubt it could be cost effective. In any event, rather than trying to come up with a new setup, Wizards should just go back to the one that worked - they should support the old CB until the web one is FULLY equivalent in functionality. This includes allowing unlimited characters and off-line use, a completely customisable character sheet, etc.
#4 Quintera Jan 05, 2011 19:30:11	The cost of setting up the server was the real unknown for me. I use a Citrix at work also and though we only top out at about 40 people at a time, the program we are running is huge by comparison to this. I can't imagine the CB taking that much to run. You would probably have the users in the 500-1,000 range I am guessing. I did some poking and I think that the program barely uses 250K of memory during normal operations. Multiply that by a 1,000 and you still aren't looking that bad. I could be completely off base with this.
#5 calant Jan 06, 2011 4:42:44	I did some poking and I think that the program barely uses 250K of memory during normal operations. Multiply that by a 1,000 and you still aren't looking that bad. I could be completely off base with this. Hmm... I think you left off a few zeros? Running the functional character builder on Windows 7 without loading a character shows memory usage hovering around 190,000 KB (or about 185 MB). If the server were spec'd with 32GB of RAM (our blades are spec'd at 20GB), that'd cover about 175 connections. Of course, that doesn't provide for the system's memory requirements or any other processes that need to run for each user, or having an open character and making changes to it.
#6 Quintera Jan 06, 2011 17:49:30	Oops. You know, I read that and it went straight through my brain and obviously not onto the post. Point taken. I'm trying though.....