Post by Rick Brandt
Just thought I would respond separately to this point. In my opinion
setting up and maintaining a Citrix server for more than a handful of users
is MORE trouble than switching to SQL Server would be.
That's different from my (totally unencumbered by any knowledge)
I was thinking it would be the best of both worlds: minimal
network traffic, usability with WiFi NICs, yet easy access (no
pun intended) to the database for ad-hoc development.
I figure the sky's the limit on how fast a box I could put it on
bc the groups I work for are in a situation where their costs are
a miniscule slice of a very, *very* large pie.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "money is no object".... but
they're willing to spend within reason to mitigate our
currently-heinous response times.
We've put some significant man hours into trying to improve them
by optimizing code - but they still run miserably over the LAN,
yet offer sub-second response times locally.
I've got to think that widespread use of streaming video and VOIP
phones in the client's environment has at least something to do
My combined user base for the half-dozen or so applications I'd
put on it is much smaller than 100... less than a dozen at the
moment. Long-run less than 30.
My understanding is that of all the wonders inherent in SQL
Server, significant response time improvements, although
possible, are not among the guaranteed.
OTOH, if I could get a box that offered response time for a
half-dozen concurrent users over a local LAN that equaled my
desktop PC running solo over VPN/Remote Desktop through my 5mb
Verizon fiber optic connection that would be like heaven for
Do you think Citrix or some other server is still a contender for
What're the administrative headaches with Citrix? Are they
something that would be transparent to me if the server were
administered by some sort of dedicated "Citrix Group"? Or would
that just be adding to the pain by interposing a middleman?