Slim Clients

[AbbieRose]

I realise that this applies to local area networks rather than wide area, but has anyone ever worked with slim clients? Are the cost savings both in the hardware and the running costs worth it? Is the administration really that much easier?

 

[handsonhosting]

Can you define what you mean by "slim client" ? I actaully did a google on it, and was coming up with references to some online games, and then of course the thread here from hostingdiscussion

Are you referring to modules within a server, or are you talking about server hardware?

 

[The-Pixel]

Hello,

Interesting... I have never heard of the term 'slim clients' when dealing with web hosting. I was about to do a Google search but handsonhosting already beat me to it, haha.

 

[romes]

Same, i have never heard of this term either. I would like to know.

 

[cyberworldhost]

Did you mean thin client? I found this at http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com

A thin client, sometimes called a lean client, is a low-cost, centrally-managed computer devoid of CD-ROM players, diskette drives, and expansion slots. The term derives from the fact that small computers in networks tend to be clients and not servers. Since the idea is to limit the capabilities of these computers to only essential applications, they tend to be purchased and remain "thin" in terms of the client applications they include. As software as a service (SaaS) gains popularity, it is expected that thin clients and blade PCs will replace desktop PCs in many work and educational environments. In general, they are not as vulnerable to malware attacks, have a longer life cycle, use less power and are less expensive to purchase.

if you did mean thin clinets then yes it would more cost efficient. As for administration I think it would depend of the operating system.

 

[handsonhosting]

AH - blades.. We invested in them a few years ago and they are such are great system. The downside was the price of the chassis (about $9k) and then each blade we put into the system was about $2k. It was still cheaper to go with 1U servers than with Blades, but it did allow multiple CPUs that were not busy to assist with CPUs that were busy. Worked pretty well, and it was easier to manage.

 

[PVT-Jordan]

Thin clients are really incredible. But just like anything, there is a point at which it becomes beneficial. Thin clients require a fairly huge investment in infrastructure. You are essentially streaming a desktop environment over a network - so you need to ensure a level of network quality (QoS) to make sure that the system is stable - specifically video and audio.

I've worked a bit with Citrix and have seen how well developed this technology is. For a corporate environment, it makes a lot of sense - especially in terms of data security and retention policies. Everything is controlled on the back-end and no data is stored on the client. So laptop theft becomes an issue of the past.

If you have the right number of clients, it certainly is cost effective. Microsoft offers a different license for thin clients (less expensive... but if you're large enough to use thin clients you probably have a site license anyway). One of the biggest benefits is cutting down on helpdesk resources (specifically people). You'll cut down on the number of times you'll need to send a tech to a workstation to install software, upgrade hardware, etc. All of that is done on the server side.

I could go on and and on - but I think you get the idea that I really support thin clients. You just have to understand the point at which it pays to invest in the infrastructure. It's costly to set up and maintain, so it would be silly to implement for 10 users.

 

[The Hosting Team]

...and I was thinking that, this time of year, lots of clients would like to be slimmer.

Thin-client architecture has been part of networks for some years now.