We use a VDI solution for remote workers and need to know if we can move to a solution using Microsoft RDS servers with remote desktops or remote apps.
Does anyone have experience running the SoftwareFactory Windows client on such a system?
According to the documentation this is supported and “Depending on the amount of data and the use of the application the Windows GUI requires between 30 and 100 megabytes (MB) RAM memory per user.”.
If you have experience in running the Windows GUI on RDS how many concurrent users can you run on each server and do you have any issues with memory, USER object or GUI object usage?
Best answer by Ricky
Thank you for your answer. Is there a reason your client only has 2 concurrent users per server? I would expect to be able to serve at least 10 users per server.
Our client only set up these RDS for demo's and external developers like myself, and together with the 6GB RAM I do think they limited the amount of concurrent users to 2 to prevent RAM issues. I do think if every user had 2-4GBs to work with it would be enough for them. If only the Software Factory and the end product would be run on it, then 2GB should be enough I think but don't pin me on this.
So I think in your situation, for 10 people I recommend a healthy amount of RAM and of course enough processing power to ensure the users have a smooth experience. But I do hope other Community users can add on this with their experiences.
The limit of 2 users is actually to bypass the maintenance of a RDS license server. (Windows 10 allow 2 RDS users by default)
Since all these machines are virtualized it's easier to manage multiple (client windows 10) VM's that you can throw away at any time. It also is easier to isolate stuff for debugging purposes etc.
If I remember correctly all those clients run on a small server with about 1TB of ram and lots of cores.
Depending on how much data you'd like to show in your screens/subjects at once - I've seen the memory usage of the tsf_dotnet client grow up to 4GB on my laptop. But to be honest I don't think that was ever really the intention of the developer.