VDI, RDS or individual desktops

[isqrd]

Hello,

I have a 7 user, 10 desktop Dental client that is due for a hardware refresh.

3 Desktops have a higher graphical requirement than the other 7.

I was looking at replacing all the computers and the server with modern components.

Is this a scenario where it would be good to use RDS or VDI to virtualize the hardware so the client does not need to purchase new desktop clients as well?

I can't figure it out

Thanks!
ISQRD

 

[trevm999]

No, the costs would be higher but real desktops would probably be providing more value to them. If there's no requirements in place that would make them need to look at RDS or VDI, don't try to over complicate things.

With modern tools, managing multiple systems is easy, no need to centralize. It is simpler and less costly to provide solid performance by distributing the workload.

 

[Markverhyden]

For graphics needs there is no substitute for local rendering. Meaning you need to have the graphics adapter on the client. So it depends on what the graphics are. Things like intra-oral imaging and digital radiography do not need a whole lot of horse power. But if they are using rendering for things like transformations such as orthodontics they may need more.

 

[oldtech]

You should let the hardware requirements of the Dental Practice software they are using drive the decision.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

You should let the hardware requirements of the Dental Practice software they are using drive the decision.

Exactly!
Over 20 years ago, one of my mentors told me "Design application driven networks meant to run the clients software optimally, not generic networks that you try to shoehorn the software into!"

 

[fencepost]

If the dental software doesn't care, also bear in mind that RDS means more expensive options for non-EMR software like Office. On a terminal server you're going to need either Pro/ProPlus or the Office365 Enterprise offerings I believe, where on local desktops (or VDI? Never done one) you can do either Home&Business or the Office365 Business offerings. There are also CALs, server licenses and your per-server charges to keep in mind - I've always figured that if you're doing terminal services you really ought to have at least two servers/instances - one DC that can also have file/print on it and a second for the TS. No data storage on the TS, no non-privileged users creating processes or logging in on the DC. If the software vendor requires their own additional server, you've just gone beyond 2 instances and it's time for another copy of Server 2016 Standard.

I'll also note that (at least for Bitdefender through N-Central), the AV-based content management for blocking facebook, etc. is not available on servers, only on desktops. If that's something you're using or considering using, it may be $3-5/month/user worth of something to keep in mind.

 

[karloz]

You do also have the option of colocating the servers. Currently had a number of enquiries about hosted desktops, so we’re chucking some hardware into our Colo and using SPLA licensing for this. This way everything becomes a monthly fee and we charge the customer a subscription fee per user/month.

We already have a Colo that we use for things like offsite backups though, you may not have this already which would make it expensive at first.

Also, having their data hosted offsite may be an issue in terms of the data protection requirements. You would have a lot hanging over your head making sure that this was secure given the nature of the data.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CLC]

Something this small keep it in house with good hardware and a good backup system. EZ PZ, don't over think it.

 

[marley1]

What are the imaging devices?
You will need to deal with that

 

[isqrd]

Cool. Thanks for all the feedback!