Sage full client or workstation install in terminal server environment?

Hi there,

Just looking for some general advice on the following:

We are a managed service provider and one of our clients is currently in the process of upgrading from Sage ERP 300 6.0A to Sage ERP 300 6.2 operating in a windows terminal server environment. They have engaged a 3rd party Sage partner to perform this upgrade but we're starting to have serious concerns about their competency as they have decided against installing the full sage client on the terminal server and instead installed the workstation version which the customer is now having major performance and usability issues with that they did not have previously.

We were asked to build a new application server and a new SQL server to facilitate this upgrade so we were working under the assumption that Sage databases would be moved to the new SQL server, any sage "server" components would be installed on the application server with the client side application being installed on the existing terminal server. However it has transpired that they have only installed the workstation install and it's being accessed via UNC path which they are adamant is "best practice" for terminal server environments.

The following is the customers infrastructure prior to the upgrade, in this model they had no performance or usability issues:

Terminal Server (Windows Server 2008 R2) with Sage ERP 300 6.0A full install.
SQL Server (SQL 2008 on Server 2008 R2) with multiple Sage databases.

The upgraded infrastructure, as recommended by the 3rd party company, is as follows:

Terminal Server (Windows Server 2012 R2) with Sage ERP 300 6.2 Workstation install that accesses accpac.exe file via UNC path.
Application Server (Windows Server 2012 R2) with Sage ERP 300 6.2 full install.
SQL Server (SQL 2014 on Server 2012 R2) with single consolidated Sage database.

Initially the existing terminal server (2008 R2) was to be used but during a clean up of the ERP 300 6.0A installation by the 3rd party .NET was broken which lead to the deployment of a brand new 2012 R2 terminal server.

Since going live and Sage workstation being installed again users have consistently had performance issues. They receive continual installation prompts when trying to run components within Sage (we were advised to disable the windows installer service by the Sage partner to "resolve" this), the application randomly closes without warning when attempting to load specific components and various other issues.

However, when users connect directly to the application server and run Sage as a local application all runs as expected and performs to the level they had expected. This to me indicates that the full sage client application should be installed on the terminal server but the 3rd party engaged by our client disagrees.

Is there a best practice for installing on a terminal server? Is anyone able to give any advice so we can attempt to resolve this issue for our customer?

Cheers,
Darren

  • Short answer: on terminal servers I always do a full install. This does not impact performance though - it is more a matter of preference and redundancy.

    If you are having performance issues then how/where the software is installed is not the issue.

    I suspect you do not have the SQL 2014 client installed on the TS - start by installing the SQL 2014 client on the TS and kill the ODBC DSN and see if that resolves the speed issue.

    Also check Customization Directories for invalid paths, this is a big performance killer.

    UNC paths are perfectly fine, we're in the 21st century and mapped drives are like so 20th century.

  • in reply to Ettienne Schwagele

    Except in Server 2102 , where Windows is forcing us back to the 90's.

    I am told that there is an inherent bug within Microsoft’s SMB protocol in  Server 2012 and Server 2012 R2 around the handling of network based UNC traffic, so Sage ERP is not stable with UNC.

    So I understand that a local install with a local path is the answer on 20123 Remote Desktop servers.

    We are reaching out to Sage for clarification, but any Sage comments welcomed on this thread.

  • in reply to WWOOLMER

    Are you referring to using a UNC to a local shared folder on a 2012 server?

    In other words, not a UNC to a shared folder on another server.

  • in reply to WWOOLMER

    hi all

    what is the latest info on this thread on installing full client/ws/ts? what are the recommendations to avoid performance issues/latency?

    Thanks

  • in reply to beemalb

    It depends on your environment.  If you have 2 GB ethernet and SSDs with physical servers, then client installs are fine.  If your tech is old, or you have slow virtual servers, then full installs are better.