is it better to use full clones or linked clones with view?
I like to conserve space since my image will be 80GB+ per desktop. but I also need performance
To be honest, just like that, it's hard to say.
Every environment is different. You'd need to weigh out the pros and the cons of each deployment type and see what the business requirements are. Both solutions have their positives and negatives. You can argue that Linked-Clones take up a lot less space because of the nature of Linked-Clones. But then you could also reduce the foot print of your full clone desktops if your SAN has features like deduplication, etc.
I would recommend that you try linked clones first, if you can't make them work in your environment then you might consider a full clone.
can you explain how linked clone vs full clone saves space?
If I deployed 10 linked cloned vms from a template of 80GB
10 full clone vm from template of 80gb
10 full clone will be 800GB
what will linked clone be?
It's difficult to say exactly as it depends on the rate of change of data within the linked clone desktops as to how much each one 'grows'. You'll have a single 80GB replica image, which all desktops in the pool share, and 10 delta disks, one per desktop, for the changes.
From a management perspective I'd go linked clones all the way. Say you want to install an update to your template and roll out the change to the pool. With linked clones you're only looking at one clone operation (Template to Replica) and then a Recompose of the desktops. With full clones you need to perform a full clone operation per desktop, which will increase the length of that task massively!
I run 800+ linked clone desktops in our environment and I struggle to see how I'd manage it using full clones.
The way I see it, you always want to strive for a linked-clone, non-persistent model. This allows you to get the storage savings, centralized image, and simplified management. If you do full clones, you are managing desktops just the same; patching, troubleshooting, etc. As well, even if thin provisioned, they will expand and consume more storage over time.
If you can have a desktop that is deleted on log--off (on-demand), it offers you numerous advantages. You can apply image changes on demand. If a user has a issue, first they can try logging off and back on to a new desktop (resolves many problems). You also save a ridiculous amount of storage since disks do not have much time to expand. So, I would say, try to get there and compromise if there is no other option.
when you say non persistent model, you mean all changes are gone after logoff? I have a persistent user disk that they save files to for their my documents, profile etc...
what do i do with that?
Those have gotten much better, they used to be a royal pain. The big one is if you have a linked clone pool. Ensure you are refreshing/removing at some interval. I prefer refresh, most people do since it's faster.
what does refreshing a persistent linked clone pool do?
how are you preserving user data on a separate disk? you have to use persistent on that dont you?
Not is you use UEM, ProfileUnity, Persona Management. That is what I normally try to do.
dont have third part tools and I am on horizon view standard. does UEM only come with enterprise? what happens if I dont refresh? I have to have one disk as persistent for user docs, profiles etc....