Concurrent sessions in cost estimator

Hi,

At this moment you specify the number of users in the cost estimator.
Based on this number, vm type and user to cpu ratio all the costs are calculated.
This is fine if your named users are equal to the concurrent users because you need a number of VM's to carry the load of the concurrent users but you need the named users to calculate the FSLogix storage cost, Nerdio license, ... .

Is there any way to make a distinction of the concurrent and named users to create a more accurate cost estimation? If not, it would be nice if you're able to fill in a total number of users and fill in a different number (concurrent sessions) in the desktop sizing configurator.

You're able to workaround this pretty much by creating a second desktop pool with the number of the remaining users and change the parameters so only 1 additional session host is needed but I think this should be easier to accomplish.

1

Comments (5 comments)

Avatar
Dave Stephenson

Good point, Martijn. I know we haven't had the need for a difference between named and concurrent users, yet, but I can see the use case. Microsoft is starting to do this with their W365 Frontline SKU.

Before I go into my rambling 🤣, I'll ask my question.
Are you seeing a lot of need to quote concurrent users vs. named users?
If so, have you looked into the W365 Frontline product?

 

Rambling time 🙂. 

I'm guessing the Nerdio Cost Estimator was designed with named users in-mind because that's how Nerdio bills (per named user).
From a pricing perspective, the per-named user makes the most sense because it will give a best representation of the burden (i.e. Storage Cost(s), Nerdio License(s), etc) for each user (whether they logon at the same time or not).

The concurrent user thing comes in to play when you're calculating the number of resources you need to have available.
However, with Nerdio Autoscale, it's less of an issue. Nerdio will only scale-out hosts that are needed. If you can sell the AVDs on the idea that all 300 users CAN login at the same time, but realistically, they never will, you will be prepared for it, but be able to make that much more profit because you won't need the resources available/online.
Kind of like a "plan for the worst but hope for the best" scenario.

After a few months of running, you can schedule an Azure Business Review with one of the Nerdio Sales Engineers (Tony, Jordan, Marcos, etc) and see if you're getting the most bang for the customer's buck. Likely, you could even take advantage of additional savings because there will be a number of resources not being used.

Thoughts?

0
Avatar
Martijn Van Braeckel

Hi Dave,

Thank you for your response.
We don't see a difference between the concurrent and named licenses very often but there are some.
Haven't looked into W365 frontline as for this customer they have a number of 2680 named users and the highest concurrent number of users is 300.
Even with frontline a pooled AVD will be more costs efficiently.

I can follow you regarding the Autoscale as it will only scale-out the hosts needed but the cost estimator cannot take this into account even if you have this information at front. So the cost estimation will be much higher as the effective costs. Of course it's always better the costs are cheaper at the end ;-) but it doesn't sell easily if the customer asks to compare their on-prem Citrix setup which is designed for concurrent numbers towards to an AVD setup.

Kind regards

0
Avatar
Dave Stephenson

Great point!
I didn't even consider the Citrix vs AVD aspect.

Tony Cai/Jordan Wazwaz/Marcos Artiaga, do you have any recommendations on what we can do to be most competitive when going up against Citrix?

0
Avatar
Tony Cai

Hi Marijn,

The workaround for estimating for concurrent users is messing with the User to Core ratio. 

Tweak it to show you exactly the number of hosts needed.

For example: If you have 1000 users. and your normal User to Core ratio needed is 2. and only about 300 ppl concurrently logon. Then you can make your User to Core ratio like 6 to show the number of hosts needed for only 300 concurrent users.

0
Avatar
Martijn Van Braeckel

Hi Dave and Tony,

Thank you for the feedback and the workaround.

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.