Power Church Plus and Windows Terminal Server

[fpruss]

We have installed PCPLUS9 on a Windows 2003 server.

We are letting a couple users access it by using Windows XP Remote Desktop Connection aka RDP aka Terminal Server Client.

We are considering getting Terminal Server CALS, and making this the "normal" way for all our PC+9 users access PCPLUS.

Do the PCPLUS developers have any known concerns with this type of arrangement.

This gets away from the complexities of upgrading clients when PCPLUS is upgraded on the server, and frankly gives much better performance that the standard network client.

[Zaphod]

We did very (VERY) limited testing of PowerChurch with Terminal Services. Basically, we set it up, saw that it did indeed run, and said, "hey, all right!"

It's not something we support, but if you're able to get it going, that's great. There aren't any issues we're aware of.

[jeffkoke]

We have installed PCPLUS9 on a Windows 2003 server.

We are letting a couple users access it by using Windows XP Remote Desktop Connection aka RDP aka Terminal Server Client.

We are considering getting Terminal Server CALS, and making this the "normal" way for all our PC+9 users access PCPLUS.

Do the PCPLUS developers have any known concerns with this type of arrangement.

This gets away from the complexities of upgrading clients when PCPLUS is upgraded on the server, and frankly gives much better performance that the standard network client.

I'm not a developer, but I play one at home!

You want to ensure that your terminal server will handle the total number of expected users at one time. I say that because I use it at work and for some reason there is a restriction (I don't know why) to two users. It may be that we don't have the full-up software on the server side.

Regardless, you'll want to check or your roll-out may be short lived.

I can't help but wonder why you're going to the extent of adding another layer (of complexity and administration) here. If you would care to share?

Jeff

[fpruss]

Yes, the "base" Windows 2003 allows two remote desktop connections for "system management purposes" out of the box.

There is also a "third connection" available but you need to use the command line mstsc /console to access it.

To go full up, you need to install a Windows Component called Terminal Server Licensing. Then you purchase and install a TS Client Access Licence (TSCAL) for each desktop client that you want to permit to access the server. (The TSCAL issued to a clent is valid for TS connection to any TS in the domain, not just the one running the license server).

TSCALs are not very expensive, particularly for charities under Microsoft's eOpen licensing program for charities.

On the original question, some types of applications need to have a special design to work correctly in a TS environment. These need to be installed (or reinstalled) after full TS is "turned on".

I'm just wondering if the PowerChurch developers have heard of this type of deployment before, it seems a natural way to go for a Church with a lot of staff. We have a fairly powerful server, much faster than the hand me down clients in use by most of the staff.

At the moment, this arrangement is only used to allow two users to access PCPLUS _from home_, via a Virtual Private Network, and we probably will only get one user in PCPLUS at a time by this method. But it would be interesting to look at making this the normal way for all users to access PC+.

[Ronz]

We have been uisng Terminal Services on our Windows 2000 Server for over a year now it works just great. It's a big help for the secretary to remote in from home to finish her work. Our Treasurer uses it to access PowerChurch's accounting from home. I use it a lot for general all around maintenance from home. It is the only way into our LAN from the outside via DSL connection. Not using VPN.

We did purchase a number of TCAL's so we can have more than two sessions.

There is no need to use Terminal Service for access to PowerChurch from in-house computers on the church's LAN. Power Church is designed to work over a LAN with minimal files on the local computer. The database remains central to one computer (our server in our case). And it runs fine on slower computers. (our slowest is a Pentium Pro 200MHz computer.)

An advantage of using Termial Servers for in house access is to allow older, less powerful computers to access software on the server. (You still have to have purchased the correct number of copies of some software, like Microsof Office). With the low price of computers now days, that is not as important.

Another advantage is that users get the same desktop from what ever comptuer they use.

I don't see any special design considerations that PowerChurch needs to do to tune the software for Terminal Server. Just keep their current licensing structure.

-Ron Zastovnik
IT Support
Memorial United Methodist Church, Clovis, CA

Yes, the "base" Windows 2003 allows two remote desktop connections for "system management purposes" out of the box.

There is also a "third connection" available but you need to use the command line mstsc /console to access it.

To go full up, you need to install a Windows Component called Terminal Server Licensing. Then you purchase and install a TS Client Access Licence (TSCAL) for each desktop client that you want to permit to access the server. (The TSCAL issued to a clent is valid for TS connection to any TS in the domain, not just the one running the license server).

TSCALs are not very expensive, particularly for charities under Microsoft's eOpen licensing program for charities.

On the original question, some types of applications need to have a special design to work correctly in a TS environment. These need to be installed (or reinstalled) after full TS is "turned on".

I'm just wondering if the PowerChurch developers have heard of this type of deployment before, it seems a natural way to go for a Church with a lot of staff. We have a fairly powerful server, much faster than the hand me down clients in use by most of the staff.

At the moment, this arrangement is only used to allow two users to access PCPLUS _from home_, via a Virtual Private Network, and we probably will only get one user in PCPLUS at a time by this method. But it would be interesting to look at making this the normal way for all users to access PC+.