Citrix XenServer Reviews

Our main use case for Citrix XenServer is to monitor and ensure everything is functioning properly with Citrix and that all users can access the system. It is primarily used for monitoring since Citrix itself works effectively on its own.

The most helpful features of Citrix XenServer are that you can consolidate everything onto one web page. For our use case, this is probably the easiest solution because there are many different software applications running in our environment.

The benefits from using Citrix include increased productivity, as users don't have to search for what they need to open. They can see everything in one place instead of having numerous links in Chrome or on their home page. They simply go to our Citrix page and see everything they need. We can also specify access permissions per user, so they only get the software they require. If users have lists or reports they need to create, we can add the icons on Citrix, and they can open them directly. Everything is in the same place, so they don't have to search for anything anymore. This is the biggest productivity increase.

There could be improvements in Citrix XenServer, but I cannot think of any at the moment. Overall, we are very happy with it.

We have been working with Citrix XenServer for approximately 5 years.

Most of the downtimes do not originate from Citrix itself. It runs very stably.

Citrix XenServer is definitely scalable enough. If it experiences any issues, we can create new VMs and add extra worker servers. Additional licenses must be purchased for scaling.

We have contacted Citrix support frequently. We also have service contracts with other firms that assist with problem resolution.

The support for Citrix rates around an eight out of ten.

Positive

It depends on what we compare Citrix XenServer to, as we have different use cases for it. They likely used other solutions before implementing Citrix XenServer, but I wasn't present at the time.

There may be AI features in Citrix XenServer, but we don't currently use any of them. There is potential for AI implementation, but we are not that advanced yet. I would rate Citrix XenServer an eight out of ten.

Through users we are utilizing in the backend, we are attempting to maintain all services in good health. The server should be functioning properly through PVS streaming technology using Citrix XenServer. For example, with two servers, each server should connect 1,000 users. Sometimes when one server goes down, we rebalance the load balancing between servers. At that time, when the issue gets fixed, users are able to launch and login properly. We are implementing this approach in the backend and servers.

The most valuable feature is transferring and sharing applications that allow users to move files between devices, including smartphones, tablets, and computers without needing USB cables, internet connections, or data usage. It enables users to transfer various file types such as photos, videos, and documents. The direct device-to-device transfer can use phone WiFi to connect directly to devices, bypassing the need for network connectivity.

We can improve Citrix XenServer Performance Management in the server base by enabling CPU virtualization extensions such as Intel VT or AMD-V. We can use Paravirtualization (PV) drivers to enhance network performance. We can implement dedicated storage not shared with other applications and use thin provisioning for more efficient storage usage. Regular updates should be given to patches and hotfixes. XenCenter or web-based solutions provide better control and monitoring, which is useful for automatic tasks with PowerShell scripts. We can implement high availability and live migration with pools, along with security and backup to enable role-based access control for safer management. We can schedule VM snapshots and use VM export for backup and recovery.

While Citrix Hypervisor remains a reliable virtualization platform, several areas could be improved to better meet enterprise needs. The user interface, though functional, lacks a more modern web-based experience compared to tools such as Proxmox VE or VMware vSphere. A more responsive browser-accessible interface would simplify management, especially for remote administrators. Citrix Cloud needs improved support for containerization technologies such as Docker and Kubernetes, which are essential in today's hybrid cloud environments. Backup and disaster recovery features are somewhat limited, often requiring third-party tools. Better built-in snapshot management and cloud integration would enhance usability. Community support and documentation have fallen behind compared to open-source projects such as Proxmox. More transparent development and a stronger ecosystem would greatly benefit users. The streaming licensing and feature access make Citrix Hypervisor more competitive in a growing market of free and open-source hypervisors.

We have been using the solution for almost five years.

In deployment, we publish images through PVS streaming technology. We have 120,000 users, and we perform deployments every Friday night when we reboot all machines after assigning new images to particular virtual machines. Citrix deployment involves setting up and configuring Citrix knowledge to deliver virtual apps and desktops for secure user access. The most common deployment is for the Citrix Workspace platform desktops (CVAD), previously known as XenApp and XenDesktop. The deployment includes Delivery Controller and Studio Director, with the Delivery Controller serving as the central management server that handles user requests, broker connections, and manages resources.

We contact technical support daily and connect with end users regularly. We handle our infrastructure smoothly and receive numerous tickets. We have a large team with clear roles and responsibilities. We receive many appreciation emails from end users and customers. Our on-premises setup has all Citrix components hosted in our data center with full control. Citrix Cloud hosts the control plan, and we manage only VDI resources ideal for fast and scalable deployment.

Technical support in Citrix has multiple layers depending on subscription level and product usage. Standard support provides business hours coverage and basic troubleshooting. Premium support offers 24/7 critical issue support, faster SLAs, and expert assistance. We remain available 24/7 for priority-based tickets and critical incidents. For large enterprises needing immediate response, dedicated technical account managers provide account-level management. With valid licenses, we can access hotfixes, service packs, knowledge base, self-help tools, diagnostics, downloads, live chat, and phone support.

Positive

Software can provide insights based on extensive data, user feedback, and real-world usage patterns. IT professionals who have looked for alternatives to Citrix XenServer commonly prefer Proxmox VE, especially among open-source users. It is built on KVM interfaces with built-in backup tools, supporting both VMs containers and LXCs, and ZFS file system support with snapshot and duplication capabilities. Many system administrators find Proxmox VE easier to manage than Citrix XenServer, especially for similar environments.

The core components of Citrix XenServer include the Hypervisor, which directly interfaces with hardware to run virtual machines. The Control Domain is a privileged Linux-based domain managing access to hardware, networking, and storage. VM Tools provide virtualization drivers installed inside VMs to improve performance for disk, network, and memory. The solution also includes storage abstractions for physical or network storage where virtual disks are stored, and a networking stack with virtual switches and bridges.

Most IT service companies offer cloud, DevOps, Cyber Security, and enterprise solutions. For Enterprise Virtualization Citrix and enterprise use cases, the pricing seems appropriate for relatively smaller IT services providers offering managed services, DevOps, cloud migrations, and enterprise IT consulting. Their focus appears to be on custom solutions for businesses moving to cloud-based hybrid infrastructure, with stacks including AWS or Azure, containerization, and automation pipelines. They emphasize agility while maintaining security and compliance. When considering using the service provider, the decision would depend on specific project scope and client references. For small to medium enterprises looking for a hands-on partner in DevOps or cloud adoption, they might be a solid, flexible option. For large enterprise-grade deployments, comparison with larger consulting firms may be necessary, depending on budget and complexity.

The reviewer rated this solution 9 out of 10.

The product I'm working with most at the moment is Citrix and the NetScaler, especially NetScaler. I'm constantly working with NetScaler and Citrix XenServer environments for virtualization.

We use Citrix XenServer for virtualization when we implement Citrix desktop installations on-premises. One of the main reasons we use it is that it comes free of charge when you have Citrix licenses. Previously, we had VMware installations, but paying twice for licenses does not make sense. In our installations, it does not make a big difference whether we're using VMware or Citrix XenServer.

I am a consultant and integrator, managing some Citrix XenServer installations and consulting larger companies in using Citrix XenServer and other Citrix products.

For Citrix XenServer, it depends on what you need. If you're a small company, I would suggest using it on-premises. The advantage is that if you use a VDI solution, because that's what you're using Citrix XenServer for at the end, it is cheap compared to others. Because Citrix licenses are needed anyway, it makes sense to look into the Citrix XenServer XenVDI solution.

The product is fairly easy to work with. You don't have that much overhead compared to VMware. It is quite robust and runs without requiring much worry. These are the main advantages. Of course, there are also disadvantages, and one of them is that disk management is not as sophisticated compared to VMware.

Live migration is certainly one of the features needed most of the time when implementing new hardware. It helps significantly with live migration. The migration from other VDI solutions to Citrix XenServer was straightforward without major problems.

The deployment of Citrix XenServer is very easy. Almost everyone can set up a Citrix XenServer cluster as it's not complicated.

When it comes to optimization, that's one of the weaker points of Citrix XenServer, especially regarding disk management, which is somewhat clumsy.

Backup-related issues and disk management should be improved. Especially concerning backup, as discussions with Veeam engineers about Citrix XenServer backup strategy indicate there might not be a solution from Veeam soon.

License optimization is not such a significant problem, but licenses are quite complicated. Vendors constantly invent new license models, making it difficult to order the correct licenses needed.

There is not a big difference between Citrix and VMware products because Citrix can implement Windows and Linux anyway.

I have been working with Citrix XenServer for 10 years.

I am constantly working with NetScaler and Citrix XenServer environments.

VMware is also very stable, but Citrix XenServer is quite robust. I haven't had any significant issues with Citrix XenServer installations over the last 10-15 years. You install it and then it runs. You might forget to update it, but it's really very stable.

With Citrix XenServer itself, the scaling limits are related to disk management. There may be some issues, so full scaling is probably not what I would do with Citrix XenServer. In large environments, VMware still has an advantage over Citrix XenServer.

Recently, we had some support cases with other Citrix products, and I have to say that the Citrix support was quite helpful. I could compare it to Microsoft because we had an issue where we had Microsoft and Citrix support on the same issue. The Citrix support was significantly better than the Microsoft support.

Previously, we had VMware installations, but paying twice for licenses does not make sense. In our installations, it does not make a big difference whether we're using VMware or Citrix XenServer.

The deployment of Citrix XenServer is very easy. This is really something that almost everyone can accomplish. Setting up a Citrix XenServer cluster is not complicated.

The Citrix XenServer has some limitations with disk management where we will have some issues. Full scaling is not necessarily recommended with Citrix XenServer. In large environments, VMware has an advantage. It depends on what you need. For small companies, you can still use it on-premises.

On smaller deployments, Citrix XenServer is good if you understand it, especially if you want to have Citrix as a VDI solution.

License optimization is not necessarily a significant problem. However, every vendor is currently changing their license models frequently, whether VMware, Microsoft, or Citrix. This makes it difficult to order the correct licenses needed.

I believe Citrix XenServer is worth the cost in the long term compared to other vendors. The big vendors want customers to move to the cloud, though companies are starting to understand that the cloud is not necessarily cheaper or more helpful in every case.

Deployment is very easy; anyone can set up a Citrix XenServer cluster. The scaling limitations are primarily related to disk management. Full scaling is probably not something recommended with Citrix XenServer.

I rate this solution a 7 out of 10.

I work with some tools for exploration purposes.

The name of the tool I use is Citrix XenServer.

I have been working with Citrix XenServer for just three months because I'm doing research for some of my colleagues. It's for VMware take out, seeking the alternative.

Citrix XenServer supports both Windows and Linux operating systems.

I utilize both Windows and Linux, and also Kubernetes.

The most helpful features of Citrix XenServer that I found so far include its migration capability and the UI for centralized management because we deploy a multi-node server. We need something similar to vCenter for the replacement.

The centralized management console UI helps me save time and provides benefits in terms of performance, making me more efficient to manage the server. We can monitor and ensure observability through these features.

Something that could be improved in Citrix XenServer is its centralized management since the Citrix XenServer Center should be deployed in Windows. It should become a virtual appliance, so we can easily deploy it by simply deploying the virtual appliance and then using it.

I have been working with Citrix XenServer for just three months because I'm doing research for some of my colleagues.

The deployment of Citrix XenServer is easy on many servers, though we face challenges with the console center. We need to deploy Windows and then deploy the packaging from Citrix XenServer.

It took me a few hours to deploy Citrix XenServer, but we have to prepare the Windows server and then deploy the package. Additionally, we need some licensing from Microsoft before we can use the center.

For now, I have not had any sort of stability issues, downtimes, or technical errors that I couldn't handle myself. Everything runs smoothly, but we still have areas that we need to explore.

I am satisfied with the Citrix technical support team, as we can deploy it ourselves without needing their help.

Positive

I considered other tools for the same reason but decided to go with Citrix XenServer because Citrix still has the independent organization company, rather than with Broadcom. We want to exit from technology and commercial dependencies to have a simple, easy, and trusted platform.

There have been improvements in performance optimization with Citrix XenServer regarding resource utilization rates. It helps optimize by making the system simpler and easier to use, and there is no degradation in the servers. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Citrix XenServer a seven.

Citrix XenServer is used for server virtualization and serves as a competitor to VMware ESXi. This is a server virtualization product.

The major operating systems, Windows and Linux, are supported by Citrix XenServer. There are no major challenges with supportability. We never faced any significant problems where supportability was an issue. There will be some challenges during deployment, which is why our expertise is required. If customers could simply click through options, they wouldn't choose us or pay for our services. This expertise is definitely required. I never see major problems where compatibility is an issue. If you follow Citrix documentation, then you are done. If you do something out of the box or use unsupported versions for deployment, then you may face challenges. However, if you follow the documentation, there shouldn't be any challenges.

In the past, we utilized the live migration feature in Citrix XenServer, but not in this project. This is a new, fresh deployment, so there is no live migration.

The support of heterogeneous resource pool in Citrix XenServer depends on the deployment and customer requirements. If a customer requires heterogeneous deployment, we accommodate that. Generally, Citrix XenServer goes in straightforward vanilla deployment because it is majorly used for Citrix farms. Very few customers use it for other products or applications.

Intelligent performance optimization is available in this product, but very few customers use it, and those who do aren't using it extensively. I cannot comment extensively on this feature at present.

In a DC, DR situation, if applications are self-dependent and self-DR replicated, then it works fine. However, if hypervisor-level backup or replication is required, very few backup software options in the market can perform backup from Citrix XenServer. One of these is a Chinese product called Vinchin.

Citrix XenServer should support some major backup software. This is the primary requirement. Additionally, it should have fast storage space recovery. These are the two main areas that need improvement.

We have been working with Citrix XenServer for more than 20 years.

The recent deployment we completed with Citrix XenServer was complex. We performed the deployment for one of the biggest companies in Bangladesh, implementing a multi-tenant architecture with multiple hubs for DC and DR locations. Multiple zones, hubs, and locations were involved. This is one of the biggest deployments we have completed, and we are now proceeding with XenApp deployment.

These product deployments typically take two to three days, or maximum five days. However, the architecture finalization, documentation, and obtaining approval from different customer departments took considerable time. Network requirements, storage requirements, hardware mounting, and storage mounting all needed to be completed before beginning the Citrix XenServer deployment. Overall, it took one and a half months, though the Citrix XenServer deployment itself only requires three to five days.

I observe significant limitations in the support for Citrix XenServer. There appear to be very few engineers at Citrix who understand the problems, and we experience considerable delays in support.

Neutral

We worked with Citrix Secure Private Access in the past, but we are not currently working with it.

Three to four engineers are generally involved in the deployment process. It depends on the location. In cases with three locations, we work in parallel and need to deploy six engineers.

As a core technical person handling business operations, my expertise is required for enterprise and super enterprise customers, particularly when dealing with CIOs and CEOs. While I don't perform the deployment or configuration, I must be present for architectural decisions and other major decisions.

Licensing with Citrix XenServer is very cost-effective. Organizations save substantial money because competing solutions, such as VMware, cost double or triple. If you are using Citrix load only, then it's free, resulting in significant cost savings for organizations.

Cost-wise, I would rate Citrix XenServer a nine, but feature-wise, I would rate it six or seven.

For disaster recovery, organizations need to implement backup solutions or storage replication. Citrix XenServer has some limitations in this area because many backup servers are not compatible with it, causing numerous problems.

Typically, hypervisors provide APIs or methods for backup software to communicate directly with the hypervisor. With Citrix XenServer, major backup products cannot directly communicate with the hypervisor to perform VM backups or DR. This is the biggest challenge, which is why Citrix XenServer generally struggles with DR and DC requirements.

We are currently working with Citrix XenServer. Three to four engineers are typically involved in the deployment process. For deployments across multiple locations, such as three locations working in parallel, we need to deploy six engineers. On a scale of 1-10, this solution rates a 7.

In my experience, I primarily use Citrix XenServer for offering virtualization solutions. My experience is mainly with deploying virtualization using Citrix products, such as Citrix XenApp and Citrix XenDesktop.

I find Citrix XenServer valuable for small to medium-sized businesses. It is user-friendly and easy to deploy, making it an attractive option. When included with Citrix virtualization solutions, it provides a comprehensive package with existing licenses. Despite being effective for small to medium infrastructures, it may not be the best hypervisor for larger deployments.

Citrix needs to improve the hypervisor, specifically in security and performance. Additionally, the response time from customer support has room for improvement, which could enhance the overall user experience.

I have had experience with Citrix for around 12 years.

In my experience, Citrix XenServer is stable for small to medium customers, requiring minimal attention to virtual machines and hypervisors.

Citrix XenServer provides technical scalability but feels somewhat flat since there isn't much to learn after initial use. Familiarity with Linux can enhance its performance and usability.

Since being acquired, Citrix's customer service has experienced delays in response time. The time to engage in actual troubleshooting or detailed support starts typically on the second or third day of contact.

Neutral

I have clients with VMware infrastructure as it offers many features and is reputed as the best hypervisor, backed by significant investments in enhancement. However, its high cost can drive users away.

The initial setup of Citrix XenServer is straightforward and user-friendly.

I typically find that deploying Citrix XenServer requires about two engineers.

My clients generally maintain their Citrix infrastructure without shifting, suggesting stability and reliable operation as Citrix XenServer is fully established. Still, some have comprehensive infrastructures with VMware.

XenServer is considered cost-effective, as its licensing allows users to utilize the hypervisor as part of Citrix virtual app or desktop licenses. It is cheaper compared to its competitors.

I have experience with VMware, known for its feature-rich and reliable hypervisor, which many users consider the best despite its higher cost.

I recommend Citrix XenServer for small to medium environments as it provides a robust solution without heavy charge handling. 

On a scale of one to ten, I rate it as eight.

I am dealing with Citrix XenServer. All our virtualization platform is running on Citrix XenServer.

It's a very good solution for fast and comfortable work with the host servers and virtualization machines, and it includes a bundle of licenses that are very comfortable to use.

I use its Live Migration feature.

I use the Disaster Recovery features.

They have helped me to ensure high availability.

I would say I would need a self-service portal as an additional feature to see in the future to make it even better.

I have been working with this tool for around 10 years.

I do not recall facing any issues with Citrix XenServer.

I have been satisfied with their technical support.

Positive

I already have a virtualization solution by Citrix.

I am a user of the product, not a partner of Citrix. I am working as a Citrix and Desktop System Manager. On a scale of 1-10, I rate Citrix XenServer an 8.

The typical use case for Citrix XenServer in my organization is to provide secure access to applications and resources. We use it primarily for offering affordable server virtualization.

I find Citrix XenServer valuable for its affordable server virtualization capabilities. It provides secure access to applications and resources, which is crucial for us and our clients.

The marketing of Citrix lacks effectiveness. Although the product is technically competitive, it is not widely known or used due to poor marketing. 

Additionally, the technical support for midsize businesses needs improvement.

I have used the solution for 15 years.

I would rate the stability as nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

I rate the customer service and technical support poorly. They do not provide adequate support for midsize businesses.

Negative

The initial setup was very straightforward.

The pricing and licensing policy of Citrix XenServer is not transparent and quite confusing. The sales channel has deteriorated over the years and sales margins have dropped significantly, making it less attractive.

Overall, as a technical person, I find the product itself to be good, but the issues with licensing, support, and marketing are significant problems. 

I rate Citrix XenServer seven out of ten.

Negative

Primarily, we use it for VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure).

Here's where it excels:

• Virtualization: The core function enables multiple virtual machines to run on a single physical server. This maximizes hardware utilization and efficiency.
• Resource Management: Citrix Hypervisor allows us to allocate CPU, memory, storage, and network resources across VMs. This ensures optimal performance and helps prevent resource conflicts.
• High Availability: VDI environments often require high availability. Hypervisor often includes features for automatic failover and live migration of VMs to other physical servers. This minimizes downtime in case of hardware failure or maintenance.
• Scalability: It supports dynamic addition and removal of virtual machines, allowing the infrastructure to scale up or down quickly based on demand.

It is a scalable product and provides great benefits for virtualization needs. However, there are a few considerations:

• Cost: Citrix Hypervisor can be fairly expensive.
• Complexity: There's a learning curve, especially for those coming from a Microsoft background. Setting it up and managing it can introduce some complexity.
• Hardware Support: Not all major hardware vendors fully support Citrix Hypervisor.
• Third-party Integration: Integrating Hypervisor with other technologies within a large ecosystem can sometimes be challenging.
• Community Support: Compared to solutions like Microsoft Hyper-V, the community support for Citrix Hypervisor is somewhat less extensive. It is not vast. If there are any issues or errors, the community support is not that good. 

Those are definitely important disadvantages.

I have been working with it for over 15 years. 

Overall, I'd consider it a mature and stable product. Here's why:

• Updates: We receive regular updates, patches, and new releases. High redundancies and availability are stable. 
• Support: Citrix support is responsive when needed.
• Documentation: They provide best practices and guidance on optimization, performance, and maximizing the stability of Citrix Hypervisor deployments.

Compared to earlier versions, it's definitely a stable and mature product now.

It's generally good support.

Positive

We've used VMware's hypervisor and Microsoft Hyper-V. 

Here are some key differences, starting with licensing:

• VMware: Licensed per CPU socket on the physical server. For three sockets, you can get two licenses. 
• Microsoft Hyper-V: Often included with data center editions of their server operating system. Customers with data center licenses can use Microsoft Hyper-V for free. 
• Citrix Hypervisor: Can be included with Citrix Platinum licenses. 

Additionally, for supported memory:

• VMware: Supports the largest VMs, up to 24TB per VM.
• Citrix Hypervisor: Up to 12TB per VM.
• Microsoft Hyper-V: Supports up to 5TB per VM, though realistically, VMs are rarely this large.

Finally, a significant difference lies in disaster recovery:

• VMware: Requires an additional license purchase for their Site Recovery Manager (SRM) solution.
• Citrix Hypervisor: Built-in disaster recovery features.
• Microsoft Hyper-V: Requires the separate System Center Virtual Machine Manager (SCVMM) for disaster recovery features.

The deployment itself is relatively easy, but there are particular prerequisites:

• Hardware Assessment: You need to ensure your hardware meets Citrix Hypervisor's specific requirements.
• Installation Media: Download Citrix Hypervisor from their website and prepare the installation media.
• Booting and Configuration: Boot from the installation media and configure network settings (IP address, subnet mask, gateway, DNS servers, etc.).
• Further Steps: This is followed by license activation, storage configuration, virtual machine creation, high availability and disaster recovery setup, security hardening, and adding the system to your monitoring solution.

The deployment time varies depending on the deployment complexity – basic, medium, or large. Customizations (custom deployment) can also factor in. Here's a general breakdown:

• Basic Deployment: Around a quarter to half a day.
• Medium Deployment: Potentially a couple of days.
• Large Deployment: A couple of weeks.

For under 2000 users, setup generally takes two months. This includes:

• Hardware Setup: Setting up the 'jump server.'
• Deployment: The core Citrix Hypervisor deployment.
• Testing: Comprehensive testing across all aspects.

To calculate ROI, we need to consider several factors:

• Licensing Costs: These can be significant.
• Hardware Costs: Hardware requirements for Citrix Hypervisor.
• Deployment Costs: The cost of installation and configuration.
• Training Costs: Any training or certifications for your team.
• Ongoing Costs: Support and management expenses.

We compare those against the cost of a traditional physical desktop environment. 

While Citrix Hypervisor might not be the cheapest solution, the virtualization benefits are substantial and tangible:

• Server Consolidation: Reduces hardware needs.
• Power and Cooling Savings: Centralization leads to lower energy costs.
• Improved Resource Utilization: Maximizes the use of your hardware.
• Simplified Management: Centralized management streamlines IT tasks.
• High Availability and Disaster Recovery: These features are often built-in.

So, while the direct cost comparison might not be favorable, the overall benefits often convince customers of the value.

I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, with one being very inexpensive and ten being very expensive.  

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

My advice would be to definitely consider Citrix Hypervisor. You can also consider:

• 
  Nutanix Hypervisor: We've recently started exploring Nutanix as well.  


• 
  Microsoft Hyper-V: A solid choice, particularly if you're already in a Microsoft environment. 


• 
  VMware vSphere: While very capable, it's among the more expensive options.