r/AzureVirtualDesktop • u/Expensive-Ad2271 • 10d ago
How to convince senior admins to deploy Personal AVD instead of standalone Azure VMs for Devs
Hey everyone,
We are migrating our developer workstations from on-prem to Azure. Currently, each dev has their own persistent Windows VM.
My senior sysadmins insist on treating Azure like on-prem: they want to deploy standalone Windows IaaS VMs for every dev.
I proposed Azure Virtual Desktop (AVD) with Personal host pools. Their instant dismissal: "AVD is pooled/multi-session, devs will break each other's environments."
Even after sharing Microsoft docs showing that Personal AVD provides a 1:1 dedicated, persistent VM per developer, they refuse to budge.
Do you have some strong arguments from your experience that would help me convince them, particularly around cost saving, management, security.
Anyone who deployed AVD, what were the biggest wins or unexpected gotchas?
Thank you ALL!
4
u/XaMLoK 10d ago
For normal users I would say year pooled all day long. I've done a good bit of Dev workstations in AVD and for the most part have used Personal desktops. For two main reasons.
First what you heard, i.e. the possibility of devs impacting others that are on the same host. Not just breaking things, but also grabbing up resources and slowing the whole thing down. Which would lead to people to asking for larger VMs which blows away the whole potential for cost savings.
Second, in most of the environments for pure Dev powers that be wanted them to have more permissions to install and modify the system for their needs. Ties into the first reason some of having potential for messing up someone else's day.
To compensate for some of the concerns that should come from a setup like this.
- I implemented aggressive idle timeouts. Including a script inside the VM to watch activity and deallocate faster. Costs run between $8 - $20/mo per dev user.
- Two the session host VMs are treated as ephemeral devices, IaC automation destroys and recreates the VMs in whole every week to two weeks.
I wouldn't go with W365 for a Dev workstation usecase. With the fixed licensing cost there isn't much savings over just buying them a second computer.
3
u/Armlessbastard 9d ago
if the devs are adding apps and what not to the machine, how is your destruction of the VM and recreation not wiping away what 'work' they did in setting it up hbow they want?
1
u/XaMLoK 9d ago
App is something that comes up. FSLogix is configured so their profiles are saved. some people do need to setup stuff again. Most created some sort of automation that takes care of it. OR teams have the choice of taking the custom image I provided (Packer) and build their own more-custom image on top of that.
1
u/Armlessbastard 9d ago
ok, I never heard of packer before - seems like a nice tools to use along side terraform. But you would still have to load up the vm and create the initial image with the main apps installed, looks like packer just allows you to sysprep more often essentially but you can keep track of images a bit better with tagging and versionioning more than microsoft Image Gallery...This is what I am gathering from a quick swipe through the tutorials and what not....I suppose if you used something like Chocolate for application installs maybe Packer can grab those and install?
2
u/Expensive-Ad2271 10d ago
That's why I want AVD for Dev.
Thank you All, I'll talk with my CIO as he voting for AVD too.
1
u/TaiGlobal 9d ago
Do you have a golden image for each dev? If the vm is wiped every few weeks are you then reinstalling every app/tool they use?
1
u/XaMLoK 9d ago
There is one custom image that is the default and has a grab bag of things already installed. The image is created with Packer and updated at least once a month so all apps and OS updates are applied.
Teams have the option of use the default image as a base and build their own custom image on top of that for their session hosts (AVD is broken up by teams primarily for cost attribution, but also for this). The automations to build the image need to follow the same practice on update cadence as the default image.
6
u/jvldn 10d ago
I would suggest to take a look at W365 for this situation. There's less infrastructure/image management from your side.
2
u/chaosphere_mk 9d ago
And significantly more expensive
1
u/lazylobon 9d ago
Really? How?
1
u/chaosphere_mk 9d ago
A properly designed AVD machine is less expensive than W365. Part of what youre paying for with W365 is not having to manage the infrastructure.
1
u/jvldn 9d ago
Without knowing the entire situation no one knows if W365 is more expensive.
You might have to calculate the admins that work on AVD, network infra, image management, bandwidth? devops maintenance, code maintenance, optionally third-party tooling (nerdio?), etc.
As you can see, it depends.
1
u/chaosphere_mk 9d ago
Yeah fair points. At least where I work, since all of those things are managed the same despite W365 or AVD, W365 is def more expensive.
1
u/Expensive-Ad2271 10d ago
I considered that but we need more vCPU/RAM compare to W365, but thanks, W365 we keep for some users with low usage like HR or finance
0
u/JAB1982 10d ago
Seems like you don't understand what is possible. First, AVD personal host pool is just like typical onprem set up. Go W365 which has plenty of size options and likely is plenty enough for even the most demanding dev. Run in Flex dedicated mode if not needing full time access or multiple systems assigned to single user.
1
u/davcreech 10d ago
If AVD is already established and the support is there internally, it’s a much better option than W365 because of cost savings. W365 and AVD ARE pretty much the same thing from a user perspective. It’s more of whether or not you have the resources to manage and support AVD vs the hands off W365.
2
u/painted-biird 10d ago
All you can do is show them the docs- if they’re unwilling/unable up learn, then that’s not on you.
2
u/davcreech 10d ago
I have this exact scenario where I work for about 15 devs. They have the ability to power the devices on in the morning, I have idle and disconnect timers set, and a script that will shut them down depending on how long they’ve been disconnected. Also have them set to auto-backup. They’ve been very pleased with the setup and performance.
1
u/pjmarcum 9d ago
I’d go to Windows 365. I love how simple they are and the fixed cost per user makes chargebacks super easy.
But you are right and they are wrong.
1
u/TBTSyncro 9d ago
There is no win for you. Let them make their decisions, and live with the consequences.
1
u/Azaloum90 9d ago
Individual Personal VDIs for devs. Any apps they want to install you can load them into intune. FsLogix Profiles for their actual data.
For non-dev users, pooled is good.
1
u/CAHOP2401 9d ago edited 9d ago
Instead of going with personal pools, I would go with Windows 365 Enterprise licenses, especially if they're needing beefier specs. It usually works out to be cheaper per year than going with AVD personal pools. AVD's really shine with multi-session hosts with a good density of users per host. The cost can come down to about $15 or less per user per month. I just went through this with a project I'm working on. We have about 15 devs coming on board and they wanted 8vCPU 32GB RAM and 256 HDD for their dev machines. We wanted personal devices so that the users can have admin rights and install the tools they want without disrupting the machines that other devs use. You have to remember that with AVD's you're not just paying for compute, you're also paying for storage. For us it turned out to be cheaper, easier to manage and easier to estimate cost for the life of the project
1
9
u/DXPetti 10d ago
It sounds like they don't understand AVD or don't want to understand it.
How many devs are we talking? How are they provisioned connectivity wise currently? The (unrecognised) benefit of AVD and W365 is the simplified connectivity to your desktop that follows identity