On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Rob OpenSuSE <rob.opensuse.linux@googlemail.com> wrote:
2009/1/16 Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Rob OpenSuSE <rob.opensuse.linux@googlemail.com> wrote:
2009/1/15 Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>:
Rather suggested that you thought, that you needed to run a desktop locally.
The X server DOES run locally. That and every bitmap caching part of the server, and any other features that run on the local machine. Basically anything you wanted to run "on the server" actually just leaves it's processing requirements on the server, but passes everything to do with the display - including heavy memory use and caching - back to the thin client.
That's how it's supposed to work.
No shit, sherlock. The problem is your thin client now has a memory burden of a web browser which has memory requirements almost totally made up of bitmap caches - the rendered page, the images on each one. Firefox 3 is a little lighter but it's just not designed for thin client usage. Neither is X in itself.
Apps like Firefox and so on require far too much memory - OpenOffice is another culprit.
The server does need decent amount of RAM, processing for multiple interactive users, though generally they share programs so less would be required overall.
That's not what I meant. The thin client needs an inordinate amount of memory to provide storage for all the data they try and push to the client. Far more than you would really like. It pretty much means a decent LTSP setup with most remote apps requires local swap space (which defeats the principle of a diskless client) or fall back to swap-over-NFS (which isn't bad, in fact it's faster in terms of bandwidth on the Efika, just much higher latency).
2009/1/15 Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>:
Also just an example. LTSP is one place we would have liked to push these boards but the system requirements were still way too high simply because of the architecture of LTSP.
The recommendations you've found would imply otherwise.
Have you even tried it?
Not with your hardware.
Oh, like that matters. The last time I tried it (using K12) was with x86 clients with 128MB memory. The idea was to use AMD PIC (decTOP) with Geodes in. Those systems ship with 10GB disks but that's by-the-by, I wanted it to work without that. Even with some tuning, it plainly didn't work as well as advertised. The most common LTSP configuration out there is not with thin clients at all, but "PCs from a couple of years ago" which have been deemed "not capable of running Vista and we have no money to upgrade". The average configuration has a lot more RAM (I had a lot of discussions about Via EPIA boards with a cheap 512MB stick, or Atom boards these days, and the end result was a lot of people saying "it's not saving us any money to downgrade the cost difference is $2" - no help at all) Add to that, half the apps you want to run, don't. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nspr/+bug/269188 Quite a lot of developers don't test their apps on terminal server on Windows, and even though X is built to be run by remote (local clients are a modern pleasure! but I would not go back to running a huge SGI or Sun box in the server room for daily work :) Linux/BSD developers rarely work that way or run real graphical apps on the server.
I find nothing to doubt LTSP project claims, nor the reviews.
I really am not talking about you opening OpenOffice from your 8GB dual-core on your other 8GB dual-core. Are you actually running LTSP or have you set any clients up for a test?
happy to support a thin client solution on x86.
I'm sure you would, and I'm sure you'd have greater success, because most x86 boards have upgradable RAM. However meeting the minimum specifications these days isn't enough unless you are looking to basically run xterms. -- Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com> Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org