On 2016-09-20, Rolf-Werner Eilert wrote: > What would be the main reason for preferring fat clients? Is fat clients > more than just independent PCs with a complete OS which merely mount > their $HOMEs from some kind of NAS?
In the context of LTSP, Fat Clients boot from the network and typically have no local storage(other than removable media), just like LTSP Thin Clients. The main advantage of LTSP Fat Clients, especially in today's media-rich environment, is that applications take full advantage of the client hardware. This is really important with displaying video, rendering on the local graphics hardware on the client. With thin clients, a video is downloaded on the server, rendered in software, and then sent over the network essentially uncompresed to the clients, which can saturate even a gigabit network quite fast, depending on the client resolution and how many clients are watching the video at once. LTSP Fat Clients will also be able to scale much better, hosting more clients on a single server, as the server is basically just a file server, serving up the OS and homedir. It obviously requires more powerful clients, but even fairly old machines should work (e.g. core 2 with 2GB of ram, from 2009). At this point in time, I would recommend using LTSP Fat Clients by default, and only using LTSP Thin Clients as a last resort, when the client hardware really can't handle it. live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________
Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
