On Sat, 2004-08-07 at 09:41, Chris Berry wrote:
> I've been reading through the archives, and while it seems like a no
> brainer to at least have your backbone at gigabit speed (server nics
> and switch uplinks) I'm trying to decide if its worth having the
> terminals with gigabit cards as well, and using gigabit switches. The
> cost will be higher, but if I understand it correctly the higher
> frequency will result in a much snappier display. Does anyone have any
> comments on this one way or the other, or even better some experiences
> to share?
I find 10/100 to be more than sufficient. In general my server (which
has a gigabit uplink) does not even see 3 MB/s traffic across all 12
clients.
If you expect users to be viewing high-res flash graphics, working with
large images, etc, then gigabit might be worth thinking about.
Otherwise, I'd be really surprised if you needed gigabit to each client.
My personal experience has been that a decent video card is the most
important factor, followed by making sure that the link to the server is
never saturated (a gigabit uplink with 10/100 clients should generally
assure this).
Do watch out for screensavers, though. If you want to do bandwidth
testing, running a screensaver like xflame seems to be a good way to do
it - but I wouldn't recommend it on the network normally.
--
Craig Ringer
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com
_____________________________________________________________________
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
