Todd Shoemaker schreef: > jef peeraer wrote: >> Roy Souther schreef: >> >>> Does the app need to run on the thin client? As Xavier pointed out >>> FireFox is a memory pig and I found that normal desktops running FireFox >>> will kill a thin client that does not have a lot of RAM. >>> >>> I running ViceWM for all terminal desktops and it keeps the FireFox >>> memory load on the server. If your XUL app does not need to use local >>> devices then maybe ViceWM will do the trick. >>> >> I still don't understand fully, firefox is running on the fatclient but >> takes a lot of memory on the thinclient ? >> > Jef- > > What they are referring to is the usage of X memory on the thin client, > even though the application is running on the server. Every X11 > application consumes some memory on the remote X11 display (in this > case, the thin client). This is separate from application memory that > would hold resources and data not directly pertaining to the display and > would stay on the server. Graphics icons, display buffers, etc, can be > uploaded by the application to the X11 display for quick refresh at a > later time. Firefox apparently uses this functionality a great deal to > help with display performance when switching from tab to tab, and > eventually the X11 display can run out of memory on the thin client, > particularly if it did not have much to spare (e.g. 32MB for kernel + X11). > > In your particular situation, though, I think we are searching in the > dark, and in order to resolve the issue we will need some basic > information about the problem. > > The biggest question to clarify is: What is the actual problem? You > mentioned that "It runs ok on a single client, but on thinclients it's > almost unusable." Does this mean it runs too slowly, or it crashes too > often? it becomes almost unusable on the thinclients, i mean, the scrollists take ages before they really scroll, a menu opens up very slowly. This in contrary to the classical web-browsing, which seems normally. thinclient is an epia based one, with 256 M of memory. Server runs a suse 9.1 ( which is still xfree ), ltsp is at version 4.1 ( xorg ) I admit i must do some further tests, but i thought someone may had some experiences on that field. The XUL application is a remote one ( http://.... ), with some DOM processing in it, but this is kept to a minimum.
jef peeraer > > -Todd > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _____________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _____________________________________________________________________ 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
