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

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

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,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Ltsp-discuss mailing list.   To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto:
For additional LTSP help,   try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net

Reply via email to