Rolf-Werner Eilert schrieb am 21.09.2016 08:36:
> Am 20.09.2016 19:34, schrieb Vagrant Cascadian:
> > 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.
> That would be a major point for me, although video playback isn't at 
> first place. But e.g. mere browser usage is far too slow on our thin 
> clients, mainly because of slow graphics. This problem has become more 
> and more severe over the last year(s).

I recognized this problem, too. But we solved it by buying more recent
hardware. You mententioned the zbox. We use lots of them as thin clients and
they run quite nicely. Although they might run even better as fat clients.

I see also some advantages for thin clients over fat ones. We work in the area
of genotyping and sometimes need more resources than desktop computers can
provide. If you have to handle files with dozens of GB of size and compute
intensive tasks its good to have thin clients as entries to powerfull terminal
servers. Shure, it's also possible via ssh and remote X but it's a simple and
straight forward setup for all users.
And it's a pleasure to work on a terminal server with 40 CPU 128 GB RAM or even
more (as it is a virtual Xen machine). :^)

So, depending on the applications both setups have their benefits. Maybe I
should try to also run fat clients in parallel.

Rolf, I already have separated the servers for dhcp, image download (nbd), and
terminal services in my setup. Maybe this could help for fat clients and
different images. Just send me an email.


Helmut Lichtenberg     <helmut.lichtenb...@fli.de>    Tel.: 05034/871-5128
Institut für Nutztiergenetik (FLI)         31535 Neustadt          Germany

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