On Wednesday 11 July 2001 12:59 am, Ian C. Sison wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Raymund dos Remedios wrote:
> > I have run StarOffice 5.2 on a Celeron 333 w/ 64mb (better with atleast
> > 128 mb definitely flies on 256mb - it's only P1,000 per 128mb nowadays)
> > and have had pretty good results. Here is an unsolicited suggestion for
> > those who want to do so and not have too much of a performance penalty.
> > Don't use Windows as your operating system, :-) Throwing memory at
> > Windoze does not necessarily speed it up. :-(. Plus, you get the added
> > "benefit" of the blue screen of death, surprising you every so often!
>
> On a corporate lan setup we maintain, we've got more than 8 linux
> workstations and a dual processor linux firewall with 1 GB RAM. The linux
> workstations log on the firewall via SSH, and remotely run staroffice on
> the server. Think citrix without windows. What's nice is that the total
> mem requirements are actually decreased as linux only loads one copy of
> the soffice code, and it is shared amongst all clients, and clients can
> run soffice comfortably even if they only have 64MB.
>
Thank you for pointing that out!
Yes, that's right, with the X11 forwarding enabled on SSH, you should be
able to do that. (I actually do that once in a while from remote locations
even.) Depending upon your network speed, the performance could be quite
decent. If you are in a 10/100 LAN, and your server is rather fast, processor
and i/o wise, then your performance should be excellent.
Tuning the Linux server would also benefit these sessions. Note that the
tmpfs is just one way to enhance your linux experience, quite drammatically I
would say. This is due to the fact that /tmp is used quite a bit in unix and
minimizing disk i/o in this area definitely helps. For the most part the
Linux kernel defaults are quite adequate and I wouldn't recommend tweaking
unnecessarily.
You could even run the Star Office remotely with the -f option on openssh to
daemonize the ssh session and not use up a desktop terminal session (The -f
will still prompt you to log in). This is how I typically would run it from
a remote location, even my XFree86 StarOffice sessions are encrypted, and
other XFree86 based utilities. You could make it a menu option or a desktop
icon. (I use the unix command prompt a lot. In situations where I don't
have the option of replacing a Win98 install with linux, getting less and
less, I load CYGWIN, a really great BASH on windows implem. But, I love GUI
based platforms too!).
Another option is to use the network install capability of StarOffice and run
the StarOffice with Samba client server mode. This would be closer to a
client server environment where the StarOffice is actually running on your
machine but the main StarOffice binaries reside in the Samba server (or NT or
Novell or NFS). I understand that Sun is taking this concept even farther to
better allow thin clients use, probably Star Office 6?.
Tuning the local linux workstation still wouldn't hurt though, particularly
if you can throw memory at it. As I mentioned, 64mb gave pretty good results
even though I ran the StarOffice on my Celeron 333. It typically
outperformed Celeron 500s similarly configured. If 64mb is the limit, I
still would recommend StarOffice on the desktop, whether network based or
standalone, with FDU :-). I would rather part with P2,000 for a 256mb
memory upgrade though, than part with, what is Micro-Soft Office nowadays,
P25,000 give or take? then you'ld still have to buy the memory anyway :-)
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
