how about the number of simultaneous full screen videos that can be
run at various resolutions without dropping frames.
If any machine can get more than 0 that would be great ;)
its not actually that stupid an idea.
You could have the maximum redraw rate for a single dtu, 10 and a 100
@ 640, 800, 1024 etc
On 12 Dec 2005, at 18:24, Paul Greidanus wrote:
Oh, I know how many different interpretations of performance there
could be for SunRay servers.. #1 is a pretty simple one, and easy
enough to figure out the max # of reasonably performing clients.
2 is way harder.. what WindowManager do you allow your users to
have? I would push them off of Gnome/KDE/JDS, and more towards
blackbox, or icewm, or something really lightweight. Also, what
are the users doing on the box.. IC design with Cadence is a way
different load then a programmer, then a secretary..
Ideally though, you could make up a "typical" user for the #2 case,
and have X numbers of users that can run with no noticeable
performance degradation.. Differences in memory for the typical
workload would be nice to have graphs and benchmarks for too..
In the end however, no benchmark(et)ing will be right for your
case, but it would be nice to have a way of comparing the different
types of servers... i.e. T1000s make great servers for case1, but
go x4100 for #2 in general cases?
Ivar Janmaat wrote:
I don't know if benchmarks are the proper way of showing the
systems capability.
Maybe a graph with number of users versus performance would also
be interesting.
First of all there are two ways to use a Sunray system:
1. Just a session manager. Rdesktop, Citrix or NX are used to run
the desktops on other systems.
2. Run a JDS (full desktop) on the sunray server.
If you look at the memory, cpu and disk usage there is a big
difference between 1 and 2.
So maybe two benchmarks are needed?
Secondly the scalability of a Sunray server is very important.
If you add more users the user experience (performance) should not
degrade.
Lets run a benchmark for every user and increase the number of users.
Make a graph of the number of users (x) versus the benchmark
results (y).
The ultimate sunray server would probably be the one which has a
horizontal line in the graph.
The benchmark stays the same when you increase the number of users.
Ivar
Paul Greidanus wrote:
That's an interesting thought.. is there any resonable way to
quantify SunRay performance in a way that you could compare
Opteron vs UltraSparcIII vs Niagara based systems? Would be cool
to have the SimDacenter tool have a metric for this as well...
Ivar Janmaat wrote:
It would be nice if Sun would provide some more information
about what to expect from their servers in a sunray environment
when they launch the systems. Maybe a Sunray benchmark is needed
for this?
Or might sun focus on the niagara II to be the real sunray server?
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
--
Paul Greidanus
CAD Administrator / Systems Administrator
Center of Excellence in Integrated Nanotools University of Alberta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 780-492-7368
http://www.cein.ualberta.ca
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
