Thanks for linking me to the background reading, that was very educational. I see that I can use VirtualGL Transport to call my GL applications without a remote desktop, but this will introduce latency between the client-side 2D X server, and the remote 3D X server. Perhaps a startup script on the client which transparently launches a remote desktop to the TurboVNC server is a better solution, because the 3D and 2D X servers have access to the same shared memory for PBuffer swaps. Did I understand the advantage of the X proxy correctly? Collaborative visualization is not a concern for me, but the X proxy seems like a better solution in any case.
Regarding the modifications to VirtualGL which would obviate the 3D X server; in the background reading you mention: ... the application must still use indirect OpenGL rendering to send 3D > commands and data to the X proxy. It is, of course, much faster to use > indirect rendering over a local socket rather than a remote socket, but > there is still some overhead involved. Is the 3DX to 2DX chatter the bottleneck, is the gigabit network the bottleneck, or are they cumulative bottlenecks? You mentioned a few open and closed source solutions like TurboVNC, and I noticed you did not mention NVIDIA's own remote visualization solutions, GeForce Experience and the Moonlight client. Remote visualization + GL capability appears to be an area where NVIDIA should be leading, but it seems they are not...am I wrong? I do not work for NVIDIA so speak freely, ha! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VirtualGL User Discussion/Support" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to virtualgl-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/virtualgl-users/6c3e96d8-f1d6-497d-a31d-7c89add83969%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.