> Unfortunately, that isn't feasible, because VirtualGL relies upon Direct > Rendering to handle most of the OpenGL commands. [...] I made an active > decision in 2004 not to create a full OpenGL interposer, for reasons > described here: https://virtualgl.org/About/Background. If you did > want to build such a solution, you'd be better off basing it on the Mesa > source, since Mesa keeps track of changes in the OpenGL API and already > provides dispatching mechanisms.
Fully understood. Thanks for the clear and detailed explanation. > In general, the 3D X server in a VirtualGL server should be thought of > as a shared resource, and it shouldn't be used for any > security-conscious activities. If you need to use a local X server on > the VirtualGL server, then I strongly recommend configuring two X > servers-- one headless that is dedicated to VirtualGL and another one > that can be used for local activities. So, it's, in fact, possible to operate two X servers simultaneously, one normal and one headless, with only a single physical GPU? It would solve the problem. I've never used such a configuration before, and I'm not sure how a X server can run on a graphic card, but without actually creating the "head". Is there any documentation for that? Thanks, Tom Li -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/virtualgl-users/db6effa2-0430-44b6-8e9f-03a203f8c902%40googlegroups.com.
