Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 13, 2006 06:00 AM
You're right. X11 can tend to be bandwidth-intensive, especially if a lot of screen updates are taking place. I noticed that with LTSP, which of course also uses X11. One "edutainment" application called TuxType can suck up 73Mb/sec across an Ethernet network! It sounds like you found a pretty good solution for that.
Of course, if you're on a switched 10/100 network, and your servers are on Gig-E (most newer ones have that built-in now), then you should be OK. That's how I run LTSP, and in this configuration, it works great (40 users on a single box). But I'm using dual NICs, so the X11 traffic is isolated from the file-server traffic (separate VLAN). A single-NIC application of this would, of course, take more careful analysis.
I should say something about "clueless Windows users" installing apps in a corporate setting. They shouldn't be. That's a job for something like SMS or the local tech person, who is supposed to have a clue. I've had to re-image more Windows boxes where the user has Admin rights than I care to count, because said clueless user tried to install, say, MS Publisher XP on top of MS Office 2000, or some similar situation. Oops....
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:alternatives
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 13, 2006 06:00 AMOf course, if you're on a switched 10/100 network, and your servers are on Gig-E (most newer ones have that built-in now), then you should be OK. That's how I run LTSP, and in this configuration, it works great (40 users on a single box). But I'm using dual NICs, so the X11 traffic is isolated from the file-server traffic (separate VLAN). A single-NIC application of this would, of course, take more careful analysis.
I should say something about "clueless Windows users" installing apps in a corporate setting. They shouldn't be. That's a job for something like SMS or the local tech person, who is supposed to have a clue. I've had to re-image more Windows boxes where the user has Admin rights than I care to count, because said clueless user tried to install, say, MS Publisher XP on top of MS Office 2000, or some similar situation. Oops....
#