Re: How bandwidth requirement could be reduced when using thin clients?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06-10-2004 13:15, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
| With lessdisks we can have the same thing as with ltsp. We may have an
| easier/better chance to get securoty patches in, but making lessdisks
| autoinstall and ready set up is a longer shot than doing this with
| ltsp.
I agree.
| So if we want to go for "thicker clients", I think the correct
| technology is lessdisks. And with lessdisks we could install into the
| chroot a full Debian-edu-workstation, and use this if the thin client
| is powerfull enough. (say PIII with 128MB memory or better). The only
| thing that is lacking today is the possibility to use very lowend
| machines, like 486 with 16 MB. For that we need swap over NFS or
| something similar, which is already built into ltsp, (but not enabled
| for now in the new debian-edu setup)
Lessdisks can easily work on low-end machines as well.
By default, lessdisks uses sdm (SSH-tunneled X11 traffic) as transport
mechanism, but there's nothing in the way of using plain old insecure
raw X11 traffic instead, thus avoiding the added CPU overhead of SSH
compression and encryption. There's also nothing in the way of compiling
a kernel with swap-over-NFS and use that for the clients.
Result: A security update of the Linux kernel requires only rebuilding
the swap-over-NFS kernel package and distributing it as an APT source,
not a complete rebuilt of the diskless environment (as is the case with
LTSP).
| There also might be that the ltsp-way of doing things is better for
| using different cpu-architecture on the thin client and the thin-client
| server.
Currently, yes.
~ - Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
~ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBZEEsn7DbMsAkQLgRAlEAAJ44hvsnlGVD4KBxFw+ajT9f74qZWwCeKwve
z7UOOwM7/NBkz9CHVdF5xHQ=
=Q1+4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: