Re: How bandwidth requirement could be reduced when using thin clients?
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:02:04PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06-10-2004 13:15, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
>
>
> | 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.
Yes but then we have to build the kernels. now we can rely on ltps-Jim
for that, and have Ragnar repackage them. Frankly I dont know whats the
most jobb. I've done some package building and also security-patching
the kernels for Skolelinux, and It's time-consuming, but that's it. No
need to sit and watch the process after you've done it once
(debian-kernel package building that is, repackaging the ltsp-kernel
could prove harder)
> 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).
Yes.
--
Finn-Arne Johansen
faj@bzz.no
http://bzz.no/
Reply to: