I read this not too long ago. Not exactly what you're asking for, but it may help. http://eltoday.com/article.php3?ltsn=2001-07-23-001-14-PS Jim Ragnar Wisløff wrote: > > Hi, > > I've not found any hard figures for what the sensible sizing of an ltsp based > network should be. Linux' good use of buffers and cache makes it difficult to > evaluate on a little network how the thing will scale. I've been trying out > three X-terminals against a box with 384 MB RAM, and that certainly is no > problem, running KDE 2.2 and KOffice as main apps. But looking at a real > environment with perhaps 50 terminals (our local primary school) - how does > one size the server(s)? I assume RAM is the most important - is that correct? > What comes next - disk i/o speed or cpu speed? > > Another element is the strategy for scaling the infrastructure. With 50 > terminals and 350 users, say 50 MB each of quota room the disc size isn't all > that big. Should one go for a single NFS home directory server exporting to > the app servers or local disks? A central NFS server would give more > redundancy by allowing the terminals to connect to different app servers > according to load, but then everything hinges on that one server. Any > experiences with this? > > Any other real world experiences from users of medium size ltsp installations? > > -- > Ragnar Wisløff > ---------- > life is a reach. then you gybe > > _____________________________________________________________________ > Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss > For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.openprojects.net
begin:vcard n:O'Quinn;Jim x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:VP of Technology x-mozilla-cpt:;0 fn:Jim O'Quinn end:vcard
