Elbert, I can't speak for the exact time it should take to load firefox locally, but it is pulling alot of stuff across the network. I definately expect startup times to be quite a bit longer than it would be to just run it from the harddisk.
There are probably things you could do to speed it up. I don't know what 'Linux Enterprise v3.1' is. If it's running a 2.4 kernel, then the NFS packets are probably defaulting to 8k blocks. With a 2.6 kernel on the server, they will default to 32k blocks. This might offer some increased performance for large transfers. Also, you could try a gigabit link between the server and the switch. For just a single client, this isn't going to help, but as you connect more clients, this could help out quite a bit. Another thing you should check is the command that you are using to launch firefox locally. If you are using ssh, and if you don't specify a 'DISPLAY' variable, then you are sending all of the X traffic across the link twice. Hope that helps, Jim McQuillan [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Lai, Elbert wrote: > Hi all, > > I've gotten Firefox successfully working as a local app on LTSP-4.1. It took > a little effort, but I'm quite pleased with the results. However, I have a > question on performance. > > Here's my setup: > > The LTSP server is a Linux Enterprise v3.1 box with 1GB of ram and 10/100Mb > NIC interface. > The LTSP client is a P3 1.2Ghz with 128MB RAM. It has its entire OS mounted > read only from the server, and the browser is also included on an > NFS-mounted partition from the server. I'm using the Linksys supplied from > Diskless Workstations, a 10/100 card. > I'm running a 4MB ram disk on the workstation (increased from the default > 1BM created by the distribution.) > I'm using the current version of Firefox with no plugins. > > The first time I start up Firefox after a reboot of the client it takes > almost exactly 2 minutes to pull up the initial browser window. However, > each subsequent time I start up Firefox it takes about 57 seconds. I've > timed it several times. > > Is this the expected performance? If I beef up the RAM and/or CPU of the > workstation would I improve performance? What are other people's experiences > with this? > > Thanks, > -elb- > > Elbert Lai > Manager, Engineering Services > FKI Logistex, Warehousing & Distribution Division > 5650 Hollis St. #100 > Emeryville, CA 94608 > =============== > p:510-985-6384 f:510-595-8813 w:http://www.fkilogistex.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _____________________________________________________________________ > 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.freenode.net > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by Demarc: A global provider of Threat Management Solutions. Download our HomeAdmin security software for free today! http://www.demarc.com/info/Sentarus/hamr30 _____________________________________________________________________ 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.freenode.net
