Jim McQuillan wrote the following on 07/14/2007 08:41 AM: > Faraz, > > While NX is much better at bandwidth, it comes at the expense of CPU > usage. All that proxying, caching, compressing, encrypting comes at a cost. > > If you are trying to us NX on a high speed LAN, i'm not surprised that > your speeds aren't great. Where NX really shines is on low speed > connections. > > I've used NX for alot of remote connection stuff, but it just doesn't > make sense to use NX with LTSP. > For me, the real usefulness of NX is re-attaching to persistent sessions from various machines (external laptop, Thin Client at my desk, Backup server at home or any box I'm sitting in front of.
So while it might be a little more sluggish than a native X Display on the LAN, I'm happy knowing that If I'm in the middle of installing software my session isn't going to die if my connection drops due to a power outage or a network blip. I'm trying to hack a copy of the startx script to make it launch /opt/ltsp/i386/usr/NX/bin/nxclient and see if that works. Right now I log in to another user account with XDMCP from the thin client and start nxclient from within another X display. Kind of messy. Another advantage occurs to me. If you had remote offices, a remote LTSP server could provide NXClient and CUPS services for users to connect to the remote office in a fairly useful way. Our Linux group and my employer are sponsoring a box that allows people to try Linux over the Internet using NXClient and FreeNX. One client where I have an older SuSE 10 installation with LTSP 4.2 is connecting to the Linux Group's NX server to see what a migration to Ubuntu might look like. I think NoMachine's CPU overhead would be much less than blindly Zlib compressing and encrypting everything like an SSH tunnel would do. At least this way you're reducing the amount of zlib compressed data and encrypted data by passing tokens as to what repeated elements to reference from cache. This would probably require more ram than the average thin client though for standard use. Others have mentioned that Firefox likes to use lots of the X Server's RAM. I wonder how Firefox's XServer Ram utilization works under NoMachine. -Joe Baker ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _____________________________________________________________________ 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
