Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
Le 22/09/2016 à 11:10, Alkis Georgopoulos a écrit : > On 22/09/2016 11:25 πμ, Raphaël RIGNIER wrote: >> Hello >> >> I have setup a xenial ltsp pnp server. >> >> Is LTSP_FAT_CLIENT=True/False the only config needed in lts.conf to switch ? >> >> Is ldm mandatory for fat client ? >> > > 1) Yes. > Note also that there is a FAT_RAM_THRESHOLD variable, which defaults to 300. > If a client has more than 300 MB RAM, it's automatically fat. > If it has less than 300 MB, it's automatically thin. > LTSP_FAT_CLIENT=True/False overrides FAT_RAM_THRESHOLD. > > Only chroots that have a desktop session (files in > /usr/share/xsessions/*.desktop) support both thin and fat clients. > ltsp-pnp supports both. > > 2) Yes. > > > Btw, someone here in this topic mentioned that a use case for thin > clients is when you want to run math software on a beefy server. > I'd like to add that it's very easy to use fat clients in this case, and > run that math app with LTSP *remoteapps*, which run on the server. > > So, thin clients can have localapps that run on the client, > and fat clients can have remoteapps that run on the server. > > -- > _ > 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 Thank you for detailed answer ! Raphaël -- _ 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
Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
On 22/09/2016 11:25 πμ, Raphaël RIGNIER wrote: > Hello > > I have setup a xenial ltsp pnp server. > > Is LTSP_FAT_CLIENT=True/False the only config needed in lts.conf to switch ? > > Is ldm mandatory for fat client ? > 1) Yes. Note also that there is a FAT_RAM_THRESHOLD variable, which defaults to 300. If a client has more than 300 MB RAM, it's automatically fat. If it has less than 300 MB, it's automatically thin. LTSP_FAT_CLIENT=True/False overrides FAT_RAM_THRESHOLD. Only chroots that have a desktop session (files in /usr/share/xsessions/*.desktop) support both thin and fat clients. ltsp-pnp supports both. 2) Yes. Btw, someone here in this topic mentioned that a use case for thin clients is when you want to run math software on a beefy server. I'd like to add that it's very easy to use fat clients in this case, and run that math app with LTSP *remoteapps*, which run on the server. So, thin clients can have localapps that run on the client, and fat clients can have remoteapps that run on the server. -- _ 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
Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
Le 22/09/2016 à 08:59, Rolf-Werner Eilert a écrit : > Am 21.09.2016 09:34, schrieb LTSP-PNP Adam: >> W dniu 20.09.2016 o 12:38, Rolf-Werner Eilert pisze: >>> As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question >>> about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now. >>> >> If you need - I have made quick Howto install LTSP-PNP for fat clients: >> >> http://wiki.cyfrowaszkola.waw.pl/doku.php/public:fsrv:install >> >> >> > Thank you for the link, Adam. I have stored it and we'll see if it's of > use to me. > > Regards > Rolf > > > -- > _ > 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 Hello I have setup a xenial ltsp pnp server. Is LTSP_FAT_CLIENT=True/False the only config needed in lts.conf to switch ? Is ldm mandatory for fat client ? Thank you. - -- _ 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
Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
Am 21.09.2016 09:34, schrieb LTSP-PNP Adam: > W dniu 20.09.2016 o 12:38, Rolf-Werner Eilert pisze: >> As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question >> about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now. >> > If you need - I have made quick Howto install LTSP-PNP for fat clients: > > http://wiki.cyfrowaszkola.waw.pl/doku.php/public:fsrv:install > > > Thank you for the link, Adam. I have stored it and we'll see if it's of use to me. Regards Rolf -- _ 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
Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
Thank you very much for your concise answer, Helmut. Am 21.09.2016 09:19, schrieb Helmut Lichtenberg: > Hi, > > Rolf-Werner Eilert schrieb am 21.09.2016 08:36: >> Am 20.09.2016 19:34, schrieb Vagrant Cascadian: >>> The main advantage of LTSP Fat Clients, especially in today's media-rich >>> environment, is that applications take full advantage of the client >>> hardware. This is really important with displaying video, rendering on >>> the local graphics hardware on the client. >> That would be a major point for me, although video playback isn't at >> first place. But e.g. mere browser usage is far too slow on our thin >> clients, mainly because of slow graphics. This problem has become more >> and more severe over the last year(s). > I recognized this problem, too. But we solved it by buying more recent > hardware. You mententioned the zbox. We use lots of them as thin clients and > they run quite nicely. Although they might run even better as fat clients. Yes, I guess I will try both setups first. Now I am running quite old hardware on a thin client setup. > > I see also some advantages for thin clients over fat ones. We work in the area > of genotyping and sometimes need more resources than desktop computers can > provide. If you have to handle files with dozens of GB of size and compute > intensive tasks its good to have thin clients as entries to powerfull terminal > servers. Shure, it's also possible via ssh and remote X but it's a simple and > straight forward setup for all users. > And it's a pleasure to work on a terminal server with 40 CPU 128 GB RAM or > even > more (as it is a virtual Xen machine). :^) Our needs aren't so ambitious ;) We just need a solid "office environment" which runs fast enough to keep the folks happy. > > So, depending on the applications both setups have their benefits. Maybe I > should try to also run fat clients in parallel. > > Rolf, I already have separated the servers for dhcp, image download (nbd), and > terminal services in my setup. Maybe this could help for fat clients and > different images. Just send me an email. > > Regards > Helmut > Thanks for the offer! As soon as I see what I need, I'll be back. Regards Rolf -- _ 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
Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
Hi, Rolf-Werner Eilert schrieb am 21.09.2016 08:36: > Am 20.09.2016 19:34, schrieb Vagrant Cascadian: > > The main advantage of LTSP Fat Clients, especially in today's media-rich > > environment, is that applications take full advantage of the client > > hardware. This is really important with displaying video, rendering on > > the local graphics hardware on the client. > That would be a major point for me, although video playback isn't at > first place. But e.g. mere browser usage is far too slow on our thin > clients, mainly because of slow graphics. This problem has become more > and more severe over the last year(s). I recognized this problem, too. But we solved it by buying more recent hardware. You mententioned the zbox. We use lots of them as thin clients and they run quite nicely. Although they might run even better as fat clients. I see also some advantages for thin clients over fat ones. We work in the area of genotyping and sometimes need more resources than desktop computers can provide. If you have to handle files with dozens of GB of size and compute intensive tasks its good to have thin clients as entries to powerfull terminal servers. Shure, it's also possible via ssh and remote X but it's a simple and straight forward setup for all users. And it's a pleasure to work on a terminal server with 40 CPU 128 GB RAM or even more (as it is a virtual Xen machine). :^) So, depending on the applications both setups have their benefits. Maybe I should try to also run fat clients in parallel. Rolf, I already have separated the servers for dhcp, image download (nbd), and terminal services in my setup. Maybe this could help for fat clients and different images. Just send me an email. Regards Helmut -- -- Helmut Lichtenberg Tel.: 05034/871-5128 Institut für Nutztiergenetik (FLI) 31535 Neustadt Germany -- -- _ 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
Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
W dniu 20.09.2016 o 12:38, Rolf-Werner Eilert pisze: > As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question > about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now. > If you need - I have made quick Howto install LTSP-PNP for fat clients: http://wiki.cyfrowaszkola.waw.pl/doku.php/public:fsrv:install -- I'm using xUbuntu 16.04 LTS with LTSP-PNP -- _ 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
Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
Hi Vagrant, thanks for your answer. Am 20.09.2016 19:34, schrieb Vagrant Cascadian: > On 2016-09-20, Rolf-Werner Eilert wrote: >> What would be the main reason for preferring fat clients? Is fat clients >> more than just independent PCs with a complete OS which merely mount >> their $HOMEs from some kind of NAS? > In the context of LTSP, Fat Clients boot from the network and typically > have no local storage(other than removable media), just like LTSP Thin > Clients. > > The main advantage of LTSP Fat Clients, especially in today's media-rich > environment, is that applications take full advantage of the client > hardware. This is really important with displaying video, rendering on > the local graphics hardware on the client. That would be a major point for me, although video playback isn't at first place. But e.g. mere browser usage is far too slow on our thin clients, mainly because of slow graphics. This problem has become more and more severe over the last year(s). > > With thin clients, a video is downloaded on the server, rendered in > software, and then sent over the network essentially uncompresed to the > clients, which can saturate even a gigabit network quite fast, depending > on the client resolution and how many clients are watching the video at > once. > > LTSP Fat Clients will also be able to scale much better, hosting more > clients on a single server, as the server is basically just a file > server, serving up the OS and homedir. Can I have several different OS kernels for different breeds of clients? > > It obviously requires more powerful clients, but even fairly old > machines should work (e.g. core 2 with 2GB of ram, from 2009). Yes, my laptop is an older IBM T model with just that configuration, and it still runs fine on current Linux. But I thought to buy more advanced clients, maybe zbox or something like that. (Do you happen to know if there are any glitches in graphics drivers for Linux on such machines?) > > > At this point in time, I would recommend using LTSP Fat Clients by > default, and only using LTSP Thin Clients as a last resort, when the > client hardware really can't handle it. You convinced me :) During the next weeks, our institute will move, so there's not much time left for experiments. I will take all the old network with us and hope to get it running at the new place. But after that, I will set up a testing environment for a new configuration. Guess I will be back with more questions then ;) I would really like to stay with LTSP because a server/client environment has many advantages over single PCs. But graphics has become a major issue for us. Regards Rolf -- _ 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
Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
Am 20.09.2016 19:22, schrieb LTSP-PNP Adam: > W dniu 20.09.2016 o 12:38, Rolf-Werner Eilert pisze: >> As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question >> about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now. >> >> What would be the main reason for preferring fat clients? Is fat clients >> more than just independent PCs with a complete OS which merely mount >> their $HOMEs from some kind of NAS? >> >> > Do think about PC's with OS, but totally freezed OS, no need to install > lot of apps, no need to worry about destrutcion ;-) > Better than thin clients, as for me, for example, I can use Arduino and > S4A, because I have total access to local USB etc... > > Adam > > > Thank you Adam, that makes it quite clear to me. Regards Rolf -- _ 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
Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
On 2016-09-20, Rolf-Werner Eilert wrote: > What would be the main reason for preferring fat clients? Is fat clients > more than just independent PCs with a complete OS which merely mount > their $HOMEs from some kind of NAS? In the context of LTSP, Fat Clients boot from the network and typically have no local storage(other than removable media), just like LTSP Thin Clients. The main advantage of LTSP Fat Clients, especially in today's media-rich environment, is that applications take full advantage of the client hardware. This is really important with displaying video, rendering on the local graphics hardware on the client. With thin clients, a video is downloaded on the server, rendered in software, and then sent over the network essentially uncompresed to the clients, which can saturate even a gigabit network quite fast, depending on the client resolution and how many clients are watching the video at once. LTSP Fat Clients will also be able to scale much better, hosting more clients on a single server, as the server is basically just a file server, serving up the OS and homedir. It obviously requires more powerful clients, but even fairly old machines should work (e.g. core 2 with 2GB of ram, from 2009). At this point in time, I would recommend using LTSP Fat Clients by default, and only using LTSP Thin Clients as a last resort, when the client hardware really can't handle it. live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- _ 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
Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
W dniu 20.09.2016 o 12:38, Rolf-Werner Eilert pisze: > As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question > about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now. > > What would be the main reason for preferring fat clients? Is fat clients > more than just independent PCs with a complete OS which merely mount > their $HOMEs from some kind of NAS? > > Do think about PC's with OS, but totally freezed OS, no need to install lot of apps, no need to worry about destrutcion ;-) Better than thin clients, as for me, for example, I can use Arduino and S4A, because I have total access to local USB etc... Adam -- I'm using xUbuntu 16.04 LTS with LTSP-PNP -- _ 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
[Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now. What would be the main reason for preferring fat clients? Is fat clients more than just independent PCs with a complete OS which merely mount their $HOMEs from some kind of NAS? Any insight is appreciated :) Rolf -- _ 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
