Hi,
I've recently been testing ltsp running on xen virtual machines.
I'm infact writing this email on a terminal whose server is sharing
the hardware with another virtual server exporting /homes.
My notes are in Spanish but there's plenty of help on the net.
Let me know if you run into problems
Hi!
As a part of my masters degree in Networking and Systems
administration at Oslo university College, some fellow students and I
are conducting an experiment about terminal servers. We are trying to
specify the bottlenecks of a setup with any given hardware. At present
we are using a p4 2.4 with
On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 15:15, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
>
> I don't know. KDE was considered more "bloated" (or complicated for fans
> ;o) than GNOME, however the recent versions are IMO quite comparable
> (KDE has little optimised, GNOME has a little bloated since :o) Using
> apps is almost eq
Yes, IceWM is good enough but I don't have a choice but to use either
KDE or Gnome for this project.
In connection with this, which of the two is much faster to use for this
kind of an LTSP setup?
I don't know. KDE was considered more "bloated" (or complicated for fans
;o) than GNOME, however the
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 22:18, Derek Dresser wrote:
>
> Up until this fall I was running about 75 terminals (usually about 35-40
> active
> sessions) on a dual PIII 733Mhz with 2G of ram and had no performance
> problems.
> We now have a dual 3.2G Xeon with 4G of ram and about 100 terminals. I
>
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 15:54, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Hallo, Marvin
>
> It depends how responsible system do You want to have. I'd assume
> approx. double the users that Craige suggested, however I have no
> direct contact with such a large installation.
Well, this might be my first large
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 15:27, Eilert wrote:
> Hi Marvin,
>
> We've been running an LTSP server on a Xeon system quite similar to
> yours but with 2 GB RAM. There are 25 terminals connected at the moment,
> but not all of them are in use at the same time.
>
> Yesterday was the first time I saw 20
Quoting "Marvin T. Pascual" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello all,
>
> Can anyone share their opinions on to how many workstations does LTSP
> supports
> with the following setup:
Up until this fall I was running about 75 terminals (usually about 35-40 active
sessions) on a dual PIII 733Mhz with 2G o
Hallo, Marvin
It depends how responsible system do You want to have. I'd assume
approx. double the users that Craige suggested, however I have no
direct contact with such a large installation.
It also very depends on some decisions, settings and tweaking. One big
decision is WM/DE. For example
Hi Marvin,
We've been running an LTSP server on a Xeon system quite similar to
yours but with 2 GB RAM. There are 25 terminals connected at the moment,
but not all of them are in use at the same time.
Yesterday was the first time I saw 20 users logged in concurrently. No
problem so far.
We are
Craig Ringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> 30 - 40 would be my vague guess, limited by RAM rather than CPU. You're
> dealing with a lot of memory-hungry apps, though. In particular, I find
> Evolution to gobble mind-boggling amounts of memory (at least when using
> IMAP).
>
> I have a dual Xeo
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 10:44, Marvin T. Pascual wrote:
> Server: IBM xSeries 345
> Processor: Dual Xeon 2.8Ghz
> Memory: 4GB RAM
> Hard Disk: 2 x 73GB SCSI
> Workstations: Intel Pentium 1 to 4 with 100Mbps NICs
> Switches: 3Com SuperStack 10/100Mbps
> Applications: OpenOffice.org, Novell Evo
Hello all,
Can anyone share their opinions on to how many workstations does LTSP supports
with the following setup:
Server: IBM xSeries 345
Processor: Dual Xeon 2.8Ghz
Memory: 4GB RAM
Hard Disk: 2 x 73GB SCSI
Workstations: Intel Pentium 1 to 4 with 100Mbps NICs
Switches: 3Com SuperStack 10/
"Gino LV. Ledesma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:06:46 +0200, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] I've been running SAR and SNMP+MRTG, and network usage on the
> server end seems "normal." [...]
Are you really sure that your server NIC is running 100 M
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:06:46 +0200, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the response!
> Theory (I don't know anything about VNC but here I go): VNC has slow refreshes
> because it is optimized for low-bandwidth..ie, high latency is better than
> using much bandwidth, so it
15 matches
Mail list logo
