* Fathi Ben Nasr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020822 02:28]:
> You can query your X server directly with its canonical name instead of ip
> address. This same name should point to your four servers in your dns.
> I think the less loaded server will respond first. After some clients have logged
> in, this
You can query your X server directly with its canonical name instead of ip
address. This same name should point to your four servers in your dns.
I think the less loaded server will respond first. After some clients have logged
in, this server could no more be the less loaded and thus will not be
We do 'load balancing' by using multiple dhcp servers. If you use the MAC
addresses to (static) map clients to IP addresses then the dhcpd.conf can be
used on all servers. When a client requests an address, the lightest loaded
(most responsive) server provides the address and boots the client.
Probably the easiest way is to you xdm indirect broadcasts.
ie: x -indirect foo
This allows for the user to choose which server to log into. With
my setup (SusE) the xdm servers state what the load on the machines
are, and the user can choose respectively.
You can also to failsafe mea
Dear George Hart,
Once you wrote about "[Ltsp-discuss] What is the best way to load balance ltsp
servers?":
GH> I am in a situation where my company will need to have at least four
GH> terminal servers to balance the load in the office. While ltsp works
GH> really good,
On Wednesday 21 August 2002 05:00, George Hart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am in a situation where my company will need to have at least four
> terminal servers to balance the load in the office. While ltsp works
> really good, I am having trouble figuring how to load balance these
> servers in a scaleab
Hi,
I am in a situation where my company will need to have at least four
terminal servers to balance the load in the office. While ltsp works
really good, I am having trouble figuring how to load balance these
servers in a scaleable way.
I took a look at clustering the servers (openmosix) b
