To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 1/29/03 9:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Ltsp-discuss] ltsp capacity on server
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 13:02, Chris Puttick wrote:
> A load balancing solution based on XDMCP is under development by a
company
> called Fen Systems - it will be available soon (i.e. it's in
ghtforward.
>
> tom
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Schouteden
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 1/29/03 12:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] ltsp capacity on server
> >
> > What about setting up let's say 3 modestly configu
;t scale
for more than 2 servers, which is a shame really because the setup is
very straightforward.
tom
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Schouteden
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 1/29/03 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] ltsp capacity on server
>
> What abo
I think that a couple servers through DHCPD load
balancing would be a much more cost effective
solution.
--- Julius Szelagiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dieter,
> there is no such thing as enough memory ;-) and
> here we have 50
> users, presumably no local apps. my experience has
> b
Dieter,
there is no such thing as enough memory ;-) and here we have 50
users, presumably no local apps. my experience has been as follows: 300MB
system, 60 - 70MB per user with gdm, oo, and mozilla. it actually goes
closer to 100MB with all of those. so on the low side we have 3.3GB user
a
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 1/29/03 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] ltsp capacity on server
What about setting up let's say 3 modestly configured servers (1GB) each
and load balance between the 3? It offers you better redundancy and
cheaper disks. If it is possible to load balance ltsp though.
t
What about setting up let's say 3 modestly configured servers (1GB) each
and load balance between the 3? It offers you better redundancy and
cheaper disks. If it is possible to load balance ltsp though.
tom
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 17:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, that's reasonable. But even
what is the official budget?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If your budget allows for that amount of money then
> that's fine with
> me. Mine doesn't. Therefore I rest my case.
>
>
>
> On 28-Jan-03 John McCreesh wrote:
> > Let's see ... www.dell.co.uk
> >
> > Dell PowerEdge 600SC - SCSI
> >
If your budget allows for that amount of money then that's fine with
me. Mine doesn't. Therefore I rest my case.
On 28-Jan-03 John McCreesh wrote:
> Let's see ... www.dell.co.uk
>
> Dell PowerEdge 600SC - SCSI
> Intel Pentium 4 processor 2.4GHz with 512K enhanced cache
> 4GB DDR ECC (4*1GB)
> 7
Hi,
> Not enough memory, that's the problem
>
> > ... 4GB DDR ECC (4*1GB)
Why?
kind regards
Dieter
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
__
Not enough memory, that's the problem
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, John McCreesh wrote:
> Let's see ... www.dell.co.uk
> Dell PowerEdge 600SC - SCSI
> Intel Pentium 4 processor 2.4GHz with 512K enhanced cache
> 4GB DDR ECC (4*1GB)
> 73GB 10,000rpm 1'' Ultra 3 160 SCSI hard drive - 68 pin
> UKP 4056 + VAT
ibm netvista e220x - dual piii, up to 4GB memory, native scsi. single
processor box is <$800, additional processor about $400. have no problems
with them. julius
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mmm? ...
> Let me see? ...
> 75 times 50 plus 256 makes 4006 ...
> 8-o) ... whoops ... th
Let's see ... www.dell.co.uk
Dell PowerEdge 600SC - SCSI
Intel Pentium 4 processor 2.4GHz with 512K enhanced cache
4GB DDR ECC (4*1GB)
73GB 10,000rpm 1'' Ultra 3 160 SCSI hard drive - 68 pin
UKP 4056 + VAT
Cost per user approx UKP 80 plus diskless terminal.
What's the problem?
John
On Tue, 28
Yes, that's reasonable. But even a refurbished Dell 4350 won't run
without RAM. Since we're talking 4 gig here, the RAM itself is going
to cost you more than 1.5 times the price of that server. Depending
on the budget at hand that might not be acceptable anymore.
On 28-Jan-03 R P Herrold wrote:
That looks like a more reasonable and feasible approach to me.
On 27-Jan-03 prakash modak wrote:
>
> Hi nayan,
>
> For 50 nodes as per the document U need Piv 1.4Gz with atlest 2Gb
> ram.
> But as i setup netscape to run locally i configured 50 nodes on
> 1GB ram with pIII 800.
>
>
> Praka
Mmm? ...
Let me see? ...
75 times 50 plus 256 makes 4006 ...
8-o) ... whoops ... that's a little less than 4 gig ...
8-o) ... I wonder which affordable box can swallow all that?
;-)
On 27-Jan-03 John McCreesh wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2003 08:02:52 -
> "nayan naya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
On 27 Jan 2003 08:02:52 -
"nayan naya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am using ltsp 3.0 on redhat 7.2 what will be the configuration
> of
> server for 50 machines what are the memory requirements if i want
> to
> run netscape ,Openoffice simultaneously on every machine.
>
> thanx
Anyone got any thoughts on running cross-over office as a local app?
-Original Message-
From: nayan naya
To: Chris Puttick
Sent: 1/27/03 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: [Ltsp-discuss] ltsp capacity on server
thanx a lot
i have installed on wine and crossover and is running in all
Hi nayan,
For 50 nodes as per the document U need Piv 1.4Gz with atlest 2Gb
ram.
But as i setup netscape to run locally i configured 50 nodes on
1GB ram with pIII 800.
Prakash
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 nayan naya wrote :
Hi,
I am using ltsp 3.0 on redhat 7.2 what will be the configuration
of
]
Sent: 1/27/03 8:02 AM
Subject: [Ltsp-discuss] ltsp capacity on server
Hi,
I am using ltsp 3.0 on redhat 7.2 what will be the configuration
of
server for 50 machines what are the memory requirements if i want
to
run netscape ,Openoffice simultaneously on every machine.
thanx in advance
Nayan
Hi,
I am using ltsp 3.0 on redhat 7.2 what will be the configuration
of
server for 50 machines what are the memory requirements if i want
to
run netscape ,Openoffice simultaneously on every machine.
thanx in advance
Nayan.
---
This SF.NE
Hi,
I am using ltsp 3.0 on redhat 7.2 what will be the configuration
of
server for 50 machines what are the memory requirements if i want
to
run netscape ,Openoffice simultaneously on every machine.
thanx in advance
Nayan.
---
This SF.NE
22 matches
Mail list logo
