-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Rousch wrote:
> I changed my resolution from 1024x768 down to 800x600 and it made a
> HUGE difference. It still takes a long while to load any image file,
> but now programs start up very quickly and windows move smoothly.
>
> Just out of curi
yeah, a linux hadrware blacklist would be nice on
shopping desitions 8)
btw, I see lts faster than vnc on *MY* network 8)
--- "James T. Richardson, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:49:34 -0500 (EST)
> "Benjamin Rousch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I run 1280x1024x16bit
Benjamin,
I have a mix of 1024x768 24bit and 1280x1024 16bit. startup at
about 20sec, no slowdown on a switched 100Tx network. I suspect a network
problem at your site. julius
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Benjamin Rousch wrote:
> I changed my resolution from 1024x768 down to 800x600 and it made a
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:49:34 -0500 (EST)
"Benjamin Rousch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I run 1280x1024x16bit just fine. Over a 100mbit network.
I will (for the record) say that using decent NIC's is very important. In my 'test'
enviornment I was using 3com 3c905b network cards in all of my machin
I changed my resolution from 1024x768 down to 800x600 and it made a
HUGE difference. It still takes a long while to load any image file,
but now programs start up very quickly and windows move smoothly.
Just out of curiosity, what resolution are other people using? It
seems that 1024x768x16bit col
Server has 1 gig of SDRAM, never hits the swap
Terminal has 256 megs of SDRAM
NFS Swap is turned off
terminal and server NIC and switch are all set for full duplex
>
>
> Jason A. Pattie wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Benjamin Rousch wrote:
>>
>>>I ran the tests
Hi
> I ran the tests suggested by [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it takes
> about 3 seconds for Gnome to come up from a startx command on the
> server. On the workstation it takes about 1 minute from the
> /tmp/start_ws command for the login screen to come up, then another
> minute for Gnome to come up aft
Jason A. Pattie wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Rousch wrote:
I ran the tests suggested by [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it takes
about 3 seconds for Gnome to come up from a startx command on the
server. On the workstation it takes about 1 minute from the
/tmp/start_ws c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Rousch wrote:
> I ran the tests suggested by [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it takes
> about 3 seconds for Gnome to come up from a startx command on the
> server. On the workstation it takes about 1 minute from the
> /tmp/start_ws command for the login
today.
> And is the server doing much else? Like what are the results of the
> comparison start-up tests? Anything showing in top?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Rousch
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12/18/02 1:21 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltsp-discuss] ltsp slo
Hi
> I have been using VNC Viewer (through win98) to connect to my linux
> server for a while so I thought I'd give LTSP a shot. I got it running
> fairly easily, but it seems much slower than VNC. The speed is most
> notably slow in loading KDE (or Gnome, I tried them both) and in
> opening any p
: Benjamin Rousch
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12/17/02 9:18 PM
Subject: [Ltsp-discuss] ltsp slower than vnc
I have been using VNC Viewer (through win98) to connect to my linux
server for a while so I thought I'd give LTSP a shot. I got it running
fairly easily, but it seems much slower than VNC. Th
I have been using VNC Viewer (through win98) to connect to my linux
server for a while so I thought I'd give LTSP a shot. I got it running
fairly easily, but it seems much slower than VNC. The speed is most
notably slow in loading KDE (or Gnome, I tried them both) and in
opening any programs. The n
13 matches
Mail list logo
