Well, the system has been designed to reduce network traffic wherever possible. That's the reason it also works reasonably well on low bandwidth networks like 64kbit (ISDN). I don't have any measurements but I think fast Ethernet (100Mbit) is more than enough. You won't see improvements when getting faster.
By sending SIGUSR and SiGUSR2 to the x2goagent you should get some internal performance counters. I don't remember what they show but it might help you getting an impression. Check nxagent's manpage for details. Uli sjomae <sjo...@mailbox.org> schrieb am So., 21. Juli 2024, 13:00: > Thanks for the info. And network hardware? The more gb transfer the > hardware supports, the better or is there a point where it doesn't > matter much anymore? > > On 7/21/24 12:01 PM, Ulrich Sibiller wrote: > > Well, > > > > x2go compresses images using the CPU. So in theory the CPU affects the > > performance. And then you have the cache on disk. As that gets loaded > > on session startup/reconnect a very slow disk will increase the time > > for session startup and also for session suspension/shutdown when the > > cache is stored on disk (which might also happen during the session > > but I have never looked into that). > > > > However, these limitations are more or less theoretical. NX has been > > developed more than 20 years ago so on today's hardware the > > limitations are not relevant. > > > > Uli > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 12:47 AM sjomae <sjo...@mailbox.org> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I was wondering, what other hardware components besides network > >> hardware, determines the performance of x2go? > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> /s > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> x2go-user mailing list > >> x2go-user@lists.x2go.org > >> https://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-user >
_______________________________________________ x2go-user mailing list x2go-user@lists.x2go.org https://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-user
