Author Topic: Linux Terminal Server Project  (Read 1321 times)

WMD

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,525
  • Kudos: 391
    • http://www.dognoodle99.cjb.net
Linux Terminal Server Project
« on: 15 March 2006, 19:03 »
http://www.ltsp.org

Anyone ever see this?  I've got it running here at school.  We set up a server with an Athlon XP 2000+ and 1GB RAM (probably the most powerful thing here..lol) and a bunch of P3/P2 clients.  The actual setup was pretty damn easy considering, except for a couple of simple user errors on my part. :o  With 100Mbps ethernet, even streaming video plays fine.  I did encounter a sluggishness problem with 3 users logged in, but that turned out to be because of the kernel not supporting 1GB RAM (it was stopping at around 380MB, even though it picked up 1GB).  Now everything is fast.  It's quite impressive.
« Last Edit: 15 March 2006, 23:26 by WMD »
My BSOD gallery
"Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez

piratePenguin

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,027
  • Kudos: 775
    • http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com/~declan/
Re: Linux Terminal Server Project
« Reply #1 on: 15 March 2006, 20:13 »
Yea, I've been looking at that a bit...

The way it works, it uses lots of bandwidth. Instead of "draw a button with label 'blah'" it communicates like "draw a grey rectangle, draw another stroked-black rectangle 2px outset, draw the text 'blah'" (for a simple button). Not brilliant. Themes are client-side. A server-side X toolkit extension that X clients use (perhaps through e.g. a GTK+ -> X extension wrapper-job) would solve this, and it's something I was thinking about doing at one stage not so long ago.

Still, it's very cool the way It Works. I wonder how much money could be saved, and how more-pleasant the computers in our school would be if we used this approach with GNU/Linux. A few very good servers can't cost much more than the new computers they bought in a few days ago with Windows XP (because Windows XP is the next big thing).
"What you share with the world is what it keeps of you."
 - Noah And The Whale: Give a little love



a poem by my computer, Macintosh Vigilante
Macintosh amends a damned around the requested typewriter. Macintosh urges a scarce design. Macintosh postulates an autobiography. Macintosh tolls the solo variant. Why does a winter audience delay macintosh? The maker tosses macintosh. Beneath female suffers a double scum. How will a rat cube the heavier cricket? Macintosh calls a method. Can macintosh nest opposite the headache? Macintosh ties the wrong fairy. When can macintosh stem the land gang? Female aborts underneath macintosh. Inside macintosh waffles female. Next to macintosh worries a well.

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Re: Linux Terminal Server Project
« Reply #2 on: 15 March 2006, 20:18 »
I don't understand the whole kernel not supporting 1GB of RAM though, how did you fix it?

I thought you could have upto 4GB with a 32-bit CPU I don't see how the kernel can effect this.
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

WMD

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,525
  • Kudos: 391
    • http://www.dognoodle99.cjb.net
Re: Linux Terminal Server Project
« Reply #3 on: 15 March 2006, 23:27 »
The Linux kernel only supports <1GB by default.  Apparently this saves kernel size, although by now it doesn't matter much.  There are 3 settings: <1GB, 4GB, and 64GB.  Simply installing a different kernel RPM (2.6.9-22.0ELhugemem) fixed this.  There are patches out there that change the starting limit to exactly 1GB so this issue doesn't occur, but I don't know of any distros that use it.

As for bandwidth usage...to me it didn't really seem that bad.  The only reason I'm using a 100Mbps switch is because I found that the 10Mbps hub we already had wouldn't allow for video playback.  Otherwise it's quite fine.  LTSP simply allows for a simple way to forward X over the network to thin clients - you'd have to rewrite much of X to get your idea working.
My BSOD gallery
"Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez

piratePenguin

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,027
  • Kudos: 775
    • http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com/~declan/
Re: Linux Terminal Server Project
« Reply #4 on: 16 March 2006, 08:54 »
Quote from: WMD

As for bandwidth usage...to me it didn't really seem that bad.  The only reason I'm using a 100Mbps switch is because I found that the 10Mbps hub we already had wouldn't allow for video playback.  Otherwise it's quite fine.  LTSP simply allows for a simple way to forward X over the network to thin clients - you'd have to rewrite much of X to get your idea working.
Well, I'd be making an X extension. A toolkit, yea it'd be alot of work. If anything, I'd make a prototype kindof a thing - just a button. Wouldn't be fit to built a toolkit myself.
"What you share with the world is what it keeps of you."
 - Noah And The Whale: Give a little love



a poem by my computer, Macintosh Vigilante
Macintosh amends a damned around the requested typewriter. Macintosh urges a scarce design. Macintosh postulates an autobiography. Macintosh tolls the solo variant. Why does a winter audience delay macintosh? The maker tosses macintosh. Beneath female suffers a double scum. How will a rat cube the heavier cricket? Macintosh calls a method. Can macintosh nest opposite the headache? Macintosh ties the wrong fairy. When can macintosh stem the land gang? Female aborts underneath macintosh. Inside macintosh waffles female. Next to macintosh worries a well.

WMD

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,525
  • Kudos: 391
    • http://www.dognoodle99.cjb.net
Re: Linux Terminal Server Project
« Reply #5 on: 18 April 2006, 07:15 »
Bump.  Before Spring Break (I go back tomorrow), I installed a new release of the LTSP software.  Holy crap, did they improve stuff.  The local device stuff is much simpler (though I haven't gotten around to finishing it), and the clients boot up in about half the time.  They're using a 2.6 kernel and udev for that.

The saga continues....
My BSOD gallery
"Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez