Στις 14/06/2012 09:00 πμ, ο/η theo.schm...@wilhelmtux.ch έγραψε:
Am 12.06.2012 17:39, schrieb David Groos:
...
If your clients are beefy enough then I would go with fat clients. If
they are so-so I would go with localapps and if they are marginal I
would go with thin clients.
beefy > P4 2.4 GHz with 1 gig RAM
so-so > P4 1.6 GHz with 512 MB RAM
marginal > P3 or even P2 I have heard.
[All Edubuntu users: would you give the same cut-off points? What should
we publish as our recommendations?]
I think these specs are too high for thin clients.
I have never used fat clients, but for thin clients you can still use
just about anything down to P1 and less - without 3D stuff (e.g. Google
Earth, Neverball, Penguin Planet Racer).
I still use thin clients with a AMD Geode 500 MHz CPU and 256 MB RAM.
These work with screens up to 1600x1200 pixels. On a 100Mb/s network,
this is enough to watch small videos, but not full screen. They are good
enough for most things but marginal with large documents. E.g. large
PDFs with hi-res pictures or very long web pages with hundreds of
pictures will cause the client system to freeze occasionally. One of our
thin clients has 512 MB RAM and here these problems almost never occur.
Enabling Network-Swap helps a lot.
Cheers, Theo Schmidt
@David: I'd go with similar specs like the ones you described, yeah:
* Ultra thin: 128-256 RAM
* Descent thin: 256+
* Descent fat: 1 Gb+
@Theo: LTSP fat clients have the same performance as if they were booted
from local disk. So they do need to be beefy.
Cons:
* Central point of failure.
* A small learning curve to learn about how LTSP does things.
* Gigabit network at least from the server to the switch is required
for thin clients, and suggested for fats.
Pros of LTSP in general:
* Centralized user accounts, user homes (and shared folders which are
very useful for classrooms).
* Centralized configuration, just one lts.conf.
* Easy to add and remove clients; nothing gets installed locally.
* Way easier to maintain; the sysadmin only maintains the server.
Pros of fats over thins:
* Require much less bandwidth. Watching a full HD video requires more
than 1 Gbps on thins and just a few Mbps on fats.
* Can do 3D, so they don't have problems with Unity-3d or Gnome-shell
or kwin etc. And they won't have any problems in the future either, no
matter what happens with the fancy composition WMs and wayland etc etc
* If the clients are beefy, the applications responsiveness is much
better than on thins. You can watch impress presentations and scroll web
browsers and calc normally without lags.
* They don't require any server CPU or RAM, so you can boot many fat
clients from a modest server (e.g. a 300€ laptop).
Cheers,
Alkis
--
edubuntu-users mailing list
edubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-users
