On 7/28/2010 12:19 AM, Nataraj wrote:
>
> Are there any advantages to running FreeNX over vncserver? Does it
> perform better?
I have run both. On a local network, they are about the same. Over the
Internet, FreeNX is much more responsive.
--
Bowie
__
Nataraj wrote:
> Stephen Harris wrote:
>> Even another ISP may not help so much. I have Verizon FIOS and am based on
>> the East Coast. There's a 92ms delay to reach my linode, in Fremont.
>> Any message the X client sends to the server and then waits for a reply would
>> have approx 200ms round
From: Nataraj
> Are there any advantages to running FreeNX over vncserver? Does it
> perform better?
Unless I am mistaken:
VNC traffic is bitmap (whole screen or part of the screen, optionaly
compressed)
transfered at each refresh.
FreeNX is compressed/cached XWindow traffic.
I think, alth
Stephen Harris wrote:
> Even another ISP may not help so much. I have Verizon FIOS and am based on
> the East Coast. There's a 92ms delay to reach my linode, in Fremont.
> Any message the X client sends to the server and then waits for a reply would
> have approx 200ms round trip time. I doesn't
At Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:17:45 +0800 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> Dotan Cohen wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 19:35, Stephen Harris wrote:
> >> Which shows it's working... but painfully slowly. Bandwidth and especially
> >> latency is killing you.
> >>
> >
> > Other than getting a new ISP
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 19:35, Stephen Harris wrote:
>>> Which shows it's working... but painfully slowly. Bandwidth and especially
>>> latency is killing you.
>>>
>> Other than getting a new ISP, is there anything that I can do about the
Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 19:35, Stephen Harris wrote:
>> Which shows it's working... but painfully slowly. Bandwidth and especially
>> latency is killing you.
>>
>
> Other than getting a new ISP, is there anything that I can do about the
> latency?
I can smoothly run X over
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 08:46:08PM +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 19:35, Stephen Harris wrote:
> > Which shows it's working... but painfully slowly. ??Bandwidth and especially
> > latency is killing you.
> Other than getting a new ISP, is there anything that I can do about th
Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
>>> EPEL is generally known to not overwrite distro files, but when it
>>> starts showing conflicts with the CentOS extras repo, that needs an
>>> additional note.
>> I think the point is that CentOS isn't 'the distro' that epel doesn't
>> overwrite.
>> And it really makes m
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 20:29, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>>> You need to be somewhat careful these days about things that came from
>>> centos-testing or extras as some now also appear in epel with the same
>>> names and
>>
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 19:35, Stephen Harris wrote:
> Which shows it's working... but painfully slowly. Bandwidth and especially
> latency is killing you.
>
Other than getting a new ISP, is there anything that I can do about the latency?
> FreeNX is designed to work around this by reducing th
Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> You need to be somewhat careful these days about things that came from
>> centos-testing or extras as some now also appear in epel with the same names
>> and
>> version number that aren't likely to be coordinated. I h
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> You need to be somewhat careful these days about things that came from
> centos-testing or extras as some now also appear in epel with the same names
> and
> version number that aren't likely to be coordinated. I haven't seen anything
> act
Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> What you are trying should work without running X at the console, but you
>> might
>> like the freenx/NX client even better. That gives you a complete remote X
>> desktop with very good performance that you can discon
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 07:23:03PM +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> I don't. After 15 minutes the square of the supposed Firefox window
> came up. That's painful! But therein lies the problem.
Which shows it's working... but painfully slowly. Bandwidth and especially
latency is killing you.
FreeNX is
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 19:14, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> What you are trying should work without running X at the console, but you
>> might
>> like the freenx/NX client even better. That gives you a complete remote X
>> desktop with very good
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 18:38, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
> Dotan,
>
> On 25 July 2010 16:32, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> However, when I do this I get no response (no firefox window opens, no
>> terminal output), even after several minutes. I figured that was
>> because X is not running.
> That's not the r
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> What you are trying should work without running X at the console, but you
> might
> like the freenx/NX client even better. That gives you a complete remote X
> desktop with very good performance that you can disconnect and reconnect with
>
Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 18:26, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you are trying to do. Using VNC server or ssh with
>> X11 tunneling (-X or -Y) would make more sense.
>> You don't need X itself running for either of these.
>>
>
> Yes, my intention is to ssh in then r
Dotan,
On 25 July 2010 16:32, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> However, when I do this I get no response (no firefox window opens, no
> terminal output), even after several minutes. I figured that was
> because X is not running.
That's not the reason. You don't run X on the server for such
purposes. You alre
Am 25.07.2010 17:15, schrieb Dotan Cohen:
> Note that my goal is to start
> X, then ssh in and run Firefox remotely from a Fedora desktop. The
> server itself has no monitor.
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice.
>
For that you do not need an X server on the remote machine all you need
is X11
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 18:26, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are trying to do. Using VNC server or ssh with
> X11 tunneling (-X or -Y) would make more sense.
> You don't need X itself running for either of these.
>
Yes, my intention is to ssh in then run the app like this:
local$
On 25 July 2010 16:15, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> experiments. Should I post the logfiles? Note that my goal is to start
> X, then ssh in and run Firefox remotely from a Fedora desktop. The
> server itself has no monitor.
I'm not sure what you are trying to do. Using VNC server or ssh with
X11 tunneling
23 matches
Mail list logo
