Two X servers, one box

2012-07-02 Thread Cook, Rich
Hi, I am trying to run two instances of X.Org X Server 1.10.4 per node of our dual-GPU Red Hat cluster. I do this: /usr/bin/startx /usr/bin/xterm -display :0 -- -nolock -auth /g/g0/rcook/.Xauthority-0 :0 and this: /usr/bin/startx /usr/bin/xterm -display :1 -- -nolock -auth /g/g0/rcook/.Xauth

Re: Two X servers, one box

2012-07-02 Thread Cook, Rich
Ah hell, now it's just working. How strange. No doubt as soon as I send this it will stop working again. Never mind! Thanks. On Jul 2, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Cook, Rich wrote: > Hi, > I am trying to run two instances of X.Org X Server 1.10.4 per node of our > dual-GPU Red Hat cl

Re: Two X servers, one box

2012-07-03 Thread Cook, Rich
old man once said: "in the end, everything is going to be alright" ________ From: "Cook, Rich" mailto:coo...@llnl.gov>> To: "xorg@lists.x.org<mailto:xorg@lists.x.org>" mailto:xorg@lists.x.org>> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 4:

Re: Two X servers, one box

2012-07-03 Thread Cook, Rich
My understanding is that the xterm properly goes before the -- . All args after -- are passed to the X server. I guess I can just read startx, it's a simple script On Jul 3, 2012, at 2:22 AM, Felix Miata wrote: > On 2012/07/03 01:23 (GMT) Cook, Rich composed: > >> Cook, Ric

IGLX going away? Panic!

2016-05-26 Thread Cook, Rich
Hello, I recently heard on the Apple x11-users mailing list that remote OpenGL rendering (IGLX) is being phased out of XOrg and not being replaced. Is this really the case or am I misunderstanding? We at the national laboratories depend on this technology every day and will need to respond to

Re: Remote OpenGL

2016-05-26 Thread Cook, Rich
The point here is that today it is being *disabled* and in the future it is completely *going away.* Anyone care to argue with that? I'd love to be wrong about it. > On May 26, 2016, at 3:56 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 09:14 +0200, Laurent Lamalle wrote: >> Hello, >>

Re: Remote OpenGL

2016-05-27 Thread Cook, Rich
> On May 27, 2016, at 1:53 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia > wrote: > >> Another awkward thing about this, I suppose, is that on OSX the X server >> is started implicitly on demand and there's no reasonable way to configure >> things like command line options. > > Most of those are configured vi

Re: Remote OpenGL

2016-05-27 Thread Cook, Rich
ompletely > go away.) > > -alan- > > On 05/26/16 04:43 PM, Cook, Rich wrote: >> The point here is that today it is being *disabled* and in the future it is >> completely *going away.* Anyone care to argue with that? I'd love to be >> wrong about it.

Re: Remote OpenGL

2016-05-27 Thread Cook, Rich
r I'm misunderstanding or that the developers of XOrg are missing this important use case in their analyses. Thanks -- Rich > On May 27, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Alan Coopersmith > wrote: > > On 05/27/16 11:20 AM, Cook, Rich wrote: >> I'm glad to hear that one of the core X s

Re: Remote OpenGL

2016-05-27 Thread Cook, Rich
> On May 27, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia > wrote: > > >> On May 27, 2016, at 09:27, Cook, Rich wrote: >> >> >>> On May 27, 2016, at 1:53 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Another awk