<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1250"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> If I was to get permission to spend money for a clustering option, which apps from my original post would you suggest to run on an appserver?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> More importantly, how do I set up an appserver? Pointing me to a how to would be great. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> __________________________________________<o:p></o:p> I am Homer of Borg. You will be assimilated.<o:p></o:p> Resistance is fut......Hmmmm....DONUTS!<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: k12osn-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:k12osn-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Liam Marshall Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:32 PM To: k12osn@redhat.com Subject: [K12OSN] Performance Issue<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> I administer a network at a K-12 school in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Winnipeg</st1:City> <st1:State w:st="on">Manitoba</st1:State></st1:place>. I also teach grades 9-12 computer classes, while other teachers use the lab for their classes.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I am currently running K12LTSP (ver 4.4.1 I believe) on a dual xeon 3.06 MHz computer with 4-80 Gb SATA drives configured on a megaraid-4 controller raid 1+0. 2 nics, and 1 is even a gigabyte nic, but all the switches involved in my network are 10/100, so it is not being utilized <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> All applications are run from this one server, except I have a stand alone box that does nothing except host our school’s mail. Currently connecting 35 thin clients which run a variety of applications the most important of which are StarOffice 7 applications, Firefox for surfing/research/ etc, and NetBeans 3.6 IDE for java programming, and KTOUCH. Elementary classes use such things as TuxPaint, TuxType.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> When I teach, I frequently run into situations where the kids are doing/accessing the same thing at virtually the same time. For example, they might all try to start StarOffice Text at more or less the same time. Regardless of the app, near simultaneous execution of the program bogs down network. Once in, most apps perform well enough, some notable ones do not, like NetBeans. (it is fine with 5-10 but a pig when 20 use it at the same time.) And at the end of any class, when 30 ish users all try to log out, the log out process itself is quite slow.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I am looking for ways to increase speed/traffic throughput. This is what I plan to do. Please tell me if I am on the right track.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Run DSL modem into a 8 port 10/100/1000 switch.<o:p></o:p> Plug a Linksys router into switch to grab the outside IP. Plug the slower 10/100 nic from the server into the Linksys router (internet is limited anyway, so a gigabyte connection would be wasted, right)<o:p></o:p> Run the gigabyte nic from the server into the gigabyte switch.<o:p></o:p> Upgrade my lab switches to 10/100 ‘s but with Gigabyte backbones, which I will use to connect them to the Gigabyte switch<o:p></o:p> Any expansion in the school will use switches with gigabyte backbones to connect to the main, all gigabyte switch<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I planned to do this because from my reading of this list, and others, I had gathered/assumed that this would have a significant positive impact on speed/throughput. But today I talked to someone who told me that this won’t help all that much because my biggest problem/bottleneck is not the lack of a Gigabyte backbone, but is the hard drive accessbottleneck on the server<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The solution I was planning above is far less expensive than say adding a few more servers to do clustering. I have the ok for the Gigabyte solution, but doubt I would get the funds for the clustering option, or have the space currently, to host the extra boxes. (space is that tight!) Will my plan help at all? Or am I wasting time/money.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Please advice. Advice/opinions are welcome<o:p></o:p> __________________________________________<o:p></o:p> I am Homer of Borg. You will be assimilated.<o:p></o:p> Resistance is fut......Hmmmm....DONUTS!<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html> -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/288 - Release Date: 3/22/2006 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.0/290 - Release Date: 3/23/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.0/290 - Release Date: 3/23/2006