<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
With that amount of DRAM, I'd be interested to know which desktop you
have your users on, and which apps they use. Also, do they all use the
same desktop?<br>
<br>
--TP<br>
<br>
Nadav Kavalerchik wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid4219988b0701081147t4397f649v9e1ad285eb4687ad@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">we use (intel 830 model - pentium 4 ) 3.2 GHz with 2 GB
RAM to serve 25 clients<br>
<br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/8/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">"Terrell
Prudé Jr."</b> <<a href="mailto:microman@cmosnetworks.com">
microman@cmosnetworks.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">Sounds like your issue is
DRAM. Depending on the apps running (e. g.
TuxType), it could also be server bandwidth, but from what you
describe, it sounds like you're starting to swap to disk once you hit
60 clients. That will definitely slow any kind of terminal server,
including LTSP servers, to a crawl. You might not have any DRAM hogs,
but if you've got a bunch of instances of an app running, all using a
certain amount of DRAM, that adds up. For that reason, I normally
didn't push my servers, which generally have 4GB DRAM, past 30
clients. Since you're only at 65% CPU usage, it really doesn't sound
like that's your problem. Also, make sure that you are indeed checking
that *all* of your server's CPUs are seeing only 65% usage. By
default, top shows only an average between all of them.<br>
<br>
--TP<br>
<div>_______________________________
<br>
Do you GNU!?
<br>
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/" target="_blank"
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">Microsoft Free
since 2003</a>--the
ultimate antivirus protection!
<br>
</div>
<div><span class="e" id="q_10fffa4609117339_1"><br>
<br>
Immanuel Derks wrote:
<blockquote
cite="http://mid1168183605.11023.21.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre>Hi all,
Just wondering at the moment how people feel about the difference in
performance characteristics between the latest Xeon core duo breed
processors and the old fashioned dual Xeon server layouts for LTSP.
We have multiple IBM X235/x236 with double Xeon 3GHz processors
outfitted for a failover LTPS configuration at our school (80-100
clients) and are wondering whether we can simplify the configuration by
making use of a single server with double Xeon dual core processors (say
an X3650 that comes with 2 dual-core Xeon 2.33/2.66 or 3.0GHz)
Can anybody testify a configuration with similar loads who made such a
swap? I know dual core processors don't have a similar performance as 2
separate xeons at the same speed, but one might wonder with all the
threaded apps en memory use in LTSP, that it could stack up to it...
I must say I feel a bit skeptical sometimes at the performances quotas
that I sometimes see here on the list, since we noticed (even on our
glass backbone) that x236 servers with 3GHz processors and 8GB ram
fitted are really dropping performance to a slow when 60 people login (2
classes) and start working on office and firefox stuff at the same time.
That's why we needed 2 similar servers and we are doing fine now.
As soon as the CPU loads get over the 65% peak loads, we get a real drop
in performance, but no iowait or memory hogs or anything....
(we basically run standard RedHat 4 edu edition)
Kind regards,
Immanuel Derks
</pre>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>