[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[K12OSN] RE: Fedora 9 Live LTSP Server, Beta 1



Warren Togami wrote:
>>
>> Healy, Patrick wrote:
>> > Barely acceptable on ebox 2300
>> > SiS 200 MHz, 64 MB Ram plus 64 MB for onboard graphics
>> > Sound OK (but visualization needed to be off to play music in Totem)
>> > 3'20" boot time
>> > 1'10" login time
>>
>> I have one of these.  I can agree that performance is barely
>> acceptable.  This is a pretty terrible machine....
>> How many of these clients do you have?

I've got two of them in service at school (using LTSP 4.2 on FC6) plus eight more that I was going to install.

I just tested one at home with a similar setup, and got a 45 second boot and an 8 second login to Gnome.  Sound didn't work at home, but it's working at school with different drivers using IceWM.  Performance is just OK with that setup, during school, the kids have occasionally noticed some lag from those two stations, compared with the Celeron 366 machines, even on the LTSP 4.2 version using IceWM.  

But with the LTSP5 on FC9, the lag is quite noticable.  Programs are slower to open, and even scrolling down a page in the browser is jumpy and delayed.  I'd only use these clients in an emergency with the new system.  But they're still better now, than under the Ubuntu LTSP I was trying them with at the beginning of summer (as I recall, that took five minutes to boot the ebox 2300, and just moving the mouse caused music playback to skip).

I have over twenty of the Celeron 366 machines, and only bought the ebox's as replacements, since some of my client's power supplies are failing, and the ebox's cost was similar to a power supply (...oh, and they look cool).  The boot time isn't critical, as I can leave them on, since they draw so little power.  But the usage lag is limiting, and not much can be done about that, I suspect.

But I'm very pleased with the performance of the Celeron clients, and haven't even tried IceWM with them yet, as it wasn't on the live image.  I'd say that machine (Celeron 366 MHz, 128 MB Ram, i810 graphics and sound) is a good "entry level" client for LTSP5 on FC9.  

But I'm confused on one thing:

Warren Togami wrote:
I'm 90% to making NBD boot a standard option (but not default) of Fedora LTSP5. It should be an option in the next LTSP update that should be in the Live Beta 2.

I thought I was using NBD boot on this beta.  Was it NFS?  And what of the ssh login, or was that just under Ubuntu?

Thanks again.
Patrick Healy
Palm Desert High School




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]