[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Dave wrote: > I would like to have a central box with terminals hanging off it around the > house so I can play music, surf the web and (if I ever get that clever) > control X10 devices all via very minimal terminal type machines (i.e. no > major hardware that will all be in the central box) connected via Ethernet > not wireless (my walls are too thick, like me!). You appear to only want text terminals or is each terminal actually running Gnome/KDE/Enlightenment etc? Note that running any kind of GUI across a network connection is slow and consumes vast amounts of network bandwidth for tiny operations, increasing the load on the server. Dumb text terminals need almost no hardware on the machines themselves. Lack of a hard drive means no moving parts, less need for fans and a much quieter environment. To run a GUI, you're going to need a full desktop PC for each terminal machine; maybe old and underpowered for use as a dedicated workstation but with hard drive, graphics card, fans, etc. In a word, noise. Alternatively, separate machines operating as peers is even easier. You can choose to share data between boxes when appropriate and you can choose not to when it would just consume network bandwidth for no purpose. You can use sophisticated tools to share data - maybe share your /home/ directory using subversion, share your images using a simple gallery package and Apache, share your music via NFS and share your email via IMAP. Instead of lumping all that on one server, you could have one machine that does subversion and email, one that serves music and one that serves images. None of those machines need to be the latest and greatest. I'm using this setup and my email/CVS/IMAP machine was built in 1992. It's had a new power supply since then (thanks to Neil S.) but otherwise, it is an unchanged Pentium1 90MHz machine, 4Gb hard drive (yes 4, not 40 or 400) with (IIRC) 128Mb RAM. I couldn't install XP on it even if I wanted to, yet it runs Debian stable perfectly and has done for years. (Since about July 2000.) It's been rebooted twice in 3 years and not had any unscheduled downtime in 6 years. It just sits on the end of a network cable, doesn't care about a GUI or anything else, it just serves data across the network. Even if I do need to do some work on that box in the future, the rest of the network continues operating - try that with a central server.... > I can't though discern the difference between something like the Linux > Terminal Server Project and Remote X as to which would be better for my > needs; I know LTSP allows local USB devices etc to be treated as if they are > on the main system but if that is the only difference between the two > systems then I would rather not use it. Why? LTSP is probably the way to do this - as originally described. > As I see it LTSP is really a Distro on a distro so why not stick Dsl, > Xandros or whatever on a USB Key or something and use that to Remote X to > the central box? Is there limits to how many X systems can run off the same > box at the same time? Network capacity, server load, time it takes you to not fall asleep waiting for a keypress to show up in a text box . . . LTSP is about optimisation, Xandros needs to be tweaked to run this way. USB keys aren't the complete answer either - remember that flash storage has a limited read/write lifetime. > I would really appreciate some help here becuase the connection betweeen > 'Terminal' and 'Server' is a big stumbling block for me which I can't seem > to get over. The less data needs to be transmitted between the two, the more useful the setup becomes. Keep the amount of data low and you can use simple, cheap machines that are quiet and don't get in the way of your work. Put too much data through that ethernet cable and you'll need a really powerful server machine (really noisy) and also more-powerful-than-otherwise-needed terminal machines too. Too much network data and you'll have trouble squeezing your own data through the same cables. If the terminal machines need to run "apt-get upgrade" then you'd better make sure you don't want to use the GUI at the same time. Sit down and think this out. You may find it much more useful to simply have one or more machines in a converted bedroom upstairs, run an ethernet cable to the downstairs and use a quiet machine downstairs, e.g. a laptop, especially a Mac laptop as they are often a lot quieter than PC versions and run GNU/Linux just as well. (i.e. that's what I do.) Consider the benefits of having a "terminal" that you can take with you - complete with rsync'd copies of network data. Also consider that having separate machines is a benefit in and of itself - backing up the data on that central box could be a problem. With separate machines working in a peer environment rather than client/server, you can back up each one onto the others using rsync. A backups to B, B to C and C to A. Reduces the risk of a single hard drive failure removing all your data. > Thanks in advance for any help and apologies if I've made any faux pas with > mail etiquete as this is my first mailing. No problem. You got everything right - despite using OE, you didn't send HTML, your text is clear (mostly) and your questions are understandable. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html