Re: X Terminals help appreciated

[Al Hudson <nospam [at] york.ac.uk>]

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Ruediger> There is another possibility : X has the '-indirect
> Ruediger> IP-Address' switch,
>
> How cute. Undocumented in the man pages supplied by Debian.

It's not really properly documented anywhere, as far as I can see. What
you're looking for is support for XDMCP, this is how the Query is
transmitted.

> I don't see why network load would differ much; most of the load is
> likely to be in X protocol transmission, given the specified central
> login server model. (Or are you talking about something else with
> your NFS architecture?) The chooser, xdm, login traffic, and so on is
> a very small part of that.

It might depend on what Window Manager stuff like that was running: I
would imagine the root window etc. is hosted remotely? (I've never done an
indirect X session myself, so I've no idea how they work!) I would have
thought a full X desktop would have greater load than a DISPLAY'd app, due
to having more bitmaps flying backwards and forwards, etc. I would
estimate this to be small compared with hosting remote drives, though, so
I don't know how much difference it would make.

You also have the problem of the workstations being useless when the
server falls over.

> Steve should keep in mind the fact that Linux servers tend to
> proliferate like gerbils since they're cheap, efficient to network,
> and easy to set up, though. Then network traffic will be a serious
> consideration in thinking about expansion patterns.

This is very true. . .

Cheers,

Alex.

Start your own FREE mailing list at

© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved