Linked by Nik Tripp on Mon 2nd Mar 2009 21:40 UTC
SuSE, openSUSE IT solutions companies have been generating lots of buzz regarding thin clients basically since the early 1990s, but have yet to really penetrate into many suitable environments. These relatively cheap computer appliances carry broad promises like energy efficiency, space efficiency, and centralized maintenance and data storage. These claims could sound like the computer industry equivalent of snake oil. Kiwi-LTSP, a combination of KIWI imaging technology and Linux Terminal Server Project, is one open source solution for thin client servers.
Permalink for comment 351656
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06


Wow! That sounds good! But I wonder, have you experienced this performance by yourself or have you only read marketing about this?

You see, one client runs Windows XP + MS Office + Powerpoint + etc at my company. This uses at minimum 1GB RAM and a CPU at 2GHz on a single computer, right? I have problems seeing how you could run 30 of these work loads simultaneously on one server with 4GB RAM and one dual core CPU. Even if you skip Windows I fail to see how one server can run 30 clients on 4GB RAM and a dual core CPU. Because, that is what is needed for one user. And you can not stuff in 30 clients into that.

Actually, I have looked somewhat into thin clients, and I strongly suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.


He certainly does know what he is talking, but I think you are still talking about thin-clients, while he is talking about diskless systems. Because your not running all the client apps on the server in a diskless setup, the server doesn't need a ton of ram and everything else. So what he said is true. In a thin-client setup which is what you are talking about this probably is not true, and you need a much beefier server as the number of clients increase and depending on what the clients do.


Maybe you didnt read my first post? Where I gave arguments to why I think ultra thin clients are superior to thin clients (because they are just like a diskless PC). You are describing a diskless PC.

The reason I dont like diskless PCs are because they are just like a PC, but without a hard disk. How many sys admins are required for PCs? One sysadmin for each 30 Windows PC? They need maintenance all the time. You need to patch them all the time. Viruses. etc. For 19.000 SunRay, you only need 38 sysadmins worldwide. This is only possible if you can decrease the work labour very very much. This is not possible with a diskless PC or thin clients. Also there are huge energy savings with 4 watt SunRay. One bank saved 94% of their energy bill.

The only thing you can not do with ultra thin clients SunRay is playing full screen video (unless you install some software). For work and programming, they are perfect. SunRay has as much performance as the server, they dont run software themselves. If you need more performance, upgrade the server. And SunRay never break, the MTBF is 22 years. If they break, you just plug in a new one. That takes 1 minute and you are back where you were.


In my opinion I much rather prefer diskless systems because I think they are much more flexible. You can do some of the things phoenix stated, such as running a hypervisor, and 3d video. This just doesn't seem possible in a thin client environment. Furthermore, I don't see why you can't have some of the advantages of a thin client system in a diskless environment. The things you mention are all just implementation details which could probably quite easily be done in a diskless setup. Also, in terms of power, I think the same could be achieved using atom based systems in a diskless environment.

Reply Parent Score: 2