LTSP 5 is in minimal maintenance mode
The new LTSP is hosted at https://ltsp.github.io

IRC chat logs for #ltsp on irc.freenode.net (webchat)


Channel log from 25 August 2019   (all times are UTC)

00:05bluejaypop has left IRC (bluejaypop!~BlueJay@fixed-187-188-168-242.totalplay.net, Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
00:19bluejaypop has joined IRC (bluejaypop!~BlueJay@fixed-187-188-168-242.totalplay.net)
00:29bluejaypop has left IRC (bluejaypop!~BlueJay@fixed-187-188-168-242.totalplay.net, Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
00:42bluejaypop has joined IRC (bluejaypop!~BlueJay@fixed-187-188-168-242.totalplay.net)
00:55bluejaypop has left IRC (bluejaypop!~BlueJay@fixed-187-188-168-242.totalplay.net, Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
01:05pppingme has left IRC (pppingme!~pppingme@unaffiliated/pppingme, Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
05:19pppingme has joined IRC (pppingme!~pppingme@unaffiliated/pppingme)
06:00Hyperbyte has left IRC (Hyperbyte!~jan@middelkoop.cc, Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
06:07ricotz has joined IRC (ricotz!~ricotz@ubuntu/member/ricotz)
06:18Hyperbyte has joined IRC (Hyperbyte!~jan@middelkoop.cc)
06:23vagrantc has left IRC (vagrantc!~vagrant@unaffiliated/vagrantc, Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
06:26ogra has left IRC (ogra!~ogra_@ubuntu/member/ogra, Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
06:57
<alkisg>
https://github.com/ltsp/ltsp/issues/13 ==> I think it'll be best to disable flow control on all NICs by default, and enable NAT on the 192.168.67.1 subnet, so that both of these issues are solved by default for LTSP installations
06:57
...anyone thinks that this is a bad idea?
07:10
<Hyperbyte>
Don't you run the risk of buffer overflows on smaller switches? Isn't the flow control there to project these switches from having to drop packets?
07:12
If you're asking about my setups directly, I'm pretty sure my managed HP ProCurve won't care. Nor will the Cisco ones. I don't use others for LTSP.
07:27
<alkisg>
LTSP is using TCP traffic, so rate limiting will be done at the IP level, not at the ethernet level
07:27
I do not know if AoE would be affected positively or negatively or non at all
07:28
I also don't know of any other big non-IP based traffic and how that would be affected; but I think IP traffic will only be 10 times faster
07:28
Plus, the managed switches that I have, have flow control disabled by default.. yours?
08:53
<Hyperbyte>
Probably. Don't know off the top of my head.
10:11pppingme has left IRC (pppingme!~pppingme@unaffiliated/pppingme, Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
10:57pppingme has joined IRC (pppingme!~pppingme@unaffiliated/pppingme)
14:31vagrantc has joined IRC (vagrantc!~vagrant@unaffiliated/vagrantc)
15:05
<mwalters>
flow control is disabled by default on my cisco sg300s... same with my netgear gs7
15:48
<alkisg>
And I think users will want automatic ip masquerading; how else would the fat clients be able to access the internet...
16:20bcg has left IRC (bcg!~b@dfx4btyyyyyyyyyyyyyyt-3.rev.dnainternet.fi, Quit: bcg)
16:24bcg has joined IRC (bcg!~b@dfx4btyyyyyyyyyyyyyyt-3.rev.dnainternet.fi)
17:12
<mwalters>
for dual nic setup?
17:12
most definitely
17:12
anyone who wants a dual nic setup, but not have NAT, would probably know how to configure everything anyways ;)
18:52ogra_ has joined IRC (ogra_!~ogra_@p5098ed03.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)
18:52ogra_ has left IRC (ogra_!~ogra_@p5098ed03.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)
18:52ogra has joined IRC (ogra!~ogra_@ubuntu/member/ogra)
20:07statler has left IRC (statler!~Georg@p5489731F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de, Remote host closed the connection)
20:24ricotz has left IRC (ricotz!~ricotz@ubuntu/member/ricotz, Quit: Leaving)