IRC chat logs for #ltsp on irc.libera.chat (webchat)
Channel log from 19 March 2011 (all times are UTC)
| 00:27 | LoveStorm (storm@thepcrepair.info) left irc: Ping timeout: 264 seconds | |
| 00:31 | LoveStorm (~Storm@thepcrepair.info) joined #ltsp. | |
| 00:36 | LoveStorm (~Storm@thepcrepair.info) left irc: Ping timeout: 264 seconds | |
| 03:06 | wwx (~ww@raamat.polva.ee) left irc: Read error: Connection reset by peer | |
| 03:07 | wwx (~ww@raamat.polva.ee) joined #ltsp. | |
| 03:24 | artista-frustrad (~artista_f@187.7.151.137) left irc: Quit: Leaving | |
| 03:26 | cyberorg (~cyberorg@opensuse/member/Cyberorg) left irc: Remote host closed the connection | |
| 03:28 | cyberorg (~cyberorg@opensuse/member/Cyberorg) joined #ltsp. | |
| 03:33 | bobby_C (~bobby@85-124-22-227.teleworker.xdsl-line.inode.at) joined #ltsp. | |
| 04:34 | drdata (~drdata@pool-173-57-189-158.dllstx.fios.verizon.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 255 seconds | |
| 04:35 | Faithful (~Faithful@202.189.73.144) joined #ltsp. | |
| 05:49 | Trixboxer (~Trixboxer@office.supportdepartment.net) joined #ltsp. | |
| 05:54 | andygraybeal (~andy.gray@obsidian.casanueva.com) joined #ltsp. | |
| 06:03 | wwx (~ww@raamat.polva.ee) left irc: Read error: Connection reset by peer | |
| 06:03 | wwx (~ww@raamat.polva.ee) joined #ltsp. | |
| 06:05 | shogunx (~shogunx@rrcs-67-79-182-228.se.biz.rr.com) left irc: Read error: Operation timed out | |
| 06:41 | Faithful (~Faithful@202.189.73.144) left irc: Read error: Connection reset by peer | |
| 06:43 | Faithful (~Faithful@202.189.73.144) joined #ltsp. | |
| 06:51 | alexqwesa (~alex@109.172.15.11) left irc: Read error: Connection reset by peer | |
| 07:03 | alexqwesa (~alex@alexo-veto.broker.freenet6.net) joined #ltsp. | |
| 07:07 | alexqwesa (~alex@alexo-veto.broker.freenet6.net) left irc: Remote host closed the connection | |
| 07:10 | alexqwesa (~alex@alexo-veto.broker.freenet6.net) joined #ltsp. | |
| 07:37 | cyberorg (~cyberorg@opensuse/member/Cyberorg) left irc: Ping timeout: 255 seconds | |
| 07:56 | drdata (~drdata@tw2.udallas.edu) joined #ltsp. | |
| 08:00 | drdata (~drdata@tw2.udallas.edu) left irc: Read error: Connection reset by peer | |
| 08:24 | MorningSon (~MorningSo@cpe-70-114-21-95.satx.res.rr.com) joined #ltsp. | |
| 08:51 | <moldy> hi
| |
| 08:52 | about 30% of the time, my clients hang at boot (before the ldm screen appears). they still respond to ping, but i cannot login with ssh. switching to the local console does not work. can anyone suggest a good method to debug this?
| |
| 09:06 | Faithful (~Faithful@202.189.73.144) left irc: Ping timeout: 250 seconds | |
| 09:14 | cyberorg (~cyberorg@opensuse/member/Cyberorg) joined #ltsp. | |
| 09:16 | <moldy> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ltsp/+bug/589034 could be this issue, i guess
| |
| 09:43 | mistik1 (mistik1@unaffiliated/mistik1) left irc: Read error: Connection reset by peer | |
| 09:43 | mistik1 (mistik1@unaffiliated/mistik1) joined #ltsp. | |
| 09:58 | shogunx (~shogunx@2001:4978:106:1:21e:33ff:fe47:32f5) joined #ltsp. | |
| 10:02 | Kicer86 (~Kicer86@host-5db0eeee.sileman.net.pl) joined #ltsp. | |
| 11:12 | Lns (~Lns@pdpc/supporter/professional/lns) left irc: Quit: Leaving | |
| 11:56 | alkisg (~alkisg@ubuntu/member/alkisg) joined #ltsp. | |
| 12:09 | shogunx (~shogunx@2001:4978:106:1:21e:33ff:fe47:32f5) left irc: Read error: No route to host | |
| 12:11 | shogunx (~shogunx@2001:4978:106:1:21e:33ff:fe47:32f5) joined #ltsp. | |
| 12:32 | wwx (~ww@raamat.polva.ee) left irc: Read error: Connection reset by peer | |
| 12:33 | wwx (~ww@raamat.polva.ee) joined #ltsp. | |
| 13:02 | vagrantc (~vagrant@75-150-46-245-Oregon.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) joined #ltsp. | |
| 13:06 | Trixboxer (~Trixboxer@office.supportdepartment.net) left irc: Quit: "Achievement is not the end, its the beginning of new journey !!!" | |
| 13:13 | <highvoltage> vagrantc: are you around?
| |
| 13:14 | <vagrantc> highvoltage: barely
| |
| 13:15 | <highvoltage> vagrantc: what do you think of http://jonathancarter.org/files/dump/ldm_spacefun.png ?
| |
| 13:16 | <vagrantc> oh-ho!
| |
| 13:16 | roasted (~Jason@c-174-54-217-48.hsd1.pa.comcast.net) joined #ltsp. | |
| 13:16 | <roasted> What's up fellas?
| |
| 13:17 | <vagrantc> highvoltage: i'll have to think of it later ... but thanks!
| |
| 13:18 | highvoltage: looks good from here! licensing all good? :)
| |
| 13:18 | <highvoltage> vagrantc: ok, I'll paste the tarball so that you could test it directly too if you'd like. and my pleasure :)
| |
| 13:18 | <roasted> I want to edit my lts.conf to force all clients to get thin client images instead of fat, just for tesing purposes here. I'm not seeing the entry in the man page. Anybody know the entry offhand?
| |
| 13:18 | <highvoltage> vagrantc: roasted I got it all from http://wiki.debian.org/DebianArt/Themes/SpaceFun - I'll have to get the exact licensing/copyright. will do that next...
| |
| 13:18 | vagrantc: but since all that artwork is already in debian I'm sure it will be no problem
| |
| 13:19 | <vagrantc> highvoltage: it's just modified variants of the other artwork? should be clean then.
| |
| 13:19 | <highvoltage> (oops, don't know where that "roasted" comes from)
| |
| 13:19 | <roasted> was that a mistake to tag me in that highvoltage ?
| |
| 13:19 | lol
| |
| 13:19 | <highvoltage> roasted: yes, sorry :)
| |
| 13:19 | <roasted> I was like whaat?
| |
| 13:19 | <highvoltage> vagrantc: yep
| |
| 13:20 | vagrantc: http://jonathancarter.org/files/temp/spacefun.tar (I know you're kind of away now but there it is)
| |
| 13:25 | <roasted> where's the path of lts.conf? The only one I dig up is the example.
| |
| 13:27 | <highvoltage> /var/lib/tftpboot/ltsp/<arch>/lts.conf
| |
| 13:27 | <roasted> does one not exist by default?
| |
| 13:28 | yeah, weird. I don't have one in that dir.
| |
| 13:28 | <highvoltage> indeed, it doesn't exist by default
| |
| 13:28 | <roasted> ah okay
| |
| 13:29 | is read perms with root:root okay?
| |
| 13:29 | <highvoltage> yep
| |
| 13:30 | <vagrantc> lts.conf on debian is usually /opt/ltsp/i386/etc/lts.conf
| |
| 13:30 | <roasted> I figured it would exist and just be empty or something.
| |
| 13:30 | yeah I have one in that tdirectory
| |
| 13:30 | <vagrantc> unless you're doing squashfs NBD stuff
| |
| 13:30 | <roasted> everything is commented out though
| |
| 13:30 | should I use that one?
| |
| 13:30 | or create in var?
| |
| 13:31 | <highvoltage> roasted: you don't know whether you're using debian or ubuntu? :)
| |
| 13:31 | <roasted> I'm using Ubuntu
| |
| 13:32 | But the lts.conf file I have is empty except comments.
| |
| 13:32 | I wasn't sure if that was the one to use or what.
| |
| 13:32 | And you mentioning the /var path threw me off :P
| |
| 13:32 | <highvoltage> roasted: wat does it say in the commented out section?
| |
| 13:32 | roasted: there might be something interesting in there
| |
| 13:32 | <roasted> This sit hed efault lts.conf file for ltsp5. blah blah blah
| |
| 13:32 | is this the default*
| |
| 13:32 | <highvoltage> roasted: it might even tell you the location of the right path if you look carefully!
| |
| 13:32 | <abeehc> it doesn't end up in var/lib/tftpboot by default
| |
| 13:33 | <roasted> hey
| |
| 13:33 | Last message repeated 1 time(s). | |
| 13:33 | <abeehc> but yeah the file your looking at should say where it's supposed to go
| |
| 13:33 | <roasted> so I DO have to create it in var
| |
| 13:33 | <abeehc> asi recall
| |
| 13:33 | yeah
| |
| 13:33 | <roasted> well isnt htat nifty
| |
| 13:33 | <highvoltage> roasted: yes, that's what I keep telling you! and that's what the file you're looking at is telling you!
| |
| 13:33 | <abeehc> no need to update image of course
| |
| 13:33 | yeah he's right though the file you are looking at clearly says that
| |
| 13:33 | <roasted> ah really? just reboot clients?
| |
| 13:33 | <abeehc> at least in the distrib i';ve used
| |
| 13:33 | yeah just reboot
| |
| 13:36 | <roasted> testing fat vs thin on my little netbook here
| |
| 13:37 | I almost feel bad now... I had my boss order more ram for my server... it only had 2gb of RAM so I had him get 8 GB for the real test-drive of this.
| |
| 13:38 | but now that I plugged fat clients into the mix with our existing hardware, I guess we don't need that much ram.
| |
| 13:38 | <abeehc> it doesn't hurt hehe
| |
| 13:38 | <roasted> we won't tell him that :P
| |
| 13:38 | it's interesting to watch the RAM usage on the server when I'm playing with fat vs thin setups. I can definitely see the differences.
| |
| 13:38 | fat clients are screaming my name now.
| |
| 13:38 | <abeehc> i wanna run my server on bare metal but no moneys to do so
| |
| 13:39 | that's good news, they are also screaming my name
| |
| 13:39 | <roasted> are you looking to deploy LTSP?
| |
| 13:39 | <abeehc> i've had it deployed for over a year now
| |
| 13:39 | <roasted> nice
| |
| 13:39 | good results?
| |
| 13:39 | <abeehc> but th normal thinclient setup
| |
| 13:39 | you know I';m not sure
| |
| 13:39 | <roasted> ah you're only using thin?
| |
| 13:39 | <abeehc> yes
| |
| 13:39 | <roasted> what aren't yuou sure about?
| |
| 13:39 | <abeehc> well i did start with local-apps but that sucked
| |
| 13:40 | <roasted> thin clients w/ local apps?
| |
| 13:40 | <abeehc> we've gone back and forth if it's a ton of savings versus booting to rdesktop windows terminal server
| |
| 13:40 | Yeah
| |
| 13:40 | <roasted> I read about that a little bit, but it doesn't really appeal to me
| |
| 13:40 | <abeehc> thinclients with localapps was a bit painful;
| |
| 13:40 | it's much better for flash and whatnot and you selectively choose the apps that the client runs
| |
| 13:40 | <roasted> it kind of seems like a more controlled way to have a buffer in between fat and thin clients
| |
| 13:40 | <abeehc> but in the gnome environment i struggled a bit
| |
| 13:40 | <roasted> but wouldnt fat clients do the same job?
| |
| 13:41 | I suppose the nice thing about local apps w/ thin would be if you had "in between gear"
| |
| 13:41 | <abeehc> Yeah
| |
| 13:41 | <roasted> meaning not really the horsepower to run fat clients
| |
| 13:41 | but you wanted more beef than thin clients
| |
| 13:41 | <abeehc> right yeah that's where it might be decent
| |
| 13:41 | my clients are decent enough to do fat, can't wait to get it out there
| |
| 13:41 | <roasted> nice, nice
| |
| 13:41 | how many clients are you using
| |
| 13:42 | <abeehc> some of my awesome users.. tend to reboot the clients when they have trouble
| |
| 13:42 | with fat clients it might actually make some difference hehe
| |
| 13:42 | about 25
| |
| 13:42 | <roasted> nice
| |
| 13:42 | one server?
| |
| 13:42 | <abeehc> maybe 18 logged in at peaks
| |
| 13:42 | yeah
| |
| 13:42 | sorta
| |
| 13:42 | <roasted> what specs are on the server box?
| |
| 13:42 | <abeehc> it's a vm
| |
| 13:42 | on a standard dl385
| |
| 13:43 | <roasted> nice
| |
| 13:43 | <abeehc> shared with a bunch of other servers so kind of a challenge
| |
| 13:43 | <roasted> we were going to VM the server
| |
| 13:43 | but we decided to localize it for starters
| |
| 13:43 | <abeehc> it's a good place to start
| |
| 13:43 | <roasted> and considering we HAD a spare server (despite the 2gb installed RAM) it worked out
| |
| 13:43 | <abeehc> I'm thinking about pushing for kvm instead of vmware for the next one i prep
| |
| 13:43 | <roasted> pair of dual core 3.2 ghz procs
| |
| 13:43 | should work, me thinks
| |
| 13:43 | 8gb ram and 2 gigabit nic's
| |
| 13:44 | <abeehc> for sure
| |
| 13:44 | <roasted> if this flies, my boss may give me the current thin client box running for another vendor
| |
| 13:44 | he wants to rip that lab out so bad
| |
| 13:44 | that server has a pair of six core procs, 32gb of ram, and 4 gigabit nics. me likey. :P
| |
| 13:44 | <abeehc> hehe
| |
| 13:44 | 3..2 is too high to not be a p4 though
| |
| 13:44 | no?
| |
| 13:44 | <roasted> what, the server I got?
| |
| 13:45 | <abeehc> the dial 3.2 is p4?
| |
| 13:45 | dual
| |
| 13:45 | <roasted> it's AMD
| |
| 13:45 | ogra (~ogra@ubuntu/member/ogra) left irc: Ping timeout: 248 seconds | |
| 13:45 | <roasted> pretty sure it's a 3.2
| |
| 13:45 | <abeehc> bleh racing on sorry half watching
| |
| 13:45 | <roasted> lol
| |
| 13:45 | <abeehc> nice
| |
| 13:45 | <roasted> I know the model number of the server, let me look up and make sure 3.2 was an option
| |
| 13:45 | yeah
| |
| 13:45 | ogra (~ogra@p5098ed03.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) joined #ltsp. | |
| 13:45 | <roasted> 3.5 was the highest option
| |
| 13:46 | <abeehc> it can't be opteron then/
| |
| 13:46 | ?
| |
| 13:46 | <roasted> for intel xeon
| |
| 13:46 | dang maybe we're not AMD...
| |
| 13:46 | Nick change: ogra -> Guest23759 | |
| 13:46 | <roasted> I was working on 2 servers
| |
| 13:46 | the one with the 2gb ram It hought was AMD
| |
| 13:46 | maybe I had them mixed
| |
| 13:46 | ha yeah theres no AMD option for that box. It has to be intel.
| |
| 13:47 | <abeehc> ah yeah
| |
| 13:47 | <roasted> so when are you moving your gear to fat clients?
| |
| 13:47 | seems like an easy trasnition
| |
| 13:47 | run the command, grab some lunch, some back, update, blam
| |
| 13:47 | <abeehc> i have a heavily modified chroot
| |
| 13:47 | it's gonna be a day or so and i've got no time lately
| |
| 13:47 | esp when the thinclients work well enough
| |
| 13:48 | heavily isn't the right word, but i do have to modify the new fat chroot quite a bit to keep consistency from the old server
| |
| 13:48 | and i'm running 9.04 right now so should be exciting
| |
| 13:49 | main draw really was nfs_home not sure if you =can do that with thin clients but moving io off the ltsp server seems like a rad idea
| |
| 13:49 | <roasted> haha isnt 9.04 dropped on support?
| |
| 13:50 | ha, yup :P
| |
| 13:50 | dropped in october
| |
| 13:52 | what the... "Oneiric Ocelot"
| |
| 13:52 | <abeehc> my mistake, 9.10 but it being dropped wouldn't really cause me to move faster
| |
| 13:52 | haha
| |
| 13:52 | still support xp laptops .......so........
| |
| 13:52 | yeah
| |
| 13:52 | <alkisg> For fat clients, a Pentium III CPU would do fine. Network bandwidth, disk speed, and a little RAM to cache the nbd image in RAM make the difference though.
| |
| 13:52 | <roasted> yeah. we're all on XP too.
| |
| 13:52 | <alkisg> (on the server)
| |
| 13:53 | <roasted> ah
| |
| 13:53 | you scared me alkisg
| |
| 13:53 | <abeehc> i think i get the equiv of a p3 gen xeon from vmware as it is hehe
| |
| 13:53 | <roasted> cause I was thinking you meant that was needed for clients when I was looking at intel atom/1gb ram clients...
| |
| 13:53 | <alkisg> Nah for clients I'd go for dual cores
| |
| 13:53 | <roasted> dual core atoms suffice?
| |
| 13:54 | <alkisg> As I said yesterday, I'd prefer something over 1000 in that scale: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html
| |
| 13:54 | <roasted> I had trouble finding dual core setups that were small in physical size that would fit the bill.
| |
| 13:54 | <alkisg> A single core atom is at 300, too low, don't know about dual cores
| |
| 13:55 | <abeehc> atoms are quiet and low power but crazzzzzzy slow
| |
| 13:55 | <roasted> I don't know man. You said a fat client acts as if it's a local install, so if it can run a natively installed OS, it should work. Ubuntu flies on this darn netbook... 1.6 atom with 1gb of RAM...
| |
| 13:55 | <abeehc> cheap now i think they got abandoned?
| |
| 13:55 | <roasted> abandoned? There's dual core atoms now.
| |
| 13:55 | <alkisg> roasted: if you think it's fine, then fat will be fine too. Personally I'd go for something better, for new setups.
| |
| 13:55 | <abeehc> i had a dual core atom like 3 years ago
| |
| 13:56 | painful slow
| |
| 13:56 | <roasted> alkisg, I'm certainly going to try to. But it depends on what money is available for spending.
| |
| 13:56 | abeehc, I thought dual core atoms JUST came out...
| |
| 13:56 | <abeehc> not at all
| |
| 13:56 | they have't release a new atom for almost two years i think
| |
| 13:56 | they've announced a new gen though that could be interesting
| |
| 13:57 | <roasted> alkisg, I've certainly noticed a big difference on server load with my little test hing here, and I'm only using my dual core laptop as a server and my netbook as a client. I can see the benefits if the clients have decent local processing power.
| |
| 13:57 | <alkisg> Sure atoms work fine for normal use. But open 2-3 heavy flash apps and they crawl.
| |
| 13:57 | <abeehc> yeah the problem with the current atoms on the market is arm procs are as fast in a lot of cases
| |
| 13:57 | <roasted> is arm welel supported with linux?
| |
| 13:58 | <abeehc> not at all but when intel launched the atoms as i recall
| |
| 13:58 | it was to get into that type of market and i think they missed
| |
| 13:58 | anyway far off topic ; i'd stil be happy with atoms of any sort for clients
| |
| 13:58 | <roasted> I certainly have some homework to do when I begin to shop for clients.
| |
| 13:58 | <abeehc> instead of my p4s
| |
| 13:58 | <roasted> Right now, there's no money. However all of our labs are 400 watt systems. If we could justify spending for trading off energy savings, we might get it to replace the gear.
| |
| 13:59 | <abeehc> yeah i have the same situation
| |
| 13:59 | <roasted> But this is also assuming I can get a thin client box that uses 70w or less.
| |
| 13:59 | <abeehc> and we did the math and power is way to cheap where i live
| |
| 13:59 | <roasted> Which, all of the atom choices I looked at use like 40w.
| |
| 13:59 | <abeehc> yeah
| |
| 13:59 | <roasted> A lab of 30 systems would use nearly 12,000 watts.
| |
| 13:59 | A lab of 30 systems with ASUS EEE Box 1007 thin clients (atom, 1gb ram) would use less than 2,000 watts.
| |
| 13:59 | that's including the server energy usage too.
| |
| 13:59 | Times that by 25 labs, and 9 months of runtime.
| |
| 14:00 | <abeehc> i tihnk it came to like 25$ a month or somthing for us
| |
| 14:00 | it was dissapointing
| |
| 14:00 | absolutely worth going over though
| |
| 14:00 | <roasted> Even if we keep our existing gear and implement LTSP, we save 0 power, but we would make the hardware last longer. It's BAD right now. That gear runs so slow.
| |
| 14:00 | Either way, with LTSP... we win.
| |
| 14:01 | It's a question of how much do we want to spend today/save tomorrow to determine how far we take it.
| |
| 14:01 | I at least want to see thin client boxes to replace our 2 ncomputing labs. that system is a total piece of garbage.
| |
| 14:04 | abeehc, were you running windows clients before you dropped LTSP in place last year?
| |
| 14:05 | <abeehc> no, new building so new setup
| |
| 14:06 | <roasted> nice, nice
| |
| 14:06 | yeah we gotta cross that bridge of ditch windows/hi linux to our labs
| |
| 14:06 | <abeehc> every user still needs a ts license so it kinda sucks
| |
| 14:06 | <roasted> but a ton of our software is web based anyway and already cross platform (gimp, libre office, etc)
| |
| 14:06 | TS?
| |
| 14:06 | <abeehc> ms terminalservices
| |
| 14:06 | <roasted> ahh
| |
| 14:07 | why?
| |
| 14:07 | if you're on LTSP with your own gear
| |
| 14:07 | <abeehc> crappy legacy software
| |
| 14:07 | <roasted> are you running MS products somehow?
| |
| 14:07 | ah
| |
| 14:07 | :(
| |
| 14:07 | <abeehc> core business app runs on windows hehe
| |
| 14:07 | maybe one day web based but it's not even ours
| |
| 14:07 | so my clients use rdesktop a decent amount
| |
| 14:07 | * alkisg was able to get a lot of windows edu apps running on wine | |
| 14:07 | <abeehc> which has had it's own problems
| |
| 14:07 | Kicer86 (~Kicer86@host-5db0eeee.sileman.net.pl) left irc: Quit: KVIrc Insomnia 4.0.2, revision: 4740, sources date: 20100627, built on: 2010-08-08 18:29:00 UTC http://www.kvirc.net/ | |
| 14:07 | <alkisg> So no rdesktop here
| |
| 14:08 | <abeehc> yeah i wish
| |
| 14:08 | try lotus approach from 1997
| |
| 14:08 | barely runs on windows to stat with haha
| |
| 14:08 | <roasted> especially now with budget cuts, it's hard to justify paying for software or continuing to pay for software when there's free alternatives.
| |
| 14:08 | <abeehc> scratch that, i have tried
| |
| 14:08 | <alkisg> We even maded about 10 Gb of .deb packages out of windows programs, and even put them in a repository
| |
| 14:08 | <roasted> I'm giving a presentation this week about linux and how we should adopt it.
| |
| 14:11 | <abeehc> good luck i'm sure it'll go well
| |
| 14:11 | unless you use powerpoint
| |
| 14:23 | <roasted> nope
| |
| 14:23 | using libreoffice presentation, to further make my point :P
| |
| 14:27 | <abeehc> hehe :)
| |
| 14:27 | <mistik1> sweet
| |
| 14:27 | keep it up
| |
| 14:28 | * mistik1 misses LTSP | |
| 14:33 | <roasted> what's there to miss? Do you not run it anymore?
| |
| 14:43 | MorningSon (~MorningSo@cpe-70-114-21-95.satx.res.rr.com) left irc: Quit: WeeChat 0.3.0 | |
| 14:45 | alkisg (~alkisg@ubuntu/member/alkisg) left irc: Quit: Leaving. | |
| 14:57 | patrickmw (~pwright@ip68-231-4-153.ph.ph.cox.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 248 seconds | |
| 15:02 | mordocai (~mordocai@66.119.9.243) joined #ltsp. | |
| 15:09 | patrickmw (~pwright@ip68-231-4-153.ph.ph.cox.net) joined #ltsp. | |
| 15:12 | mordocai (~mordocai@66.119.9.243) left irc: Quit: rebooting | |
| 15:20 | MorningSon (~MorningSo@cpe-70-114-21-95.satx.res.rr.com) joined #ltsp. | |
| 15:41 | Gremble (~Ben@cpc12-aztw24-2-0-cust146.aztw.cable.virginmedia.com) joined #ltsp. | |
| 15:49 | irule (~irule@187.140.130.241) joined #ltsp. | |
| 15:49 | LoveStorm (storm@thepcrepair.info) joined #ltsp. | |
| 16:08 | Guest23759 (~ogra@p5098ed03.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) left irc: Changing host | |
| 16:08 | Guest23759 (~ogra@ubuntu/member/ogra) joined #ltsp. | |
| 16:08 | mordocai (~mordocai@66.119.9.243) joined #ltsp. | |
| 16:12 | vagrantc (~vagrant@75-150-46-245-Oregon.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 246 seconds | |
| 16:16 | bobby_C (~bobby@85-124-22-227.teleworker.xdsl-line.inode.at) left irc: Quit: Goin' down hard | |
| 16:20 | mordocai (~mordocai@66.119.9.243) left irc: Quit: restarting x server | |
| 16:21 | mordocai (~mordocai@66.119.9.243) joined #ltsp. | |
| 16:25 | mordocai (~mordocai@66.119.9.243) left irc: Client Quit | |
| 16:26 | mordocai (~mordocai@66.119.9.243) joined #ltsp. | |
| 16:56 | Gremble (~Ben@cpc12-aztw24-2-0-cust146.aztw.cable.virginmedia.com) left irc: Quit: I Leave | |
| 17:42 | mordocai (~mordocai@66.119.9.243) left irc: Quit: Leaving | |
| 17:58 | F-GT (~phantom@ppp121-44-126-79.lns20.syd6.internode.on.net) left irc: Remote host closed the connection | |
| 18:28 | F-GT (~phantom@ppp121-45-169-226.lns20.syd6.internode.on.net) joined #ltsp. | |
| 18:30 | cyberorg (~cyberorg@opensuse/member/Cyberorg) left irc: Ping timeout: 255 seconds | |
| 19:07 | irule (~irule@187.140.130.241) left irc: Ping timeout: 250 seconds | |
| 19:07 | cyberorg (~cyberorg@opensuse/member/Cyberorg) joined #ltsp. | |
| 21:21 | <roasted> If you're running fat clients, is there no way to share processing from the server? AKA - If you have a massive amount of processing power on the server, yet you're running fat clients, is there no way to make the clients use server processing power as a fallback if their local processor begins to max out?
| |
| 22:00 | alkisg (~alkisg@ubuntu/member/alkisg) joined #ltsp. | |
| 22:04 | <alkisg> roasted: not "as a fallback", but you can start remote apps with the ltsp-remoteapps command
| |
| 22:04 | <roasted> alkisg, ehh, doesn't sound like the most user friendly solution for end users.
| |
| 22:04 | I was just curious if that was possible.
| |
| 22:04 | <alkisg> I.e. it doesn't happen automatically, you need to manage which apps you want remotely by replacing the entries in gnome menus
| |
| 22:04 | <roasted> Mostly because the server I may be getting is completely crazy with processing power. I'd like to utilize it if I could.
| |
| 22:04 | <alkisg> The users won't notice a difference if you modify the menus
| |
| 22:05 | The question is, "which apps need cpu power but not much UI"
| |
| 22:05 | <roasted> alkisg, I'm just concerned about the atom thing. The only box I can find that seems worthy of the price/power savings are atom boxes, and I'd like to get something with some more processing power.
| |
| 22:20 | <alkisg> For the normal desktop user, all I can think of is "dvd rippers" :D
| |
| 22:26 | roasted: in greece we don't use thin client, we reuse existing hardware instead, but have you looked at this one? It seems very powerful: http://www.wyse.com/products/hardware/thinclients/Z90/
| |
| 22:28 | <abeehc> we recycle too
| |
| 22:28 | those are nice i wish
| |
| 22:33 | roasted__ (ae36d930@gateway/web/freenode/ip.174.54.217.48) joined #ltsp. | |
| 22:33 | <roasted__> Is running localapps with thin clients really just a matter of firing up xterm and ltsp-localapps firefox, and update the image?
| |
| 22:34 | I thought I remember hearing localapps was a headache to set up......
| |
| 22:36 | <alkisg> Does your image contain firefox?
| |
| 22:37 | <roasted__> well not yet. Im just doing some reading about it.
| |
| 22:37 | <alkisg> Example. You can set LTSP_FATCLIENT=False in lts.conf, and use your *fat* chroot to boot a thin client
| |
| 22:37 | <roasted__> yeah I saw the lts.conf part.
| |
| 22:37 | <alkisg> Nope
| |
| 22:37 | <roasted__> I was just trying to read how to specify which apps are local
| |
| 22:38 | <alkisg> Read what I'm writing
| |
| 22:38 | That's not in a wiki page
| |
| 22:38 | So since your fat image has all the apps, you can test localapps by booting it as a thin client
| |
| 22:38 | <roasted__> oh yeah
| |
| 22:38 | I follow
| |
| 22:39 | <alkisg> So you don't need to do anything to set localapps up. Since you already have a fat chroot, all you need to do is put a list in lts.conf
| |
| 22:39 | <roasted__> I meant in the event I was using thin clients entirely
| |
| 22:39 | no fat
| |
| 22:39 | thin and local
| |
| 22:40 | <alkisg> It's the same, you just put less apps in the chroot
| |
| 22:40 | I.e. you install them manually
| |
| 22:40 | <roasted__> yeah. that's the key I'm trying to understand.
| |
| 22:40 | <alkisg> sudo chroot /opt/ltsp/i386 apt-get install firefox
| |
| 22:40 | <abeehc> i like the idea of fat chroot +localapps
| |
| 22:40 | <alkisg> stuff like that
| |
| 22:40 | <abeehc> one thing i learned is you also want firefox-gnome-support if your using gnome
| |
| 22:41 | <alkisg> With a fat chroot you also get the proper themes without having a headache :)
| |
| 22:41 | <abeehc> or it sucks
| |
| 22:41 | <roasted__> alkisg: ahh. the example I read had xterm as sudo chroot /opt/ltspi386 apt-get install xterm. I didnt realize it was referring to xterm as an app.
| |
| 22:41 | <abeehc> yeah
| |
| 22:41 | <roasted__> alkisg: hm, really?
| |
| 22:41 | alkisg: are you recommending fat chroot, setting lts.conf to FATCLIENT=False (so everything boots thin), and then set local apps?
| |
| 22:41 | <alkisg> The only reason to *not* use a fat chroot is ltsp-build-image and ltsp-update-image time, nothing else
| |
| 22:42 | <abeehc> interesting
| |
| 22:42 | <roasted__> alkisg: not sure I got what you meant there. what difference is there from fat/thin with build-image and update-image?
| |
| 22:42 | <alkisg> Thin image = 250 mb, fat image = 2 gb
| |
| 22:43 | ==> more time to generate the image
| |
| 22:43 | <roasted__> ha. thats why I ran out of room yesterday.
| |
| 22:43 | ah
| |
| 22:43 | if that's it, I'm not worried about that
| |
| 22:43 | updating it isnt THAT much longer though, is it?
| |
| 22:43 | <alkisg> Update like, in sudo chroot /opt/ltsp/i386 apt-get dist-upgrade?
| |
| 22:43 | <roasted__> alkisg: when you say more time to generate an image, you're talking to BUILD an image, not transfer it over the network, right?
| |
| 22:44 | <alkisg> I'm talking about ltsp-build-client and ltsp-update-image
| |
| 22:44 | Not nbd exporting, no difference there
| |
| 22:44 | <roasted__> I meant update as in update-image
| |
| 22:44 | ltsp-update-image
| |
| 22:44 | <alkisg> ltsp-update-image is the compression I wrote above
| |
| 22:44 | Compressing 2 gb takes more time than compressing 200 mb
| |
| 22:45 | <roasted__> gotcha
| |
| 22:45 | I toyed with thin, I toyed with fat. Now I want to try thin with local apps and see which one of the 3 scenarios fits what Ineed.
| |
| 22:45 | <alkisg> I'd only use localapps for clients with 300-500 mb ram, to have some specific apps run faster, OR in specific environments (call centers etc)
| |
| 22:45 | <roasted__> alkisg: so if I had 512 clients, youd just go fat?
| |
| 22:46 | <alkisg> Yup
| |
| 22:46 | <roasted__> alkisg: does client cpu weigh in at all when youre deciding fat vs thin?
| |
| 22:46 | or do you let that decision rely on ram?
| |
| 22:46 | <alkisg> But that's just my personal opinion, not everyone here shares it
| |
| 22:47 | I don't look at cpu when deciding thin vs fat. Even an atom with 1 ghz cpu / 1gb ram runs better as fat than as thin, imho
| |
| 22:47 | But if I were to buy hardware, then I'd look at cpu too :)
| |
| 22:47 | <roasted__> good deal
| |
| 22:47 | yeah I'm still on the hunt for more options
| |
| 22:48 | I have time to hunt around but, ya know.
| |
| 22:48 | when you're dealing with school district funds, that's tax payer money. You gotta be smart about purchases. It's not a free for all spending spree.
| |
| 22:48 | <alkisg> For clients with about 400 ram, maybe I'd be using debian/lxde in the chroot instead of gnome
| |
| 22:49 | i.e. again fat, but with a lighter de
| |
| 22:49 | <roasted__> to get lxde in the chroot youd just add a tag to it when building, right?
| |
| 22:49 | I thought I remember seeing that in the wiki
| |
| 22:49 | <alkisg> The wiki mentions ubuntu fat clients, so you'd get lubuntu there, not debian
| |
| 22:50 | A small test I did showed that lubuntu needs a *lot* more ram than debian/lxde
| |
| 22:50 | <roasted__> right. even still, I remember seeing kubuntu or something in it.
| |
| 22:50 | <alkisg> So I wouldn't choose it
| |
| 22:50 | <roasted__> I'll be safe and choose gnome.
| |
| 22:50 | How has unity held up? Have you used it?
| |
| 22:51 | <alkisg> I've seen it. I'll be sticking with 10.04 LTS for the next 2 years, and I'll see it again then, to decide if it's good enough to stay with ubuntu or to switch to debian
| |
| 22:52 | I tried to use it for everyday use, but I couldn't, too buggy
| |
| 22:53 | <roasted__> I only tried unity with mutter, which sucks. unity with compiz (11.04) sounds super nice though in comparison.
| |
| 22:53 | I was curious how unity held up wiht LTSP, resource wise or if it added any headaches, issues, lag, etc.
| |
| 22:54 | <alkisg> For fat clients it makes no difference than locally
| |
| 22:54 | <roasted__> ahh
| |
| 22:54 | true
| |
| 22:54 | <alkisg> For thin clients, it requires compiz etc
| |
| 22:54 | <roasted__> I keep forgetting that
| |
| 22:54 | is compiz a bear with thin clients?
| |
| 22:54 | <alkisg> Not all clients have that
| |
| 22:55 | It works fine with intels, but here we turn it off by default because for others it's causing too many problems
| |
| 22:55 | <roasted__> yeah, good deal
| |
| 22:55 | I saw a video on youtube with a guy running it and he had wobbly windows, etc. But he never specified if he was using fat or thin clients
| |
| 22:56 | <alkisg> Thin can do that too
| |
| 22:56 | The effects don't matter much, it's the local rendering that makes the difference
| |
| 22:57 | If I had clients good enough to support compiz, I'd use fat. So I don't give it much thought :D
| |
| 22:57 | (the thin+compiz combination)
| |
| 22:58 | <roasted__> yeah. it sounds like thin clients are really the rarity.
| |
| 22:59 | now that I see the benefit of fat clients I find it hard to believe I would ever NEED dto use thin clients
| |
| 22:59 | unless I was running hardware that was *that* slow...
| |
| 22:59 | maybe I'm wrong... just my amateur opinion though, based off what little I know
| |
| 22:59 | <alkisg> There are companies that don't need fat, based on the apps they run
| |
| 23:00 | But for schools sure I agree with you
| |
| 23:00 | <roasted__> yeah
| |
| 23:00 | I've seen thin clients in use in shopping malls
| |
| 23:00 | POS terminals, etc.
| |
| 23:00 | but they also have DOS based text interfaces with no mouse control. :P
| |
| 23:00 | <alkisg> Hehe
| |
| 23:01 | <roasted__> far from wobbly windows and spinning cubes we 2011 linux users are aware of
| |
| 23:01 | Have you personally done deployments for districts?
| |
| 23:01 | or anybody for tha tmatter
| |
| 23:02 | <alkisg> I've deployed ltsp in about 10 schools personally, and remote helped others to deploy it in about 100 more
| |
| 23:03 | <roasted__> have those schools used existing hardware for clients?
| |
| 23:03 | <alkisg> Yes
| |
| 23:03 | <roasted__> nobody bought new gear?
| |
| 23:03 | <alkisg> In a few cases they did, but not thin clients, just regular desktops
| |
| 23:03 | <roasted__> ah
| |
| 23:03 | <alkisg> They were just careful to get desktops that run with linux
| |
| 23:03 | <roasted__> yeah I'm not sure what to recommend my boss in our case.
| |
| 23:04 | I hate to get desktops, because we miss out on energy savings. I hate to get thin clients running atoms, because if Im running fat clients, that's local processing.
| |
| 23:04 | anything that can't run on an atom thereby fails.
| |
| 23:04 | making the gear limited, even if its new/still young
| |
| 23:04 | <alkisg> what can't run on atoms?
| |
| 23:04 | OK, you wouldn't run blender on it
| |
| 23:04 | <roasted__> I'm talking down the road.
| |
| 23:04 | <alkisg> Right
| |
| 23:04 | <roasted__> If I buy clients, I want them to outlast desktops.
| |
| 23:05 | <alkisg> That's why I was suggesting something more powerful to you :)
| |
| 23:05 | For down the road
| |
| 23:05 | <roasted__> yeah
| |
| 23:05 | if I could get that ASUS box with a lower end AMD dual core, SOLD.
| |
| 23:05 | But it's like... once I get to the ASUS, the next step up (that I can find) IS a desktop
| |
| 23:06 | <alkisg> Yeah I get your dilemma
| |
| 23:07 | <roasted__> The catch is, there's no money. But we can probably get money from the business department if we can justify the energy savings.
| |
| 23:07 | otavio (~otavio@debian/developer/otavio) left irc: Read error: Operation timed out | |
| 23:07 | <roasted__> But if we take that savings, we get atom boxes.
| |
| 23:07 | see, we're going in circles here :P
| |
| 23:07 | <alkisg> That wyse above says it only needs 13 watts
| |
| 23:07 | but I bet it's more expensive than a desktop
| |
| 23:08 | <roasted__> the wyse?
| |
| 23:08 | <alkisg> The link I pasted above for you
| |
| 23:08 | (07:26:08 AM) alkisg: roasted: in greece we don't use thin client, we reuse existing hardware instead, but have you looked at this one? It seems very powerful: http://www.wyse.com/products/hardware/thinclients/Z90/
| |
| 23:08 | <roasted__> ah, that's probably on my desktop
| |
| 23:08 | Im on my laptop now
| |
| 23:09 | lol. windows thin clients.
| |
| 23:09 | <alkisg> I just pasted the first non-atom thin client i found :D
| |
| 23:09 | I.e. powerful thin clients that save energy do exist, haven't googled any more than that though
| |
| 23:10 | <roasted__> I never even heard of wyse...
| |
| 23:11 | <alkisg> I'd like to see more powerful (but cheaper) thin clients in the shops... I think they're the right solutions for schools.
| |
| 23:11 | <roasted__> yeah that box runs about 500
| |
| 23:11 | 1.5ghz single core or 1.6ghz dual core procs available
| |
| 23:12 | I can only imagine the single core was on the boxes I saw listing @ 500
| |
| 23:12 | otavio (~otavio@189.114.111.55) joined #ltsp. | |
| 23:12 | otavio (~otavio@189.114.111.55) left irc: Changing host | |
| 23:12 | otavio (~otavio@debian/developer/otavio) joined #ltsp. | |
| 23:12 | <roasted__> at that point, my boss would probably just get desktops. :(
| |
| 23:12 | it's okay, I just have some homework to do.
| |
| 23:12 | <alkisg> Right. But if there was more demand for "powerful thin clients", I bet prices would drop
| |
| 23:12 | <roasted__> we do a lot of work with CDW. They may know of some other vendors we can buy through that they don't even have on their site.
| |
| 23:12 | Just never know.
| |
| 23:13 | I hear ya.
| |
| 23:13 | I really think schools are the places with that demand.
| |
| 23:13 | and
| |
| 23:13 | school districts are a small niche in the big world of technology
| |
| 23:13 | but hey, worst case scenario, we have atoms here. :P
| |
| 23:13 | <alkisg> Yup :)
| |
| 23:13 | <roasted__> either way, an atom with ubuntu is wickedly faster than xp on the boxes we have in there.
| |
| 23:14 | and THAT is still a benefit
| |
| 23:14 | where we have these clients going isnt CADD or photoshop labs or anything
| |
| 23:14 | just firefox/libre office intensive labs
| |
| 23:14 | me thinks the atom will shine nicely with that. I'm just trying to look forward.
| |
| 23:14 | some people buy with intentions of solving problems today. I like to make sure what I buy will last the longest.
| |
| 23:15 | get me a pair of six core procs in that new server. Do I need it? Nope. WIll I? No idea. Why buy it? Well, why not?
| |
| 23:15 | <alkisg> You can use your server CPU/RAM to offer windows/photoshop etc VMs for your fat clients
| |
| 23:15 | <roasted__> Well we won't be mixing and matching any labs.
| |
| 23:15 | Photoshop stays in our Photoshop lab.
| |
| 23:16 | Due to licensing and us not wanting to purchase fat licenses to put PS anywhere.
| |
| 23:16 | Things like CADD and Photoshop probably won't ever change. We'll probably always have those 60 dedicated boxes for PS and CADD.
| |
| 23:17 | But everything else fits the bill for fat client usage. even at the atom level. like I said, it still kills what we have now. We have 1 or 2 labs with dual core/3gb ram systems on XP Pro, and Ubuntu on my netbook over fat client is still faster than the dual core/3gb RAM XP boxes we have.
| |
| 23:17 | It's crazy how efficient it is.
| |
| 23:19 | * alkisg goes to make a libreoffice presentation for ubuntu / ltsp / sch-scripts for local teachers here... in 2 weeks we have a seminar and I want to show them the benefits of that solution live, bootting a lab off of 5 external disks with ubuntu/ltsp on them | |
| 23:19 | <roasted__> enjoy. It's about time I Get to bed.
| |
| 23:20 | as always, alkisg... appreciate your help and advice.
| |
| 23:20 | <alkisg> You're welcome, good night
| |
| 23:20 | <roasted__> take care
| |
| 23:20 | roasted__ (ae36d930@gateway/web/freenode/ip.174.54.217.48) left irc: Quit: Page closed | |
| 23:28 | alkisg (~alkisg@ubuntu/member/alkisg) left irc: Quit: Leaving. | |
| 23:29 | alkisg (~alkisg@79.167.4.153) joined #ltsp. | |
| 23:29 | alkisg (~alkisg@79.167.4.153) left irc: Changing host | |
| 23:29 | alkisg (~alkisg@ubuntu/member/alkisg) joined #ltsp. | |
| 23:50 | chupacabra (~chupacabr@cpe-70-112-10-77.austin.res.rr.com) left irc: Ping timeout: 240 seconds | |
| 23:51 | chupacabra (~chupacabr@cpe-70-112-10-77.austin.res.rr.com) joined #ltsp. | |
| 23:53 | MorningSon (~MorningSo@cpe-70-114-21-95.satx.res.rr.com) left irc: Quit: WeeChat 0.3.0 | |
| 00:00 | --- Sun Mar 20 2011 | |