Discussion:
[Ltsp-discuss] Reason for fat clients
Rolf-Werner Eilert
2016-09-20 10:38:35 UTC
Permalink
As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question
about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now.

What would be the main reason for preferring fat clients? Is fat clients
more than just independent PCs with a complete OS which merely mount
their $HOMEs from some kind of NAS?

Any insight is appreciated :)

Rolf
LTSP-PNP Adam
2016-09-20 17:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rolf-Werner Eilert
As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question
about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now.
What would be the main reason for preferring fat clients? Is fat clients
more than just independent PCs with a complete OS which merely mount
their $HOMEs from some kind of NAS?
Do think about PC's with OS, but totally freezed OS, no need to install
lot of apps, no need to worry about destrutcion ;-)
Better than thin clients, as for me, for example, I can use Arduino and
S4A, because I have total access to local USB etc...

Adam
--
I'm using xUbuntu 16.04 LTS with LTSP-PNP
Rolf-Werner Eilert
2016-09-21 06:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by LTSP-PNP Adam
Post by Rolf-Werner Eilert
As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question
about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now.
What would be the main reason for preferring fat clients? Is fat clients
more than just independent PCs with a complete OS which merely mount
their $HOMEs from some kind of NAS?
Do think about PC's with OS, but totally freezed OS, no need to install
lot of apps, no need to worry about destrutcion ;-)
Better than thin clients, as for me, for example, I can use Arduino and
S4A, because I have total access to local USB etc...
Adam
Thank you Adam, that makes it quite clear to me.

Regards
Rolf
Vagrant Cascadian
2016-09-20 17:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rolf-Werner Eilert
What would be the main reason for preferring fat clients? Is fat clients
more than just independent PCs with a complete OS which merely mount
their $HOMEs from some kind of NAS?
In the context of LTSP, Fat Clients boot from the network and typically
have no local storage(other than removable media), just like LTSP Thin
Clients.

The main advantage of LTSP Fat Clients, especially in today's media-rich
environment, is that applications take full advantage of the client
hardware. This is really important with displaying video, rendering on
the local graphics hardware on the client.

With thin clients, a video is downloaded on the server, rendered in
software, and then sent over the network essentially uncompresed to the
clients, which can saturate even a gigabit network quite fast, depending
on the client resolution and how many clients are watching the video at
once.

LTSP Fat Clients will also be able to scale much better, hosting more
clients on a single server, as the server is basically just a file
server, serving up the OS and homedir.

It obviously requires more powerful clients, but even fairly old
machines should work (e.g. core 2 with 2GB of ram, from 2009).


At this point in time, I would recommend using LTSP Fat Clients by
default, and only using LTSP Thin Clients as a last resort, when the
client hardware really can't handle it.


live well,
vagrant
Rolf-Werner Eilert
2016-09-21 06:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Hi Vagrant,

thanks for your answer.
Post by Vagrant Cascadian
Post by Rolf-Werner Eilert
What would be the main reason for preferring fat clients? Is fat clients
more than just independent PCs with a complete OS which merely mount
their $HOMEs from some kind of NAS?
In the context of LTSP, Fat Clients boot from the network and typically
have no local storage(other than removable media), just like LTSP Thin
Clients.
The main advantage of LTSP Fat Clients, especially in today's media-rich
environment, is that applications take full advantage of the client
hardware. This is really important with displaying video, rendering on
the local graphics hardware on the client.
That would be a major point for me, although video playback isn't at
first place. But e.g. mere browser usage is far too slow on our thin
clients, mainly because of slow graphics. This problem has become more
and more severe over the last year(s).
Post by Vagrant Cascadian
With thin clients, a video is downloaded on the server, rendered in
software, and then sent over the network essentially uncompresed to the
clients, which can saturate even a gigabit network quite fast, depending
on the client resolution and how many clients are watching the video at
once.
LTSP Fat Clients will also be able to scale much better, hosting more
clients on a single server, as the server is basically just a file
server, serving up the OS and homedir.
Can I have several different OS kernels for different breeds of clients?
Post by Vagrant Cascadian
It obviously requires more powerful clients, but even fairly old
machines should work (e.g. core 2 with 2GB of ram, from 2009).
Yes, my laptop is an older IBM T model with just that configuration, and
it still runs fine on current Linux. But I thought to buy more advanced
clients, maybe zbox or something like that. (Do you happen to know if
there are any glitches in graphics drivers for Linux on such machines?)
Post by Vagrant Cascadian
At this point in time, I would recommend using LTSP Fat Clients by
default, and only using LTSP Thin Clients as a last resort, when the
client hardware really can't handle it.
You convinced me :)

During the next weeks, our institute will move, so there's not much time
left for experiments. I will take all the old network with us and hope
to get it running at the new place. But after that, I will set up a
testing environment for a new configuration. Guess I will be back with
more questions then ;)

I would really like to stay with LTSP because a server/client
environment has many advantages over single PCs. But graphics has become
a major issue for us.

Regards
Rolf
Helmut Lichtenberg
2016-09-21 07:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Rolf-Werner Eilert
Post by Vagrant Cascadian
The main advantage of LTSP Fat Clients, especially in today's media-rich
environment, is that applications take full advantage of the client
hardware. This is really important with displaying video, rendering on
the local graphics hardware on the client.
That would be a major point for me, although video playback isn't at
first place. But e.g. mere browser usage is far too slow on our thin
clients, mainly because of slow graphics. This problem has become more
and more severe over the last year(s).
I recognized this problem, too. But we solved it by buying more recent
hardware. You mententioned the zbox. We use lots of them as thin clients and
they run quite nicely. Although they might run even better as fat clients.

I see also some advantages for thin clients over fat ones. We work in the area
of genotyping and sometimes need more resources than desktop computers can
provide. If you have to handle files with dozens of GB of size and compute
intensive tasks its good to have thin clients as entries to powerfull terminal
servers. Shure, it's also possible via ssh and remote X but it's a simple and
straight forward setup for all users.
And it's a pleasure to work on a terminal server with 40 CPU 128 GB RAM or even
more (as it is a virtual Xen machine). :^)

So, depending on the applications both setups have their benefits. Maybe I
should try to also run fat clients in parallel.

Rolf, I already have separated the servers for dhcp, image download (nbd), and
terminal services in my setup. Maybe this could help for fat clients and
different images. Just send me an email.

Regards
Helmut
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helmut Lichtenberg <***@fli.de> Tel.: 05034/871-5128
Institut für Nutztiergenetik (FLI) 31535 Neustadt Germany
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolf-Werner Eilert
2016-09-22 06:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Thank you very much for your concise answer, Helmut.
Post by Helmut Lichtenberg
Hi,
Post by Rolf-Werner Eilert
Post by Vagrant Cascadian
The main advantage of LTSP Fat Clients, especially in today's media-rich
environment, is that applications take full advantage of the client
hardware. This is really important with displaying video, rendering on
the local graphics hardware on the client.
That would be a major point for me, although video playback isn't at
first place. But e.g. mere browser usage is far too slow on our thin
clients, mainly because of slow graphics. This problem has become more
and more severe over the last year(s).
I recognized this problem, too. But we solved it by buying more recent
hardware. You mententioned the zbox. We use lots of them as thin clients and
they run quite nicely. Although they might run even better as fat clients.
Yes, I guess I will try both setups first. Now I am running quite old
hardware on a thin client setup.
Post by Helmut Lichtenberg
I see also some advantages for thin clients over fat ones. We work in the area
of genotyping and sometimes need more resources than desktop computers can
provide. If you have to handle files with dozens of GB of size and compute
intensive tasks its good to have thin clients as entries to powerfull terminal
servers. Shure, it's also possible via ssh and remote X but it's a simple and
straight forward setup for all users.
And it's a pleasure to work on a terminal server with 40 CPU 128 GB RAM or even
more (as it is a virtual Xen machine). :^)
Our needs aren't so ambitious ;) We just need a solid "office
environment" which runs fast enough to keep the folks happy.
Post by Helmut Lichtenberg
So, depending on the applications both setups have their benefits. Maybe I
should try to also run fat clients in parallel.
Rolf, I already have separated the servers for dhcp, image download (nbd), and
terminal services in my setup. Maybe this could help for fat clients and
different images. Just send me an email.
Regards
Helmut
Thanks for the offer! As soon as I see what I need, I'll be back.

Regards
Rolf
LTSP-PNP Adam
2016-09-21 07:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rolf-Werner Eilert
As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question
about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now.
If you need - I have made quick Howto install LTSP-PNP for fat clients:

http://wiki.cyfrowaszkola.waw.pl/doku.php/public:fsrv:install
--
I'm using xUbuntu 16.04 LTS with LTSP-PNP
Rolf-Werner Eilert
2016-09-22 06:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by LTSP-PNP Adam
Post by Rolf-Werner Eilert
As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question
about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now.
http://wiki.cyfrowaszkola.waw.pl/doku.php/public:fsrv:install
Thank you for the link, Adam. I have stored it and we'll see if it's of
use to me.

Regards
Rolf
Raphaël RIGNIER
2016-09-22 08:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rolf-Werner Eilert
Post by LTSP-PNP Adam
Post by Rolf-Werner Eilert
As I am currently planning a new LTSP environment, there is the question
about thin or fat clients. We have a thin client setup now.
http://wiki.cyfrowaszkola.waw.pl/doku.php/public:fsrv:install
Thank you for the link, Adam. I have stored it and we'll see if it's of
use to me.
Regards
Rolf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
Hello

I have setup a xenial ltsp pnp server.

Is LTSP_FAT_CLIENT=True/False the only config needed in lts.conf to switch ?

Is ldm mandatory for fat client ?

Thank you.

-
Alkis Georgopoulos
2016-09-22 09:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raphaël RIGNIER
Hello
I have setup a xenial ltsp pnp server.
Is LTSP_FAT_CLIENT=True/False the only config needed in lts.conf to switch ?
Is ldm mandatory for fat client ?
1) Yes.
Note also that there is a FAT_RAM_THRESHOLD variable, which defaults to 300.
If a client has more than 300 MB RAM, it's automatically fat.
If it has less than 300 MB, it's automatically thin.
LTSP_FAT_CLIENT=True/False overrides FAT_RAM_THRESHOLD.

Only chroots that have a desktop session (files in
/usr/share/xsessions/*.desktop) support both thin and fat clients.
ltsp-pnp supports both.

2) Yes.


Btw, someone here in this topic mentioned that a use case for thin
clients is when you want to run math software on a beefy server.
I'd like to add that it's very easy to use fat clients in this case, and
run that math app with LTSP *remoteapps*, which run on the server.

So, thin clients can have localapps that run on the client,
and fat clients can have remoteapps that run on the server.
Raphaël RIGNIER
2016-09-22 10:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alkis Georgopoulos
Post by Raphaël RIGNIER
Hello
I have setup a xenial ltsp pnp server.
Is LTSP_FAT_CLIENT=True/False the only config needed in lts.conf to switch ?
Is ldm mandatory for fat client ?
1) Yes.
Note also that there is a FAT_RAM_THRESHOLD variable, which defaults to 300.
If a client has more than 300 MB RAM, it's automatically fat.
If it has less than 300 MB, it's automatically thin.
LTSP_FAT_CLIENT=True/False overrides FAT_RAM_THRESHOLD.
Only chroots that have a desktop session (files in
/usr/share/xsessions/*.desktop) support both thin and fat clients.
ltsp-pnp supports both.
2) Yes.
Btw, someone here in this topic mentioned that a use case for thin
clients is when you want to run math software on a beefy server.
I'd like to add that it's very easy to use fat clients in this case, and
run that math app with LTSP *remoteapps*, which run on the server.
So, thin clients can have localapps that run on the client,
and fat clients can have remoteapps that run on the server.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
Thank you for detailed answer !

Raphaël

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...