Discussions on Thinstation development - a Linux-based thin client ()

Kai Schmidt | 2 Sep 2003 18:10

performance compared

Hi Thinstation Developers,

this is my first writing to the list. I am new to TS, not so new to Linux thin 
clients in general. I am very impressed with your work. Thank you and 
"Chapaux" (Congratulations).

One thing I noticed ist the bad X-performance I see. That is the setup of my 
KDE-desktop, moving windows, poor video performance etc.

I am writing this from a ThinStation connected to my (fast) Linux-Server. My 
terminal is a common Via EDEN ITX box with "trident" xfree driver 
auto-selected.

I compare this 

1. to the very same terminal booted via local hdd running Linux and KDE 
locally, X-performance seems good enough.

2. to LTSP boot and a connect to the same Linux server. Again trident is 
selected. X-performance is good enough here too.

[My thinstation 1.0 starts via PXE and has a x and blackbox session running.]

I have no idea why (at least) I see those noticable differences in screen 
refreshing of X.
Some wild guesses cruse around SWAP, X, Kernel compiled with i836, XFree 
Versions (but they are pretty much the same) ....
Actually I have no idea why I see such a difference

What do you guys think? Can I be of some further help to make this fasten in

(Continue reading)

headers

Mike Eriksen | 2 Sep 2003 20:14

Re: performance compared

I agree - X performance is much slower on TS than on my RH 7.3 (VIA 
Epia800 hardware, fluxbox as WM on the RH). I actually attributed it to 
the vesa driver I use, but you seem to observe the same with the 
trident driver.

However, although it is slower, it isn't "slow", I think.

Mike

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Kai Schmidt wrote:

> Hi Thinstation Developers,
> 
> this is my first writing to the list. I am new to TS, not so new to Linux thin 
> clients in general. I am very impressed with your work. Thank you and 
> "Chapaux" (Congratulations).
> 
> One thing I noticed ist the bad X-performance I see. That is the setup of my 
> KDE-desktop, moving windows, poor video performance etc.
> 
> I am writing this from a ThinStation connected to my (fast) Linux-Server. My 
> terminal is a common Via EDEN ITX box with "trident" xfree driver 
> auto-selected.
> 
> I compare this 
> 
> 1. to the very same terminal booted via local hdd running Linux and KDE 
> locally, X-performance seems good enough.
> 
> 2. to LTSP boot and a connect to the same Linux server. Again trident is

(Continue reading)

headers

Mike Eriksen | 5 Sep 2003 00:13

Re: performance compared

Just a follow up on this one:

I talked to the guy responsible for the Chemistry Computer Lab at my 
uni today, and he told me that the X performance of the Neoware 
thin clients (http://www.neoware.com/) is so poor, that they are going to 
buy "real" linux workstations for molecular graphics. So we are not alone 
on this.

However, he added that the IBM Netstations had a good performance (but 
they don't do ICA and are therefore being phased out). 

The Neowares are EON Pros.

Mike

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Mike Eriksen wrote:

> I agree - X performance is much slower on TS than on my RH 7.3 (VIA 
> Epia800 hardware, fluxbox as WM on the RH). I actually attributed it to 
> the vesa driver I use, but you seem to observe the same with the 
> trident driver.
> 
> However, although it is slower, it isn't "slow", I think.
> 
> Mike
> 
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Kai Schmidt wrote:
> 
> > Hi Thinstation Developers,
> >

(Continue reading)