RE: ltspserver specs?
> Could you list the missing packages?
> It may be important information for server specification.
> I believe (not sure) that performance could gain from using amd64,
> 64 arch is required for big RAM over 4GB.
I don't really remember. Perhaps Java was one? I posted here about it a
while ago, and that's how I discovered that my previous 64-bit machines
all had 686 kernels (from choosing noapic and not specifying arch, I now
know)
>
>> workstation. It is a piece of shit, locking up completely most days.
>> This pattern is repeated in other parts of the school.
>
> If this is a branded 'piece of shit' would you care to mention the model
> name?
> Maybe someone here would recommend a known to perform model.
I usually buy build-to-order no-name chinese. However my worst performing
ltspserver is not the one in the IT room. Its a Dell dual-core pentium 4
(sc440 or something). Get this - it has 2Gb and only 4 thin clients (yes I
mean four). It is not used directly as a workstation. It locks up solid at
least once a day. Kids have stopped reporting it to me now. They just go
to another spot where a very old no-name pentium 4 box serves triple the
number of clients with the same amount of RAM reliably day after day. This
was my original ltsp server from the days when Mandrake was still called
that. How can it still be better than core2?
That Dell is not a bad computer. The same model is my current Tjener,
which gives no problems at all, but its absolute crap as a ltspserver.
Luckily I got them cheap.
>
> I suppose you just want something that works and don't wish to fiddle with
> it, but could you try amd64 on one of these pieces where the missing
> programs have least impact?
I bought a couple of core2 desktops for teachers this week. They only have
2 RAM slots, but I'm going to fill them and see how they work. I'll try
amd64 on one. Then I'll give the Dells to the teachers.
I hope that when I pay good money for a quad core or whatever this summer,
that it will not be worse than the Athlon I bought 4 years ago.
Sorry my reply turned into a kind of essay.
nigel
Reply to: