Re: Re: ENBD and swap

"Also sprach Dag Sverre Seljebotn:"
> > No.  Not with current kernel architecture (AFAIK).  But as I said, so
> > long as you run the connection it is likely that you will ALWAYS have a
> > 1.5KB buffer already allocated, and if you keep the transaction
> > blocksize to 1KB and never send one request before another is finished,
> > and never fragment packets, and never have to reassemble or retry after
> > collisions, you won't ever force the kernel to need more buffer space.
> > 
> > So why not just do that?
> 
> I was investigating about using ENBD in combination with LTSP. LTSP is

But why not "just do that"? I know what you want it for - why repeat?

> too little memory for X in some situations (lots of images in a
> browser...), but even if it performs poorly it is better than a crash,

There is no reason to use more than 32MB of memory!  I run my X terminal
(a 486sx50) on 8MB.


> and isn't used in the majority of the cases - a little sluggishness when
> loading X heavily is just as expected by the users).

There will be no sluggishness if you use the terminal purely as an
xterminal, and host the apps elsewhere.  That's what I do!

> LTSP mailing list, and, having success with replacing NBD with ENBD in
> the past, I wanted to see if doing so in this case would solve any known
> issues.

The issues I know of are those stated above, and I said what would work
around them - use 1KB blocksize and good duplex cabling. A 100BT switch
should take care of it.

Peter