Re: Diskless Solutions (Fat Clients) and NFS
Robert Arkiletian <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.terminal-server.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Gideon Romm <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > > If you use sshfs, then you need the same authentication in 2 places: the > server and the client. If the idea of a fat client is to have > everything run locally, it may not make sense to have users set up in > both locations. > > Of course, you could easily achieve what you are after with pam_mount in > the chroot set up to mount an sshfs mount, but you would still be left > with the above question. I'm having second thoughts about sshfs. I just read this on a forum http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/27962/ "Many FUSE filesystems lack functions that are very important for media collections, like partial file reads. Imagine trying to read the tags off all your mp3's. That's about 1k per file, tops. With any regular filesystem (and with NFS) you can simply open the file, read the first 1K and parse the tags. So for your 1000 song media collection, you'd transfer 1 MB. With many FUSE filesystems you have to transfer the entire file before you can start reading: 1000 * 8 MB = * GB! Not all FUSE filesystems have this problem, but often FUSE is osed to provide filesystem-like access to things that aren't true filesystems, like an ssh/sftp connection as is the case with sshfs." Plus I have heard about kernel context switching introducing latency with sshfs because it uses FUSE. > > Then again, I have never seen David's fat client plugin, and I am not > sure how authentication is addressed. If you could centralize > authentication to the server and not do it on the client at all, then a > plugin that mounts /home over sshfs makes much more sense. > > Of course, as I type, this sounds vary much like what would happen if > you set: > > LOCAL_APPS=True > LDM_XSESSION="ltsp-localapps /etc/X11/Xsession" > > In other words, you simply use the existing local apps infrastructure to > launch an entirely local Xsession. > > Food for thought. Yes, very interesting idea. All app processes would be subprocesses of Xsession and hence be local too. Cool. I will try it out. :) -- Robert Arkiletian Eric Hamber Secondary, Vancouver, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________ Ltsp-developer mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-developer For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net