home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.unix.admin:4850 comp.windows.x:16071
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.windows.x
- Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!john
- From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
- Subject: Re: Xterminal-Server ratio wanted
- Message-ID: <1992Sep3.022702.13208@news.iastate.edu>
- Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
- Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
- References: <1992Sep1.200609.15078@progress.com> <1836euINNaqs@early-bird.think.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:27:02 GMT
- Lines: 22
-
- barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
- }tucker@bedford.progress.COM writes:
- }> [...ratio of X-terms to compute servers...]
-
- } The main reason that X
- }terminals tend to put more load on a server is that users tend to run more
- }simultaneous applications; they'll have an xclock and xbiff running all the
- }time, and they'll have several windows open rather than exit one
- }application in order to start another. You may need more swap space to
- }hold all these active processes.
-
- And plenty of real-memory. A rough rule of thumb might be 16+n MBs of
- real memory on your server (n the number of X-terminals you would expect
- to be active at once [all of them in a class/lab, maybe a fourth of those
- in offices]). Perhaps, 16+2n MBs if your users tend towards big programs.
-
- John
- --
- John Hascall ``Live with it pink-boy!''
- Project Vincent
- Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
- Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
-