| Subject: |
Re: [ProLinux] Here comes a Newbie! (be gentle, he is so shy <g>...) |
| Author: |
"Leland F. Jackson, CPA" |
| Posted: |
2007/08/31 21:19:35 |
|
|
|
|
Thin clients and diskless workstations have their advantages:
#---------------------------------
Advantages of thin clients
Obviously, boot image control
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_image_control> is much simpler when
only thin clients are used – typically a single boot image can
accommodate a very wide range of user needs, and be managed centrally,
resulting in:
* *Lower IT admin costs*. Thin clients are managed almost entirely
at the server. The hardware has fewer points of failure and the
local environment is highly restricted (and often stateless),
providing protection from malware
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware>.
* *Easier to secure*. Thin clients can be designed so that no
application data ever resides on the client (it is entirely
rendered), centralizing malware protection and minimising the
risks of physical data theft.
* *Lower hardware costs*. Thin client hardware is generally cheaper
because it does not contain a disk, application memory, or a
powerful processor. They also generally have a longer period
before requiring an upgrade or becoming obsolete. The total
hardware requirements for a thin client system (including both
servers and clients) are usually much lower compared to a system
with fat clients. One reason for this is that the hardware is
better utilized. A CPU in a fat workstation is idle most of the
time. With thin clients, memory can be shared. If several users
are running the same application, it only needs to be loaded into
RAM once with a central server. With fat clients, each workstation
must have its own copy of the program in memory.
* *Lower Energy Consumption*. Dedicated thin client hardware has
much lower energy consumption than thick client PCs. This not only
reduces energy costs but may mean that in some cases
air-conditioning <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-conditioning>
systems are not required or need not be upgraded which can be a
significant cost saving and contribute to achieving energy saving
targets.
* *Easier hardware failure management*. If a thin client fails, a
replacement can simply be swapped in while the client is repaired;
the user is not inconvenienced because their data is not on the
client.
* *Worthless to most thieves*. Thin client hardware, whether
dedicated or simply older hardware that has been repurposed via
cascading <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading>, is useless
outside a client-server environment. Burglars interested in
computer equipment have a much harder time fencing
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence_%28criminal%29> thin client
hardware (and it is less valuable).
* *Hostile Environments*. Most devices have no moving parts so can
be used in dusty environments without the worry of PC fans
clogging up and overheating and burning out the PC.
* *Less network bandwidth*. Since terminal servers typically reside
on the same high-speed network backbone as file servers, most
network traffic is confined to the server room. In a fat client
environment if you open a 10MB document that's 10MB transferred
from the file server to your PC. When you save it that's another
10MB from your PC to the server. When you print it the same
happens again – another 10MB over the network to your print server
and then 10MB onward to the printer. This is highly inefficient.
In a thin client environment only mouse movements, keystrokes and
screen updates are transmitted from/to the end user. Over
efficient protocols such as ICA or NX this can consume as little
as 5 kbit/s bandwidth.
* *More efficient use of resources*. A typical thick-client will be
specified to cope with the maximum load the user needs, which can
be inefficient at times when it is not utilised. In contrast, thin
clients only use the exact amount of resources required by the
current task – in a large network, there is a good probability the
load from each user will fluctuate in a different cycle to that of
another user (i.e. the peaks of one will more than likely
correspond, time-wise, to the troughs of another.
* *Simple hardware upgrade path*. If the peak resource usage is
above a pre-defined limit, it is a relatively simple process to
add another rack to a blade server (be it power, processing,
storage), boosting resources to exactly the amount required. The
existing units can be continued in service alongside the new,
whereas a thick client model requires an entire desktop unit be
replaced, resulting in down-time for the user, and the problem of
disposing of the old unit.
* *Lower noise*. The aforementioned removal of fans reduces the
noise produced by the unit. This can create a more pleasant
working environment.
* *Less Wasted Hardware*. Computer hardware is very environmentally
damaging. Thin clients can remain in service longer and ultimately
produce less surplus computer hardware than an equivalent thick
client installation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client
#----------------------------------
Regards,
LelandJ
Ken Dibble wrote:
>> It sounds like you'd benefit from LTSP. Set up a beefy server or set of
>> servers, and then convert all those donated boxes to diskless
>> workstations. This is exactly the setup I've done in my wife's
>> classroom. Granted, it is only 7 computers so far, but Edubuntu works as
>> advertised on the modest hardware we have.
>>
>> I think LTSP is the way to go. Boot into Linux, but then you can connect
>> to a Windows terminal server if need be.
>>
>
> That looks interesting. However, I am not fond of the idea of putting all
> the applications and data in one place. If that one place, or the wiring to
> reach it, fails, nobody can do any work. I realize I am running against the
> grain with this; it's commonly done everywhere. It's also common to call
> some place that does this and be told to call back later because the person
> answering the phone can't do any work because "the server is down". So we
> don't do that. We follow the principle of distribution of risk.
>
> My philosophy about operating systems is that they should be dead simple
> and dead solid. They should control I/0 (including GUI and hardware
> abstraction) and access security, manage memory, launch applications, and
> that's it. They should be the opposite of difficult to learn or use; they
> and their requirements should be as transparent and unobtrusive as
> possible. Configuring and using an operating system should be so simple and
> uninteresting that nobody would want to make it a hobby. The point of
> having a computer is to run applications, not play with the OS. Leave the
> complexity to application software, and leave all of the application
> software off the machine until I decide to install it. As a customer of
> computer hardware and software, that's what I need. If somebody offers that
> to me, I and my wallet will be in their thrall for life.
>
> As a customer of computer hardware and software I have to put up with the
> fact that nobody yet wants to offer me the products I really want. I will
> have to eventually abandon Windows due to its costs, bugs, and insecurity,
> but for me, the difficulties associated with adopting Linux are a very high
> price to pay. I said that for a long time, the only thing that sucked worse
> than Windows was any other OS. I may end up saying that the only thing that
> sucks worse than Linux is any other OS instead. Someday I'd like to see
> this industry stop catering to the vendors and developers and see the
> customers get what they really want for a change.
>
> Ken Dibble
> www.stic-cil.org
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2007 Leland F. Jackson, CPA |
|
|
|
