User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Bad and complex architecture

Bad and complex architecture

Posted Jul 25, 2009 18:23 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
In reply to: Bad and complex architecture by astrand
Parent article: Google releases Neatx NX server

"""
There are certainly cases where NX works better than VNC: Say, with well-behaved applications on very slow connections.
"""

Oh, come on. The only instance in which VNC *might* outperform NX is on a LAN. And my bet would still be on NX there. We used RealVNC and then TightVNC over T1 connections for some months and we found them to be quite unacceptable for performance, and even worse (far worse) for display quality. This is for general business desktop use. Web, email, OO.o, lots of PDF viewing, often parts manuals with lots of scanned images. Some IE under Wine (unfortunately). We throw a lot at our remote displays and NX shines where VNC chokes. The mini-eval I just ran on TigerVNC reported 2047kb. It was better than when we used VNC several years ago. The video quality was good, as it immediately selected a sufficient color depth. But the performance was markedly inferior to a side by side NX session.

Regarding well vs poorly behaved apps... if there is an app that chokes NX but not VNC, I have yet to see it. Tiger/Turbo may, indeed, do well on 3D over a LAN. But my business desktop clients have generally opted against providing Doom 3 to the thin clients. Out of curiosity, what customers do you have who are interested in FPS, and what are they doing?


(Log in to post comments)

Bad and complex architecture

Posted Jul 26, 2009 18:01 UTC (Sun) by astrand (guest, #4908) [Link]

There are a lot of things which can affect performance. TightVNC, for example, still ships a very old VNC 3.X based version. Its client is very slow especially on Windows.

When you say "2047kb", are you referring to the "kbit/s" measurement available in the client? This is not a good measurement of how much bandwidth VNC "require".

""
Out of curiosity, what customers do you have who are interested in FPS, and what are they doing?
""

Video playback (Youtube, mplayer), custom OpenGL applications for CAD/CAM/visualisation, Catia etc.

Bad and complex architecture

Posted Jul 27, 2009 14:22 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

"""
When you say "2047kb", are you referring to the "kbit/s" measurement available in the client? This is not a good measurement of how much bandwidth VNC "require".
"""

I'm saying that 2047kb was the bandwidth that TigerVNC reported that it had to work with over that connection, which should presumably be the same that NX had to work with over that same connection. And for business desktop use, VNC was pretty clunky and unresponsive compared to NX. As we have no legitimate business need for video on our business desktops, we don't allow it. So I don't have a base of experience as to how well or poorly NX performs relative to *vnc for that use.

BTW, I tried TigerVNC rather than TurboVNC specifically to avoid the excuse that VNC sever/client Q still uses the old 3.X protocols. Tiger uses V4.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds