| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
my experience is that X11 over ssh performs well for 2D in a 100 Mbit LAN |
| 3 |
Network. If you have a WAN between X Server and X Client you get much more |
| 4 |
latency, so that this is noticable to a normal user. If you do this only for |
| 5 |
remote support even a fast WAN (2 MBit) link is with waiting time usesable. |
| 6 |
If you access a remote machine on a regular base outside the LAN, you have the |
| 7 |
choice: open source solutions VNC and FreeNX or closed source solution (Sun |
| 8 |
Global Desktop / Citrix ...). |
| 9 |
If you need a easy to install solution then use VNC. It works nearly out of |
| 10 |
the box (even if twm is not everbodys first choice) VNC can deal with ssh |
| 11 |
Portforwarding, if the VNC Server is not directly reachable from the client. |
| 12 |
I played years ago with NX Server ( not FreeNX) over a WAN. It worked well and |
| 13 |
was fairly useable. They claim to be more efficient then VNC, as the NX |
| 14 |
protocol is interweaved with the X11 protocol itself. |
| 15 |
Best regards Jörg |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Am Sonntag 27 Mai 2007 schrieb Conway S. Smith: |
| 19 |
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 17:47:36 -0400 (EDT) |
| 20 |
> Nuitari <nuitari@××××××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 21 |
> > >> Hi, |
| 22 |
> > >> Is it possible to run a complete Gnome desktop from a remote |
| 23 |
> > >> location through ssh? I'm not talking about using vnc to watch a |
| 24 |
> > >> remote desktop but actually run one remotely and only have it |
| 25 |
> > >> displayed here. |
| 26 |
> > > |
| 27 |
> > > SSH also includes functionality to allow X11 forwarding through the |
| 28 |
> > > encrypted SSH connection. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > You'll need a fast (100mbps+) lan for it, even with the ssh |
| 31 |
> > compression enabled. |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> True (although I'd say 10mbps can be fast enough, depending on how |
| 35 |
> much other network traffic there is), but with a fast enough network & |
| 36 |
> slow enough processors, it can be better NOT to use compression, as |
| 37 |
> compression requires CPU time on both sides of the connection, possibly |
| 38 |
> adding more latency than would be saved by lower data transfer on the |
| 39 |
> network. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> > VNC is a much more efficient protocol then X11 for remote desktop. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> For running a complete Gnome desktop session, I'd agree VNC is usually |
| 44 |
> better. But for running individual remote programs that use smaller |
| 45 |
> windows, X can be pretty efficient. And there's other advantages X has |
| 46 |
> over VNC, like hardware accelerated graphics. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> Conway S. Smith |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives