From: mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) Subject: Re: X terminals: Suggestion for projects like SLS, MCC, etc. Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 19:07:50 GMT
rhodesia@wixer.bga.com (Felix S. Gallo) writes:
>mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>>rhodesia@wixer.bga.com (Felix S. Gallo) writes:
>>
>>>1) "$400 one-time for server". There does not exist a machine capable of
>>>running multiple X terminals over a net for $400.
>>
>>The X server runs on the TERMINAL. You LOAD THIS ONE PROGRAM on the HOST.
>>The terminals TFTP it. You pay for it ONCE and will support as MANY XTERMINALS
>>as you connect to THAT HOST.
>I see that you don't understand simple client-server parlance, so I'll go
>ahead and use your terminology.
I understand quite well. You have been talking about the terminals, not the
host.
>How much does your 'host' cost -- the thing that's got all the disk and
>RAM necessary to support your X terminals? More than $400? More than
>$4000?
The host costs roughly 50k
>Let's do simple math involving 10 X terminals and 10 PCs.
>10 PCs x $1200 = $ 12,000
>(10 X terminals x 875) + (1 host x 10,000) = 20,750
Well, I would look at it more like this:
100 PC's x $1500 = $150,000 + OS's, config's, etc of $50,000 = $200,000
1 super micro + OS, config, etc of $50,000 + 90 text terminals @ $400 +
10 X terminals @ $875 + SERVER at $400 = $95,150.
We could come up with all kinds of numbers depending on what the requirements
are. I have a flexible configuration to support a wide variety of displays.
This cuts costs.
>That's a low end host machine, of course, with not quite as much
>overall disk and CPU power as the 10 PCs put together. I conveniently
>left out the cost of the network, which is much larger in toto under
>the X + host scheme. Did I mention that the network is nearly unusable
>at the point where X terminals start breaking even with PCs running X386
>locally, and that you'd have to buy another host and several more
>ethernets?
This depends on the exact configuration and requirements. Far too complex
to just throw out numbers without knowing exactly what all the users needs
are, and what the facility wants to accomplish. Either solution can be
made to work. It depends more on $ vs power vs flexibility vs maintenance vs
etc...
>Amancio has posted his benchmarks not once but twice. How many times does
>it take before you learn to read?
How long will it take you? We saw the benchmarks for a single X display.
This does nothing for explaining overall performance vs price vs etc in a
connected mode along with other displays. The price of that single clone
would need to be around 3 times that of an Xterminal. Now if you split that
cost of the host over many Xterminals, you can quickly drop below the prices
of multple clones. This is FURTHER enhanced when you add in text terminals
for those users who have no need for X.
running
>>>3) "ease of use." X is as easy to use on a PC as it is on an X terminal.
>>>That's why it's X.
>>
>>We are talking about MAINTENANCE, SETUP, CONFIGURATION. You shold know
>>the difference between remote machine and remote terminal maintenance
>>costs.
>Loading Unix on the PCs is probably just as easy as loading Unix on the
>large, expensive host (rational people call it a "server", btw)
A host is not a "server", dweeb. A server is a piece of software which
supports an X display *OR* a machine which provides perhipheral support on
a network. I said "host", and I meant "host". Just because YOU do not know
the difference, I find it amusing that you imply that I am irrational.)
It took no longer to load the OS. Configuration took a few days. When you
add it up, is is far less for the number of users.
>What's more, once it's done,
>it's done forever. The win keeps winning, though.
That is not true. Files change.
>>>5) "reliability." Once well-versed in the PC architecture, repairs can
>>>cost from $20 to $200 instead of $500-875.
>>
>>Right, much more repairs at a lower cost. I would much rather have higher
>>Reliability.
>This box I'm typing in has been up for 380 days. But this is just
>anecdote; I assure you that properly configured PCs last for a very
>long time, thanks very much.
With ongoing maintenance (OS) for each box, yes. I never said you couldn't
have a reliabile clone. I said that Xterminals are going to be more reliable,
in general, than a cheap clone because of the number of compenents, lack of
OS problems, and lack of moving parts (drives).
>>>6) what disks are Mr. Davis' phantom users using for their home
>>>directories and to run X off of? Are they included in the price of
>>>that phantom $400 X server?
>>
>>They are running off the central host, as I have now said at least three
>>times.
>And the central host is doubtless able to support 30 X terminals and
>30 users running applications software, multiple windows, and emacs
>for free, right?
No, Linux will not support multi-processing and multi-threading.
Yes, I can support 30 X terminals and 30 users running applications software,
and manage it alone, for a lot of clueless end-users.
>You're living in a dream world, Mark.
Believe what you will. This is as real as it gets.
> The X terminals only provide
>the interface to the user. The cost of replacing disks and the cost
>of CPU horsepower is just as large for the X user as for the PC+X user,
>except the PC+X user has a CPU all to his or her self.
I still disagree. I believe the TOTAL costs can be less, which less when done
right. I won't be so incredibly generalzing as you and your friend there: as
I have said many times, it
depends more on the actual configuration and application of the system.
>>>8) what happens when the server crashes?
>>
>>Again, why would the server crash? It is running on the Xterminal. If it
>>"crashes" (which I have not seen), the Xterminal would request the server
>>code from the host again and start running it.
>Your ignorance is showing again.
Your ignorance is showing-
> A "server" is a machine which supplies
>information to a "client". Under X, the "server" is the software running
>on the desktop, but that's got nothing to do with the context. Either you
>don't understand the language of your profession, or you're being coy.
I know the language perfectly, a server is a piece of software running on
an Xdisplay which manages the display, keyboard, and mouse. If you think
you are talking about the host machine, fine. You think ****I*** am out of
context, get a clue. This thread is ABOUT X and ABOUT terminals. And in this
context, the main machine running the clients is the host. If you don't
understand that, then you don't understand X.
>>>>Besides, nothing like taking a terminal out of a box, plug it in, configure
>>>>in 70 seconds, and start using it...
>>
>>>10) if you really give a damn whether it takes 70 seconds or 1 hour to
>>>start using a machine that will be in service for 3 years or more, then
>>>there's really no point talking further.
>>
>>You can say THAT AGAIN. I am ******ONE PERSON******** doing ****ALL****
>>the computer work in this facility. My time is apparently a ***LOT***
>>more important than yours.
>I take the time to pursue the optimal. Sue me. :)
I do what I can with the time I have. There is a LOT to do, and only one
person to do it.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Felix Sebastian Gallo rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/