From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <835c4be0d55150ec23195c89dacde372@plan9.ucalgary.ca>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] standalone cpu server wiki
From: mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
In-Reply-To: <12D8FB09-4D61-11D8-8A73-000A95E29604@nas.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:33:04 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: bf6cf68a-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> What's the performance like?  Would a thin client with a small cfs
> partition on, say, flash have adequate performance over, say, a 256kbps
> connection?

booting over a slow link daily wouldn't be such a great idea..  after
all the idea is to get enough to fix your machine.  with cfs it's
going to be a bit better for reading mail or editing code, but it's a
hassle for compiling, running latex, i/o intensive stuff.  we booted a
machine in finland from ucalgary once -- not much fun until cfs is
populated :)

my measure is this -- if vncviewer is usable over the link you can
safely run a terminal with cfs.  this makes it much better than
drawterm.

right now i am writing this at home, on a terminal+cfs running in a
vmware session booted off ucalgary over a 150KB down/60 KB up DSL
link.  the latency is pretty low at 15ms (same provider at both
places), but in my case vmware offsets it by being too slow...

others probably have more interesting stories (2ed was usable at home
over a 56K modem, they say)...

andrey