Whether thin clients useful?

[yeshwant]

It is heard from some users that thin clients are useful only for internet access but speed is very slow.
Are thin clients suitable for c/c++, java, html. Is there any technical problem for running 20 thin client on one thick server. What should be config. of server. there are thin clients of different make available in market? which is best?

[Trio]

I’m not so much a “thin client” user as a remote desktop user. I found that remote X or VNC sessions over the internet (the best you can buy where I live) is unacceptably slow. I currently use NX and it is ok, but experiences regular stalls that I have to kill it to get out of.

For thin client or remote desktop to be feasible the xorg must make dramatic improvements in the remote protocols

[deveritt]

Some points discussed regarding Thin Clients:

1. “The thin clients hold simple software packages, reducing administrative requirements to maintain them” - but not eliminating those costs, plus the costs of maintaining all the server software. The key point here is that you don’t need centralized computation to centralize software maintenance: you just need central (sharable) storage - so the way to minimize software administration is to centralize the software, including that required to run the client platforms (at which point thin clients are at a slight disadvantage compared with normal clients, since you have to maintain not only the ‘real’ application software that users need but the additional thin-client and special server software as well).
   
   
2. “The thin clients can be diskless and can use less power-hungry CPUs”? No advantage there either, I’m afraid: fat clients can also be diskless, and if seldom taxed beyond your set of thin-client-appropriate applications that I quoted above can use equally power-efficient CPUs.
   
   
3. “The thin clients don’t need direct Internet access, reducing security risks and enabling them to run on private IP addresses, thus reducing the need for public IP addresses.” Er, don’t most LANs (including those running fat clients) use private IP addresses and NAT to access the Internet anyway? And exactly what kinds of security risks are reduced (I can certainly imagine special server-side software that could impose additional constraints on Internet access, but not without significantly limiting normal activities)?
   
   
4. “Users can use any thin client to access their own accounts and files” - but of course they can with fat clients too, as long as the *storage* is centralized.
   
   
5. “Upgrades to most software packages are restricted to the server systems, reducing administrative effort.” Yet again, you can do this with fat clients as well, as long as the storage is centralized.
   
   
6. “Backups are simplified; only the servers need to be backed up.” Servers don’t get backed up: data does. And as long as the data is centralized, it doesn’t matter whether it’s accessed by thin clients or by fat clients - backing it up can still be centralized.
   
   
7. “As a general rule of thumb, count on about 75-100MHz of CPU power and 50MB of RAM per client, plus a baseline of 512MB of RAM to start.” Oh, dear: I suppose if you configure your server so sparsely you may manage to start, but you’ll probably never get out of first gear. These figures are far too meager even to power a modest file server, let alone an application server (unless only a small percentage of the clients are ever active at once).
   
   
8. “When a user’s fat client fails, that user is disable” (sic) - unless, of course, that user’s fat client is operating on centralized storage, in which case the user just moves over to another fat client and soldiers on - the same as would happen with a thin client.
   
   
9. “If an office using thin clients experiences a server failure, all users will be affected” - well, yuh. Interestingly enough, however, if an office using fat clients to access centralized storage experiences a server failure, it’s entirely feasible to ensure that *no* users will be affected, because fail-over shared NAS is relatively mature (and inexpensive) technology.
   
   
10. “CPU-intensive and display-intensive programs are poorly matched to thin client configurations.” Indeed they are - whereas using fat clients and centralized storage you have the option to throw some more robust clients into the mix to handle such activity when required.

[Dutta]

The thin client is a PC with less of everything. In designing a computer system, there are decisions to be made about processing, storage, software and user interface. Choices will be made depending on the total cost, cost of operation, reliability, performance and usability of the system. A thin client/server system should include only those software's that is more frequently used, and a networked operating system.

Some of thin client models are:

• Sun Microsystems stateless S270 thin client
• HP T5700 thin client with flash memory
• Neoware m100 thin client
• IBM EXX thin client

[kellyshaw]

Thin client pc station terminal is product of multi-user computing technology, allow multiple users to enjoy the software and hardware capacity of a single host and all the peripherals independently and synchronously, without the need to purchase complicated and expensive computers for each user.

1 traditional desktop computer+ 30 Thin Client PC Station Terminals= 31 traditional desktop computers

Most PCs are set up with multiple user accounts. Each user gets their own software, settings, screen colors, and so on... But only one person can use the PC at a time. Thin Client PC Station Terminal changes all that. Thin Client PC Station Terminal with desktop virtualization software allows all of the accounts to be used at the same time.



Why we need multiple user accounts to be used at the same time?

We can't live without PCs, but we need to learn how to live with them: they consume too much electricity and generate too much e-waste. A typical PC takes 110 watts to run, and there are almost a billion of them on the planet. And according to the Silicon Valley Toxics Commission, e-waste is the fastest growing part of the waste stream.

Today's PCs are so powerful that we no longer need one for each person. We can tap into the excess power in one PC and share it with many users. Thin Client PC Station Terminal technology uses just 1 to 5 watts, lasts for a decade, and generates just a few ounces of e-waste.

And so, in order to live better with our computers, and reduce e-waste, we need to make our powerful computer fully used by more users using it at the same time.