Thanks, thats somthing we did not think about!
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Karasek <KGKARASE@HEWITT.COM>
To: NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU <NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Client verses running X
Bill, keep in mind that if your going to run third party apps that
integrate with NV , make sure the vendor supports a client/server
configuration. Through the years, I have found that most do not. I chose
to
run a client/server configuration to save on the server resources and
network traffic, but the down side was that the third party apps outside
of
Optivity, did not write the client code nor did they intend to. The
result
is that when you drill into a network where the server has changed the
device icons to match that of the vendor, errors will appear for each
device in that network. So say you have 20 switches with in a subnet,
you
will have to reply to 20 error messages and the end result will display
generic icons on the client. There are ways to alleviate this problem,
but
it is quite administrative to maintain, you better know what you doing,
and
you will not receive any support. Hence, I have migrated back to having
X-sessions established on my RS/6000 SMP J50.
From: James Shanks <James_Shanks@TIVOLI.COM> on 09/29/99 11:54 AM
Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on
NetView <NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
To: NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
cc:
Client:
Subject: Re: Client verses running X
Using telnet puts a 32 - 48 Meg RAM requirement on your server for each
additional user of the NetView GUI, depending on the release level and
functions
used. This is what is offloaded to the NetView client - you are
shifting
that
RAM requirement to another box.
James Shanks
Tivoli (NetView for UNIX) L3 Support
Bill Painter <william.t.painter@LMCO.COM> on 09/27/99 11:52:14 PM
Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on
NetView
<NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
To: NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
cc: (bcc: James Shanks/Tivoli Systems)
Subject: Client verses running X
What are the differences between running a client and running X back to
your
Display? Does it make for less resource use on the server?
Any comments?
Thanks,
Bill Painter
|
Thanks, thats somthing we did not think
about!
Bill, keep in mind that if your going
to run third party apps that
integrate with NV , make sure the vendor
supports a client/server
configuration. Through the years, I have found
that most do not. I chose
to
run a client/server configuration to save
on the server resources and
network traffic, but the down side was that
the third party apps outside
of
Optivity, did not write the client
code nor did they intend to. The
result
is that when you drill into a
network where the server has changed the
device icons to match that of
the vendor, errors will appear for each
device in that network. So say
you have 20 switches with in a subnet,
you
will have to reply to 20
error messages and the end result will display
generic icons on the
client. There are ways to alleviate this problem,
but
it is quite
administrative to maintain, you better know what you doing,
and
you
will not receive any support. Hence, I have migrated back to
having
X-sessions established on my RS/6000 SMP
J50.
From: James Shanks <James_Shanks@TIVOLI.COM> on
09/29/99 11:54 AM
Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView and
POLYCENTER Manager on
NetView <NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
To:
NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
cc:
Client:
Subject:
Re: Client verses running X
Using telnet puts a
32 - 48 Meg RAM requirement on your server for each
additional user of
the NetView GUI, depending on the release level
and
functions
used. This is what is offloaded to the NetView
client - you are
shifting
that
RAM requirement to another
box.
James Shanks
Tivoli (NetView for UNIX) L3
Support
Bill Painter <william.t.painter@LMCO.COM>
on 09/27/99 11:52:14 PM
Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView
and POLYCENTER Manager on
NetView
<NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
To:
NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
cc:
(bcc: James Shanks/Tivoli Systems)
Subject: Client verses running
X
What are the differences between running a client and
running X back to
your
Display? Does it make for less resource
use on the server?
Any comments?
Thanks,
Bill
Painter
|
|