[NTLUG:Discuss] thin clients, are they practical and satisfactory?

[Patrick R. Michaud]

> On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 07:31, Will Senn wrote:
> > All,
> > 
> > Have any of y'all implemented a thin client setup that you are happy 
> > with? I have been tinkering, without committing to the project of 
> > setting up a server and client, but I haven't really gotten serious 

In my previous incarnation as a system administrator at a University,
I set up our linux clients in what could arguably be called a "thin client"
configuration.  Essentially each linux client had a minimal install (<1GB)
which was enough to get it onto the network and mount /usr (read only) and 
users' home directories (read-write) from a central server via NFS.
Passwords, mail, and printing were also centralized on the server.

Yes, I know/knew all about the security risks inherent with using NFS
in this manner--anyone with a rescue disk and access to one of the client 
boxes could get read-write access to any user's account (but this is not
much different from the access available to a locally installed filesystem,
either).  Still, since we had around 150 clients it was *extremely* handy 
to be able to install applications once (on the server) and not 150 times,
or worry about which clients had which applications installed.  Indeed,
we quickly set up RedHat kickstart disks that would reformat + install
a client machine in about 5 minutes, almost totally automated.

The biggest issue with this sort of setup was the network load from all
of the /usr files -- it was fine if a client was on the same subnet
as the server, but if a client had to cross a router to get to the server
then performance was pretty poor.

Pm
--------------
Patrick R. Michaud, Ph.D., RHCE #808002519807115
Web:   http://www.pmichaud.com
Email: pmichaud at pobox.com