Hi Mike,

As the machines used as thin clients grow ever more powerful, at the same price and energy usage, the features available also keeps expanding. I have recently bought a Shuttle machine, that is physically smaller than my current thin clients, comes with the Atom D2550 (one of the newer Atom CPUs) which has two cores. I also put in 4gb of RAM, since it was almost the same price as a 2gb RAM module. Like Stephan wrote, without 686 (and in this case PAE) that system wouldn't be properly utilized. Even if it is somewhat overpowered for a thin client. As a side note, I am also testing out the Intel NUC DCCP847DYE which is a dual core celeron, but it is so small and (like the Shuttle) completely silent, but does not offer sound out, other than over HDMI.
Anyways, it is a matter of properly utilizing the hardware. It probably isn't that big a deal, but it would be nice to have.

2013/12/17 Stephan Wagner <stephan.wagner@itos-gmbh.com>

Hallo Mike


I prefer 686-Kernel on a 32bit System, as it supports multiple cores.





On Tuesday, 17. December 2013, Mike Gabriel wrote:

> Control: tag -1 moreinfo


> Hi Anders,


> On Di 17 Dez 2013 11:23:31 CET, Anders Bruun Olsen wrote:


> > Package: x2gothinclientmanagement

> > Version:

> >

> > I run my tftp/nfs server for my thin clients, on a 64-bit machine (a VM).

> > When I create a thinclient chroot with x2gothinclient_create, only the 486

> > kernel gets installed. I can use x2gothinclient_shell and use apt-get to

> > install linux-image-686, to get the 686 kernel installed. But upon doing

> > so, the reason for it not being auto installed is apparent: 64-bit machines

> > don't support PAE (not needed), and the deb package for linux-image-686

> > knows that this particular kernel is made for machines supporting PAE. I

> > can just say yes to the warnings, and I even though I end up with an error,

> > the kernel does get installed. This is not optimal.

> > I realize this is a problem (in this niche case, it probably "works as

> > intended") with Debian Wheezy, and not really a job for the developers of

> > x2go, but since I am running into this problem when using x2go, I am

> > reporting the problem here, and hopefully it will be sent upstream, if that

> > is desirable.


> What is your reason for wanting to use the 686 kernel in the first

> place. The reason I removed 686 support from the X2Go TCE is that it


> (a) did not bring any feelable improvements while my TCEs ran under

> Debian squeeze _and_

> (b) did not work fluently if the PXE server machine is a amd64 system


> Please enlight me, why 686 would be a sensible kernel alternative to

> use here...






Dr. Stephan Wagner

ITos GmbH

Bitzi-Bendel 2555

9642 Ebnat-Kappel

Tel: +41 (0)71 990 05 94





X2Go-Dev mailing list

Anders Bruun Olsen
Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab
(Society for Danish Language and Literature)