KDM without an X server running.

KDM without an X server running.

Post by Mike Thoma » Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:52:21



Does anyone know if its possible to run kdm as an XDMCP server without
actually running an X server on the machine running kdm? I always access
KDE2 with a remote X terminal, and it seems like a waste of resources to
be running an X server on a host I only ever access remotely.

I know I can "shut down" kdm to console mode, which kills the X server
and leaves kdm running, but is there any way to have it start up like
this (maybe a command line parameter like kdm --xdmcp-server-only)?

Regards,

        ...Mike

 
 
 

KDM without an X server running.

Post by George R. Wel » Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:01:15




Quote:

> Does anyone know if its possible to run kdm as an XDMCP server
> without actually running an X server on the machine running
> kdm? I always access KDE2 with a remote X terminal, and it
> seems like a waste of resources to be running an X server on
> a host I only ever access remotely.

        In /etc/X11/xdm/Xservers will be a line something like

:0 local /usr/X11R6/bin/X

        Comment it out like this:

# :0 local /usr/X11R6/bin/X

        and you'll be set.  FWIW, you can also start more than
one X server by just adding more lines here.

        An impressive thing about KDE is that, although one
KDE session is a memory pig, KDE scales well to many sessions.
I always have three KDE sessions running from different X
terminals, and sometimes 4 or 5.  Although 128 Megs is nice
for one KDE session, five KDE sessions run easily in 192 Megs.

        Now another question:  When you do the above (shut off
the local X server and just connect from X terminals) you seem
to lose the feature of *auto-login* that kdm provides.  It there
a way to specify auto-login on a per-display basis.  Certainly,
there should be from a UNIX point of view.

        --George
--
George R. Welch
// Send $2 to P.O. Box 904; Latexo, TX  75849 for a copy of Grand Mothers
// tremendous southern cornbread recipe!  Easy to follow and the best I
// have ever tasted.  Don't forgit to include your address.

 
 
 

KDM without an X server running.

Post by Dinesh Nai » Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:00:03



> terminals, and sometimes 4 or 5.  Although 128 Megs is nice
> for one KDE session, five KDE sessions run easily in 192 Megs.

hijacking this thread into another, i found george's statement above interesting
and informative. i'm in the process of setting up some systems with a freebsd
server and a whole bunch of 486es and older pentiums running vnc. as such, the
freebsd server would be hosting a bunch of kde sessions.

i'd be interested to know the performance metrics of this setup. 192MB seems ok
for five, but how would this scale to 10, 20 and 30 ?

--
Regards,                           /\_/\   "All dogs go to heaven."

+==========================----oOO--(_)--OOo----============================+
| for a in past present future; do                                          |
|   for b in clients employers associates relatives neighbours pets; do     |
|   echo "The opinions here in no way reflect the opinions of my $a $b."    |
| done; done                                                                |
+===========================================================================+
   http://pgp.ai.mit.edu/htbin/pks-extract-key.pl?op=get&search=0x230096E9

 
 
 

KDM without an X server running.

Post by George R. Wel » Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:19:19





>> terminals, and sometimes 4 or 5.  Although 128 Megs is nice
>> for one KDE session, five KDE sessions run easily in 192 Megs.

> hijacking this thread into another, i found george's statement
> above interesting and informative. i'm in the process of
> setting up some systems with a freebsd server and a whole
> bunch of 486es and older pentiums running vnc. as such, the
> freebsd server would be hosting a bunch of kde sessions.
> i'd be interested to know the performance metrics of this
> setup. 192MB seems ok for five, but how would this scale to 10,
> 20 and 30 ?

        I can't help you Dinesh, but I'll tell you this:
my X-terminals are scattered around the house, and there is
essentially never more than two in active use at any time.  So,
although I don't swamp the memory on my little server (which
is a K6-225,) I also don't tax its CPU and network bandwidth.
If you have 30 connections, you may be happy with a GB or so,
but if they are all active users, then you better get a quad
xeon or something similarly awesome, IMO, and pay careful
attention to network bandwith issues.

        Let us know how it goes...

        --George
--
George R. Welch
// Send $2 to P.O. Box 904; Latexo, TX  75849 for a copy of Grand Mothers
// tremendous southern cornbread recipe!  Easy to follow and the best I
// have ever tasted.  Don't forgit to include your address.

 
 
 

1. Running X-Winows Server without a graphics card

Hi!
I have a mainframe without a graphics display and is therefore unable to
start up X-Windows in the usual fashion. The problem is that I have a
program running on it that requires the X-Server to render graphics in
memory. Graphics are NEVER displayed to a real monitor. They are just
generated in memory.

The question is how do I start up a X-Server on my mainframe if it does not
have a graphics display. (It has a text display).

It is running SunOS 5.6

Thanx a lot.

Johnny

2. Applying a filter under Apache

3. LINUX running without a keyboard - server style

4. kmem_alloc: Bad Slab Magic problem in 2.2.6

5. Weird: get a socket connection without a running socket server !

6. 2.0.7 error mesg

7. Running a server daemon without logging in.

8. batch system and scp/rcp headache

9. Does SMB client run without server portion?

10. Server running X without a video card

11. Running x-Server without a graphics display

12. KDM on Kde2.2.1 without "go to console" :-(

13. Using kdm without kde