Hi,
for a company I was tasked with comparing x2go vs xrdp. Unfortunately, information regarding performance is scarce at best ... What I have is that x2go provides a lot more config options like pack, * redirection etc. but absolutely nothing reliable on performance. Do you have any information for me? Did you conduct any tests?
cheers Mathias
Hi Mathias,
Sorry, for this late reply. Your mail somehow slipped through.
On Do 26 Sep 2013 17:00:58 CEST, Mathias Ewald wrote:
for a company I was tasked with comparing x2go vs xrdp. Unfortunately, information regarding performance is scarce at best ... What I have is that x2go provides a lot more config options like pack, * redirection etc. but absolutely nothing reliable on performance. Do you have any information for me? Did you conduct any tests?
No, we did not conduct any bench mark or alike. There are many
personal experiences around, though. Latency is more an issue to X2GO
than bandwidth.
Furthermore, xrdp encapsulates the VNC protocol, so it is an XVnc
session that gets ,,converted'' to RDP. (which then gets converted to
X11 on the client, in case it's an Linux machine). So, this looks
quite awkward. X2Go uses a compressed and cached X11-like (NX) protocol.
You may find some information on the NoMachine website [1]. X2Go's
graphic stuff is based on NX 3.5.
Greets, Mike
--
DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148
GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31 mail: mike.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de
freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xf...
Furthermore, xrdp encapsulates the VNC protocol AFAIK, that's not 100% truth. XRDP has several options (including rdp2rdp proxy), personally I use (for most setups) x11rdp + xrdp (Xvnc is too resource-consuming), although sometimes (for special setups) I use X2Go because of Debian packages (one has to build x11rdp from source to get the best recent version) + out-of-box sound forwarding support + easy directory sharing + ready thinclient packages.
Here are some more observations from me: when you have a weak/slow client (Vcxsrv and XMing seem to be rather slow on my old laptop with WinXP) and heavy server, the xrdp seems to be working better. When you have rather powerful client and want to reduce amount of software rendering on server-side, X2Go seems to be better. 2developers: please, correct me if I'm saying smth wrong, as I don't know much about the internals of X11-related software.
Hi Nable,
On Mo 30 Sep 2013 22:22:06 CEST, Nable 80 wrote:
Here are some more observations from me: when you have a weak/slow client (Vcxsrv and XMing seem to be rather slow on my old laptop with WinXP) and heavy server, the xrdp seems to be working better. When you have rather powerful client and want to reduce amount of software rendering on server-side, X2Go seems to be better.
This is definitely the case. Depending on the desktop session manager
used with X2Go you can observe more rendering CPU consumption on the
client (for old style desktop shells like XFCE, LXDE etc.) or more CPU
consumption for rendering on the server (GNOME3, Unity, Plasma et al.).
However, as the old-style desktop shell are rather extensive CPU
cylcle consumers, the server-side rendering becomes more evident to
the user. X2Go decreases in performance the more widget rendering
happens on the server (as those rendered entities have to be
transferred as bitmap-like graphics).
2developers: please, correct me if I'm saying smth wrong, as I don't know much about the internals of X11-related software.
Nable, thanks for throwing in your 2¢.
Mike
--
DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148
GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31 mail: mike.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de
freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xf...
Hi Nable,
using X2Go means that you'll need a local X-Server. This X-Server catches a lot work of display, caching and input management locally. So
- yes, you'll need more power on the client to run this complete X-Server even when content ist rendered on serverside. On the plus side: this is a "near native" (ok, the diff between nxagent and XOrg is increasing) redirection of Linux displays.
Regards,
Heinz
Am 30.09.2013 22:22, schrieb Nable 80:
Furthermore, xrdp encapsulates the VNC protocol AFAIK, that's not 100% truth. XRDP has several options (including rdp2rdp proxy), personally I use (for most setups) x11rdp + xrdp (Xvnc is too resource-consuming), although sometimes (for special setups) I use X2Go because of Debian packages (one has to build x11rdp from source to get the best recent version) + out-of-box sound forwarding support + easy directory sharing + ready thinclient packages.
Here are some more observations from me: when you have a weak/slow client (Vcxsrv and XMing seem to be rather slow on my old laptop with WinXP) and heavy server, the xrdp seems to be working better. When you have rather powerful client and want to reduce amount of software rendering on server-side, X2Go seems to be better. 2developers: please, correct me if I'm saying smth wrong, as I don't know much about the internals of X11-related software.
X2Go-Dev mailing list X2Go-Dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-dev
Hi Mike,
thanks for the response! The latency "problem" was good to know, thanks!
cheers Mathias
On 09/30/2013 09:18 PM, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Hi Mathias,
Sorry, for this late reply. Your mail somehow slipped through.
On Do 26 Sep 2013 17:00:58 CEST, Mathias Ewald wrote:
for a company I was tasked with comparing x2go vs xrdp. Unfortunately, information regarding performance is scarce at best ... What I have is that x2go provides a lot more config options like pack, * redirection etc. but absolutely nothing reliable on performance. Do you have any information for me? Did you conduct any tests?
No, we did not conduct any bench mark or alike. There are many personal experiences around, though. Latency is more an issue to X2GO than bandwidth.
Furthermore, xrdp encapsulates the VNC protocol, so it is an XVnc session that gets ,,converted'' to RDP. (which then gets converted to X11 on the client, in case it's an Linux machine). So, this looks quite awkward. X2Go uses a compressed and cached X11-like (NX) protocol.
You may find some information on the NoMachine website [1]. X2Go's graphic stuff is based on NX 3.5.
Greets, Mike
-
Heinz-M. Graesing -
Mathias Ewald -
Mike Gabriel -
Nable 80