[X2Go-Dev] Preferred settings for X2go LAN use

[newsgroups.mail2 at stefanbaur.de]

Am 21.02.2012 20:36, schrieb Michael Kromer:
> Hello Stefan,
>
> well, in real world I would never use LAN as a setting, even on LAN i would use WAN as the primary setting.

That's what I remember from configuring NX Client, too, but I wasn't 
sure if that's still the best way to do it with X2Go.

> We've benchmarked it, and without access to the benchmarks right now (you should find them in some article by Harald Milz in the german issue of the linux magazine some months ago) I can only say: You'd have it better that way.

Indeed, but the client offers two other settings that can be changed, 
aside from the connection speed slider - compression method and image 
quality.
And the sheer number of choices there makes a full test run rather 
time-consuming, so I was wondering if anyone had ever experimented with 
that before.

> I would recommend you to use jpeg compression in combination with libjpegturbo, since this makes a real difference - especially on modern netbooks since their processor speed is not the best but in combination with the SSE-instruction sets which are used for libjpegturbo this makes a major performance boost (up to 3x in my lab tests).

The thing is, I'm using the windows client, I'm not sure if and how I 
could change to libjpegturbo there; and the libjpegturbo stuff is still 
experimental/testing, something I don't want to force upon my clients. 
I'm looking for solutions that work with a stock, stable X2Go install.

> But: please tell us: what glitches do you suffer?

Everything works great at first, short clips, like Adobe Flash animated 
advertisements with sound, run rather smooth, but longer videos on 
youtube experience a "stuck image" effect that only goes away when 
moving the mouse over the area where the video plays (this helps for a 
few seconds, then you have to repeat the procedure), also, the sound 
starts to get choppy.
BUT: This *might* be due to something weird in my LAN config or due to 
the client options I chose. It sure needs further testing and 
verification before it can be considered a bug.

> What settings are you using?

WAN/16m-jpeg/9, audio enabled (pulseaudio). Client used for initial 
testing was 3.99.1.0 (Windows).

> An upgrade to Gigabit will not help you much IMHO, since one session and 100 Mbit is far more than enough. The only point where you could have fun with is with lower latency times - but a dedicated 100 mbit with not too much traffic should be a low latency line anyways ...
>
Well, 100Mbit and a single user is my test setup, real-world use is more 
like up to 5 users and the average small office LAN traffic (SMB shares, 
database connections,...).

-Stefan