On the performance of wide-area thin-client computing

Abstract

While many application service providers have proposed using thin-client computing to deliver computational services over the Internet, little work has been done to evaluate the effectiveness of thin-client computing in a wide-area network. To assess the potential of thin-client computing in the context of future commodity high-bandwidth Internet access, we have used a novel, noninvasive slow-motion benchmarking technique to evaluate the performance of several popular thin-client computing platforms in delivering computational services cross-country over Internet2. Our results show that using thin-client computing in a wide-area network environment can deliver acceptable performance over Internet2, even when client and server are located thousands of miles apart on opposite ends of the country. However, performance varies widely among thin-client platforms and not all platforms are suitable for this environment. While many thin-client systems are touted as being bandwidth efficient, we show that network latency is often the key factor in limiting wide-area thin-client performance. Furthermore, we show that the same techniques used to improve bandwidth efficiency often result in worse overall performance in wide-area networks. We characterize and analyze the different design choices in the various thin-client platforms and explain which of these choices should be selected for supporting wide-area computing services.

CyberLiveApp: A secure sharing and migration approach for live virtual desktop applications in a cloud environment

“…The reprehensive projects on desktop virtualization include THINC [8][12] [13], Citrix XenDesktop [6] [15], Microsoft Terminal Service [6] and some VNC systems [5] [14]. THINC is a remote display system architecture for high-performance thin-client computing in both LAN and WAN environments.…”

Cross-layer reduction of wireless network card idle time to optimize energy consumption of pull thin client protocols

“…Thin client protocols can operate either in server-push or client-pull mode [17]. In the server-push model, the server determines autonomously when to send a display update to the client.…”

“…Applications that are not covered by this assumption are mainly characterized by embedded multimedia, such as video players or websites such as YouTube. However, to display remote multimedia applications on a thin client, server-push protocols are more appropriate [17], or additional enhancements are required for client-pull protocols [23], [6].…”

Network latency hiding in thin client systems through server-centric speculative display updating

“…The client function is inherently limited to I/O functions, drastically reducing the requirements for computational resources. The advantages of thin client solutions are well known and include total cost of ownership reductions, simplified maintenance, data security and privacy, ubiquitous data and service access and more efficient use of resources [1,2].…”