Virtualgl / Turbovnc Survey Results Version 1, 3/17/2008 -- the Virtualgl Project
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VirtualGL / TurboVNC Survey Results Version 1, 3/17/2008 -- The VirtualGL Project This report and all associated illustrations are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Any works which contain material derived from this document must cite The VirtualGL Project as the source of the material and list the current URL for the VirtualGL web site. Between December, 2007 and March, 2008, a survey of the VirtualGL community was conducted to ascertain which features and platforms were of interest to current and future users of VirtualGL and TurboVNC. The larger purpose of this survey was to steer the future development of VirtualGL and TurboVNC based on user input. 1 Statistics 49 users responded to the survey, with 32 complete responses. When listing percentage breakdowns for each response to a question, this report computes the percentages relative to the total number of complete responses for that question. 2 Responses 2.1 Server Platform “Please select the server platform(s) that you currently use or plan to use with VirtualGL/TurboVNC” Platform Number of Respondees (%) Linux/x86 25 / 46 (54%) ● Enterprise Linux 3 (x86) 2 / 46 (4.3%) ● Enterprise Linux 4 (x86) 5 / 46 (11%) ● Enterprise Linux 5 (x86) 6 / 46 (13%) ● Fedora Core 4 (x86) 1 / 46 (2.2%) ● Fedora Core 7 (x86) 1 / 46 (2.2%) ● Fedora Core 8 (x86) 4 / 46 (8.7%) ● SuSE Linux Enterprise 9 (x86) 1 / 46 (2.2%) 1 Platform Number of Respondees (%) ● SuSE Linux Enterprise 10 (x86) 2 / 46 (4.3%) ● Ubuntu (x86) 7 / 46 (15%) ● Debian (x86) 5 / 46 (11%) ● Gentoo (x86) 1 / 46 (2.2%) Linux/x86-64 33 / 46 (72%) ● Enterprise Linux 3 (x86-64) 2 / 46 (4.3%) ● Enterprise Linux 4 (x86-64) 11 / 46 (24%) ● Enterprise Linux 5 (x86-64) 11 / 46 (24%) ● Fedora Core 8 (x86-64) 2 / 46 (4.3%) ● SuSE Linux Enterprise 9 (x86-64) 1 / 46 (2.2%) ● SuSE Linux Enterprise 10 (x86-64) 5 / 46 (11%) ● Ubuntu (x86-64) 9 / 46 (20%) ● Debian (x86-64) 7 / 46 (15%) ● Gentoo (x86-64) 1 / 46 (2.2%) Linux/IA-64 1 / 46 (2.2%) Solaris/SPARC 1 / 46 (2.2%) ● Solaris 10 (SPARC) 1 / 46 (2.2%) Solaris/x64 1 / 46 (2.2%) ● Solaris 10 (x64) 1 / 46 (2.2%) HP-UX 1 / 46 (2.2%) Windows (TurboVNC only) 5 / 46 (11%) OS/X * 3 / 46 (6.5%) * This was a curious response, given that neither VirtualGL nor TurboVNC can use OS/X as a server platform. 2 2.2 Client Platform “Please select the client platform(s) that you currently use or plan to use with VirtualGL/TurboVNC” Platform Number of Respondees (%) Linux/x86 25 / 39 (64%) ● Enterprise Linux 4 (x86) 3 / 39 (7.7%) ● Enterprise Linux 5 (x86) 5 / 39 (13%) ● Fedora Core 7 (x86) 1 / 39 (2.6%) ● Fedora Core 8 (x86) 3 / 39 (7.7%) ● SuSE Linux Enterprise 9 (x86) 1 / 39 (2.6%) ● SuSE Linux Enterprise 10 (x86) 3 / 39 (7.7%) ● Ubuntu (x86) 11 / 39 (28%) ● Debian (x86) 6 / 39 (15%) ● Gentoo (x86) 1 / 39 (2.6%) ● FoundryLinux (x86) 1 / 39 (2.6%) Linux/x86-64 26 / 39 (67%) ● Enterprise Linux 3 (x86-64) 1 / 39 (2.6%) ● Enterprise Linux 4 (x86-64) 10 / 39 (26%) ● Enterprise Linux 5 (x86-64) 8 / 39 (21%) ● Fedora Core 8 (x86-64) 2 / 39 (5.1%) ● SuSE Linux Enterprise 9 (x86-64) 1 / 39 (2.6%) ● SuSE Linux Enterprise 10 (x86-64) 3 / 39 (7.7%) ● Ubuntu (x86-64) 10 / 39 (26%) ● Debian (x86-64) 5 / 39 (13%) ● Gentoo (x86-64) 1 / 39 (2.6%) Max OS/X 9 / 39 (23%) ● 10.4 “Tiger” 6 / 39 (15%) ● 10.5 “Leopard” 7 / 39 (18%) Solaris/SPARC 2 / 39 (5.1%) ● Solaris 10 (SPARC) 2 / 39 (5.1%) ● Solaris 11 (SPARC) 1 / 39 (2.6%) Solaris/x64 1 / 39 (2.6%) 3 Platform Number of Respondees (%) ● Solaris 10 (x64) 1 / 39 (2.6%) ● Solaris 11 (x64) 1 / 39 (2.6%) Sun Ray 2 3 / 39 (7.7%) Windows/32-bit 23 / 39 (59%) ● Windows 2000 (32-bit) 3 / 39 (7.7%) ● Windows XP (32-bit) 21 / 39 (54%) ● Windows Vista (32-bit) 9 / 39 (23%) Windows/64-bit 17 / 39 (44%) ● Windows XP (64-bit) 15 / 39 (38%) ● Windows Vista (64-bit) 10 / 39 (26%) HP-UX 1 / 39 (2.6%) 2.3 Sun Ray Plugin “Do you currently use or plan to use the proprietary VirtualGL Sun Ray plugin (available for free download as part of the Sun Shared Visualization product)?” Of the three users who responded that they used or planned to use Sun Ray clients, one responded “Yes” to this question and another responded “No” (the third did not respond.) 2.4 Network Types “Which of the following network types do you currently use (or plan to use) when connecting to your VirtualGL/TurboVNC servers?” Network Type Number of Respondees (%) 10 Gigabits/sec local-area network 5 / 37 (14%) 10 Gigabits/sec wide-area network 1 / 37 (2.7%) 1 Gigabits/sec local-area network 25 / 37 (68%) 1 Gigabits/sec wide-area network 6 / 37 (16%) 100 Megabits/sec local-area network 19 / 37 (51%) 100 Megabits/sec wide-area network 10 / 37 (27%) Wireless-B 6 / 37 (16%) Wireless-G 17 / 37 (46%) 4 Network Type Number of Respondees (%) Wireless-N 9 / 37 (24%) 10 Megabits/sec local-area network 5 / 37 (14%) 10 Megabits/sec wide-area network 10 / 37 (27%) (including high-speed cable) Standard cable modem (1-6 Megabits/sec) 7 / 37 (19%) DSL (1-3 Megabits/sec) 8 / 37 (22%) Satellite 1 / 37 (2.7%) Local (same host) connection 1 / 37 (2.7%) InfiniBand 1 / 37 (2.7%) All 37 respondees currently use (or plan to use) VirtualGL or TurboVNC on a local-area network. 18 of the 37 respondees (49%) currently use (or plan to use) VirtualGL or TurboVNC on a wide-area network. 2.5 VirtualGL Versions “Which VirtualGL version(s) do you currently use or plan to use?” VGL Version Number of Respondees (%) VirtualGL 2.0 final 3 / 36 (8.3%) VirtualGL 2.0.1 11 / 36 (31%) VirtualGL 2.1 beta 10 / 36 (28%) VirtualGL 2.1 final 27 / 36 (75%) 2.6 X Servers “Which of the following X servers/X proxies do you currently use (or plan to use) to display the output of applications running in VirtualGL?” X Server Type Number of Respondees (%) Built-in X server on Linux/Unix/Mac clients 26 / 36 (72%) Hummingbird Exceed / Exceed 3D 5 / 36 (14%) ● Hummingbird Exceed 2006 1 / 36 (2.8%) ● Hummingbird Exceed 2007 2 / 36 (5.6%) ● Hummingbird Exceed 2008 1 / 36 (2.8%) 5 X Server Type Number of Respondees (%) TurboVNC 25 / 36 (69%) ● TurboVNC 0.3.2 2 / 36 (5.6%) ● TurboVNC 0.3.3 10 / 36 (28%) ● TurboVNC 0.4 18 / 36 (50%) Sun Ray Server Software 2 / 36 (5.6%) RealVNC 6 / 36 (17%) NX or FreeNX 10 / 36 (28%) TightVNC 14 / 36 (39%) Cygwin/X 1 / 36 (2.8%) UltraVNC 1 / 36 (2.8%) 2.7 TurboVNC Java/Web Viewer Of the 25 respondees who currently use or plan to use TurboVNC, six (24%) said that they currently use or plan to use the TurboVNC Java/Web Viewer. 2.8 Building VirtualGL/TurboVNC from Source Code “Do you currently build VirtualGL or TurboVNC from source code?” 10 out of 34 respondees (29%) said that they currently build VirtualGL or TurboVNC from source code. Seven of these were Ubuntu, Gentoo, or Debian users, which likely explains why they build VGL / TurboVNC from source. Curiously, one person who claimed to build VGL / TurboVNC from source was also one of the three people who claimed to be using VGL / TurboVNC on Mac OS X servers. Hmmm ... Is there something going on that we should know about? 2.9 New Platforms “What new platforms (if any) should VirtualGL and TurboVNC support?” New Platform Number of Respondees Native 64-bit TurboVNC 1 Gentoo 2 Debian 2 Ubuntu 2 Windows VirtualGL server 3 6 2.10 Application Types “What types of applications do you currently use or plan to use with VirtualGL/TurboVNC?” Applications Number of Respondees (%) 2D Apps (TurboVNC) 2 / 34 CAD / CAE Applications 18 / 34 ● Abaqus 3 / 34 ● Altair HyperWorks 3 / 34 ● ANSA 1 / 34 ● Ansoft HFSS 2 / 34 ● Ansoft Maxwell 3D 1 / 34 ● ANSYS 2 / 34 ● ANSYS CFX 2 / 34 ● ANSYS Fluent 1 / 34 ● ANSYS Icepak 1 / 34 ● ANSYS Multiphysics 1 / 34 ● Magsoft Flux3D 1 / 34 ● MSC.Patran 1 / 34 ● MSC.MARC 1 / 34 ● SEMulator3D 1 / 34 ● SolidWorks 1 / 34 ● STAR-CD 1 / 34 Digital Content Creation / 3D Animation Applications 11 / 34 ● Autodesk Maya 1 / 34 ● Blender 2 / 34 ● Pixologic ZBrush 1 / 34 ● wondertouch particleIllusion 1 / 34 ● Hash Animation Master 1 / 34 Medical Visualization Applications 4 / 34 Oil & Gas Applications 4 / 34 Research / In-House / Scientific Visualization Applications 16 / 34 ● MATLAB 1 / 34 7 Applications Number of Respondees (%) ● IDL 1 / 34 ● VisIt 1 / 34 Games 13 / 34 Parallel Rendering Applications 9 / 34 Educational / Training Applications 2 / 34 3D Application Development / Testing 1 / 34 Other ● Java / Java3D 1 / 34 ● WINE / Cedega (Emulation of Win32 3D Applications) 2 / 34 ● Google Earth 1 / 34 ● Compiz 1 / 34 2.11 Performance / Quality Trade-Offs Users were asked to rate the importance of the following four things on a scale of 0 (Not Important) to 4 (Very Important / Critical): ● “Obtaining the absolute best performance for your 3D application” “Very Important / Critical” (4): 12 / 32 (38%) “Important” (3): 13 / 32 (41%) “Somewhat Important” (2): 4 / 32 (13%) “Not Very Important” (1): 3 / 32 (9.4%) Average: 3.1 (high importance) ● “Mathematically lossless image quality” “Very Important / Critical” (4): 1 / 32 (3.1%) “Important” (3): 7 / 32 (22%) “Somewhat Important” (2): 10 / 32 (31%) “Not Very Important” (1): 7 / 32 (22%) “Not Important at all” (0): 5 / 32 (16%) Average: 1.6 (low to medium importance) 8 ● “Seamless windows (each application window appears as a separate client window)” “Very Important / Critical” (4): 2 / 32 (6.3%) “Important” (3): 10 / 32 (31%) “Somewhat Important” (2): 11 / 32 (34%) “Not Very Important” (1): 2 / 32 (6.3%) “Not Important at all” (0): 6 / 32 (19%) Average: 1.9 (medium importance) ● “Stability / reliability of the system” “Very Important / Critical” (4): 25 / 32 (78%) “Important” (3): 5 / 32 (16%) “Somewhat Important” (2): 2