From: Anthony L. <an...@co...> - 2008-12-19 22:08:13
|
Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 07:46:37PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Federico Mena Quintero wrote: >> >>> Hi, everyone, >>> >>> I mentioned in #virt a few weeks ago that I was working on making >>> gtk-vnc be nominally as fast as TightVNC. This came out from an >>> Important Customer(tm) who wanted to use virt-viewer, but who found it >>> to be too slow. >>> >>> It turns out that they were on a crazy setup with a high-latency remote >>> X connection. My patches implement some tricks from TightVNC to handle >>> such connections: >>> >>> >> Can I ask, why in the world is your Important Customer(tm) forwarding >> gtk-vnc over SSH via X instead of doing VNC over X? That would solve >> all of these problems. >> > > The former is securely authenticated and encryption, the latter is often > not - unless using the GTK-VNC + QEMU VeNCrypt extension, but I can well > imagine there's plenty of people who don't do that, particularly if they > are a SSH GSSAPI+Kerberos enabled environment. > You can forward the VNC traffic over SSH. > Both are valid deployment use cases and we shouldn't presume one vs the > other, although obviously we can make recommendations. > I'm not sure it's worth jumping through hoops to support high-latency connections between the X client and server. That seems counter productive to me. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Daniel > |