Emulate Video Card within computer without it in Linux

[Luis Gonçalves]

Hi All

I am administrating a Remote Virtual Server that have no Graphics
Card. Exists any software for Linux that emulates a Video Card in Memory
and I could see the results remotly at home?

Or Could I emulate emulate with X?

Thanks

Luis Gon�alves

[David W. Hodgins]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:32:22 -0400, Luis Gonçalves <lui...@netcabo.pt> wrote:

> I am administrating a Remote Virtual Server that have no Graphics
> Card. Exists any software for Linux that emulates a Video Card in Memory
> and I could see the results remotly at home?

Yes. Using sshd with X11Forwarding on, and tigervnc on the
remote system.

Using a normal X session on your computer, ssh to the remote,
and the remote X session. I use the following script on the
remote system ...

#!/bin/bash
IFS=$'\n' # Seperate command output by newlines only
vncout=($(vncserver -depth 24 2>&1 ))
vncdisplay="${vncout[0]}"
vncdisplay="${vncdisplay##*:}" # strip string ":" and everything before it
echo "vncdisplay=$vncdisplay"
sleep 2
vncviewer -compresslevel 9 -quality 3 -encodings "copyrect tight zlib hextile" :$vncdisplay

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

[J.O. Aho]

David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:32:22 -0400, Luis Gonçalves <lui...@netcabo.pt> wrote:
>
>> I am administrating a Remote Virtual Server that have no Graphics
>> Card. Exists any software for Linux that emulates a Video Card in Memory
>> and I could see the results remotly at home?
>
> Yes. Using sshd with X11Forwarding on, and tigervnc on the
> remote system.

You don't need VNC, it's enough the remote machine has the X-libs installed
and use the X11Forward in the ssh to get application to display on the local
machine.


For the OP:

Using VNC, specially tightvnc, no need to ssh at all and it's faster when it's
not tunnelled,through ssh, but then the traffic is in plain (except the
password when log in which is encrypted).

For best result, run a X Windows Server locally and connect the X Windows
Client (your remote machine), sadly 3D acceleration isn't supported over
network in Xorg, but there are other X Windows Systems which offers 3D
acceleration over network as XiG (for a limited graphics chips).


Keep in mind, no matter which solution you choose, all of them will cost you
CPU and Memory, which can be a bad impact on small VMs and graphical
configuration tools don't always do everything, I do recommend you learn to
use vi/nano and edit config files, in the long run you will get a better
running server.




--

//Aho

[David W. Hodgins]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:43:42 -0400, J.O. Aho <us...@example.net> wrote:

> Using VNC, specially tightvnc, no need to ssh at all and it's faster when it's
> not tunnelled,through ssh, but then the traffic is in plain (except the
> password when log in which is encrypted).

I find it's faster using ssh tunneling, as it compresses the traffic,
greatly reducing the network load. The systems I connect to, all have
fairly low speed for upload over the adsl links, but reasonably fast
multi-core cpus.

In ~/.ssh/config, I have ...
Host short
User useridonremote
Hostname remote.hostname.example
Port 32435
Compression yes
CompressionLevel 9

[J.O. Aho]

David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:43:42 -0400, J.O. Aho <us...@example.net> wrote:
>
>> Using VNC, specially tightvnc, no need to ssh at all and it's faster when it's
>> not tunnelled,through ssh, but then the traffic is in plain (except the
>> password when log in which is encrypted).
>
> I find it's faster using ssh tunneling, as it compresses the traffic,
> greatly reducing the network load. The systems I connect to, all have
> fairly low speed for upload over the adsl links, but reasonably fast
> multi-core cpus.
>
> In ~/.ssh/config, I have ...
> Host short
> User useridonremote
> Hostname remote.hostname.example
> Port 32435
> Compression yes
> CompressionLevel 9

TightVNC supports compression, so it would be faster than tunnelling with
compression, as you don't have to encrypt/decrypt the stream.


--

//Aho

[David W. Hodgins]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 01:54:53 -0400, J.O. Aho <us...@example.net> wrote:

> TightVNC supports compression, so it would be faster than tunnelling with
> compression, as you don't have to encrypt/decrypt the stream.

I guess which is better depends on the environment.

I prefer to use encryption, as I use this for maintaining systems
remotely, with an ssh daemon that only accepts login with the
private key, not a password.

If your working within a private lan, then skipping the encryption
would make sense.