Editing Diskless node (section)

==Comparison with thin clients==

Both thin client and diskless node architectures employ diskless clients which have advantages over rich clients (see above), but differ with regard to the location of processing.

===Advantages of diskless nodes over thin clients===
*'''Distributed load''' The ''processing'' load of diskless nodes is distributed. Each user gets its own processing isolated environment, barely affecting other users in the network, as long as their workload is not filesystem-intensive. Thin clients rely on the central server for the processing and thus require a fast server. When the central server is busy and slow, both kinds of clients will be affected, but thin clients will be slowed completely, whereas diskless nodes will only be slowed when accessing data on the server.
*'''Better multimedia performance'''. Diskless nodes have advantages over thin clients in [[multimedia]]-rich applications that would be bandwidth intensive if fully served. For example, diskless nodes are well suited for [[video gaming]] because the rendering is local, lowering the latency.
*'''Peripheral support''' Diskless nodes are typically ordinary personal computers or [[workstation]]s with no hard drives supplied, which means the usual large variety of [[peripheral]]s can be added. By contrast, thin clients are typically very small, sealed boxes with no possibility for internal expansion, and limited or non-existent possibility for external expansion. Even if e.g. a [[USB]] device can be ''physically'' attached to a thin client, the thin client software might not support peripherals beyond the basic input and output devices - for example, it may not be compatible with [[graphics tablet]]s, [[digital camera]]s or [[Image scanner|scanner]]s.

===Advantages of thin clients over diskless nodes===
*The '''hardware is cheaper''' on thin clients, since processing requirements on the client are minimal, and [[3D acceleration]] and elaborate audio support are not usually provided. Of course, a diskless node can also be purchased with a cheap CPU and minimal multimedia support, if suitable. Thus, cost savings may be smaller than they first appear for some organizations. However, many large organizations habitually buy hardware with a higher than necessary specification to meet the needs of particular applications and uses, or to ensure [[future proofing]] ''(see next point)''. There are also less "rational" reasons for overspecifying hardware which quite often come into play: departments wastefully using up budgets in order to retain their current budget levels for next year; and uncertainty about the future, or lack of technical knowledge, or lack of care and attention, when choosing PC specifications. Taking all these factors into account, thin clients may bring the most substantial savings, as only the servers are likely to be substantially "gold-plated" and/or "future-proofed" in the thin client model.
*'''Future proofing''' is not much of an issue for thin clients, which are likely to remain useful for the entirety of their replacement cycle - one to four years, or even longer - as the burden is on the servers. There are issues when it comes to diskless nodes, as the processing load is potentially much higher, thus meaning more consideration is required when purchasing. Thin client networks may require significantly more powerful servers in the future, whereas a diskless nodes network may in future need a server upgrade, a client upgrade, or both.
*Thin client networks have '''less network bandwidth consumption''' potentially, since much data is simply read by the server and processed there, and only transferred to the client in small pieces, as and when needed for display. Also, transferring graphical data to the display is usually more suited for efficient [[data compression]] and optimisation technologies (see e.g. [[NX technology]]) than transferring arbitrary [[computer program|programs]], or user data. In many typical application scenarios, both total bandwidth consumption and "burst" consumption would be expected to be less for an efficient thin client, than for a diskless node.