Thanks for your kind words! The Fedora 17 solution might be worth trying. What’s cool is you can just take your exact same room as it is now, and just unplug the Windows Server and plug in a Fedora 17 machine (or install on different partitions and multiboot), and quickly switch all the terminals from one to the other – nothing on the terminals or how they’re connected needs to change. All behavior is determined by the software on the main server.
Yes, on Linux the limit on # of terminals is higher - it’s hard limited by USB 2.0’s limit of 127 USB hubs and devices per host controller. Then there’s an arbitrary top limit on the number of framebuffers (FB_MAX, currently 32 http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.3.6/incl… ). And then you have a soft limit on scalbility/performance with particular server hardware.
Each UD-160 unit is actually at least 6 devices: usb hub, usb graphics, usb audio, usb network (unused), and what you plug in - mouse, keyboard, and anything else. So the limit is around 20-21 per server (depending on how many powered USB hubs and other things you have in the topology).
For the DC-125, it’s 5 devices, so the limit is around 22-25 per server.
So in theory, you’d be able to connect up to around 20-25 USB terminals per host controller (and most modern machines have two USB 2.0 host controllers internally, mapped to different ports on the machine. For example, the common Intel ICH10 chipset family has two http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I/O_Cont… ). So on those machines, you’d be able to get up to 32 per computer on Linux, if you carefully make sure it’s no more than 20-25 on each host controller.
Note that we’ve only just recently updated the DC-125 to be compatible with Fedora 17 (all units currently on sale in the USA are, but not yet in Europe). Whereas the UD-160-A/M has been for a long time.
Do you have the DC-125 or the UD-160-A/M for your thin clients?