<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><div id="yiv1414227453"><table id="yiv1414227453bodyDrftID" class="yiv1414227453" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td id="yiv1414227453drftMsgContent" style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;">Thanks for the reply Matt,<br><br>I know OS Streaming is thick client computing, my problem is to find the right existing category in which I could classify OS Streaming, sure "storage virtualization" is technically right to explain how it works, but from a marketing point of view does os streaming match VDI like presented by Citrix as: "low-cost way for customers to get started with desktop virtualization by leveraging existing PC resources and keeping datacenter overhead to a minimum"<br><a rel="nofollow"
target="_blank" href="http://flexcast.citrix.com/technology/streamedvhd.html">http://flexcast.citrix.com/technology/streamedvhd.html</a><br><br>I also talked about different levels of virtualization to compare full virtualisation like a VM to partial virtualization like a virtual HDD...just trying to sort out the marketing mess :-) before I start talking about the technical part to explain how it works.<br><br>I'm I wrong ? <br>Is it the right approach ?<br><br>Thanks !<br>TheMadOne.<br><br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:21:43 +0000<br>From: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://fr.mc279.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mwhelton@gmail.com">mwhelton@gmail.com</a><br>Subject: Re: [gPXE] Can gPXE's network booting be classified as a VDI<br> solution ?<br>To: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://fr.mc279.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gpxe@etherboot.org">gpxe@etherboot.org</a><br>Message-ID: <<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://fr.mc279.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=90e6ba53a2485210cd048f4fea66@google.com">90e6ba53a2485210cd048f4fea66@google.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>No, not in the classic sense. SAN booting a diskless workstation, running <br>on workstation hardware is technically a thick client, because it is more <br>or less married to one specific piece of hardware.
However, since you have <br>storage consolidation, you could call it virtualized storage. It's not <br>quite the same thing, but the management and backup used for SAN for <br>servers can be used for Workstations...technologies such as SAN Block Level <br>Replication (site-to-site sync) and block level de-duplication can save on <br>storage costs. Remember for a moment that SAN storage tends to be <br>dramatically more expensive than local workstation storage, but that <br>doesn't mean it that SAN can't be cost effective if it is well-managed. <br>Some of the advantages of SAN booting are near-instant access and <br>replication of OS images of all kinds.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Matt<br><br></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table></div></td></tr></table><br>