KVM vs Software
 

I am looking to control my 2 macs (10.3.9 and 10.4) on a LAN and have been pondering buying a KVM switch to do so. Is there a fast, reliable software solution to this (vnc, ARD, Timbuktu etc.) without losing either speed on my regular workflow. I'd like to hear some advantages or disadvantages to both.
Thanks.

Any software solution is going to 1) use CPU cycles, and 2) depend on the speed of a network to update the screen, etc. And a network is never fast enough.

You are always better off with a hardware solution like a KVM if you have a choice.

Trevor

re KVM
 

Thanks for confirming my doubts

My opinion is the opposite. I hate KVMs; haven't found a 100% reliable one outside of the expensive server-class ones.

I use Synergy to manage three computers at once (PowerMac, PowerBook, Windows 2003). Synergy lets you use one KB/mouse for any number of machines (well, up to 255), each with its own monitor. You slide the mouse to the monitor you want to use, and the keyboard automatically follows. Very productive, 100% reliable. I can't tell that there's any added load on the machines, and the amount of network traffic is tiny. The PB is on wireless and works fine, no noticeable speed loss.

KVM's are good becuase they will not crash. While Synergy may work great for some, it's performance is only as good as your system. I've never had a KVM die on me *knock on wood*

KVM's are bad becuase of the extra cables which normally evolve into a huge ball under the desk, and can be pricey if digital. KVM's also cost money...Synergy is free :)

A KVM may not crash, but I've had several that will just be flaky every now and then. Usually when I have the least amount of time to deal with it. So far, Synergy has been 100% for me, the wife, and a few others I've installed it for.

I agree that theoretically hardware should be more robust. My experience with KVMs isn't great though, other than the high end ones. Even the good ($100) consumer-grade KVMs have given me at least occasional annoyances.

Then you have the issue of port types, these days VGA vs. DVI in particular.

Also your work may influence the system to use. Synergy lets you cut/paste to and from various machines even across different OSs, a KVM won't. And you can see all of them at once.

I have not used Synergy, but my understanding of it is that it does not require entire screen scrapes to be sent over the network. It only moves mouse pointer/position and keystroke information over the network, and therefore uses significantly fewer CPU cycles and significantly less network bandwidth. In short, it is a good solution if you have one monitor dedicated to each computer.

My comments regarding software were directed more at the examples used in the original question: vnc, ARD, Timbuktu, all of which use various screen scraping methods to send the screen of one computer over a network to another computer. These solutions are very slow, and in my opinion, far inferior to a hardware solution like a KVM.

Synergy is completely different, and could very well be the best answer for profolio if there are enough monitors. But VNC, ARD, and Timbuktu are not, in my opinion.

Trevor

Agreed, they are very different.

I disagree on the others being "very slow" on a LAN. Even on wireless, ARD and VNC are very fast unless you're trying to do something with video or other fast-moving graphics. For a normal office application, I have dozense of people using Windows Remote Desktop Connection over the internet who are extremely happy with the speed. RDC is slightly faster than ARD and VNC, but not by a lot.

I used to use the same Windows server with VNC and found it fine, I just prefer how it works with an extra monitor and Synergy.

I think I need to be more specific at this point. I do have multiple monitors.
Second, this involves photographic image processing in a daily workflow.
I would tend to agree with Trevor (reliability and speed being the key words here) that a hardware solution would be more robust, thus less prone to interruptions. There's nothing worse than seing one or more hours of work go down he drain.

Thanks for your input guys.

Your use sounds perfect for Synergy. So far I've had far more problems with KVMs than with Synergy. In any case, if synergy breaks, you just plug a KB into the machine to use it.

I would follow CAlvarez advice and try synergy first as it's free and works very well here too. You can also install it in a few minutes with Fink if you enable the 'unstable' branch.

.

Ok...I will give it a shot if someone can point me in the right direction regarding a fullproof and safe installation procedure.

Lova synergy... Just can't find a way to make it a startup item... If I try to include a command (that works in the Terminal) in a do shell script in AS
it simply hands as the comamnd doesn't returna value (from waht I can understand). Any one know how I should procede to make it a startup item in Tiger ?

To get an idea, please read 'Starting synergy automatically - Mac OS X' here.

.

There's an OS X GUI version of Synergy that takes care of all this for you. SynergyKM, it's on VersionTracker I believe, or just Google for it.

Well I did install it but unfortunately to no avail. In ''bonjour/rendez-vous'' mode it just hangs there trying to find peers. In a manual config, I keep getting error messages on the host computer saying it can't access a bunch of temp files. Am I missing something vital to its working..?
Client; Mac Mini running 10.4.2
Host; Mac G5 running 10.3.9
p.s. Can Little Snitch have anything to do with this...just a hunch.

Maybe the previous installation makes installing the KM version impossible? Maybe prefs files are hosed (did you try deleting them)?

I'm using manual IP settings on mine.

Will try it tonight and keep you posted.I'm also keeping in mind that KM is a Beta and as things go it could have some flaws. If need be I'll get in touch with the authors because I could'nt find anything on the temp files that the error message was referring to.
I appreciate the help.

I've got it running on a lot of computers now, without a single issue. All of them are running Tiger, and all are fairly new machines (recent PowerBooks and PowerMacs). I've been using it wired and wireless with equally-good results.

Works like a charm now... If only I could "tile" my monitors according to the Synergy setup I have ... lol
Thanks for pointing this out CAlvarez !

You could also try 'SynergyOSX', have a look here.

.

Re all this
 

I deleted the synergyKM prefs as Calvarez suggested but I still hang so I sent pics of the config and error message of the client and host to one of the authors in the hope that I get a response concerning the missing temp files.
SynergyOSX looks ok but have you tested it.

Conclusion
 

After all this discussion and a lot of research ,I found this simple little gizmo ''Teleport'' which up to now does the trick with simplicity and was a breeze to set up.
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/14042http://
I will however repost if I get an answer concerning the missing tmp files.
Also, I found this interesting article on Synergy and security.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7682
Thanks

I've personnaly not been able to have SynergyKm work either... I simply configured the Synergy client on the 2 Macs and the PC I use every day, setup small startup scripts, and voila... it loads on its own when the system starts, or when I execute the script...
I have used Teleport in the past. It works nicely indeed, but sadly is Mac only, which makes Synergy's cross platform capabilities that much more apealing. The clipboard shring is nice as it tkaes out the necessity to type things over or to copy/paste them into an email or file that would then need to be dumped on the other machine.

For SynergyKM I haven't tried this but I read somewhere that there's a bug if you don't start up the host computer (not the app). before starting up the client computer. Regarding the cross platform issue, I'm sure this is a great plus in a mixed environment but my original goal was to control 2 or maybe more at work and Teleport handles that nicely as you put it.. I'm not
too sure how it handles clipboard issues because I've just started using it.
More to discover...

Yes, Synergy does not do any authentication or encryption, but you can add authentication and encryption with ssh. Synergy is slightly harder to setup, but it has more features and it has been more widely tested. I don't use a GUI client, I just manage the server and client from the command line and adjust it to my needs with the ~/.synergy/synergy.conf file without any problems.

Anyhow in the latest release of Teleport there is no encryption of transfers, although is one of the features planned by the developer for the next major release. But for now, be aware that..."The fact that there's no encryption in teleport can allow others connected to the same network as you to get the packets that go from the master computer to the slave, thus permitting them to read the things you type on the keyboard, to the controlled host. In no way it weakens the security of your Airport network. However, if your Airport network is not protected enough, others might hack into it and then read the trafic circulating, including teleport keystrokes".

.

Security is a minor issue here in my Mac only workplace since my coworkers are also friends and they rely on me for the network and we are cabled for the lan (speaking of security, there are 6 different Airport networks in this bldg alone to which we can connect at any given time).The fact of the matter is that Teleport is as easy as pie and works seemlessly. Truthfully, I started of with a dos computer and if I don't have to enter another command line for the rest of my life I'll be ecstatic.Less configuring=more time for work. Anyhow, thanks to everybody who pitched in to help.
Sincerely,