Turbovnc

Thanks for downloading TurboVNC 3.0.3 Download of TurboVNC 3.0.3 will start in 5 seconds... Problems with the download? Please restart the download. TurboVNC 3.0.3 File Name: turbovnc-3.0.3.x86_64.rpm File Size: 39.47 MB Date Added: August 18, 2023 PriceFree Version3.0.3 Release DateFebruary 27, 2023 PublisherTurboVNC - Publisher's DescriptionTurboVNC is a high-performance, enterprise-quality version of VNC based on TightVNC, TigerVNC, and X.org. It contains a variant of Tight encoding that is tuned for maximum performance and compression with 3D applications (VirtualGL), video, and other image-intensive workloads. TurboVNC, in combination with VirtualGL, provides a complete solution for remotely displaying 3D applications with interactive performance. TurboVNC's high-speed encoding methods have been adopted by TigerVNC and libvncserver, and TurboVNC is also compatible with any other TightVNC derivative.TurboVNC forked from TightVNC in 2004 and still covers all of the TightVNC 1.3.x features, but TurboVNC contains numerous feature enhancements and bug fixes relative to TightVNC, and it compresses 3D and video workloads much better than TightVNC while using generally only 5-20% of the CPU time of the latter. Using non-default settings, TurboVNC can also be made to compress 2D workloads as "tightly" as TightVNC.Features Fine-grained control over the JPEG image quality and level of chrominance subsampling Double buffering on the client side to reduce tearing artifacts in 3D and video applications Flexible and configurable full-screen/multi-screen support Full support for IPv6 Advanced flow control and continuous updates (greatly improves performance on high-latency connections) Authentication with one-time passwords or Unix login credentials (in addition to standard VNC passwords) Access control lists (for sharing VNC sessions with only certain users) Allows security/authentication policies to be set globally for a particular server machine Multithreaded encoding “Lossless refresh” allows a viewer to request a lossless copy of the current screen image, either manually or automatically (after a specified number of seconds of inactivity) High-performance zero-install Java viewer, deployable using Java Web Start, that calls libjpeg-turbo through JNI to achieve native levels of performance Fastest VNC viewer available (that we know of) on OS X and Windows

VirtualGL will only have a limited pool of PBOs (no more than 3) to work with. This is awkward at best, since the TurboVNC Server doesn't necessarily generate a framebuffer update immediately when VirtualGL draws a frame. The VNC server basically acts as another layer of frame spoiling, since it can coalesce multiple frames from VirtualGL into one framebuffer update as a result of the deferred update timer or as a result of the RFB flow control extensions (which prevent updates from being sent faster than the network or viewer can handle them.) At first glance, it might seem possible to make the proposed PBO PutImage extension asynchronous and thereby essentially treat the TurboVNC Server as VirtualGL's image transport thread. In other words, VirtualGL would, within the application rendering thread, use the PBO PutImage extension to request a free PBO from the pool, and TurboVNC would block on that request until a PBO is free, then VirtualGL would fill the PBO with pixels and send back another request notifying TurboVNC that the PBO is ready to transmit. However, that scheme is likely not possible due to the fact that the TurboVNC Server is single-threaded (as are all X servers.) It will probably be necessary for the TurboVNC Server to pre-compress the H.264 pixels within the body of the PBO PutImage function and then to just store those pixels in a holding buffer until the next RFB framebuffer update.Approach #3 seems to be the most promising, but I suspect it would take hundreds of hours of labor to make it happen, and in the grand scheme of things, it may make more sense to wait for Wayland, since Wayland's architecture is much more conducive to the use of frame-based codecs such as H.264 (refer to #18) and probably GPU-based encoding as well. Furthermore, referring to the article on TurboVNC.org, H.264 doesn't necessarily benefit all types of applications. It is clear that it can benefit applications like video players, Google Earth, games, etc., but for ordinary CAD applications, the jury is still out.There are additional challenges inherent with decoding the H.264 stream with reasonable performance. As with JPEG, it would likely be necessary to use some sort of H.264 decoder accessed through JNI in the Java viewers, or perhaps to leverage the built-in decoders on some GPUs (if available.)

Efficiency and the need to encode at a fixed frame rate, because it is assumed that-- at least with double-buffered OpenGL applications-- each frame sent through VirtualGL will share few pixels with the previous frame (but, in some cases, the differences will be within the scope of H.264's predictive abilities.)Encoding the video stream is easy, because the pixels are already on the GPU. VirtualGL would simply encode them using NvENC or similar and transmit the H.264 stream directly from GPU memory. But that's where things get dicey. How would we transmit the stream through the TurboVNC Server and to the client? We could implement some sort of "compressed PutImage extension", whereby the compressed stream could be passed through unmodified by the TurboVNC Server and decompressed by the viewer, but this introduces all-new problems:How would we handle window overlapping? The hypothetical compressed PutImage extension would have to communicate the structure of an overlapped window image back to VirtualGL so that it could break the image down into component rectangles and send each separately, or perhaps we could just make the simplifying assumption that, if the window is overlapped or obscured, H.264 will be temporarily disabled for that window.How would we handle combined OpenGL and X operations? An OpenGL/X11 application is well within its rights to request a copy of the OpenGL-rendered pixels using X11 functions (XGetImage(), for instance), assuming that it has called glXWaitGL() to ensure that the pixels have been delivered to the X server. So how would the TurboVNC Server accommodate that request if the OpenGL-rendered pixels are being passed through as an encoded H.264 stream. It would have to keep a copy of the video stream all the way back to the last I-frame, or it would have to somehow notify VirtualGL that it needs an uncompressed copy of the current frame (problematic, since VirtualGL may not have it anymore), or VirtualGL would have to deliver two copies of the frame to the X server-- one compressed and one uncompressed. Delivering two copies isn't a huge deal, since the current VirtualGL/TurboVNC solution already delivers an uncompressed version of the frame. The increase in bus usage would be only incremental, due to the addition of delivering the compressed H.264 version of the frame.How would we ensure that the viewer can handle H.264? This is normally negotiated by the VNC server, and since it has access to all of the

Framebuffer pixels, it can (and does) encode those pixels differently for each viewer. Pre-encoding in VirtualGL would require passing some information about the connected viewers back to VirtualGL, so it could determine whether it is OK to use H.264. Also, since the viewer can request a new copy of any region of the remote desktop at any time (and does, via the Lossless Refresh and Refresh features), the server would have to always maintain a copy of the H.264 pixels in uncompressed form, per above. Maintaining a copy of the H.264 pixels in uncompressed form would also be necessary in order to support Automatic Lossless Refresh.Deferred readback and encoding (PBO PutImage extension)"Deferred readback" mode VirtualGL/virtualgl#9 proposes a mechanism for deferring the readback of OpenGL pixels so that readback doesn't occur in the rendering thread but instead occurs in the image transport-- basically the pixels would be copied into a PBO instead of read back, and the image transport would access the PBO and compress the pixels directly from GPU memory (or perhaps even compress the pixels with the GPU.)This could be taken one step further, and instead of the image transport compressing/transmitting the pixels, it could conceivably pass a PBO handle to TurboVNC using some as-yet-to-be-defined custom X extension. This extension could work similarly to MIT-SHM, except that it would allow a PBO handle to be passed in rather than a shared memory segment ID. The TurboVNC Server would then take that handle and copy the pixels into its own framebuffer as well as generate an H.264 frame from them. This would require only an incremental amount of additional bus traffic (the copying of uncompressed pixels from graphics memory into main memory is already occurring now. The only addition here would be copying the compressed H.264 frame from graphics memory into main memory.)The main advantage this has over Approach 2 is that it allows the TurboVNC Server to handle the pixels as it sees fit, rather than enforcing a particular encoding scheme upon it. This greatly simplifies the implementation, since the server can decide whether it wants to use H.264 based on whether a particular viewer supports it, and it can decide to temporarily turn off H.264 and transfer only the unobscured rectangles from an obscured window, etc.One concern here, however, is synchronization. VirtualGL cannot grant the TurboVNC Server access to the PBO for an unlimited period of time, since

Skip to content Navigation Menu GitHub Copilot Write better code with AI Security Find and fix vulnerabilities Actions Automate any workflow Codespaces Instant dev environments Issues Plan and track work Code Review Manage code changes Discussions Collaborate outside of code Code Search Find more, search less Explore Learning Pathways Events & Webinars Ebooks & Whitepapers Customer Stories Partners Executive Insights GitHub Sponsors Fund open source developers The ReadME Project GitHub community articles Enterprise platform AI-powered developer platform Pricing Provide feedback Saved searches Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly //voltron/issues_fragments/issue_layout;ref_cta:Sign up;ref_loc:header logged out"}"> Sign up Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings Fork 146 Star 866 DescriptionTrying to connect to a server that supports Intel KVM AMT I noticed that Turbo VNC does not work, it authenticates and then the connection is closed with a read error. The RealVNC client works. Apparently it has to do with RFB protocol version 4.0 which is not documented anywhere.More from here: seems to be a known issue to the KVM's use of RFB 4.0, which seems to be a proprietary extension to the RFB protocol. If someone can find an actual specification for this extension, then it's probably something that would be easy to support, but even RealVNC's own specification ( only seems to address versions 3.8, and the community specification that TurboVNC and TigerVNC maintain ( also only goes to 3.8. The thread on Intel's web site above seems to indicate that dropping down to 8-bit might allow it to work with an RFB 3.8 viewer. You can try that by passing "-colors 256" to the TurboVNC Java Viewer.

IRapp was my favorite fast screen sharing server for OS X, but they went bankrupt around June 2016 and their license server was taken down at some point. As of around Oct 2, 2016 my license for iRapp server said it was blocked because it couldn't contact the license server and I could find no way to get it working again. Even a trial license I had a copy of wouldn't install without their license server being up.After some research, I found that Aqua Connect is the only iRapp competitor around that offers an OS X RDP server. In fact, Aqua was first with RDP and they sued iRapp for reverse engineering their product, but lost the case. Aqua is supposedly faster (they've improved on the RDP protocol and call it AAP) but unfortunately they are slow in development. iRapp had OS X El Capitan support a few months after it was released, but when I asked for a trial license from Aqua they said Aqua is still a week or more out from having a beta with support for El Capitan (and this was over a year after EC was released!).So far, I have resisted paying Aqua $249 knowing that their software may become useless with a future macOS update and they might not fix it for 1+ years again.I've tried all the free VNC clients: RealVNC, TightVNC, TigerVNC, UltraVNC, and TurboVNC and they are all laggy in various places, even on a LAN, and each has various problems