Ideal setup for a makerspace lab with multiple PCs.
Ideal setup for a makerspace lab with multiple PCs.
Before I even start... Yes, I realize I could buy low end/used PCs. Yes, I realize this project isn't necessary . Yes, I want to proceed anyway, so long as its at least slightly practical. Ok, so I'm working on setting up a makerspace. Its a slow process and I'm trying to piece it together as we go so that it grows to fit our community. The first things we are wanting to add are 3D printers and workstations to be able to create models and run the slicer. Today we just need Fusion 360 and Cura(and maybe a couple related programs), but down the road we will likely add some graphics software(Photoshop, Illustrator, etc), developer software(Visual Studio, Arduino IDE, Sketch, etc). So our workstations won't necessarily be doing a lot of heavy lifting, but I'd like to offer a decent experience for the people that come in to work on projects. Here's what I'm looking at: 1x Host(PC/Server) Good specs, not over the top Primary OS can be Windows or Linux. I'm more familiar with windows but am willing to work with linux if its better for the project. 10x Clients Bare bones machines remoting into the PC/Server OR Remote Peripherals connected back to the PC/Server Based on my current understanding, I would prefer that the Host be running virtual machines that can be accessed via remote connection. My reasoning is that I could always add more VMs and allow members to remote into the host using their own device(laptop, phone, tablet). This way they can use whatever software is available without having to take a seat from someone that doesn't have their own device. Also, supposedly creating VMs that use dynamic resources is much easier than it used to be. If I understand correctly, I could create 100 VMs but the hardware resources are only split between the VMs that are currently being used. Let me know what you think. I could only find one similar thread, but it was from 2015 and I'm pretty sure there have been some technological advancements since then.
I recommend this option, especially since you're new to these environments. Many tools like Adobe CC and Fusion don't perform well in such configurations. Setting up PCs for several users will likely increase costs, particularly with licensing fees. For virtual machines, you'd need solutions like VMware Horizon, which won't be affordable. If you require GPU acceleration, you'll need compatible hardware. The easier alternative is to skip VMs and use multipoint software such as Aster, though this can cause compatibility issues with certain programs. It seems like a lot of effort without clear advantages. I suggest focusing your time on other projects in the makerspace.
Thanks for the helpful input so far... I'm open to considering individual workstations, but it still looks like VMs could offer better value over time. If I had purchased two servers from Berries and ran ten VMs, the estimated cost would be around $600 per VM. For clients, I was evaluating options using the most affordable hardware available, maybe even Raspberry Pi devices. I'm uncertain if it would be feasible to replicate that setup at a lower price point. While high-end hardware isn't necessary for the software we use, I want to ensure members don’t face poor performance on basic PCs. A VM with roughly 2 CPUs and 12GB RAM wouldn’t provide the best experience, but I doubt all ten VMs would run simultaneously. My goal is 3-4 active VMs on average, with the full ten only needed during classes or events. Am I misunderstanding your setup? Yes, you’ve configured VMs to allocate resources dynamically—so if ten are running but only two are active, each would use about half the hardware. If more VMs start up, utilization per unit drops. If this approach isn’t working, I’ll likely need to adjust my plan.
This overlooks the significantly more complicated setup with virtual machines, the extra problems you face, and the poor user experience. You can find reasonably affordable used computers that perform better than a dedicated system, especially when considering downtime and the overall frustration users encounter. You can save money with older models that still offer solid speed, fewer issues, and a smoother experience. While GPU power isn't ideal, CPU solutions can work, though they have limits. I recommend listing each machine with 8 to 12 cores, and since most won't run all at once, you'll have extra CPU capacity. A used OptiPlex 3060 with an i5-8500 and GTX 1060 would fit the budget, likely offering better performance, more reliability, simpler setup, and a much improved user experience.
Just wanted to share a quick update. I ended up going the VM route and its been amazing. I'm only running a couple at the moment but it was surprisingly easy to set up and is a super smooth experience. No issues with running fusion on multiple instances at the same time. I went to spec out new budget PCs and even bought a used pc to test, no bueno. The used pc was $300 and was a terrible experience(compared to the VMs). To build a budget PC it was going to be about $500. My workstation that I'm running the VMs on now was about $2500 but based on the experience so far, I could easily run 6-8vms with no perceivable drop in performance. That comes to $350-450 per user station. The only challenge I haven't addressed yet is USB interfaces. I'm sure there are going to be issues I'll have to solve when I need to save files from the VM to a thumb drive on the client, but I'll cross that bridge when it comes up. BOTTOM LINE: I wouldn't recommend this to EVERYONE, but if you're technically inclined and don't mind spending a day or two to set things up(it took me 5-6hrs), it is a very doable project with great user experience at the end.
Sure, I understand. You should use a render farm instead of a multiseat system. The choice depends on the graphics software and its licensing. For instance, Blender is free to use.