-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
As I understand it, X was designed from the ground up to run over a slow
mainframe-based net, like IBM Token-Ring 4Mbps LAN or maybe a 9600 baud
hard-line WAN. Of course in those days, window managers and X had less to
do.
/mario
On Saturday 28 August 2004 15:45, you as Eben King wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Robert Snyder wrote:
> > Well after playing around with the demos for all the major Commerical
> > Windows Xservers... ended up picking up eXceed for just over 60
> > dollars under an educational licence. While it feels the fastest
> > out of them all. I need to figure out where I am having a bottleneck.
> >
> > Windows side
> >
> > P4 2.4ghz
> > 768 megs DDR 333
> > GF2 Pro 64 meg DDR ( I just dont play alot of games )
> > Broadcom Net Extreme Gigabit Nic connected to a WET11 Wireless to
> > Eithernet Bridge (802.11B)
> > Windows XP Professional SP2
> >
> > Server
> > P3 500E ( socket 370 not Slot 1)
> > i810 Chipset with on board 4 megs video memory not shared.
> > 192 Megs pc 100
> > Linksys WMP11 The orginal with the Prism 2.5 chipset.
> > Suse 9.1 Professional
> >
> > Now I trying to figure out where my bottle net could be.
>
> IME it's the latency that gets to it. X apps are used to running locally,
> where if the app asks the X server something, it can get an answer in
> microseconds. Then you're trying to run X on a LAN machine (worse, one
> connected by 802.11b, a half-duplex protocol), where the latency is
> measured in milliseconds (1000 times greater). I used to run Mozilla
> (when I _had to_) from a machine in Gainesville (latency of dozens of ms).
> It took about three minutes to start up, but once it was up it was not
> obnoxiously slow.
>
> I don't know what you could do to improve that, besides simplifying the X
> protocol.
>
> > I tried putting in more ram into the server and even though i have the
> > correct ram ( speed and timing ratio) the board is just plan old
> > picky SOB....
>
> I don't think it would matter how fast either end is, or how fat the pipe
> in between is (the machine in Gainesville was on a 100 Mbps LAN a couple
> hops from an OC-12, I am on a 100 Mbps LAN one hop from a cable modem),
> but rather the end-to-end time.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBMOor0rzDqf+VzP0RAqePAJ0dYywEv9q9+SCZ7CufT/c+MkFwVwCfaAZv
K6MdTwd0vkXxz/TWFzeKW0s=
=Qdk9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 15:38:29 EDT