home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!oreillym
- From: oreillym@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Michael O'Reilly)
- Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix
- Subject: Re: Just general help, please...
- Message-ID: <1k843kINNce@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
- Date: 28 Jan 93 08:05:08 GMT
- References: <1993Jan27.175322.5912@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
- Organization: Home
- Lines: 30
- NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
-
- Dan Muntz (dmuntz@quip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
- : In article <1993Jan27.073712.8051@comperex.cx.OZ.AU>
- : howard@comperex.cx.oz.au (Andrew Howard) writes:
- : >We do a lot of low bandwidth X here and generally find that the
- : >performance of SLIP
- : >to be pretty bad with X. (about 3 minutes to open a window )
- : >
- :
- : Well, you shouldn't be running slip over 300bps modems :-/
- :
- : It takes me 8 *seconds* to pop up an xterm over slip (pair of v.32bis, v.42
- : bis modems: 14400 modem<->modem, 57600 interface). Times in the 2-10 second
- : range cover most x client programs. v.32 (9600bps) w/v.42bis is also quite
- : reasonable. Compression combined with a high interface speed is a big win
- : for X/slip.
-
- This seems a bit off. I (ocasionally) run X over a 2400 baud modem. It
- takes about 6 seconds to open an X-term. Does SL/IP have that much
- overhead? (I don't use SLIP).
-
- : The absolutely slowest program I could find (xcolors) took 1min 33sec over
- : slip vs. 8sec over ethernet (roughly, since the source machines were
- : different).
-
- Hmm. :) If you are looking for things that will show the difference.
- Try xmb (x mandelbrot). Takes well over 30 mins to draw opening window
- over compressed 2400 baud.
-
- : -Dan
- : dmuntz@eecs.umich.edu
-