On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, David Smith wrote: > not only given in the framerate difference (~350 vs. 60) but also in the > XFree86.0.log (as you can see in the bottom of > http://ultrasoul.com/ultra1/XFree86.0.log) when it creates the DRI GLX > context: > FFB: Allocated WID 1 for DRI window.
ok, i am not getting the same kind of logs as you are. i cant imagine our kernel configs are that much different. in the morning ill try out your xconfig to see if it makes any difference. ive never gotten 350fps, i think 60 is about normal - so im sure hardware isnt being used now :) > Nod. When I prohibit the loading of the kernel DRI module, I don't get > corruption with OpenGL programs. I do get minor pixel corruption in the how different is the performance for 3D with it not loaded? i built mine directly in so i could be sure it wasnt a module problem. > normal compared to x86 machines (XFree86 jumps to ~20% CPU load and 15% > RAM) but everything keeps chugging. And during periods of heavy I/O and > CPU it doesn't impact my X performance noticably at all. if i do any kind of compiling or file copies, moving windows around becomes quite a task. i was rather suprised how much the X was affected by stuff like that. the friggin' 1200bps mouse doesnt help much either, but my little soldering iron may fix that in the near future :) > This is very strange that we are getting such different results, and > neither positive. Take a look at my XF86Config file > (http://ultrasoul.com/ultra1/XF86Config-4) and see if anything is > different. > > I'll post my kernel config, too. Diff it with yours and tell me what you > see. i build a majority of my stuff into the kernel, so our kernel configs are likely to be quite different. more tomorrow when i get into the office. john -- john wood systems administrator, gmo inc
