Re: Remote X
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 23:33 -0800, Corbin Simpson wrote: In theory, sure, but I don't think I've ever seen anybody actually have any problems with this. In my experience the glyph cache is actually too big sometimes; when doing 3D drivers, if I accidentally clobber my cache, I need to go open up a character map and scroll through a dozen fonts to clear it. That's the EXA glyph cache pixmap, whereas Russell was presumably referring to the generic RENDER mechanism of the X server caching glyph data uploaded by the clients (which is currently done by storing each cached glyph in a pixmap of its own). I agree with others though that his concern seems rather hypothetical. On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Russell Shaw rjs...@netspace.net.au wrote: Hi, Is remote execution of X clients away from the X server still regarded as a design goal, or does everyone just develop for client applications that only run on or close to the X server machine? With a unicode text widget, every time a character is entered, the line or paragraph(s) need to be moved and/or reshaped. This can mean sending a few largish bitmaps for every key press. Other toolkits may add new polygon tesselated glyphs to the XRender cache: http://www.keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2001/ http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/proto/renderproto/plain/renderproto.txt With a cursive font, all the cursive glyphs on a line could compress when the line is close to full, but before the need for a linebreak. That would stress out the cache advantage of XRender. Another problem with XRender is that it's computationally expensive for small systems without polygon hardware. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg -- Earthling Michel Dänzer |http://www.vmware.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Remote X
Hi, Is remote execution of X clients away from the X server still regarded as a design goal, or does everyone just develop for client applications that only run on or close to the X server machine? With a unicode text widget, every time a character is entered, the line or paragraph(s) need to be moved and/or reshaped. This can mean sending a few largish bitmaps for every key press. Other toolkits may add new polygon tesselated glyphs to the XRender cache: http://www.keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2001/ http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/proto/renderproto/plain/renderproto.txt With a cursive font, all the cursive glyphs on a line could compress when the line is close to full, but before the need for a linebreak. That would stress out the cache advantage of XRender. Another problem with XRender is that it's computationally expensive for small systems without polygon hardware. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Remote X
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:18:01 +1100 From: Russell Shaw rjs...@netspace.net.au User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20091109) Sender: xorg-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org Is remote execution of X clients away from the X server still regarded as a design goal, or does everyone just develop for client applications that only run on or close to the X server machine? I sure hope it is. I typically run X clients on a variety of machines close and far. It's one of the reasons I like (and depend on) X. At the moment I have windows open on six different machines: the local workstation, one on a LAN, four over a VPN to a data center. Three of the latter display at least in part by transferring pixmap data. Network round-trip latency to the data center is about 20-23 ms at the moment. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Remote X
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 01:18:01AM +1100, Russell Shaw wrote: Is remote execution of X clients away from the X server still regarded as a design goal, or does everyone just develop for client applications that only run on or close to the X server machine? With a unicode text widget, every time a character is entered, the line or paragraph(s) need to be moved and/or reshaped. This can mean sending a few largish bitmaps for every key press. Other toolkits may add new polygon tesselated glyphs to the XRender cache: http://www.keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2001/ http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/proto/renderproto/plain/renderproto.txt With a cursive font, all the cursive glyphs on a line could compress when the line is close to full, but before the need for a linebreak. That would stress out the cache advantage of XRender. Another problem with XRender is that it's computationally expensive for small systems without polygon hardware. As always, if you are facing any actual particular problem, bug reports and patches are more than welcome. pgpTYfbdqJoG3.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Remote X
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 01:18 +1100, Russell Shaw wrote: With a cursive font, all the cursive glyphs on a line could compress when the line is close to full, but before the need for a linebreak. I wasn't aware that there were any toolkits that were powerful enough to do this, assuming you had an expensive OpenType font that allowed it to condense when the line was getting tight. Just putting the glyphs closer together doesn't mean cache stressing, obviously. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: r...@burtonini.com jabber: r...@burtonini.com www: http://burtonini.com ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Remote X
Patrick O'Donnell wrote: Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:18:01 +1100 From: Russell Shaw rjs...@netspace.net.au User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20091109) Sender: xorg-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org Is remote execution of X clients away from the X server still regarded as a design goal, or does everyone just develop for client applications that only run on or close to the X server machine? I sure hope it is. I typically run X clients on a variety of machines close and far. It's one of the reasons I like (and depend on) X. At the moment I have windows open on six different machines: the local workstation, one on a LAN, four over a VPN to a data center. Three of the latter display at least in part by transferring pixmap data. Network round-trip latency to the data center is about 20-23 ms at the moment. Ok. I will keep it as a priority. Other widget toolkits can be pretty slow over networks i have found. I've wondered if they even bother thinking about performance over networks. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: LBX? or faster remote X?
Jeremy C. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see lbxproxy listed in the X.org 7.4 release. But it is in 7.3. What is its status? I found docs online about LBX, but most are very old. xdpyinfo doesn't show any LBX extension for me (but I read online that recent X servers include it by default). I think even I can safely say that LBX is considered to be deprecated. Tests [1] have shown that it produces little benefit over an SSH tunnel with compression enabled. Before I attempt to rebuild Xorg with LBX, please let me know if this is worth my time. Any alternatives? In my case, I am trying to view hundred page PDFs over a 980 to 1361 KB/second connection over a 802.11 wireless network. It is way too slow. I guess a real alternative instead of remote X is to use network file system and actually run the X client on my local X server. I have not tried LBX but I must say that SSH compression does improve performance noticably. F-D [1] http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2003/html/net.html ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: LBX? or faster remote X?
Jeremy C. Reed wrote: I don't see lbxproxy listed in the X.org 7.4 release. But it is in 7.3. What is its status? Deprecated. I found docs online about LBX, but most are very old. xdpyinfo doesn't show any LBX extension for me (but I read online that recent X servers include it by default). Out of date docs - the LBX extension was removed from Xorg-server 1.2 (X11R7.2) and later. Any alternatives? Keith Jim's 2003 Usenix paper suggests ssh with compression beats LBX in most cases: http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2003/ -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: LBX? or faster remote X?
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:31:50PM -0500, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: Any alternatives? NBX Maybe you mean NX? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_technology Sorry, yes. Joerg ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: LBX? or faster remote X?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 12:13:47PM -0600, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: I don't see lbxproxy listed in the X.org 7.4 release. But it is in 7.3. What is its status? It is dead. Any alternatives? NBX Maybe you mean NX? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_technology - --Ben -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkkQlRYACgkQUJT6e6HFtqTPpgCePZPNvQxFmVTeyBLddqmkwcCH vX0An204qwujjVtqdOyro4zhU/TTCZSf =5Itr -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: LBX? or faster remote X?
Jeremy == Jeremy C Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeremy I am curious why SSH protocol 2 doesn't use the CompressionLevel? The rough consensus was that the difference in bandwith savings vs cpu/ ram savings wasn't enough to bother with anything other than level 6. They may also have been some concerns with negotiation. Further details should be available in the ietf-ssh archives at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/secsh/ -JimC -- James Cloos [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: LBX? or faster remote X?
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:37:43AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Keith Jim's 2003 Usenix paper suggests ssh with compression beats LBX in most cases: http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2003/ They lie, *especially* for slow links. However, NX is a vastly superior alternative to consider: it's actually usable over modem connections. You won't miss LBX. -- Bob Tracy | I was a beta tester for dirt. They never did [EMAIL PROTECTED] | get all the bugs out. - Steve McGrew on /. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
