> I forgot to ask that you measure CPU consumption on the server:
> You could have (manually) enable better compression schemes for the images,
> which would have reduced the total bytes sent.
> That costs CPU, though.
I did perform a crude version of that measurement (jiffies for the Xorg
proce
- Original Message -
> > I don't know what were the network conditions you tested, but it
> > would be great if you could repeat your test with lower bandwidth
> > (you can use tc), and also, you can try disabling off-screen
> > surfaces in the driver.
>
> I do have a test network construc
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 08:08 -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
> > I don't know what were the network conditions you tested, but it would be
> > great if you could repeat your test with lower bandwidth (you can use tc),
> > and also, you can try disabling off-screen surfaces in the driver.
>
> I do have
> I don't know what were the network conditions you tested, but it would be
> great if you could repeat your test with lower bandwidth (you can use tc),
> and also, you can try disabling off-screen surfaces in the driver.
I do have a test network constructed for just that purpose, so I
can manag
- Original Message -
> I've spent several weeks analyzing the network performance of Xspice
> against two test cases. I also crafted a patch which implements an
> alternate mode for the xf86-video-qxl driver that dramatically
> improves
> network performance.
>
> The two test cases are si
Hi,
About the large number of packets: we do plan to aggregate small
messages together. Your analysis emphasize the importance of it. Thanks!
About the bandwidth: There is one important thing to take into
consideration - spice stream of messages is not deterministic; it
depends on the networ
Hi,
About the large number of packets: we do plan to aggregate small
messages together. Your analysis emphasize the importance of it. Thanks!
About the bandwidth: There is one important thing to take into
consideration - spice stream of messages is not deterministic; it
depends on the networ
On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 15:52 -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
> >
> > I'm very encouraged to hear this as we are very, very interested in
> > SPICE as a WAN protocol. We have noticed that the end user experience
> > is almost as dependent upon latency as bandwidth so I was a little
> > concerned that yo
>
> I'm very encouraged to hear this as we are very, very interested in
> SPICE as a WAN protocol. We have noticed that the end user experience
> is almost as dependent upon latency as bandwidth so I was a little
> concerned that you are sending pixmaps changes on a periodic basis.
> Does that in
On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 15:12 -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
> For a test involving 5 minutes of light use of LibreOffice, the results
> are as follows:
>
>Packets Bytes
> Xspice148,428 19,647,168
> Tight VNC 19,980 4,724,880
> SSH -X
I've spent several weeks analyzing the network performance of Xspice
against two test cases. I also crafted a patch which implements an
alternate mode for the xf86-video-qxl driver that dramatically improves
network performance.
The two test cases are simple [1]; a script drives either Libre Offi
11 matches
Mail list logo
