----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr. James Wez Weatherall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Angus Macleod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Jordan Share" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "James Neil Weatherall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:25 AM Subject: Re: VNC 3.3.7 released
> On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:57, Angus Macleod wrote: > > I see no significant performance differences when using VNC via a cable > > connection to the Internet to a single cpu PIII 1.4GHz, a dual PIII 1,4GHz > > or a dual Xeon 2.0GHz. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "VNC configuration". If you are referring > > to > > > the various polling options, then I can say that a 2CPU (4 virtual > > > processors) 2GHz Xeon box has worse performance than a Celeron 566 with > > > identical settings, over the same network. > > Angus, Jordon, > > Thanks for these two data points. Performance of WinVNC is heavily > dependent upon the performance of: > > - The graphics/driver in having pixels read *back* from it. > - The network subsystem. > > In addition, the polling options affect performance a great deal. > It would be useful to know which precise version of WinVNC you are > running (from the About box), which graphics card & driver version each > machine has, and which network card & driver version each machine has, > which CPU(s) each machine has, and what the WinVNC polling settings are. > > Cheers, > > -- > Dr. Wez @ RealVNC Ltd. - http://www.realvnc.com > Open Source VNC - Commercial Support & Development > Good point. I am running Tight VNC v 1.2.6 at both server and client at the moment. However, until a couple of months ago I had VNC 3.3.3r9 at both ends. Although that version was a little slower than Tight VNC, I noticed no differences between the performance of the various servers. Angus. _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
