Re: XFIXES extension proposal

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Keith Packard wrote:

> Around 0 o'clock on Dec 1, Boris wrote:
>
> > What XFree *really* needs is much more data compression when sending data
> > to a remote display
>
> I'm doing some packet level analysis of this problem; at ethernet speeds,
> most X applications spend a lot more time waiting for round trips than
> they do waiting for space on the wire to transmit more packets.
>
> The only time this isn't true is during image transport, so some kind of
> image compression is clearly indicated.
>
> The kind of image compression (essentially PNG vs JPEG), it's interactions
> with Render and shared memory are still unresolved issues my view.
>
> > The X protocol uses alot of Bandwidth when dealing with *alot* of clients.
>
> That's not always true; applications sending a lot of images do consume
> some transient bandwidth, but many applications can be easily run with
> 128Kb or less of bandwidth.  X applications are often very dependent on
> network latency for reasonable performance though, much of that dependence
> can be attributed to "sloppy" code in toolkits which don't always
> carefully avoid every round trip possible.
>

I never quite understood why lbxproxy had to be run as a seperate puedo
server. It would be much nicer if Xlib could detect if it was present
the (extension on the Xserver) and  enable it if present when not talking
to a local server.

James