RE: Extensions for fine-grained image quality control
"James Weatherall" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.vnc.realvnc.general |
|---|---|
| Organization | RealVNC Ltd |
| Message-ID | <005b01ca2fce$56116730$02343590$__5740.08643529869$1252345876$gmane$org@com> |
Hi DRC, It makes sense for tile size to affect performance in a *bandwidth* dependent way, but not for it to affect latency sensitivity. That said, I gather you're working on a project based on the old VNC 3.3.x codebase, so it may well be that there's some I/O scheduling issue in that. HTH, -- Wez @ RealVNC Ltd > -----Original Message----- > From: DRC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of DRC > Sent: 07 September 2009 16:06 > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Extensions for fine-grained image quality control > > I'm just reporting what I observed. I don't really know the underlying > reasons behind it, either. I see the same effect with the Tight > protocol. I can't get peak performance out of that protocol with tile > sizes less than 64 kpixels. > > On Sep 7, 2009, at 8:23 AM, "James Weatherall" <[email protected]> wrote > > I'm not sure I understand why the tile size affects latency- > > sensitivity, unless you're flushing each tile to the TCP stack for > > transmission separately, or something. Can you elaborate? _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [email protected] To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list