From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
	by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-60309-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>)
	id 1HKIPv-00074g-4U
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:11:43 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l1MI9Edn014389;
	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:09:14 GMT
Received: from gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de (gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de [134.76.163.126])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l1MHxh09001416
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:59:43 GMT
Received: by gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de (Postfix, from userid 8)
	id BD35E10927A; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:59:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (dslc-082-082-177-137.pools.arcor-ip.net [82.82.177.137])
	by gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A46610926E
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:59:39 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:59:38 +0100
From: Hans-Werner Hilse <hilse@web.de>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user]  Re: X-Forwarding over wireless
Message-Id: <20070222185938.f6b39109.hilse@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <erke2l$kc0$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <49bf44f10702210645u17c0c2f6re191906ba6de3fc2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1172151889.19225.25.camel@blackwidow.nbk>
	<erkas7$87f$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<200702221724.16471.uwix@iway.na>
	<erke2l$kc0$1@sea.gmane.org>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.3.1 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i586-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Details: No, hits=1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,
	RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=2.64
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on 
	gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de
X-Archives-Salt: 3d717d94-009b-414b-886e-20616d7d408f
X-Archives-Hash: ad02481bdc680adfa93f5ef1b48f41c4

Hi,

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:49:42 +0000 (UTC)
Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:

> On 2007-02-22, Uwe Thiem <uwix@iway.na> wrote:
> > On 22 February 2007 16:55, Grant Edwards wrote:
> >
> >> More likely it's latency.  Most "modern" X apps seem to require
> >> a lot of round-trips between client and server.  The latency of
> >> a Wifi link is probably 10-100X that of a wired Ethernet link,
> >> even if the bandwidth is the same:  
> >
> > Where do you get that number from?
> 
> My Wifi network often has latencies of 50-100ms, while typical
> wired latencies are 1-5ms.  I assumed that's typical.  It could
> be there's something screwy in my WAP -- it does lock up not
> infrequently.

I think that's your WAP. On my link, the latency is and stays at about
2.8 msec (11MBit 802.11b link). If you have a userland daemon involved,
you might get better results w/ a high HZ value.

-hwh

hw@butch ~ $ ping lsys
PING lsys (192.168.2.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from lsys (192.168.2.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=2.59 ms
[...]
64 bytes from lsys (192.168.2.1): icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=2.63 ms

--- lsys ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 18997ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.511/2.756/3.162/0.208 ms

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list