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 ) id 1HKG1M-0003XL-0s for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:38:12 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l1MFaqfQ017279; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:36:52 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l1MFRVbG004440 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:27:32 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72CF64199 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:27:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.59 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GAJuD0Y8eErI for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:27:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D81649B8 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HKFqe-0007Il-NC for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:27:08 +0100 Received: from c-76-17-154-185.hsd1.mn.comcast.net ([76.17.154.185]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:27:08 +0100 Received: from grante by c-76-17-154-185.hsd1.mn.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:27:08 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Grant Edwards Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: X-Forwarding over wireless Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:26:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <49bf44f10702210645u17c0c2f6re191906ba6de3fc2@mail.gmail.com> <1172080487.31460.4.camel@blackwidow.nbk> <49bf44f10702220506w661b3b0ex225cf40a7df6281e@mail.gmail.com> <1172151889.19225.25.camel@blackwidow.nbk> <49bf44f10702220705qc4e4be2u7cbe798fd1ffa896@mail.gmail.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-76-17-154-185.hsd1.mn.comcast.net User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Linux) Sender: news Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: a92b3263-ffa6-457b-a41c-505a7e00343a X-Archives-Hash: 45eccc29120572ee7a068e48e049859e On 2007-02-22, Grant wrote: >> >> I wonder if I need more power on the machine running the apps instead >> >> of more bandwidth. It has 512MB and I do need to upgrade that, but it >> >> feels like a bandwidth problem when I'm running vmware via >> >> X-Forwarding. >> >> >> > >> > Could be bandwidth. >> >> 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: A 54M Wifi link may >> actually have more bandwidth than a 10M wired Ethernet link, >> but the lower latancy of the wired link will result in >> better performance for some classes of applications. > > Do you think vnc or nx would be a significant improvement over > x-forwarding? I've never directly compared the them, but I've seen posts by others saying they've have had better luck with vnc or nx on high latency links. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I am having FUN... I at wonder if it's NET FUN or visi.com GROSS FUN? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list