Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
When you say "2047kb", are you referring to the "kbit/s" measurement available in the client? This is not a good measurement of how much bandwidth VNC "require".
Out of curiosity, what customers do you have who are interested in FPS, and what are they doing?
Video playback (Youtube, mplayer), custom OpenGL applications for CAD/CAM/visualisation, Catia etc.
Bad and complex architecture
Posted Jul 27, 2009 14:22 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
I'm saying that 2047kb was the bandwidth that TigerVNC reported that it had to work with over that connection, which should presumably be the same that NX had to work with over that same connection. And for business desktop use, VNC was pretty clunky and unresponsive compared to NX. As we have no legitimate business need for video on our business desktops, we don't allow it. So I don't have a base of experience as to how well or poorly NX performs relative to *vnc for that use.
BTW, I tried TigerVNC rather than TurboVNC specifically to avoid the excuse that VNC sever/client Q still uses the old 3.X protocols. Tiger uses V4.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds