| |||||||||||||
Bad NIH, good NIHBad NIH, good NIHPosted Mar 11, 2013 23:07 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Bad NIH, good NIH by sfeam Parent article: Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H)
I bet his connection is dropping packets, so there's an extra delay caused by TCP timeouts in there.
(Log in to post comments)
Bad NIH, good NIH Posted Mar 12, 2013 12:50 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>I bet his connection is dropping packets, so there's an extra delay caused by TCP timeouts in there.
Nope, but there is something interesting to see from the ping statistics while this is going on:
118 packets transmitted, 118 received, 0% packet loss, time 117123ms
(Obviously this also covers some time before and after.)
Curious as to why my ping time goes up to several hundred ms while xterm is launching, I've discovered that this local machine feels the need to send a few megabytes of data to the remote machine before doing anything.
In fact, it looks like xterm is the culprit here. I don't have many X clients installed on the machine I'm ssh'ing into to test with, but xfontsel at least starts up a lot quicker (a couple of seconds).
If even xterm can't get X network transparency right, what hope is there for everyone else?
|
|||||||||||||