[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think that you should realize that WE DON'T WANT THIS FIXED !! > > Why should zillions of users have crappy performance so that LTSP users can > have small ram? > > Correcting these issues may not decrease performance, and they could increase performance. Remember, we're not talking about reducing *total* memory footprint necessarily, we are talking about X-server memory usage. The X11 server is the drawing canvas for Firefox, not its cache. Loading a pixmap onto the X11 server is generally done for images that need constant redrawing, or to help with things like scrolling, etc. To store all images on all non-visible tabs seems like a poor use of memory (assuming Firefox does this), when one could just keep the current tab's images loaded, and flush/reload the images when the other tabs are selected. On a local desktop, those megs of ram might be better used for caching items in non-X11 memory (the DOM tree, images, etc). An image is relatively easy to shove over to the server (especially using shared memory, which you get when you run X locally), compared to the computation of re-rendering an html table.
But it's nearly impossible to guess benchmarks prior to actually trying them out; usually everyone is surprised, especially in this case, which is basically: Which is more efficient: using in-process memory to store items, or using X11 memory for storing graphical items? -Todd ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _____________________________________________________________________ Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
