Not significantly, no. libjpeg-turbo existed in the earliest releases of TigerVNC. It just wasn't called "libjpeg-turbo" yet, and it was maintained inside the TigerVNC tree. 1.2 was the first release after libjpeg-turbo became a separate project.
On 2/3/14 1:21 AM, Korada, Venkataramana wrote: > Hi, > Thanks for the update. This is very useful. Is there any contribution by > libjpeg-turbo to the performance improvement? > > Regards, > Venkat > > -----Original Message----- > From: DRC [mailto:dcomman...@users.sourceforge.net] > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 5:07 PM > To: tigervnc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Tigervnc-users] Differences between 1.0.1 and 1.3 > > Two major improvements that you're probably observing: > > -- The addition of RFB flow control extensions in TigerVNC 1.2. These allow > the server to monitor the TCP buffers and network performance to determine > the maximum update rate that it can sustain, based on the network performance > and the client's ability to process the updates. > Thus, the server now pushes out updates at the maximum rate, rather than > waiting for the client to request each new update. The latter behavior, > which has existed in VNC since its inception and which is still the behavior > of every other implementation of VNC except for TigerVNC 1.2+ and TurboVNC > 1.2+, causes a full round trip from server to client with every update. > Thus, on a high-latency network, the performance could easily become > latency-limited to a maximum update rate of 1 / (ping time), rather than > being bandwidth-limited. For instance, on a 200ms connection, the old > client-pull method of sending updates would become limited to 5 updates/sec, > regardless of the capacity of the network. > > -- The other major change between TigerVNC 1.1 and 1.2 was a refactoring of > the Tight encoder, which now uses encoding methods similar to those used by > the TurboVNC encoder. These new encoding methods do a better job of > processing updates that have a lot of solid color in them, and the new > methods adjust the mix of subrectangles to favor the use of JPEG more. This > can significantly reduce the network footprint of TigerVNC in some cases. > > > On 1/23/14 11:40 PM, vrkor...@yahoo.co.in wrote: >> Hi, >> I observed significant performance improvements with ver1.3 when >> compared to ver 1.0.1 especially over WAN. >> Where can I get the details of what is changed between these two >> versions and the main reasons fro the performance improvement? >> Regards, >> Venkat > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls. Read the Whitepaper. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121051231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-users mailing list Tigervnc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-users
