----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus Macleod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Jordan Share" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "James Neil Weatherall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:43 AM Subject: Re: VNC 3.3.7 released
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dr. James Wez Weatherall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Angus Macleod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Jordan Share" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "James Neil Weatherall" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:25 AM > Subject: Re: VNC 3.3.7 released > > > > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:57, Angus Macleod wrote: > > > I see no significant performance differences when using VNC via a cable > > > connection to the Internet to a single cpu PIII 1.4GHz, a dual PIII > 1,4GHz > > > or a dual Xeon 2.0GHz. > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "VNC configuration". If you are > referring > > > to > > > > the various polling options, then I can say that a 2CPU (4 virtual > > > > processors) 2GHz Xeon box has worse performance than a Celeron 566 > with > > > > identical settings, over the same network. > > > > Angus, Jordon, > > > > Thanks for these two data points. Performance of WinVNC is heavily > > dependent upon the performance of: > > > > - The graphics/driver in having pixels read *back* from it. > > - The network subsystem. > > > > In addition, the polling options affect performance a great deal. > > It would be useful to know which precise version of WinVNC you are > > running (from the About box), which graphics card & driver version each > > machine has, and which network card & driver version each machine has, > > which CPU(s) each machine has, and what the WinVNC polling settings are. > > > > Cheers, > > > > -- > > Dr. Wez @ RealVNC Ltd. - http://www.realvnc.com > > Open Source VNC - Commercial Support & Development > > > > Good point. I am running Tight VNC v 1.2.6 at both server and client at the > moment. However, until a couple of months ago I had VNC 3.3.3r9 at both > ends. Although that version was a little slower than Tight VNC, I noticed no > differences between the performance of the various servers. > > Angus. > _______________________________________________ > VNC-List mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list The display adapter is an ATI Rage XL (8Mb) with what looks like standard drivers from the Win2000 CD (the version is 5.0.2195.4015). The machine is a Dell PowerEdge 2650 with 2x2.0GHz Xeon, 2GB ram and a raid 5 array of 10Krpm disks. The network card is a Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet, with v2.67.0.0 drivers. The connection goes from that gigabit network to a 100Mb network, through an MS ISA firewall to a 10Mb network, thence through a Netopia router to a wireless WAN connection to the ISP, and from there through the Internet to my cable connection. The wireless connection to the ISP is the slowest part of the link - normally it runs at about 300Kb. Angus. _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
