On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 22:27 -0400, Joshua Marshall wrote: > This summer I've been charged with updating my university's display > wall. It looks like the software features of X11 eclipse those of > DisplayCluster, but in speaking with the DisplayCluster author, it > _actually works_. In particular, the performance over 16 screens was > wholly unacceptable and traced it to a part of the server which > serializes a nondescript something. > > Now, does anybody know what he is referring to, if the performance > issues persist, and how hard it might be to fix them?
I looked up the DisplayCluster white paper, and while it does say that dmx doesn't scale beyond 16 tiles that's perhaps an unwarranted conclusion. I suspect what it refers to is that the stock X server source has an internal limitation of 16 screens. So yeah, performance beyond 16 tiles is going to be unacceptable, because it's zero ;) That's literally just a #define controlling the size of a few arrays though, you can change MAXSCREENS to whatever you want when you build. Alternatively, subdivide: one Xdmx frontend talking to four Xdmx middle-ends each talking to 16 tiles, for example. There could certainly be performance problems beyond that; more details would be helpful. Xdmx definitely has other limitations that might make it unsuitable for your use (old OpenGL support, 32 kilopixel coordinate limit, no compressed image transfer) so I don't want to oversell it, but if you do encounter issues please let us know so we can determine whether they're fixable. - ajax _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
