Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!wind.Eng.Sun.COM
From: naughton@wind.Eng.Sun.COM (Patrick Naughton)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: speed of newer versions of OpenWindows on low-end Suns
Message-ID: <1990Oct13.140154@wind.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 13 Oct 90 21:01:54 GMT
References: <42929@andante.UUCP>
Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: naughton@wind.Eng.Sun.COM (Patrick Naughton)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Mountain View, CA
Lines: 27

In article <42929@andante.UUCP>, mp@allegra.att.com (Mark Plotnick) writes:
|> A few people here with low-end Sun-3's (e.g. 4MB diskless 3/50 and 3/75)
|> have expressed interest in using OpenWindows so that they can run
|> pageview.  OpenWindows 1.0 seems rather sluggish, though, compared
|> to sunview.  I know OpenWindows 2.0 runs faster in benchmarks on
|> well-endowed systems, but is there also an improvement on memory-poor
|> diskless systems where paging may be a factor?  If not, is it worth our
|> while to try to get OpenWindows 1.0.1 from Sun?
|> 
|> 	Mark Plotnick
|> 	allegra!mp or mp@allegra.att.com


Hand in hand with the performance tuning we downsized the server quite
a bit. The working set of the V2 server and a set of V2 XView tools is
quite a bit smaller than the same configuration was in 1.0.1.  I don't
have the numbers handy, but I'd say you will notice a win with V2 on 8M
machines, but 4M 3/50's will still page if you run the clients
locally.  If you just run the xnews server on the 3/50 and run ALL of
the clients from a server then V2 should work well for you.  I wouldn't
bother even trying this with 1.0.1.

--
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Patrick J. Naughton				    ARPA: naughton@sun.com
    Window Systems Group			    UUCP: ...!sun!naughton
    Sun Microsystems, Inc.			    AT&T: (415) 336 - 1080