Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x:30255 alt.sys.sun:2250 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!agate!ICSI.Berkeley.EDU!stolcke From: stolcke@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Andreas Stolcke) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,alt.sys.sun Subject: Xkernel Message-ID: <1990Dec5.214857.13863@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 5 Dec 90 21:48:57 GMT References: Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Reply-To: stolcke@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Andreas Stolcke) Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA Lines: 31 Summary Worth the trouble? We were briefly considering Xkernel around here for our old 3/50's, which are now running SunOS4.1 and have become unbearably slow when running standalone X (mostly through the dynamic linking business, we believe). It turns out just firing up Xsun at boot time and then managing the display through a remote xdm also gives you very respectable `X terminal' performance. My question is: does anynbody have a comparison between that kind of configuration and Xkernel, regarding X display performance? Is it really worth the trouble downgrading the machine to Xkernel? I'm asking because we figured our current configuration has at couple of advantages: - No special installation/administrative procedures required. - Can switch back to a SunView machine easily (yes, we still have people using SunView, and its performance did not suffer as dramatically with the 4.1 upgrade as X's). - Since Xsun is generally not overloading the machine you can even use it to rlogin to it and do other useful stuff (such as compiles) while somebody is using it at an X terminal. In most cases there is no noticable performance degradation. Any comments? -- Andreas Stolcke International Computer Science Institute stolcke@icsi.Berkeley.EDU 1957 Center St., Suite 600, Berkeley, CA 94704 (415) 642-4274 ext. 126