Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re:  X display speedup with N users sharing N workstations
Message-ID: <9102270735.AA00502@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 27 Feb 91 07:35:11 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 28

> I am already convinced that a remote xterm pointing at a local X
> server is much faster and more efficient than a local X server and
> local xterm and a telnet to the remote site.

This is by no means always true.  I have not experimented enough to
generalize, but I know of at least one instance here where it is not
true (or at least a slightly changed, analogous, scenario contradicts
the analogous statement).  Most of our X displays are Suns, mostly
SPARCstations of one sort or another, with a few -3/50s and -3/60s to
keep things interesting.  One of our machines is a VAX-11/750.

In my experience, running a local terminal emulator with an rlogin to
the VAX is significantly faster than running the terminal emulator on
the VAX and having it connect to the display over the net.

(The "slightly changed" is because (a) the terminal emulator isn't
xterm, though it is the same on the VAX and the Sun, and (b) I tried
things with rlogin instead of telnet.)

Yes, I have a hypothesis to explain this, but I'm sure you can all
construct your own hypotheses with no trouble, so I'll let that pass.
My point is just that statements like this may be valid rules of thumb,
but are not to be believed blindly.

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu