Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!shl!phil From: phil@shl.com (Phil Trubey) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: bandwidth usage for X applications? Message-ID: <1991Mar08.190419.28722@shl.com> Date: 8 Mar 91 19:04:19 GMT References: <9103051621.AA05970@cmc.com> Organization: SHL Systemhouse Inc. Lines: 76 In article <9103051621.AA05970@cmc.com> chrisv@CMC.COM (Chris VandenBerg) writes: >QUESTION - Does anyone have a feel for rough bandwidth usage for some of the >"typical" (if there is such a thing) X client applications? Has anyone run any >benchmarks which included X sessions across the net? I did a quick and dirty 'bandwidth benchmark' a few weeks ago to determine how much bandwidth a typical X session takes up. Following is a synopsis of what I did. Please keep in mind that I was using an NCD X Terminal which was *not* blindingly fast. A faster X terminal could easily double the bandwidth requirements (I would think). I'm going to be performing these tests again sometime in the next few weeks with a fast SparcStation acting as an X terminal to see what changes. For those that don't want to wade through this, I found that I used about 68 kbps average bandwidth for screen redraws. ---- A series of tests were performed and the results analyzed. The test environment consisted of a Sun 4/260 Unix computer on an ethernet along with an NCD X terminal. A LAN protocol analyzer and a network monitoring package was also attached to the network. The protocol analyzer was set up to record all packets going to or coming from the X terminal. The Ingres 4GL Windows environment was run on the Sun computer with all output being directed to the X terminal. A sample Ingres Windows/4GL database application was run under the Motif window manager during the tests. Four sampled tests were conducted: - Initiation of the application program. This involved invoking the application through a pull down menu. The application drew a full screen form consisting of about 10 buttons, 3 scroll bars, 15 boxes, and 20 text fields. This is a fairly representative X window database form. The test stopped after the form had been completely drawn. - Data entry. Using the above form, the test caught about 1.5 minutes of fairly rapid data entry activity which included entering text and numbers, checking boxes, and pressing buttons. Part of the test included pressing a button that displayed a 1/2 screen size pop up window with a histogram displayed. - Switching between two windows. This test caught the activity that was generated when switching between two large and complex windows. - Switching between multiple windows. This test caught the activity that was generated when switching between multiple windows in rapid succession. Results Following are the outputs of each test (the times are measured in seconds, and the network utilization in kilobits per second): awk -f awk.prg form.txt Total bytes: 240554 Total time: 34.92 Avg utilization: 68.89 kbps awk -f awk.prg entry.txt Total bytes: 281998 Total time: 96.70 Avg utilization: 29.16 kbps awk -f awk.prg switch.txt Total bytes: 25630 Total time: 6.65 Avg utilization: 38.54 kbps awk -f awk.prg switch2.txt Total bytes: 107276 Total time: 30.24 Avg utilization: 35.47 kbps ----- Phil Trubey SHL Systemhouse Inc. (Internet: phil@shl.com UUCP: ...!uunet!shl!phil) -- Phil Trubey SHL Systemhouse Inc. (Internet: phil@shl.com UUCP: ...!uunet!shl!phil)