Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!apple!voder!pyramid!octopus!satyr!dlb!daver!mips!sgi!shinobu!odin!sgihub!zola!xhead.esd.sgi.com!jsw
From: jsw@xhead.esd.sgi.com (Jeff Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Distributed GL graphics via high speed networks...
Message-ID: <1991May18.024342.6221@zola.esd.sgi.com>
Date: 18 May 91 02:43:42 GMT
References: <1991May13.191050.21842@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <3869@borg.cs.unc.edu> <104738@sgi.sgi.com>
Sender: news@zola.esd.sgi.com (Net News)
Reply-To: jsw@xhead.esd.sgi.com (Jeff Weinstein)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc.
Lines: 22

In article <104738@sgi.sgi.com>, tarolli@westcoast.esd.sgi.com (Gary Tarolli) writes:
> 		A nice side effect of this implementation is that, unlike
> 		the X server model, one hung or busy server does not hang
> 		all the windows on the screen.  And the DGL server does not
> 		have to do a "select" call after each GL primitive.  The X
> 		server does, in order to offer fair time-sharing, and this
> 		is why most X servers cannot process more than a few
> 		thousand protocol request per second.

  Gary's analysis of the X server model is incorrect.  The X server
doesn't call select on every protocol request.  The X server I am
sitting in front of (4D/35 running IRIX 4.0) can process about
140,000 protocol requests per second.  This is two orders of
magnatude greater than "a few thousand".

	--Jeff

-- 
Jeff Weinstein - X Protocol Police
Silicon Graphics, Inc., Entry Systems Division, Window Systems
jsw@xhead.esd.sgi.com
Any opinions expressed above are mine, not sgi's.