Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!gauss.llnl.gov!casey
From: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Remote xterm strategy
Message-ID: <43797@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 10 Jan 90 00:07:23 GMT
References: <9001080655.AA27500@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: casey@gauss.llnl.gov.UUCP (Casey Leedom)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 25

| From: mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse)
| 
| > Note that this means that most, if not all, of the performance
| > difference between
| > 
| >	Case 1:	xterm -e rlogin remote-host
| >	Case 2:	rsh remote-host xterm -display local-host:0
| > 
| > is going to be on the local-host since the remote-host runs the same
| > number of processes and experiences [roughly] the same number of
| > context switches in either case.  Things that *might* make case 2
| > perform better than case 1 include:
| > ...
| 
| All three of those things would make case 1 perform better than case 2,
| not the other way around.

  I know.  I got mixed my words up.  Sorry.

| I don't know specifically about xterm.  However, I have my own terminal
| emulator program, which I *suspect* is leaner than xterm (certainly
| smaller and simpler).  Using this, I find that a local emulator plus an
| rlogin is easier on the remote host than a remote terminal emulator.

  Interesting.