Re: nautilus remote (non)performance ...

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 12:31, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > > 	Indeed; by accurate measuring (with sticky tape) I see that rendering 8
> > > icons takes ~130ms:
> >
> > It does indeed sound a bit excessive. What exact setup were you using?

	Interestingly; it still takes ~120ms to render (another 8 random icons)
with DITHER_NORMAL, but this time there are no roundtrips - although it
seems all the data is writev'd:

[pid 12462] 12:51:38.429689 access("drawpixbuf start", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT
(No such file or directory)
[pid 12462] 12:51:38.430531 writev(3,
[{"\230\10\t\0\3\1\200\1\246\1\200\1\247\1\200\1\234\1\200"..., 492},
{"\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 36864}],
2) = 37356
[pid 12462] 12:51:38.438547 writev(3,
[{"H\2&\23\256\1\200\1\261\1\200\1\220\0\"\0\0\0 \0\0 \0\0"..., 24},
{"\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 19584}],
2) = 19608
[pid 12462] 12:51:38.439752 access("drawpixbuf end", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT
(No such file or directory)

	Which is odd - I'd expect it to be using SHM; so - although it's only a
10ms saving locally, I imagine it's a lot more remotely.

	HTH,

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot