- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Legacy
- >
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- >
- Xwin performance of 5.1B-4 vs. 4.0F
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-20-2009 12:02 AM
тАО01-20-2009 12:02 AM
Xwin performance of 5.1B-4 vs. 4.0F
I have noticed that for two comparable machines (PWS500au), same "software content" except that one runs 4.0F and the other 5.1B-4, there is a dramatic difference in the remote Xwin performance.
To open a window showing some graphics, the 5.1B-4 takes 6 seconds to show up, while the same takes 1 second on the 4.0F system.
The two machines are sitting next to each other, connected to the same switch, and the display machine (a DS10 running 4.0F) also connected to the same switch.
Anyone have some experience of this?
BN
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-20-2009 02:50 PM
тАО01-20-2009 02:50 PM
Re: Xwin performance of 5.1B-4 vs. 4.0F
If you are displaying the graphics remotely, there could be a difference in how the network controllers are configured?
Is one only using 10mb -vs- 100mb on the other?
Just a thought.
Rick
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-20-2009 08:33 PM
тАО01-20-2009 08:33 PM
Re: Xwin performance of 5.1B-4 vs. 4.0F
try to time some FTP of NFS transfers and see whether the difference exists just for the display tasks, or also for other transfers.
ping -f (flood) might be interesting.
Coudl be a duplex failure, or TCP/IPC sysconfigtab setting difference.
For example tcpnodelack.
Check with
sysconfig -q tcp ( ipc, inet, vfs, ...)
Good luck,
Hein.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-20-2009 11:25 PM
тАО01-20-2009 11:25 PM
Re: Xwin performance of 5.1B-4 vs. 4.0F
Actually, a similar difference can be seen locally also, but not as pronounced. One application is showing me a table with numbers and text, and it starts as a larger array of cells and then adapting to the current context. Locally, this process is hardly noticed on the 4.0F machine, but is clearly seen on the 5.1B-4 system. Remotely, the difference is dramatic, of course.
I have another 5.1B-4 system running on a DS10, here my 'testapp' window shows up after 3 seconds, still slower than the 1 second I have from the 4.0F system. All are connected to the same switch.
BN
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-21-2009 12:40 AM
тАО01-21-2009 12:40 AM
Re: Xwin performance of 5.1B-4 vs. 4.0F
If I connect to the v4.0F and 5.1B-4 systems from home, where I have a 2MBit ADSL connection the difference becomes just ridiculous. When connecting to the 4.0F system there is some normal latency time before the windows comes up, while on the 5.1B-4 I can go and make myself a cup of coffee and come back before something happens. Instant coffee, but anyway.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-21-2009 03:41 AM
тАО01-21-2009 03:41 AM
Re: Xwin performance of 5.1B-4 vs. 4.0F
what names and namespaces are involved and how are nameservers or hosts file configured.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-21-2009 03:48 AM
тАО01-21-2009 03:48 AM
Re: Xwin performance of 5.1B-4 vs. 4.0F
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-21-2009 05:42 AM
тАО01-21-2009 05:42 AM
Re: Xwin performance of 5.1B-4 vs. 4.0F
# hwmgr -get attr -cat network -a name -a media_speed -a full_duplex
20:
name = tu0
media_speed = 100
full_duplex = 1
48:
name = tu1
media_speed = 100
full_duplex = 0
#
tu0 is external network, tu1 is used for internal subsystem communication.
BN
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-21-2009 05:46 AM
тАО01-21-2009 05:46 AM
Re: Xwin performance of 5.1B-4 vs. 4.0F
BN
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-21-2009 05:54 AM
тАО01-21-2009 05:54 AM
Re: Xwin performance of 5.1B-4 vs. 4.0F
could be the answer from the v5.1b machine is primarely returned on the wrong tu