From: Jens O. <je...@tu...> - 2004-07-29 14:18:47
|
Brian Paul wrote: > Jon Smirl wrote: > >> Slashdot is saying that SGI is going to port their clustered ATI >> graphics to Linux in the near future. The SGI page says this code is >> based on Chromium. I've read that the network protocol of Chromium is >> far better than the GLX protocol, especially in the area of state >> management. Does anyone have experience with both protocols and can >> comment on how they compare? > > > Sure... > >> If the Chromium protocol really is a lot better would it make sense to >> evaluate shifting our focus from GLX to the Chromium protocol? In the >> long run the coming shift to things like X on GL and Glitz may >> ultimately move a lot of network traffic from the X protocol to one of >> the GL ones. If Chromium is significantly better wouldn't it be wiser >> to change the X server GL protocol now rather than later? > > > The Chromium command packer packs GL commands more densely than GLX. A > one-byte opcode is used for most commands and operands are packed > tightly in memory. Opcodes are packed separate from the operands in a > unique way too. > > Chromium also has a state tracking system which can eliminate redundant > commands from being packed/sent. It's pretty complicated though and > still a source of bugs. > > I wouldn't say that Chromium's packer is a *lot* better than GLX. And I > wouldn't advocate switching to it. GLX interoperability is important > and making such a switch would upset that. I don't think the effort to > switch would be worth the trouble. Performance-wise, I think the gains > would be quite modest. Brian, How about supporting key pieces of Chromium in the X.org release in addition to GLX? Could integrating OpenGL API redirection, for example, make for a cleaner solution than what Chromium does with "app faker" today? -- /\ Jens Owen / \/\ _ je...@tu... / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado |