#3 Enhance ycrop feature

open
nobody
None
5
2010-06-28
2010-06-28
clohr
No

Hi,
the ycrop option allows vncviewer to hide bottom of the frame. However, it still sends FrameBufferUpdateRequests of the total size of the frame.
So, the server sends updates about all the frame, even the hidden part.
The idea is to enhance this feature to makes vncviewer to request only a specific piece of the frame.

For instance, this may be used to set up a display wall, with several vncviewers displaying tiling areas of one vnc server.

Regards.

Discussion

  • Karl J. Runge

    Karl J. Runge - 2010-09-11

    > So, the server sends updates about all the frame, even the hidden part.

    I don't think this should be a problem performance-wise: the hidden part is all managed by the CopyRect encoding.

    The only performance problem I can think of is if a 2nd viewer attaches or the 1st viewer changes the encoding preferences or VNC display depth. Then that whole hidden region may need to be resent. I think x11vnc will try to clear the region (all black) under some of these changes.

     
  • clohr

    clohr - 2010-09-15

    Here's what led me to this idea. I seek a (theoretical) solution to achieve a video wall: a session is shown by tiling multiple screens. I thought of a VNC solution.

    There are two approaches:
    - From the server side: The session is exported by several VNC servers, each exporting only a small rectangle of the X session.
    Normal VNC client connect to each server.

    - Or from the client side: Each VNC client does update requests on a small rectangle, and displays only this rectangle. The VNC server is normal.

    I had the intuition that the second solution was the best, especially because there is already the ycrop option that makes it almost ... but this may not be optimal for the use of bandwidth. Or maybe it's not feasible with the VNC protocol.

    What's your opinion?

     

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:





No, thanks