[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference bulova::decw_jan-89_to_nov-90

Title:DECWINDOWS 26-JAN-89 to 29-NOV-90
Notice:See 1639.0 for VMS V5.3 kit; 2043.0 for 5.4 IFT kit
Moderator:STAR::VATNE
Created:Mon Oct 30 1989
Last Modified:Mon Dec 31 1990
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:3726
Total number of notes:19516

667.0. "DESPERATE FOR PERFORMANCE INFO" by LAGUNA::HERGOT () Mon Apr 24 1989 20:09

    I need to know if anyone/anywhere in Digital has done a performance
    comparison of Decwindows as it was in the Field Tests versus the
    polished product we have today.  Also, does anyone know what
    performance increases we are expecting between our current version
    and future versions?
    
    I used Decwindows to kick Sun out of my account and now they're
    asking questions... 
    
    
        *help*
    
    
    Thanks
    Robin
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
667.1Two to three times as fast as FT1, about the same as FT2BAVIKI::GOODMichael GoodTue Apr 25 1989 10:059
As a rough estimate, SDC performance is about 2 to 3 times as fast
as FT1, and about the same as for FT2.  This is for response time for
operations like pulling down menus and displaying dialog boxes.  If
you have a different type of performance metric than your numbers may
vary.

For more detailed information, you would want to contact people
in the Unix and/or VMS performance groups.
667.2THANKS!!LAGUNA::HERGOTTue Apr 25 1989 12:164
    Thanks.  I will try them.
    
    Robin
667.3Essentially unchanged since FT2DECWIN::CAFARELLAWed Apr 26 1989 11:4429
Our group has been doing measurements of certain VMS DECwindows components
since early in field test of V1. We have measured elapsed times of basic
server primitives (through the X Library) and response times of basic
user interface primitives, such as menu pulldown and dialog box up.

Our measurements have shown that the performance of these primitives was
essentially unchanged between VMS DECwindows FT2 and VMS DECwindows V1.0.
There was, you may recall, a vast and noticeable improvement in performance
between FT1 and FT2.

In V1.0, DECwindows performance continues to be very heavily influenced
by the amount of memory configured with the workstation. In workstations
with limited memory configurations, the option of remote application
execution is strongly encouraged.

Please see note 281 in this conference for a reprint of an article on
VMS DECwindows performance. The article originally appeared in the
March 6, 1989 issue of Sales Update, and is scheduled for the next issue
of The Buffer. It discusses some of the more important performance
issues with DECwindows and provides some guidelines for configuring
memory.


				Tom Cafarella
				VMS Performance Group