[Xorg] Chromium vs GLX protocol
jens at tungstengraphics.com
Thu Jul 29 07:20:33 PDT 2004
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?
>> 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.
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 / \/\ _
jens at tungstengraphics.com / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado
More information about the xorg