[Xorg] Chromium vs GLX protocol

Ely Levy elylevy-xserver at cs.huji.ac.il
Thu Jul 29 08:07:24 PDT 2004

isn't it based on wiregl?
which supports distributed rendering and is preety much faster than
indirect glx?
I don't remember how it worked?it changed libGL no? which works above
glx, so it does use glx for direct rendering on the computer you are on.
so it doesn't need to really replace glx only be on top of it?
or am I wrong?
Anyhow it would probebly be more intresting to look into when
The opengl based Xserver would advacne?

Ely Levy
System group
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Jens Owen wrote:

> 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            /  \/\ _
>    jens at tungstengraphics.com  /    \ \ \   Steamboat Springs, Colorado
> _______________________________________________
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at freedesktop.org
> http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

More information about the xorg mailing list