Hi All,
I looked at the code of VNC. They are using hooks to capture screen updates and data. In newer version VNC uses mirror driver as well. which approach is more reliable in terms of performance ? How ?
Thanks,
R2.
xxxxx@einfochips.com wrote:
I looked at the code of VNC. They are using hooks to capture screen updates and data. In newer version VNC uses mirror driver as well. which approach is more reliable in terms of performance ? How ?
I never think of reliability in terms of performance. They aren’t the
same thing at all.
The key question to ask is, “is it fast enough”? The hook mechanism is
fast enough for many purposes, and it is much less intrusive than the
mirror driver scheme. That’s why it is the default. Any time you start
using kernel code, you are increasing the danger and the delicacy of the
solution. Their mirror driver is faster than their hook solution, but
if the bottleneck is in the network, that doesn’t matter.
By the way, the mirror driver used by TightVNC is a third-party product
that can be used by other services (www.demoforge.com/dfmirage.htm).
You might check that out before embarking on your own solution.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
> which approach is more reliable in terms of performance ?
You may find this article very helpful and interesting:
http://www.gwmicro.com/blog/index.php/all/2007/03/14/p28
–
Eugene Sukhodolin
http://www.demoforge.com