From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 21 02:04:21 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6AC816A4D1 for ; Sat, 21 May 2005 02:04:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7831543D9D for ; Sat, 21 May 2005 02:04:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) id j4L24Kb9047577; Fri, 20 May 2005 21:04:20 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 21:04:19 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: alexander Message-ID: <20050521020419.GD51092@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20050520224726.GA7951@skatecity> <20050520230845.GC51092@dan.emsphone.com> <20050521015105.GA9063@skatecity> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050521015105.GA9063@skatecity> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Looking for ANSI/VT100 code replacement. X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 02:04:21 -0000 In the last episode (May 21), alexander said: > Ohh...sorry for not telling you this. Yes. The app works alright when > executed from the console. But my problem is with xterm or Eterm. > They don't handle VT100 very well. I've added a nanosleep after each > VT100 output but that didn't solve the issue. In fact Eterm or xterm > might not update the value for as long as 5-8 seconds. I tested > burncd's code and it uses fprintf to update the bytes it sends. And > that works perfectly under Eterm and xterm. 5 seconds? Do you have heavy packet loss between the server and your xterm? > The app needs to handle at least 40000h updates in 10 seconds. But as > you said I can break that down to ~ 100 updates per second. However I > don't think that that's going to do much of a different with the > delays I'm experiencing under Eterm/xterm. Cut it down to 1 or 2 updates per second, then. If this is a progress indicator, you don't need more than that. If you don't want to spend time getting timestamps, just print your counter every 64k updates. that'll give you a little over 1 update per second. > The app is used to upload data to another device. Under the console > the upload time is ~ 11.5 seconds. Under Eterm it is ~ 25 seconds. > That's why I really want to get rid of the VT100 stuff. > > The nanosleep delay I'm using is 0,00050000. I also disabled all the > nanosleep syscalls, but Eterm/xterm still lags awfully. Plus the > cursor jumps forth and back. If you're worried about running time, adding sleeps is definitely not the right way to speed it up :) -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com