X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 15:01:46 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New package: brltty 3.8 Message-ID: <20070607190146.GA5235@ednor.casa1.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20070606201111 DOT GA2366 AT ednor DOT casa1 DOT cgf DOT cx> <20070607114950 DOT GA3958 AT implementation> <20070607122642 DOT GA31803 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20070607160859 DOT GA3577 AT implementation> <20070607163744 DOT GA4972 AT ednor DOT casa1 DOT cgf DOT cx> <20070607164933 DOT GF4110 AT implementation> <20070607174554 DOT GH4110 AT implementation> <20070607184619 DOT GA14598 AT implementation> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070607184619.GA14598@implementation> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 02:46:19AM +0800, Samuel Thibault wrote: >Lev Bishop, le Thu 07 Jun 2007 14:39:17 -0400, a ?crit : >> On 6/7/07, Samuel Thibault wrote: >> >Lev Bishop, le Thu 07 Jun 2007 13:41:44 -0400, a ?crit : >> >> ...around 80MByte/sec, which maybe isn't as fast as it could be using >> >> native functionality, but surely brltty doesn't need *that* much >> >> bandwidth for transferring text? >> > >> >It doesn't need bandwidth, it needs latency. >> >> Latency is... >> bash-3.2$ ./socat TCP-LISTEN:5001 PIPE & exec >> 99<>/dev/tcp/127.0.0.1/5001 ; time for (( a=0; a<1000; a++ )); do echo >> $a >&99; read <&99; done; exec 99>&- >> [1] 4492 >> >> real 0m1.959s >> user 0m0.062s >> sys 0m0.172s >> bash-3.2$ >> [1]+ Done ./socat TCP-LISTEN:5001 PIPE >> >> ...about 2ms round-trip. How is this a problem? > >This adds up to the screen reader latency, etc. > >Really, we tried both, and while tcp/ip was a bit painful, local sockets >were smooth. What about unix domain sockets in cygwin? It sounds like you think they aren't available. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/