was TightVNC compression vs. SSH compression, now protocol o verheads

[David Brodbeck]

-----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Morton [mailto:chromi "at" cyberspace.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 9:04 PM
> To: vnc-list "at" uk.research.att.com
> Subject: Re: was TightVNC compression vs. SSH compression, now protocol
> overheads

> FTP does not run on UDP.  I don't think NFS does either.

NFS does.  The whole design of NFS is to be stateless, so it uses UDP (which
is a stateless protocol.)  NFS doesn't need the error-checking or connection
features of TCP because it implements its own.

UDP is also used by streaming protocols like RealPlayer, where you need to
send a lot of data in near-realtime and don't care if all of it arrives,
since by the time you resent it it would be too late, anyway.  I can't see
it being a gain for VNC, since VNC *needs* all the data to get there.  You'd
just end up implementing the same kind of error-checking and connection
features TCP does.  Why reinvent the wheel?

I believe "multicasted" VNC sessions aren't really multicast, they're just
multiple point-to-point TCP connections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, mail majordomo "at" uk.research.att.com with the line:
'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY
See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------