From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Implementing image support for kitty terminal Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:27:28 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83v8pydl9a.fsf@gnu.org> <221cc6e0-ac45-cf03-6b17-c8c3798eebe3@gmail.com> <81f8b155-bc03-187d-2df1-9664374e890a@gmail.com> <83leqtetsk.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17501"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, jao@gnu.org To: Gerd =?windows-1252?Q?M=F6llmann?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 09 15:28:44 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oWe3n-0004Pq-HC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:28:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44330 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWe3m-0006hw-2s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:28:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56790) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWe2p-00061M-42 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:27:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:34647) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWe2l-00088X-Pp; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:27:41 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8890F80390; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 09:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 20D9A8044E; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 09:27:35 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1662730055; bh=6wTJZjpp+QOdif/zbSNeev/XfoBb1tZoKgJ/bPaLuQs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=J3tN54WMv5WQrlsKwe+O0iZLUXLy0yZC6IkxpFlbYeLGaa3N0ur6neKVk88pDtsS6 zMwq8fxbL88ZxORbm+NlFeadTdph97kbYNIiLs6yoSs7nCZ3yKKF5ehxCV+rXQpQyB fCm2WEfqKp0QKpB6OLCLIR4xztSAPIoO3nlgCdbZwA8OELXN6jWavsuhjIk3hvUusR /2zPqFl6FPEFCDt4sEObKt+uoT/cY5x85BKVZbDzNbQr9wuevAe1ZlKa+7cHAsMxIb evkX59W4GhbxBFYub+A430C2RLqPj+1vNsLmXCcCM5FbglBpksuXKhvfOwjcexLT5W EiFtxjlZ6KIqA== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [157.52.9.190]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA7CD120506; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 09:27:34 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: ("Gerd =?windows-1252?Q?M=F6l?= =?windows-1252?Q?lmann=22's?= message of "Fri, 09 Sep 2022 14:59:19 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:295064 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii [2022-09-09 15:53:12] wrote: > The theory is well-understood, I think. What we need is measurements > in various usage scenarios. Indeed. > Btw, slow/congested network suffer not only from packet per second > issue, but also from packet loss. That still only affects the "per packet" behavior. Gerd M=F6llmann [2022-09-09 14:59:19] wrote: > Where the size of packets differs in interactive use, I think. I mean, > I can't imagine how to use SSH interactively if it waited until packets > are large enough. Indeed, but that tends to affect the other direction (from the keyboard to the remote) more significantly. For redisplay, we can send the whole byte sequence as a single "write". Most simple redisplays should result in a single packet. > Hm. Hard to tell what effect that packeting has. How does SSH decide > to send something over the network in interactive mode? I assume it sends it "as soon as possible", modulo something like Nagle's algorithm. BTW, nowadays I tend to use `mosh` for many of my "ssh" connections, where the behavior may be yet different since `mosh` does the "terminal emulation" rendering on the remote host (into the equivalent of our glyph matrix) and then uses an ad-hoc protocol (over UDP) to update the local "glass". So it does its own optimizations (comparing its "glyph matrix" to what (it thinks) is currently on the glass) and I'm not sure how/if it's affected by ours. Stefan