dc@graphon.UUCP (Darren Croke) (01/10/89)
I recently connected to USENET and posted my first article on friday Jan 6th to comp.windows.x. On monday Jan 9th I received the following 2 pieces of mail. Can anyone tell me if my posting reached anyone ??? and has this mail been sent to me because attunix failed to accept incoming news ???? Thanks in advance Darren Croke. From uucp Sun Jan 8 00:41 PST 1989 >From research.att.com!uucp%attunix%siriusb Sat Jan 7 09:27:14 1989 remote from uunet Received: from ATT.ARPA by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14) id AA28769; Sat, 7 Jan 89 09:27:14 EST Message-Id: <8901071427.AA28769@uunet.UU.NET> From: uunet!siriusb.att.com!attunix!uucp Date: Sat, 7 Jan 89 09:27 EST To: graphon!dc Status: O ***** UNDELIVERABLE MAIL sent to bills, being returned by sfbat!uucp ***** rmail: Error # 2 'Problem with mailfile' encountered on system sfbat >From siriusb!siriusb!arpa!uunet.uu.net!uucp!graphon!dc Sat Jan 7 09:24:38 1989 remote from attunix Received: by expo.lcs.mit.edu; Sat, 7 Jan 89 05:27:15 EST Received: by ATHENA.MIT.EDU (5.45/4.7) id AA20232; Sat, 7 Jan 89 05:27:01 EST Received: by BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU with sendmail-5.59/4.7 id <AA03884@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU>; Sat, 7 Jan 89 05:14:21 EST Received: from USENET by bloom-beacon.mit.edu with netnews for xpert@athena.mit.edu (xpert@athena.mit.edu) (contact usenet@bloom-beacon.mit.edu if you have questions) Date: 7 Jan 89 02:09:17 GMT From: graphon!dc@uunet.uu.net (Darren Croke) Organization: GraphOn Corp., San Jose, CA Subject: Re: Memory utilisation in X11 systems Message-Id: <219@graphon.UUCP> References: <601@acorn.co.uk> Sender: xpert-request@athena.mit.edu To: xpert@athena.mit.edu In reply to John Bowlers article on servers running out of memory. (posted Tue, Jan 3). I was disturbed to read the following comment. > But writing a client which deals with resource exhaustion may well mean > implementing the same thing twice - for example once using backing store > (no redraw required on expose events) and once using explicit redraw if > the backing store isn't available. I cannot believe that such an application > would achieve acceptable performance in both cases (else why bother with > the backing store implementation) so effectively the application doesn't > work unless sufficient backing store is available. So much for portability. The X11R3 protocol spec clearly states on page 33 that selecting backing-store for a window informs the server that maintaining contents would be beneficial. ---------- The spec goes on to say that "the server may stop maintaining contents at any time", which, correct me if I'm wrong, means that your client will receive expose events. Hopefully writers of clients will cater for expose events even when backing-store is advertised. Failure to do this will result in clients that won't run on most of the low end X terminals which don't have virtual memory and obviously have a finite limit as to how much backing-store they can maintain. Darren Croke. **************************************************************************** SECOND MAIL ITEM **************************************************************************** From uucp Sun Jan 8 00:41 PST 1989 >From research.att.com!uucp%attunix%siriusb Sat Jan 7 09:32:12 1989 remote from uunet Received: from ATT.ARPA by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14) id AA29415; Sat, 7 Jan 89 09:32:12 EST Message-Id: <8901071432.AA29415@uunet.UU.NET> From: uunet!siriusb.att.com!attunix!uucp Date: Sat, 7 Jan 89 09:27 EST To: graphon!dc Status: O remote execution [uucp job sfbatN34de (1/7-9:27:39)] rmail bills exited with status 2 ===== stderr was ===== rmail: Cannot append to /usr/mail/bills rmail: Return to attunix!siriusb!siriusb!arpa!uunet.uu.net!uucp!graphon!dc