Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Synergy Virtual KVM

<< < (8/10) > >>

mouser:
Let's just try to pull it back on topic now -- everyone's had their say.

I do agree there is no reason these threads should get pulled off topic.  But on the other hand, we can't expect someone to not post in a thread where someone says their product "is bad".  I think there has to be some leeway given to people to defend themselves when their product is criticized.

Having said that, there is no need for us to spend more time talking about something that is off topic, so let's try to keep this on topic now.

Renegade:
Just as a mini-update, Synergy seems to be smoother on my Mac now. Might be because the mouse battery was low before? That doesn't seem quite right, but I don't really have a very good explanation why it seems smoother now. Maybe I just got used to it?

wraith808:
Just as a mini-update, Synergy seems to be smoother on my Mac now. Might be because the mouse battery was low before? That doesn't seem quite right, but I don't really have a very good explanation why it seems smoother now. Maybe I just got used to it?
-Renegade (November 11, 2012, 08:10 PM)
--- End quote ---

Or maybe it *did* get better.  Like I said... in my experience, the Synergy connection must utilize the dark arts and require blood sacrifice or something, because it gets better and worse for no reason that I was able to discern...

bmms:
Most mouse and keyboard sharing solutions, we are aware of, use the TCP network data protocol to transmit mouse cursor and keyboard input updates:

TCP is packet-based. TCP packets have a pre-defined static size. TCP transmits packets only if they are fully packed (in the particular application, data updates have to match the defined TCP packet size in order to be dispatched immediately) or after a time-out. If your mouse/keyboard data update packet doesn't fill up a complete packet, TCP waits for the next packet to finish the pending packet or waits for the time-out to dispatch the data -> Laggy cursor.

Possible solutions:

1. Reduce the TCP time-out parameter which will slow down your whole TCP transfer as small unfinished packets with a lot of packet overhead will entertain your wires. Too small values may stall your switch/router/network adapter.

2. Use a dedicated network connection between your computers to isolate mouse and keyboard data from other TCP traffic and experiment hours by tweaking the TCP packet size to matches the mouse/keyboard data update size. I actually don't know but hope for you, that Synergy uses data updates with static size to allow you matching with the TCP packet size. Otherwise you have to deal with a target that moves faster than a bullet.

Good luck.

For people, who have things to get done, other makers invested man-years to develop a custom protocol that is optimized to meet special requirements of mouse and keyboard sharing. Sometimes, pearls do not shine on the surface but under the hood. :Thmbsup:

Renegade:
Most mouse and keyboard sharing solutions, we are aware of, use the TCP network data protocol to transmit mouse cursor and keyboard input updates:

TCP is packet-based. TCP packets have a pre-defined static size. TCP transmits packets only if they are fully packed (in the particular application, data updates have to match the defined TCP packet size in order to be dispatched immediately) or after a time-out. If your mouse/keyboard data update packet doesn't fill up a complete packet, TCP waits for the next packet to finish the pending packet or waits for the time-out to dispatch the data -> Laggy cursor.

Possible solutions:

1. Reduce the TCP time-out parameter which will slow down your whole TCP transfer as small unfinished packets with a lot of packet overhead will entertain your wires. Too small values may stall your switch/router/network adapter.

2. Use a dedicated network connection between your computers to isolate mouse and keyboard data from other TCP traffic and experiment hours by tweaking the TCP packet size to matches the mouse/keyboard data update size. I actually don't know but hope for you, that Synergy uses data updates with static size to allow you matching with the TCP packet size. Otherwise you have to deal with a target that moves faster than a bullet.

Good luck.

For people, who have things to get done, other makers invested man-years to develop a custom protocol that is optimized to meet special requirements of mouse and keyboard sharing. Sometimes, pearls do not shine on the surface but under the hood. :Thmbsup:
-BartelsMedia (November 12, 2012, 02:56 AM)
--- End quote ---

That makes sense.

I was actually surprised to hear that TCP is used.

My Mac isn't my money machine -- that's Windows -- and really, given how slow Macs are to use compared to Windows (well, for me anyways), the minor annoyance is fine for now. If I really need better performance, I'll look elsewhere.

But it's good to know that you have a custom protocol for that. Didn't know that before. It would certainly make a difference for me if I were to try out a few and evaluate some - at least for understanding what's going on.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page