Bug 7106 - Custom compression needs better documentation
Summary: Custom compression needs better documentation
Alias: None
Product: ThinLinc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Client (show other bugs)
Version: trunk
Hardware: PC Unknown
: P2 Normal
Target Milestone: 4.14.0
Assignee: Bugzilla mail exporter
Depends on: 7373
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2018-01-25 14:01 CET by Samuel Mannehed
Modified: 2021-11-17 11:00 CET (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Acceptance Criteria:

Screenshot showing the client optimization options (31.62 KB, image/png)
2018-01-25 14:01 CET, Samuel Mannehed

Description Samuel Mannehed cendio 2018-01-25 14:01:38 CET
Created attachment 838 [details]
Screenshot showing the client optimization options 

Looking at the code, it seems like the maximum "custom compression level" is 9, but the client options interface says it's 6.

The documentation also says it is 9.
Comment 1 Samuel Mannehed cendio 2018-01-25 14:02:26 CET
Relevant part of the documentation:

Comment 2 Pierre Ossman cendio 2018-01-25 14:11:31 CET
See also bug 5909.
Comment 3 Pierre Ossman cendio 2018-01-30 13:37:30 CET
We should also see how to present this range in a useful manner as not all values are equally useful. Should probably also look over the documentation for this setting to make sure it is understandable. E.g. this is mainly a setting for _server_ CPU usage, not client (although that can be a side effect).

On the same theme, "best" and "fast" are probably not the clearest way to describe the trade off here.
Comment 4 Pierre Ossman cendio 2018-01-30 14:40:32 CET
Also note bug 7109 which covers documenting the comparing update tracker, a feature that is influenced by the compression setting.
Comment 5 Samuel Mannehed cendio 2019-12-20 15:29:57 CET
The custom compression level description has been properly updated to range from 1-9 upstream:

Comment 6 Samuel Mannehed cendio 2019-12-20 16:16:34 CET
There was further confusion regarding the custom compression level range in RFB proto. One place of the specification stated 1-9 and another 0-9, this has been sorted now, and the proper range is 0-9:


Fixed in TigerVNC:

Comment 7 Pierre Ossman cendio 2021-11-17 11:00:23 CET
This got fixed as part of the vendor drop in bug 7373.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.