On Saturday 23 April 2005 13:06, Andy Teijelo Pérez wrote:
> Have you ever had a process that produces A LOT of output, and Ctrl-C has
> taken quite a few attempts before interrupting it?
> I would like you guys to try:
> cat /dev/urandom
> in your Konsole. It takes regular pauses, as if cat was waiting for Konsole
> to finish printing the output. And also, I have to keep Ctrl-C pressed down
> for a while before cat receives the signal and interrupts.
> Now I'd like you to try the same with xterm. It's extremely faster in both
> senses.
> Do you have any idea about why is there such a big difference?
> Or --I should have asked first--, do you experience the same?
> I love Konsole but I'd like to see it improve in this matters.
This is one of those cases where appearances can be deceiving. Its not that
konsole is slower but that it is much *faster* and it has a much bigger
history cache than xterm.
Which is why the beeps you hear from xterm are regular but from konsole they
blend into a blur. For the same reason and the smaller history cache in
xterm; pressing ctrl-c will give a result in a small amount of time but in
konsole (and you still only have to press it once) there will be quite a
delay before all the history-cache is scrolled and the output finally stops.
So cat did respond to the ctrl-c immediately in konsole and stop outputting
but konsole had already spooled so much data that it seems there is a delay.
It is not necessary to press ctrl-c more than once as you will see if you
just wait. You can verify all this easily by measuring the actual data
throughput.
--
regards,
andrew
___________________________________________________
.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
